Gizmodo: Diebold

Homer Simpson Explains the Problem with Electronic Voting

Mark Wilson — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:15:00 EDT

Conspiracy theorist or not, any time I'm typing information into a computer at any time of the day, I know that it can be lost at a moment's notice, by the simple glitch of a program or power supply. There's simply no permanence to digital information, which makes the potential alteration of such data both frightening and perfectly realistic. Apply that principle to something like a presidential election, and the prospects become downright scary. That is, unless you're Homer Simpson. Then it's just kind of funny. [via Wonkette - Thanks Diebold!]

Ohio Voting Machines Lose Votes, Cannot Be Fixed Before Election Day

matt buchanan — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:30:00 EDT

The maker of the evil, wonky voting machines in Ohio that are going to be used for the election despite the fact they're broken has admitted that the machines do in fact lose votes (before, Premier, aka Diebold, said it was "user error"). It gets better! They can't be fixed before election day. Hey, it's not like anyone asked for your opinion anyway. Okay maybe they did, but that's beside the point, I think. [Columbus Dispatch via Slashdot]

Ohio Sues E-Voting Machine Maker But Keeps Same Crappy E-Voting Machines

Dan Nosowitz — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:40:00 EDT

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is suing e-voting machine maker Diebold, now known as Premier Election Solutions, seeking damages for the mess the malfunctioning machines caused in the super swing state in 2004 and 2006—the same machines which will, frighteningly enough, still be used to gather and/or misplace Ohio votes in the upcoming McCain-Obama contest.

The Diebold machines achieved notoriety in the 2004 presidential election, losing hundreds of votes and exhibiting several serious security flaws. This is equipment proven to be vulnerable to attack, and Michael I. Shamos, professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University and an official examiner of Pennsylvania electronic voting systems, said the machines had "the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system." In 2006, dropped votes were discovered in 11 of the 44 Ohio counties in which the equipment was used.

Premier pre-emptively sued Brunner and the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, seeking a court order that they have held up their side of the contract. This is evidently a standard move when one party believes they are about to be sued, as a decision in Premier's favor would prevent Cuyahoga County from suing for breach of contract. Brunner's suit, actually a countersuit, is an attempt to recover taxpayer money spent on the faulty machines, to the tune of $22 million.

The scariest part of the story is that these machines are still somehow in use, and it is too late to make the change to the recommended optically-scanned paper ballots by this November's election. Brunner says Ohio residents should remain calm as they vote this fall, and that officials will be on hand to make sure all votes are tallied. There, now you Ohioans can vote in total confidence! [Ars Technica]

Diebold Accidentally Leaks 2008 Election Results Early

Adam Frucci — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:05:00 EST

Diebold, the company run by unscrupulous Republicans that manufactures crappy, easily-hacked voting machines, has done a bang-up job of pretty much destroying many people's confidence in the legitimacy of the democratic process. No one is better at calling out such depressing aspects of our country with biting humor like The Onion, who here tell us about how all the fun of the election this year was ruined because Diebold accidentally leaked the results ahead of time. It's funny because it could be true! Ha… ha? [The Onion]

Diebold Pulls a Reverse Cingular, Rebrands Voting Machine Division

Matt Buchanan — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:11:53 EDT

Diebold takes such pride in the secure craftsmanship of its voting machines that it's changing the name of that division to Premier Election Solutions Inc., and even giving it its own board of directors. This is after no one stepped up to take the division off of Diebold's hands, probably because they'd feel guilty for relieving it of such a stellar asset. Wonder why they wouldn't want their ATMs and safes associated with their voting machines? [Threat Level, Image via Flickr]

Diebold Sues Massachusetts Because the State Doesn't Like Them

Adam Frucci — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:10:00 EDT

Diebold, everyone's favorite manufacturer of easily hacked voting machines, wasn't happy when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to go with one of their competitors when purchasing voting machines for the disabled. In fact, their feelings were so badly hurt by the snub that they've decided to sue the state.

Yes, Diebold is suing because Massachusetts chose competitor AutoMARK instead of them. Why is it worth suing the state over this? Because Diebold thinks their machines are better. That's the reason. Really. That's the only reason. I'm speechless. –Adam Frucci

Boston.com [via SlashDot]

Diebold Voting Machines: Secure as Never

Matt Buchanan — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:55:12 EST

Proving they're getting on that whole (in)security thing, Diebold put a picture of the key that opens their voting machines online. Yes, the key—one key opens all of their machines. Result? Someone was able to copy it using the photo on the website. Makes you relish the days of hanging chads, doesn't it? – Matt Buchanan

Diebold Machine Key Copied From Photo at Company's Own Store [The Brad Blog]

Electronic Voting Machines Vulnerable To Foreign Influence?

Gizloco — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:49:34 EST

Could it be that those evil Venezuelans are trying to screw with our electronic voting machines, the same machines that we use to elect our fine leaders? That's what U.S. federal investigators are trying to determine after learning that company that makes the software running the electronic voting machines are from Venezuela. No conclusions yet, but it's pretty responsible to assume the worst in situations like this. Naturally, that means there's evil afoot.

This is just another bullet point in the long list of potential problems to be had in using electronic voting machines, at least where the source code of the machine isn't made available to the public. Why, it was just last month we showed you how to steal an election using the popular Diebold electronic voting machine. Now those dastardly South Americans are trying to interrupt our civic duties... the nerve of them. – Nicholas Deleon

U.S. Investigates Voting Machines' Venezuela Ties [New York Times]

How To Steal an Election With a Diebold Machine

Jason Chen — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:50:05 EDT

Some Princeton researchers made a demonstration video of how it's possible to steal an election with a Diebold voting machine in under a minute. Anyone with physical access to the machine can put in malicious software to steal votes—such as election workers who have unsupervised access to the machines before elections. All they have to do is open up the machine with a key (or pick the lock), remove the old memory card, stick in your own memory card, boot the machine, and it automatically installs any software that was on the memory card.

At the end of the demonstration election, the poll machine prints out the incorrect "stolen election" result. The internal memory card also stores in the incorrect result. Every piece of evidence of how the election actually went reflects the "wrong" result. And, after the election is over, the vote stealing software can delete itself. There's no evidence left that the vote has been conducted incorrectly.

There's even a flaw in Diebold machines that allow a virus to spread from machine to machine, infecting a memory card and using it to spread to other machines. – Jason Chen

Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine [itpolicy.princeton.edu via Digg]