January 6, 2007 at 18:57:10

Testing Lab Failure Leads To Obfuscation By The Election Assistance Commission

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By JGideon (about the author) Page 3 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

Even though information released by the Times is new, questions surrounding Ciber's testing procedures aren't. According to a press release from then California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson dated 17 February 2006, the state announced that on 20 December 2005 they had requested that a federal ITA do a review of the Diebold voting systems used in the state. This review was a result, in part, of released information that Diebold's software had 'interpreted code' installed. This 'interpreted code' is expressly forbidden by the Voting Systems Standards used for all voting system certification testing. On 23 February 2006, the ITA provided a report that led, in large part, to the recertification, by the state of California, of all Diebold voting systems. The ITA was Ciber.

Ciber has clearly not conducted itself properly in the independent testing of our voting system software. Perhaps they have gotten lax in their procedures because they are paid to do their work by the vendors and the final product eventually goes to the voters who never see the documents from the ITA? Between the ITA and the voters has been a panel that apparently hasn't done due diligence in their work. The vendors don't seem to care as long as their systems are approved for sale and use.

But what of the actions of the EAC? No action is taken by the government without a ream of paper to explain why that action was taken. The EAC's accreditation process includes a visit to the lab and an inspection by an EAC representative. Why is Commissioner Hillman denying that a report from the inspector exists? If no report of the deficiencies existed, how would the EAC know Ciber didn't comply with the accreditation standards? How would Ciber know what procedures they need to correct?

And why is Commissioner Davidson using the same talking point that Ciber is using to spin their failure to qualify? "Shifting government standards for voting-machine testing" simply means that Ciber's testing procedures are inadequate. Wyle and SysTest had no problems qualifying to the new standards. Why has it taken Ciber over six months to do what the other two ITAs were able to do almost immediately? We the people, the voters, the tax-paying public who are paying for all of this deserve to have answers - not half-truth, cover-up, spin, or obfuscation.

1 | 2 | 3