16-442.B. On completion of acquisition of machines or devices that
comply with the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-252), machines or devices used at
any election for federal, state or county offices may only be
certified for use in this state and may only be used in this state if
they comply with the help America vote act of 2002 and if those
machines or devices have been tested and approved by a laboratory that
is accredited pursuant to the help America vote act of 2002.
The Help America Vote Act further codified an existing system of
Federally approved test labs which are the sole people outside of the
voting system vendors who are allowed to peer into how these machines
work: taking them apart with screwdrivers and more importantly,
reviewing the "source code" behind their functionality. This lets the
labs (in theory) check the products for accidental "glitches", various
security flaws and worse, deliberate "fraud logic".
In order to allow Maricopa County to do their own ballot preparation
(electronic and paper ballot layouts, Sequoia sold the county a
software module called "BPS", which includes a data-transfer program
to load BPS information into the main Sequoia elections database
called the "Bridge Tool".
Sequoia, recently supported by Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer,
is claiming that the BPS/Bridge software components don't need to be
Federally certified per the Federal rulebook (2002 edition) covering
the test process.
The authors of this report think otherwise. We believe Sequoia
deliberately withheld BPS/Bridge code from outside review that is
critical to the operation of the election, code that is central enough
to the functionality of the system to subvert or corrupt the election
process. Per the Federal rulebook, they required test lab review.
Maricopa County Elections Security Report: March/Brakey/Shelby, page
11 of 27
Further, our reading of 16-442.B as a limit on the AZ SecState's
powers removes her discretion in this matter. Factually, the code
either needs certification under the Federal 2002 rules or it doesn't.
If it does, and per admissions already made it hasn't been, then due
to the Federal rules making the entire voting system certified as a
complete unit, the whole collection of Sequoia parts from the precinct
terminals back is legally not a voting system. It's as fake as a Hong
Kong Rolex.
The Federal Legalities
Per the Federal 2002 Voluntary Voting System Standards rulebook:
1.5.1 Voting System
A voting system is a combination of mechanical, electromechanical, or
electronic equipment. It
includes the software required to program, control, and support the
equipment that is used
to define ballots; to cast and count votes; to report and/or display
election results; and to maintain and produce all audit trail
information. A voting system may also include the transmission of
results over telecommunication networks. [Emphasis added]
Sequoia's "BPS" product prepares the electronic and paper ballot
layouts, formats them and inputs the data into the main database of
votes (controlled by a certified program called "WinEDS"). Depending
on which Sequoia document you look at, "BPS" stands for "Ballot
Preparation Software", "Ballot Production System" or a couple of other
variants.
Sequoia's usual business model is to do ballot prep in-house as a
service to client agencies; Maricopa is one of a very few who fought
that idea and were offered BPS/Bridge as licensed products to do it
themselves. It seems possible the Sequoia salespeople who sold them
BPS didn't realize they were releasing a legally questionable product
to outside scrutiny. Note that BPS/Bridge is active in the election
process no matter who uses it at what office; the availability of BPS
in the Maricopa elections office doesn't affect it's legality either
way. It does give us the opportunity to examine the situation.
...continued in full report...
[bridge tool.PNG]
------------------------------------------------------------
Use this link to go directly to full article:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?1954/73271
comply with the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-252), machines or devices used at
any election for federal, state or county offices may only be
certified for use in this state and may only be used in this state if
they comply with the help America vote act of 2002 and if those
machines or devices have been tested and approved by a laboratory that
is accredited pursuant to the help America vote act of 2002.
The Help America Vote Act further codified an existing system of
Federally approved test labs which are the sole people outside of the
voting system vendors who are allowed to peer into how these machines
work: taking them apart with screwdrivers and more importantly,
reviewing the "source code" behind their functionality. This lets the
labs (in theory) check the products for accidental "glitches", various
security flaws and worse, deliberate "fraud logic".
In order to allow Maricopa County to do their own ballot preparation
(electronic and paper ballot layouts, Sequoia sold the county a
software module called "BPS", which includes a data-transfer program
to load BPS information into the main Sequoia elections database
called the "Bridge Tool".
Sequoia, recently supported by Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer,
is claiming that the BPS/Bridge software components don't need to be
Federally certified per the Federal rulebook (2002 edition) covering
the test process.
The authors of this report think otherwise. We believe Sequoia
deliberately withheld BPS/Bridge code from outside review that is
critical to the operation of the election, code that is central enough
to the functionality of the system to subvert or corrupt the election
process. Per the Federal rulebook, they required test lab review.
Maricopa County Elections Security Report: March/Brakey/Shelby, page
11 of 27
Further, our reading of 16-442.B as a limit on the AZ SecState's
powers removes her discretion in this matter. Factually, the code
either needs certification under the Federal 2002 rules or it doesn't.
If it does, and per admissions already made it hasn't been, then due
to the Federal rules making the entire voting system certified as a
complete unit, the whole collection of Sequoia parts from the precinct
terminals back is legally not a voting system. It's as fake as a Hong
Kong Rolex.
The Federal Legalities
Per the Federal 2002 Voluntary Voting System Standards rulebook:
1.5.1 Voting System
A voting system is a combination of mechanical, electromechanical, or
electronic equipment. It
includes the software required to program, control, and support the
equipment that is used
to define ballots; to cast and count votes; to report and/or display
election results; and to maintain and produce all audit trail
information. A voting system may also include the transmission of
results over telecommunication networks. [Emphasis added]
Sequoia's "BPS" product prepares the electronic and paper ballot
layouts, formats them and inputs the data into the main database of
votes (controlled by a certified program called "WinEDS"). Depending
on which Sequoia document you look at, "BPS" stands for "Ballot
Preparation Software", "Ballot Production System" or a couple of other
variants.
Sequoia's usual business model is to do ballot prep in-house as a
service to client agencies; Maricopa is one of a very few who fought
that idea and were offered BPS/Bridge as licensed products to do it
themselves. It seems possible the Sequoia salespeople who sold them
BPS didn't realize they were releasing a legally questionable product
to outside scrutiny. Note that BPS/Bridge is active in the election
process no matter who uses it at what office; the availability of BPS
in the Maricopa elections office doesn't affect it's legality either
way. It does give us the opportunity to examine the situation.
...continued in full report...
[bridge tool.PNG]
------------------------------------------------------------
Use this link to go directly to full article:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?1954/73271
