Voting system examiners in several states have reportedly been prohibited from revealing voting system flaws to the public due to nondisclosure agreements they signed with the vendors.
With the future of democracy is at stake, just what agreements were signed by examiners like Steve Freeman (CA), Brit Williams (GA, MD, VA), Paul Craft (FL), Doug Jones (IA), and David Jefferson (CA)?
Black Box Voting has learned that vendors have been requiring nondisclosures to block release of information of critical importance to the public. Secretaries of state have failed to protect their voting system examiners, reportedly requiring administrative rules that prevent proper analysis and evaluation of voting systems by state examiners.
Black Box Voting has filed public records requests to obtain all nondisclosure agreements signed by Paul Craft, David Drury, David Jefferson, Steve Freeman, Doug Jones, Brit Williams, Merle King, and Michael Shamos.
We have already obtained one of the Diebold nondisclosure requirements. Diebold attempts to block everything that should be revealed -- even if the contractor is served with a subpoena or court order!
BLACK BOX VOTING IS INVESTIGATING THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1) Whether voting system examiners have been provided with indemnification. Failure to provide indemnification allows the vendor to sue the examiner for damages if the examiner happens to discover or expose something harmful to the vendor.
2) Whether voting system examiners were protected by their secretaries of state. It appears that secretaries of state have left it to the scientists who examine voting software to negotiate their own terms of engagement with vendors. Some scientists, who understandably are not experts in intellectual property law, have signed the agreements provided by vendor attorneys. These agreements can later prove to be unduly restrictive, preventing the examiner from revealing what he knows even to the secretary of state.
3) Whether state voting system examiners were prohibited from examining the testing reports provided by Ciber and Wyle, the federal testing labs. Documents provided to Black Box Voting by Joan Quinn, a citizen in Sacramento, Calif., indicate that California examiner Steve Freeman may not have had access to key portions of the federal testing reports when examining voting systems for the state of California.
4) Whether examiners were prohibited from examining the source code and/or testing the equipment themselves.
5) Whether examiners were prohibited from asking the vendors follow up questions by rules or administrative procedures .
6) Whether examiners were ever prohibited by rules or administrative procedures from communicating with others on voting system panels or certification boards during deliberations over certification recommendations, or during/after voting system examinations.
7) Whether examiners are ever allowed to examine escrowed information -- source code and/or "penetration analysis"?
Black Box Voting has requested copies of the rules, escrow procedures, and any indemnifications, nondisclosures or administrative procedures that apply to the certification, examination and deliberation process in Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, California, and Iowa.
PLEASE DO NOT LIMIT THESE IIMPORTANT INQUIRIES TO BBV EFFORTS
- Citizens are urged to gather evidence independently of Black Box Voting, through Freedom of Information and public records requests, to determine exactly what procedures, nondisclosures, restrictions, rules and guidelines are in place for each state's voting system examiners and certifiers.
