Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 11 (11 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   12 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
General News

Ballot Stuffing Holes, Illegal USB Ports Add to Sequoia/Dominion Voting System Flaws

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 8/12/08

Become a Fan
  (2 fans)
EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS 

By Rady Ananda and Andi Novick

 

Updated on 19.Aug.08 11pm EST 

Certified for use in New York, Sequoia/Dominion's ImageCast ballot marking device (BMD) was designed to allow voters with special needs to create their own paper ballots unassisted.  But a series of problems continue to plague the BMD and its scanner's certification.  The system comes equipped with a convenient slotted hole that allows anyone to stuff ballots directly into the locked ballot box.  It also comes equipped with USB ports that illegally facilitate network, internet and wireless access.  Hundreds of documentation discrepancies prevent full certification of the system for counting the votes in 2009, and the lab approved to certify it is now being investigated for shoddy methodology and collusion with vendors.

Sequoia/Dominion BMD:  What is wrong with thee; let us count the ways

1. Can't Make a Secure Ballot Box – Exclusive Video 

Since New York won't be using theft-enabling software to count the votes in 2008, the ballot-stuffing capability of this BMD destroys the integrity of this year's hand count, and the integrity of future manual audits.


Ballot Stuffing made easy by Sequoia/Dominion Optical Scan BMD

Attorney Andi Novick stuffs several ballots into a hole on top of the ballot box sold by Sequoia Voting Systems and Dominion Voting Systems.  The hole enables ballot stuffing of the locked ballot box. In the close-up below, the arrow points to the slotted hole that spans the width of the scanner.

Up to ten cardstock ballots can be stuffed at once.


BMD ballot stuffing slot
 

The 'black hole' of fraud, now built into our so-called democratic electoral system through the nationwide use of theft-enabling software, just got bigger.  This BMD was approved by New York's testing authorities and shipped to counties for use, but look at the gaping hole they missed.  In this exclusive video, we show how easy it is to illegally stuff the locked ballot box.

Software-driven optical scanners and DREs conceal the way our votes are counted and expose our votes to unprotectable fraud because software can be rigged without detection.  These facts are not debatable - dozens of reports by computer security experts confirm this unprotectable hole in the security of our electoral systems.  Matt Bishop, who headed the California Red Team that studied Sequoia, Hart and Diebold/Premier voting systems summarized the problem this way:

"The use of computers in performing voting and tallying introduces serious concerns about the integrity and confidentiality of the voting process." 

In May of this year, the National Science Foundation's ACCURATE Center advised the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): 

"Of course, numerous studies have shown that currently deployed voting systems are susceptible to undetectable malicious attacks..." 

Various states propose to compensate for this huge 'black hole' of unpreventable computer fraud by hand counting some of the ballots – and, in the case of New York, within 15 days after the election.   But this newly discovered ballet-stuffing hole will foil the manual audit.  Ballot stuffing can disrupt a post-election audit, trigger an expanded audit when count discrepancies are discovered, and then produce a fraudulent recount of all the ballots. 

Regardless of how the ballots are stored, a post-election manual audit of the machine count is fatally flawed because we simply cannot know whether anyone tampered with the post-election ballots.  Once the ballots leave the poll site, who's to say someone didn't alter, substitute or destroy them?  How will anyone know which ballots were scanned and which ballots were illegally stuffed at some point prior to the hand count?  Legitimate ballots cannot be discerned from fraudulent ones. 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Initially focused on elections, she investigated the 2004 Ohio election, organizing, training and leading several forays into counties to photograph the 2004 ballots. She officially served at three recounts, including the 2004 recount. She also organized and led the team that audited Franklin County Ohio's 2006 election, proving the number of voter signatures did not match official results. Her work appears in three books.

Her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a researcher or investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor.

She graduated from The Ohio State University's School of Agriculture in December 2003 with a B.S. in Natural Resources.

All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Tell the truth anyway.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

You're one of the best. But what it all boiler... by Mr M on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM
"But what it all boilers down to is that powe... by Rady Ananda on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:45:53 PM
Comment from Ratings:   I am appalled by... by Jerry Berkman on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM
you're right, Jerry... it's outrageous wha... by Rady Ananda on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:38:24 PM
Another excellent article , Rady. Glad you are sta... by Judith Conoyer on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:16:46 PM
Let's rid our elections of software-driven vot... by Rady Ananda on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:35:28 PM
Comment from Ratings:   Those 50 poor overworked... by Margaret Bassett on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:35:06 PM
you said it, Margaret - I can't remember who f... by Rady Ananda on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:25:19 PM
Excellent work, Rady! Love it. The picture speaks ... by Joyce McCloy on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM
thanks for the comments, NC ~ I'm buying a new... by Rady Ananda on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:10:38 PM
Comment from Ratings:   ...if it was tra... by Mark E. Smith on Friday, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:52:00 PM
Rady and Andi, you guys are doing great work!... by Dave Berman on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:33:44 PM

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum