Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 8 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Ciber-sleuthing in the secret world of voting machine accreditation

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Message Michael Richardson
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)
The mystery of Sarasota, Florida's 18,000 "undervotes" in the recent Congressional elections gets more confusing when one tries to penetrate the wall of secrecy surrounding testing of the controversial electronic voting machines at issue.

The day after the New York Times reported on the Election Assistance Commission ban on Ciber, Inc., the nation's largest so-called independent testing authority, Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for the Florida Division of Elections was quick to tell the Sarasota Herald Tribune that Ciber had no role in the minimum performance standards of the ES&S voting machines in Sarasota. Independent testing labs, including Ciber, are funded by the voting machine vendors and receive lax oversight from the EAC, which secretly pulled Ciber's permit to test voting machines last year.

According to Ivey's statement to the Herald Tribune, a different test lab, Wyle Laboratories, actually conducted a "review" of the ES&S iVotronic machines used in Sarasota. However, Ciber's role in approval of the iVotronic machines is not quite that simple to dismiss.

Joe Hall, a respected electronic voting machine authority and self-described "politechnologist", explains there is more to the hidden process of certification than meets the eye. "Since the test reports are not public, it is difficult to find information about who tested what when."

Hall explains that Ciber was the primary federal testing body for the ES&S iVotronic model voting machine. However, since Florida has its own standards the equipment sometimes has add-ons not tested by Ciber, as is the case in Sarasota where a different version of the "election management system" Unity program was added. Hall has written, "The software on the DRE [Direct Recording Electronic] itself should be the same (note the firmware versions for the iVotronic are the same)."

Ivey's denial of Ciber's involvement seems to suggest that Wyle Laboratories actually tested both the iVotronic model software and its non-federally approved Unity add-on. But did Wyle actually conduct a full test or accept Ciber's approval of the ES&S software and only review the Unity add-on?

According to Ivey, the Wyle review of the iVotronic took place sometime before the state approved use of the voting machine model in 2002. Sarasota voters that were victims of the "undervote" phenomenon might not be able to take as much comfort from the apparent double-testing of the iVotronic as they would like. In neighboring Georgia, the state voting machine vendor Diebold, had to begin a month-long "patch" of 22,000 voting machines in September 2002 to prevent the touch-screen machines from freezing up. In Georgia, both Ciber and Wyle shared testing responsibilities and both labs approved the flawed machines.

Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, researched the Diebold "patch", examining all available documents and interviewing Georgia's Assistant Director of Elections. Harris concluded, "We have thousands of defective voting systems that somehow made it through Wyle's hardware testing, Ciber's software testing, Diebold's factory testing, rigorous testing on arrival at the Georgia warehouse and more testing when delivered to each of Georgia's 159 counties."

Ivey did admit to the Herald Tribune that Ciber tested the centralized "election management system" software used to tabulate the votes recorded by the iVotronic touch screens in Sarasota. Further, the Technical Advisory issued on March 3, 2006, by the Florida Division of Elections warning of security threats relied on Ciber's "Source Code Review and Functional Testing reports" rather than test information from Wyle.

At this time, no further tests of the iVotronic machines or any ES&S voting equipment are scheduled by the state. How much actual reliance Florida election officials have placed in Ciber is hidden behind the EAC wall of secrecy that surrounds the testing laboratories, a wall of secrecy made more impenetrable by the laboratories' claims of trade secrets.

[Permission granted to reprint]
Rate It | View Ratings

Michael Richardson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Michael Richardson is a freelance writer living in Belize. Richardson writes about Taiwan foreign policy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Black Panther Party. Richardson was Ralph Nader's ballot access manager during the 2004 and (more...)

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

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

J. Edgar Hoover personally ordered FBI to initiate COINTELPRO dirty tricks against Black Panthers in 'Omaha Two' case

Angela Davis Demands 'Omaha Two' Be Freed

FBI agents that spied on Martin Luther King also ran COINTELPRO operation against 'Omaha Two'

Did RFK's search for JFK's killers lead to his own murder?

FBI used United Airlines in planned COINTELPRO action against Black Panthers in 'Omaha Two' case

Roger and Julian Lin are at center of Taiwan Civil Government fraud allegations

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend