Word: diebold
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Students Rally in Copley, Claim Bush ‘Stole’ Election,” Nov. 4), rallied in Copley Square claiming that Bush stole the elections. However, whatever the suspicions over voting machines that allowed no recount and no auditing, that were supplied by the private company Diebold which is owned by staunch supporters of George W. Bush, the fact is the gesture is futile because Bush is in place and will serve out his four years, doing all the things that the students in Copley Square, that I and my fellow Canadians and that the majority...
These problems were probably not due to a vast right-wing conspiracy in the voting machine industry. (Though it’s not entirely clear that such a conspiracy doesn’t exist—a board member of Diebold Election Systems, the company which makes most of the touchscreen voting systems that have been deployed, did at one point guarantee he would deliver Ohio to Bush in 2004. The promise sounds even more ominous in hindsight.) Rather, most of the issues surrounded poor “calibration” of the touchscreen inputs—the machines would...
...Diebold, the leading manufacturer of e-voting machines, suffered the indignity of having its home state of Ohio disqualify its machines because of suspect technology. A December 2003 report by Compuware Corp., a widely respected software and computer-services firm, found at least four security weaknesses in Diebold's AccuVote-TS. Most distressing: anyone who lays his hands on a voting supervisor's card could access the system and tamper with results. A 2003 Johns Hopkins University study found that hackers could devise their own smart cards and vote multiple times or alter voting results. A Diebold spokesman insists that...
...true voting security. For those who prefer things truly paper-free: require open source code in any voting machine, and print out a final receipt at the end of the day. This would require no adjustments to existing machines whatsoever. It would simply require that a company like Diebold publish its code...
...course, it’s not hard to see why Diebold and other voting systems manufacturers would oppose an open-source requirement for election-systems—without proprietary code, there’s no money in it. That means that elections would become simply—a public service—instead of a profitable business. But perhaps that’s as it should be. Perhaps elections shouldn’t be for sale, especially at the public’s expense...