Word: diebold
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...machines used in Georgia in 2002 were produced by Diebold, one of the largest voting machine manufacturers in the country. Shortly before the 2002 election, Diebold administered “patches” to 22,000 voting machines across the state of Georgia. These patches were never independently reviewed by any authority; even Georgia’s independent certifier, Dr. Brit Williams, merely accepted an assurance “by the vendor that the patch did not impact any of the things that we had previously tested on the machine.” Williams also admitted that he had never...
...Diebold, anyway? Perhaps most notably, a company that has donated over $400,000 to the Republican Party in the last four years, and whose CEO has been quoted as saying that he would help “deliver Ohio’s electoral votes” to President Bush. Of course, it’s impossible to prove that Diebold effectively rigged Georgia’s election, but that’s exactly the point. As long as their code is proprietary—and it is—no one can. Ask a lawyer to prove a case...
...House Administration Committee, to which the bill was referred, heard testimonial from elections officials who stated that they “strongly advocate the advantages of current generation electronic voting technology.” Who were these officials? Kathy Rogers, Director of the Georgia Elections Division, and that diehard Diebold believer, Dr. Brit Williams...
...July 2003, Aviel D. Rubin, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, published an in-depth security analysis of the electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold Inc.—one of the primary companies to benefit from the transition to touch screen voting. The report was full of criticisms of the company’s system and claimed that Diebold’s “voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts.” The report highlighted many of the potential dangers stemming from the nature of technology?...
...voting that exists in Australia. According to an article featured on Wired.com, “Australians designed a system [in 2001] that addressed and eased most of those concerns: They chose to make the software running their system completely open to public scrutiny.” That is, whereas Diebold chose to keep its software coding secret until it was finally leaked and posted on the web—and subsequently scrutinized by Avriel and his associates—the private Australian company had no qualms in providing their operating software in order to ensure voter confidence in the process...