• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

If this can happen,our country is doomed

undy

New member
Well, I've believed that without a paper trail, this sort of thing could have gone on since when electronic voting machines first appeared. There have been documented errors due to electronic voting dating as early as 2004, according to Wikepedia.

But, if you look closely at the video, there's something a bit weird. When the voting machine is first activated and spits out it's self-test analysis (3:09 - 3:13), the printout reads: "Diebold Memroy Card". That doesn't seem legit.

The haunting music when the results are shown and the weeping observer seem a bit too theatrically staged, to me. It's also the poster's second video, and the first was a lead-in to this one.

So my opinion is that this video was likely produced by someone with an agenda, and that it may have been bullshlt. But then conspiracy theories are only theories until proven right...
 

MNoutdoors RIP

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Appears it cold be linked to just one style of the Diebold machines

11]

Security and concealment issues Edit
For more information in the 2004 elections see: 2004 United States presidential election: Specific issues relating to Diebold machines and practices
Avi Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical Director of the Information Security Institute has analyzed the source code used in these voting machines and reports "this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts."[12] Following the publication of this paper, the State of Maryland hired Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform another analysis of the Diebold voting machines. SAIC concluded “[t]he system, as implemented in policy, procedure, and technology, is at high risk of compromise.”[13]

The company RABA did a security analysis of the Diebold AccuVote in January 2004 confirming many of the problems found by Avi Rubin and finding some new vulnerabilities.[14]

In June 2005, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that when given access to Diebold optical scan vote-counting computers, Black Box Voting, a nonprofit election watchdog group founded by Bev Harris, hired Finnish computer expert Harri Hursti and conducted a project in which vote totals were altered, by replacing the memory card that stores voting results with one that had been tampered with. Although the machines are supposed to record changes to data stored in the system, they showed no record of tampering after the memory cards were swapped. In response, a spokesperson for the Department of State said that, "Information on a blog site is not viable or credible."[15]

In early 2006, a study for the state of California corroborated and expanded on the problem;[16] on page 2 the California report states that:

"Memory card attacks are a real threat: We determined that anyone who has access to a memory card of the AV-OS, and can tamper it (i.e. modify its contents), and can have the modified cards used in a voting machine during election, can indeed modify the election results from that machine in a number of ways. The fact that the results are incorrect cannot be detected except by a recount of the original paper ballots" and "Harri Hursti's attack does work: Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server."

A new vulnerability, this time with the TSx DRE machines, was reported in May 2006. According to Professor Rubin, the machines are "much, much easier to attack than anything we've previously said... On a scale of one to 10, if the problems we found before were a six, this is a 10. It's a totally different ballgame." According to Rubin, the system is intentionally designed so that anyone with access can update the machine software, without a pass code or other security protocol. Diebold officials said that although any problem can be avoided by keeping a close watch on the machines, they are developing a fix.[17]

Michael I. Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University who is a proponent of electronic voting and the examiner of electronic voting systems for Pennsylvania, stated "It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system." Douglas W. Jones, a professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, stated "This is the barn door being wide open, while people were arguing over the lock on the front door." Diebold spokesman David Bear played down the seriousness of the situation, asserting that "For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software. I don't believe these evil elections people exist."[18]

On October 30, 2006, researchers from the University of Connecticut demonstrated new vulnerabilities in Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scan voting terminal. The system can be compromised even if its removable memory card is sealed in place.[19]

On November 2, 2006, HBO premiered a documentary entitled "Hacking Democracy", concerning the vulnerability of electronic voting machines (primarily Diebold) to hacking and inaccurate vote totals. The company argued that the film was factually inaccurate and urged HBO to air a disclaimer explaining that it had not verified any of the claims.[20][21][22] However, corroboration and validation for the exploits shown in Hacking Democracy was published in a report for the state of California (see above).

In January 2007, a photo of the key used to open Diebold voting machines was posted in the company's website. It was found possible to duplicate the key based on the photo. The key unlocks a compartment which contains a removable memory card, leaving the machine vulnerable to tampering.[23]

A report commissioned by Ohio’s top elections official on December 15, 2007 has found that all five voting systems used in Ohio (made by Elections Systems and Software; Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems); and Hart InterCivic) have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election.[24]

On July 17, 2008, Stephen Spoonamore made the claim that had "fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections." Spoonamore is "the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies." He claims that Diebold Election Systems Inc. COO Bob Urosevich personally installed a computer patch on voting machines in two counties in Georgia, and that the patch did not fix the problem it was supposed to fix.[25] Reports have indicated that then Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox did not know the patch was installed until after the election.[26]

States rejecting Diebold Edit
In 2004, after an initial investigation into the company's practices, Secretary of State of California Kevin Shelley issued a ban on one model of Diebold voting machines in that state. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, joined the state of California into a false claims suit filed in November 2003 by Bev Harris and Alameda County citizen Jim March. Here is a copy of the original lawsuit [27] and here is the article showing it became the California false claims suit:[28]

The suit charged that Diebold had given false information about the security and reliability of Diebold Election Systems machines that were sold to the state. To settle the case, Diebold agreed to pay $2.6 million and to implement certain reforms.[29] On August 3, 2007, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified Diebold and three other electronic voting systems after a "top-to-bottom review of the voting machines certified for use in California in March 2007."[30]

In April 2007, the Maryland General Assembly voted to replace paperless touchscreen voting machines with paper ballots counted by optical scanners, effective in time for the 2010 general (November) elections. The law, signed by the Governor in May 2007, was made contingent on the provision of funding by no later than April 2008. The Governor included such funding in his proposed budget in January 2008,[31] but the funding was defeated by the state House in July 2008.[32]

In March 2009, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified Diebold's GEMS version 1.18.19 after the Humboldt County Election Transparency Project discovered that GEMS had silently dropped 197 ballots from its tabulation of a single precinct in Eureka, California.[33] The discovery was made after project members conducted an independent count using the ballot counting program Ballot Browser.

Leaked memos Edit
In September 2003, a large number of internal Diebold memos, dating back to 1999, were posted to the BlackBoxVoting.org web site, resulting in the site being shut down due to a Diebold cease and desist order. Later, other website organizations Why War? and the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons, a group of student activists at Swarthmore College posted the memos. U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, placed portions of the files on his websites.[34] The full set of these internal memos is posted here: Original Diebold Memos—FULL SET[35]

Diebold attempted to stop the publication of these internal memos by sending cease-and-desist letters to each site hosting these documents, demanding that they be removed. Diebold claimed the memos as their copyrighted material, and asserted that anyone who published the memos online was in violation of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act found in §512 of the United States Copyright Act.

When it turned out that some of the challenged groups would not back down, Diebold retracted their threat. Those who had been threatened by Diebold then sued for court costs and damages, in OPG v. Diebold. This suit eventually led to a victory for the plaintiffs against Diebold, when in October 2004 Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that Diebold abused its copyrights in its efforts to suppress the embarrassing memos.

Stephen Heller (whistleblower) Edit
In January and February 2004, a whistleblower named Stephen Heller brought to light memos from Jones Day, Diebold's attorneys, informing Diebold that they were in breach of California law by continuing to use illegal and uncertified software in California voting machines. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed civil and criminal suits against the company, which were dropped when Diebold settled out of court for $2.6 million. In February 2006, Heller was charged with three felonies for this action.[36][37] On November 20, 2006, Heller made a plea agreement to pay $10,000 to Jones Day, write an apology, and receive three years probation.[38]

Diebold and Kenneth Blackwell's conflict of interest Edit
Ohio State Senator Jeff Jacobson, Republican, asked Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, in July 2003 to disqualify Diebold's bid to supply voting machines for the state, after security problems were discovered in its software, but was refused.[39] Blackwell had ordered Diebold touch screen voting machines, reversing an earlier decision by the state to purchase only optical scan voting machines which, unlike the touch screen devices, would leave a "paper trail" for recount purposes. Blackwell was found in April 2006, to own 83 shares of Diebold stock, down from 178 shares purchased in January 2005, which he attributed to an unidentified financial manager at Credit Suisse First Boston who had violated his instructions to avoid potential conflict of interest, without his knowledge.[40] When Cuyahoga county's primary was held on May 2, 2006, officials ordered the hand-counting of more than 18,000 paper ballots after Diebold's new optical scan machines produced inconsistent tabulations, leaving several local races in limbo for days and eventually resulting in a reversal of the outcome of one race for state representative. Blackwell ordered an investigation by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections; Ohio Democrats demanded that Blackwell, who was also the Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2006, recuse himself from the investigation due to conflicts of interest, but Blackwell did not do so.[41]

The Republican head of the Franklin County, Ohio Board of Elections, Matt Damschroder, said a Diebold contractor came to him and bragged of a $50,000 check he had written to Blackwell’s "political interests."[42]

Source:Wikipedia
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
If it's a computer, it can be hacked or reprogrammed.

If a human counts the votes they can make errors or they can deliberately miscount.

If either can be done, then somebody will try to buy the precinct supervisor.
 

ravcosales

Member
This is creepy. You would need significant manpower to manipulate a significant amount of machines though, yes? Like why bother with small towns?
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
What's the difference? Hack machines or have over 3 million "dead" people and illegals voting during the last election? The system is being hacked, one way or the other, right? There were so many precincts in Detroit that had over 100% register voters voting they could not finish the recount the Dems wanted so badly. Interesting, is it not?

Oh, Hillary won the popular vote my 2.9 million or whatever. Yeah, right. Believe that, I have a tropical island with white sandy beaches on Lake Champlain I'll sell you cheap.:yum::yum:
 
Last edited:

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
With California giving drivers licenses to over 800K illegals in the last two years - you know a good chunk of those are going to vote - hacking the systems is not the biggest problem. If they don't care about our immigration laws then why would they care about the election laws.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
What's the difference? Hack machines or have over 3 million "dead" people and illegals voting during the last election? The system is being hacked, one way or the other, right? There were so many precincts in Detroit that had over 100% register voters voting they could not finish the recount the Dems wanted so badly. Interesting, is it not?

Oh, Hillary won the popular vote my 2.9 million or whatever. Yeah, right. Believe that, I have a tropical island with white sandy beaches on Lake Champlain I'll sell you cheap.:yum::yum:

For the right price, I'm interested in the island but the "Tropical" is bullsh!t right?:brows:

Hillary won the popular because the flaming libs in southern California got out the vote. But the EC race was over before we ever got to California. THAT was Hillary's big mistake. Blaming it on electronic manipulation is cowardly. Such has been an issue since the electronics were first installed. And I'm willing to bet had she won PA, OH, NC,MI and WI she would scoff at the idea the results were "manipulated." And then sent her lawyers to challenge and recount FLORIDA.

That was the plan.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
For the right price, I'm interested in the island but the "Tropical" is bullsh!t right?:brows:

Hillary won the popular because the flaming libs in southern California got out the vote. But the EC race was over before we ever got to California. THAT was Hillary's big mistake. Blaming it on electronic manipulation is cowardly. Such has been an issue since the electronics were first installed. And I'm willing to bet had she won PA, OH, NC,MI and WI she would scoff at the idea the results were "manipulated." And then sent her lawyers to challenge and recount FLORIDA.

That was the plan.

Yes, more or less. Currently high waves, 30 knots winds with blowing snow. Wind chills around -20F. Not a bad day on the beach if you bundle up a bit and stay close to the cabana. :biggrin:
 
Top