Action Alert: Say No to Prohibited Software in Voting Machines!

[PeterPan]

VoteTrustUSA has launched a campaign to hold the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) accountable for ensuring that all Diebold software is re-inspected and decertified until it can be shown that all prohibited code has been removed. We also urge the EAC to initiate the re-inspection of the election software of other vendors, which may also include software that is expressly forbidden in the FEC Voting System Standards.

Please go to the http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=4">VoteTrustUSA Action Page and send an email to the EAC voicing your concern about the use of prohibited software on voting machines.

If you represent an organization, please considering adding that organization's endorsement to the http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=646&Itemid=914">Open Letter to the Election Assistance Commission that will be delivered on January 3rd.

In December, newspapers across the country reported that computer experts in Florida had conclusively proven that the “electronic ballot box” in Diebold optical scan vote counting systems could undetectably alter the results of an election. Within days, California’s Secretary of State reported that the use of banned software affects Diebold’s touch-screen voting system as well, a fact which Diebold has acknowledged.

This breach of security exploits an inherently insecure feature of the Diebold optical scanners and touch screens known as interpreted code, which the Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) of 1990 and 2002 specifically prohibit. For further details about how Diebold uses interpreted code and why it is banned from use in voting software, please click http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=645&Itemid=26">here.

Because this prohibited code exists on Diebold touchscreen machines as well as their optical scanners, the Secretary of State of California has demanded that the Diebold Touchscreen (TSX) software be re-examined by the Independent Testing Authority (ITA), who originally certified that the systems were in compliance with the 2002 Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG).

How did the ITA overlook such an obvious violation of federal standards in the first place? And just as importantly, do the voting systems produced by Diebold’s competitors contain similarly prohibited code?

It is time to put the EAC on notice that violations of federal standards by the ITA, which is now under their jurisdiction, will not be tolerated by voters.

http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=4">Send an Email to the EAC Today!

[Rainscents]

1. I can't open the link to action page!

[Don_1967]

2. Link to action page would not open

[hedda_foil]

3. Here's the right link!

http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=4

For some reason, there was a double "http" in the link above. I've called PeterPan to tell him to fix it.

Please keep this kicked!


Thanks hedda

[T Roosevelt]

4. I think you mean "proprietary"

Of course we should obviously be against prohibited software...

;-)

[PeterPan]

5. Sorry about the link problem

and now its too late to edit. The links hedda posted work.
Thanx

[hedda_foil]

6. Nope the software they're using is literally prohibited ...

The damn "certified" software has a nice chunk of a prohibited type of code.

[T Roosevelt]

7. Kind of makes you wonder who's dictionary they're using

as far as I know prohibited is pretty self-explanatory...