Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts News Politics Your Rights Online

California AG Says He'll Sue Diebold 394

moby11 points to this Reuters story carried by Yahooo!; it begins "California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said on Tuesday he would sue electronic voting machine maker Diebold Inc. on charges it defrauded the state with false claims about its products."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California AG Says He'll Sue Diebold

Comments Filter:
  • And then what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JakeThompson1 ( 808024 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @08:43PM (#10184521)
    So they will sue Diebold, win, and use the money to buy more Diebold products? After all, they are probably engaged in some type of "e-vote upgrade" and have already sold their "old" optical/mechanical/etc. machines to "poorer" [not considering the CA budget deficit] states.

    Have they considered vendor lock-in?
  • From TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nuclear305 ( 674185 ) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @08:43PM (#10184525)
    "Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has said Diebold deceived California with aggressive marketing that led to the installation of touch-screen voting systems that were not tested or approved nationally or in California."

    From the sounds of it, the person(s) involved with authorizing the installation gave in to Diebold's hype without bothering to give system a thourough inspection/review prior to making the decision. In addition to suing Diebold, maybe the AG should be looking for some heads to chop for making a bad situation[company pushing false claims] even worse[installation and failure of product]?
  • Re:And then what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nharmon ( 97591 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @08:46PM (#10184552)
    Actually, it would be fitting for Diebold to refuse to sell to California.

    This would be similiar to when governments began sueing Ford Motor company because their Crown Victoria police cars would explode after being hit in the rear by vehicles traveling at highway speeds. When the state filed charges, Ford stopped selling them cars.

    So, this begs the question,...is California still buying diebold machines? Because if they are, then this lawsuit is nothing about ensuring voting integrity.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @08:55PM (#10184640)
    If Diebold were not an appropriately qualified organisation, California state would have determined that in testing trials and switched to another provider. They aren't the only organisation to provide this civic service.


    You're assuming that there is a company with a good voting machine package available and the ability to ramp up production quickly. From what I've read, the only reason most states are even looking at these machines are because they're being forced to do so by a stupid, reactionary federal law inspired by the 2000 FL problems. Here in Washington state, our government has been aggressively attacking the voting machine manufacturers because none of them make a good product but we have to buy at least one electronic voting machine per county by either 2006 or 2008 (I forget) or break federal law.

    This is a clear case of reactionary legislation mandating solutions worse than the problems.
  • Re:And then what? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:01PM (#10184698)
    This would be similiar to when governments began sueing Ford Motor company because their Crown Victoria police cars would explode after being hit in the rear by vehicles traveling at highway speeds. When the state filed charges, Ford stopped selling them cars.

    Is there a shortage of other car vendors willing to sell to police forces?

    Cars aren't built to take massive damage from behind because it almost never happens (aside from police cars parked on the side of the highway). Besides, there is a trunk between the passengers and rear bumper to provide a crumple zone. This isn't a flaw, it's a design choice.

    Being hit from behind is one of the safest possible collisions.
  • [OT] Florida...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:02PM (#10184709)


    I wonder how things are going to go in Florida this time around, between Diebold machines, institutionalized electoral mismanagement ('00 was neither their first "00", nor their last), and 2-3 hurricanes wiping the state's infrastructure flat during the run-up to the election.

  • by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:08PM (#10184750)
    It'll only be treason after they orchestrate a coup, and even then only if they get caught failing. Until then it's just business :-)

    Seriously though, I'm not one of the hysterical anti-Diebold mob, but there are a number of troubling things about this company and these systems. That said there will always be issues with any system and people crying that the sky is falling, but in this case there's enough substance and evasion by Diebold to cause some serious concerns. The case for code auditing and an open software model seems to have a great deal of appeal. I can't help but think we're rushing into this in a compressed timeframe and installing expensive systems early that will leave a technological legacy for future elections and systems to deal with. You'd have hoped that someone with a clue would have sat down and started some reasonable standards process and a software engineering effort to go along with it. OK this has happened to a limited degree but it has been steamrollered by a drive to do this in haste with intense lobbying in some areas, now what was this lawsuit about again?.
  • by Joe 'Nova' ( 98613 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:12PM (#10184776) Homepage
    more proof of malfeasance(previous diebold owners running away with elections when behind in polls, etc...)
    Politicians [infowars.com]
    Halfway down, see ctrl-f rigging [infowars.com]
    convicted fellons working for them! [infowars.com]
    i don't have an account :( [ajc.com]
    Backdoor vote rigging? [alternet.org]

    That is a starter list, I'll post more later, just mod the parent up(this one!)
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:28PM (#10184892) Homepage Journal
    Or the jury will have to count their votes ten times.

    You misunderstand...

    "Lockyer determined sufficient evidence existed to go forward with a false claims lawsuit against Diebold," the statement said. The state's top lawyer earlier had dropped a criminal investigation of Diebold.

    It's an electon year, right? Even if he's not up for re-election, it's the natural behavior of a politician.

    To whit:

    Diebold Vice President Thomas Swidarski said in a statement that the company was pleased Lockyer dropped the probe. Despite Lockyer's decision to sue, the company is "confident that the state's decision to intervene will aid in a fair and dispassionate examination of the issues raised in the case," Swidarski said.

    What Swidarski really oughta said, "[the company] is confident that this is a political ploy and will amount to nothing."

  • Re:From TFA... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Money for Nothin' ( 754763 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:46PM (#10185020)
    Agreed Diebold should admit their fault.

    Can I be the first to point out the political party affiliation of the governor of California -- namely, a Republican? That same Republican's state govn't pays the salary of the AG.

    And the AG is suing Diebold, who are Republican shills.

    That should say a lot about:

    1) the integrity of that Republican (Schwarzenegger), and

    2) the sheer incompetence and shilling performed by Diebold
  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:49PM (#10185042) Journal
    Has anybody tried talking to non-computer people about electronic voting? I've tried it a few times, even toning down things, but people often either don't understand what's at stake or assume I'm exagerrating.

    I think this is quite possibly the most important US domestic issue this year, and feel that the word needs to get out about this, so we can try to fix what we can before it's too late [blackboxvoting.org]. Unfortunately, I haven't been successful thus far. Has anybody else had better luck?
  • Re:A YRO topic?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:59PM (#10185130)
    But if the CEO of Diebold really does deliver the White House to GWB, he won't to to prison... He'll be a Real American Hero, just like Katherine Harris, who delivered the last election to GWB on a silver platter. Hint: Chads were the diversion, erroneously disenfranchised blacks were the election theft.
  • by a whoabot ( 706122 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @10:00PM (#10185143)
    I'll probably get modded down for not agreeing with the Slashdot status quo, but I have to say it anyway, even if just for the few freethinking individuals who may read my post.

    If they want to "hide" behind the EULA then so be it. The customer should read it. If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't buy the product, simple as that.

    This whole thing is just a bunch of socialists using the liberal biased court system to attack a tax-paying company. A company that actually does something for this country instead of living off the hard work of others. If their machines don't work the way you want them to, then make your own and sell them. Compete in the real world, the marketplace, not the leftist courts.

    It's right there in the article, Swidarski says it, "the state's decision to intervene". The state shouldn't intervene with the marketplace, only a freemarket will bring true equality to all people. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union with their interventionist measures.
  • Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ebsf1 ( 689864 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @10:05PM (#10185178)
    It is interesting how this has played out. /.ers have been moaning (rightly so) about how this stuff is bad and how the ppl in charge have been ignoring it. And now the ppl in charge seem to be waking up. There appears to be hope after all. Having said that, it should never have happened in the first place.
  • Re:From TFA... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by themaddone ( 180841 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @10:29PM (#10185367)
    Almost, but no.

    According to the website, http://caag.state.ca.us/ag/index.htm

    Under the state Constitution, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term in the same statewide election as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. In 1990, voters imposed a two-term limit on these statewide offices.

    Meaning you can't draw a conclusion about the Governator's integrity, since he very likely wasn't involved in this decision at all.
  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @10:30PM (#10185377) Homepage Journal
    If you don't spend the money, it's gone.

    Absolutely right. If there is one thing ordinary citizens fail to understand about how government works, it is that in government accounting, recipients of funds do not get to "roll it over" the following fiscal period. Not only do you have to spend what you have, if you don't spend what you have, you don't get more money later.

    With large government IT projects (as voting machines are), the projects that get funded get funded again only if they use the money they've been given in the first place. Complaining that government agencies *don't get it* is beside the point. They are in many ways completely hamstrung by the accounting system used by government.

    In fact, dasmegabyte raises an interesting point. If you want to change things for the better, get on Congress to come up with a better means of accounting for all of those tax dollars and managing their use. There is so much waste inherent in the system that has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans, but with bean counters and spreadsheets.

  • by SomeGuyFromCA ( 197979 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @10:58PM (#10185596) Journal
    > we have less of chance of a Bush/Gore fiasco raising its ugly head and saying "I'll be back".

    Except it's California. If Kerry doesn't take the state easily, that's a red flag to investigate. :P
  • by EvanED ( 569694 ) <{evaned} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:13AM (#10186074)
    Freedom of speech does not mean an absolute right to say whatever you want.

    This is why there are libel laws. And slander. And disparagement.

    This is why there are perjury laws.

    This is why there are laws against speech that is intended and does result in violence.

    This is why there are laws against fraud, and deceit.

    This is why there are invasion of privacy laws.

    And this is why there are laws against false advertising.

    (To clarify, so no one tries to jump on me, almost all of these are civil rather than criminal wrongs, but the fact that they were established mostly through common law rather than legislative statutes does not diminish the fact that they are laws.)
  • Re:And then what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:43AM (#10186212)
    I also think another factor clouding the issue is that, statistically, Crown Vic's *don't* explode more often then other cars when struck from behind by a car moving at highway speeds. But Crown Vic's are the single model most involved in this type of collision, specifically because police use them so predominantly.

    So now the argument has changed to a warrant of merchantability type thing: in selling Crown Vic's as police card, Ford warranted that they were suitable for use as police cars. Since police cars are especially likely to be involved in high speed rear end collisions, the police cars should be able to withstand them better than other cars. Since they don't (ref previous statistics), they are incorrectly designed for police use, and so Ford is liable.

    As for the tin-foil-hattism about Ford refusing to sell police cruisers to states that sue them, well DUHHH! Ford is not compelled to sell their products to anybody (except race/creed/gender, etc.) and to continue to sell products to an entity that is suing you is stupid. It's like letting the slip-and-fall plaintiff back into your grocery store - it's just giving them another chance to sue.
  • Re:Upset? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @12:45AM (#10186227)
    Well, the President of Diebold did claim in 2003 that his company was

    committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.

    I suppose the California officials are upset that Diebold didn't include their state in the obvious corruptions of an opaque and unmonitorable voting system.


    Grr I already moderated the AC which replied to you up (who btw offered this informative link [usatoday.com] which will now be negated by this post and I was going to mod you down too btw:). Just to set the record straight he didn't claim that Diebold would help deliver the votes, he said "I am committed", an "I" you conveniently truncated from your quote. It may be your belief that that is what he actually meant, personally I've always felt that it was just an unfortunate choice of words and he was talking about campaigning (I mean how stupid do you think this guy is to admit election rigging publicly).

    Now don't get me wrong, I think it's more likely than not that he has some sort of plan for rigging the election in mind, I know the "don't attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" axiom but the magnitude of the stupidity required to reach the current lack of security (they can't be that stupid can they?) combined with the fact that other than keeping the exploits more secret and non-obvious I can't think of much that I would do different if I was rigging the election (although I'd rig for the other side;).

    Still that's all secondary since one thing I cannot stand on any side of a debate, and will mod down every time if I don't respond to it, is factually incorrect information, especially if such information is close enough to the truth to avoid a closer inspection and if I feel that inaccuracy may be deliberate. Yes he gave a highly controvertial claim, yes he may infact be planning to use his company to rig the election in Ohio, but the subject in that quote you gave is not his company, it's him. All it takes is one bit of damning misinformation like that to be launched on by the other side in a debate and instantly you've lost your credibility, it might be fun and satisfying to ignore the middleman by combining fact with your conclusion but flase statements like that work only to the benefit of Diebold.
  • Re:UK Elections (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dfn_deux ( 535506 ) <datsun510&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @01:10AM (#10186339) Homepage
    This will probably fall on deaf ears since I've posted much to far down on this topic, but....

    I've always thought that since voting is a civic duty much like jury duty that it should be manditory to cast a vote. I figure the best way to do this would be to require a ballot receipt to be submitted along with your federal income tax filing in order to recieve a return. It would likely result in a huge number of abstentions being cast, but when presented with a choice after already reporting to a polling place I believe that the large majority of eligible voters would prefer to pick SOMEONE rether than NO ONE...
    The alternate and slightly more cynical idea I had would be to require a ballot receipt in order to collect Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, and/or WIC stamps. This would dramatically increase the turn out in the quickly growing economic lower class and resultantly increase turnout in the middle and upper classes as the realized that they would become increasingly under-represented in government.
    AFAIK no major political figure has ever suggested any sort of election reform even remotely similar to this. The reason is probably simple, if you are already in office there is no incentive to promote any change in the electorate...
  • by JimMarch(equalccw) ( 710249 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @03:25AM (#10186894)
    It's a weeee bit more complicated than that.

    OK.

    Everybody is looking at how Diebold "Corporate" in Canton OH (the parent company) is riddled with Bush/GOP links. And that's true.

    But it's NOT true of Global Election Systems, the Canadian company that Diebold bought in 2002 and renamed "Diebold Election Systems" (still based in Vancouver BC to this day). Diebold corp of Ohio had been investing slightly before buying them outright but the investments do NOT go all the way back to Oct. of 2000.

    Late Oct. 2000, GEMS version 1.17.5 was released. Per Bev Harris, this was the earliest version she could find that had the "double set of books" hack in it apparantly designed for election fraud. See also:

    http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html ...for a more complete demo.

    Early Oct. of 2000, Global hired a new head programmer for GEMS: Jeffrey Dean.

    During the mid to late '80s, Dean embezzled more than $400,000 from a Seattle law firm he was doing computer consulting for. Dean was convicted in the early '90s of 23 counts of computer-aided accounting fraud in what the court called a "sophisticated scheme".

    How did he end up hooked up with Global?

    He shared a jail cell with another of the founders during the '90s.

    Upshot: Global appears to have been run by a genuine bunch of crooks. *Not* political crooks, just plain ol' crooks. Diebold corporate didn't do enough background checks at the time of the buyout and I doubt they understood what sort of pirates they'd swallowed.

    I can't be sure of course, 'cuz maybe the Canton boys DID know what they were getting involved in. But if they didn't, then the whole "Bush/GOP connection thing" that the Diebold Corporate people in Ohio are now famous for was a deeply unfortunate coincidence and God only *knows* what's going to happen in November!

    Keeerist.

    Think this is unlikely?

    The big MONEY in election fraud involves rigging *local* elections, esp. building projects, construction bonds and the like. And people don't pay near the attention to that like they do national races.

    I suspect that's what Global was really after. And I suspect keeping a secret all the way up to the Bush White House would be...unmanagable and dangerous as hell.

    Am I certain Bush is "clean" (of this, at any rate)? Hell no. I *do* know that a heck of a lot of Democrats in various places have pushed for Diebold (starting with Georgia) and I know that county election officials can use the "cheats" Diebold built in very damned easily. Guys, I've personally seen MS-Access loaded onto GEMS boxes within counties - Fresno County's elections staff let me peek at their systems some months back (but the MS-Access was an older version (97) not compatible with the more recent GEMS databases so any ill with it happened some time ago, not recent).

    Anyways. I don't want to end up betting on whether or not Diebold will "win out" in "hacking contests" with county elections officials :(. This crap has to go regardless.

    Jim March
  • by JimMarch(equalccw) ( 710249 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @03:29AM (#10186903)
    Yup!

    This year, the California legislature came up with a simple "recommendation only" bill to the Calif SecState urging him to look at Open Source as a concept. It was fought bitterly by, basically, Microsoft (via industry flunkies).

    M$ doesn't want Open Source seen as a higher-security alternative in a mission-critical app that *everybody* is involved in...even if it's the better alternative.

    Jim March
  • Re:I'm confused (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JimMarch(equalccw) ( 710249 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @03:56AM (#10186993)
    If we're successful, the courts will determine (or Diebold will admit via settlement) that their software was...well, crap. It didn't have the security features they claimed for it when they sold it, or even the security features required by Federal (FEC) regulation and the California Elections Code. So the gov't gets back the money they paid for the junk, because Diebold didn't live up to their contract. Basic fraud. The SIDE EFFECTS: 1) Diebold could leave the elections business. At a minimum, a court loss of this scope would hurt sales something fierce. Voting is a small percentage of their overall business but is the cause of most of their negative PR; closing up the voting division they bought in 2002 becomes a serious option at some point coming up REAL soon now. 2) With strong evidence that the Diebold software was crap, people may finally start realizing that the Federally approved oversight process (independent testing labs approved by the FEC and hired by the voting system vendors to check source code, etc) is seriously broken. That same oversight process approved the ES&S, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic and other such computerized voting system products. If the oversight process is broken, then those products aren't trustworthy either. The ultimate oversight would be via Open Source; that concept in voting is gaining momentum (see also the Open Voting Consortium via google). At a minimum, those other products need scrutiny. Fast. Jim March
  • Re:Good Plan (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @03:57AM (#10186998)
    You're an idiot. Do you think states test even the lever machines or punch card machines for security when they buy them? Testing the security of electronic voting machines is a much more expensive proposition.

    Likewise, when you buy a car, do you test the air bags? No, you take the company's word on it. If it turns out that the air bags don't work, sue them for as much as you can (not how much you paid because otherwise the company would have no incentive to reform).
  • Re:UK Elections (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Aydsman ( 718016 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @04:30AM (#10187097) Homepage
    Australia already has compulsory voting and it works very simply. When you turn up to vote your name is crossed off a list. If you don't vote, you get a fine. Of course there are also postal votes if you are unable to get to a polling booth on the day.
  • by zeruch ( 547271 ) <zeruch&deviantart,com> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @06:42AM (#10187452) Homepage
    California has for quite a while had a largely Dem legislature and an often enough GOP member for Governor (i.e. Reagan, Deukmajian and Wilson).

    That being said, CA as a state in Federal elections leans quite heavily towards Democratic candidates.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...