Diebold whistleblower alleges "technical woes"
posted December 7th 2005 10:30AM
Embattled voting-machine maker Diebold Election Systems has been
accused of hiding "major problems" in its equipment by a whistleblower called "Dieb-Throat." In an interview with The
Raw Story, the source, identified as a company insider, claims Diebold has broken state election laws "many times" and
"screwing with the software" was "part of their recipe for getting into the election business." Although the source
stopped short of directly charging Diebold with fixing elections, Dieb-Throat said that management "felt that if they
controlled an election company, they could have great influence over the outcome." A Diebold spokesman denies the
charges, saying the company "has a sterling reputation in the industry." Earlier this year, Diebold
pulled out of North Carolina, after the state insisted on
reviewing the company's source code.
The dude's nickname is hilarious. Got to hand it to him for that one.
Oh no...this will only awaken the wacky conspiracy theorists.
Of course, notice that the source is unnamed, makes rather vague accusations with no real backup with substantive details, and appears in the "Raw Story"...not exactly one of the pillars of journalism.
As to why Diebold pulled out of North Carolina...well, again, the answer won't make the conspiracy theorists happy...it's because, like most companies, they don't want to reveal their trade secrets and turn over their source code. Dugh... It would be like asking Coca Cola to allow an inspection of its secret recipe for its signature product. Give me a break.
Yea, you must be republican. Stand by your corrupt government.
Except this isn't fizzy sugar water we're talking about. This is choosing the next leader of the free world. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold Diebold up to higher standard than we do Coke. If people question whether their vote will actually be counted, you're undermining the very foundation of democracy. Sure, every system is going to be slightly flawed, but I don't think states like NC are asking too much when they say they want to kick the tires a little. Besides - read the story a little more carefully. NC officials didn't even want to look directly at the code. They just wanted the code put 'in escrow' so that if something really bad did come up, they'd have the legal right to review it. Diebold wouldn't even allow that. Kinda fishy, if you ask me.
#2. Raw Story not a pillar of journalism?
I'd say you're wrong on that one. They've proven to me over the past year or so that they're a lot more reliable than such "pillars" as the New York Times or Bob Woodward.
They scooped big media about a dozen times leading up to and including the Libby indictment, apologize when they're wrong (right away), and are transparent in that they UPDATE and annotate changes.
Long live the new pillars.
Another thing:
I also agree with the blackboxvoting crowd that if there IS going to be e-voting in the future, the source code should be open source, and a verifiable paper ballot be provided.
Anyone who thinks that ES&S or Diebold machines are secure should REALLY read about how easy it is to "hack" them.
This should concern EVERYONE regardless of political views.
they don't want to reveal their trade secrets and turn over their source code.
Actually, they wouldn't be revealing anything. The source would be held in escrow for an expert review only, not for public consumption.
Several other electronic voting suppliers are happy to do that. The fact that Diebold doesn't IS cause for alarm.
Before America begins shoving democracy down the throat of the rest of the world, it would be nice if we could get it right at home.
Anyone who thinks that any software company is just going to give up their source code upon demand is just dreaming and living in a fantasy land.
To a software company its source code is its major asset...that is its product. It would be like asking a real estate company to allow the govt to hold its land in escrow, just in case something happened. It would be like asking an auto company to allow the govt to hold its factories in escrow, just in case something happened.
And let's face it...do you really trust any govt to be able to keep any secrets? And who would determine the criteria which would trigger a review of that software source code? The courts and/or other govt institutions. So potentially even a frivolous court challenge could trigger a review of the source code. And that's not even taking into account laws which give public access to information in the govt domain.
The bottom line is this: turning over any secret to any govt entity is one of the worst ways to ensure confidentiality.
This tinfoil conspiracy theory is incredibly absurd.
"Sterling reputation," eh? I wonder if he was able to keep a straight face when he said that. Diebold is way, way past the point where the appearance of impropriety should have made them change their policies, even if no actual impropriety exists.
One of the "diebolt like" companies during the last election, in I think Ohio had major problems... lossing lots of votes because that machine got overloaded and no one knew.
Persoanlly we should not be focused on switching to a "paperless" voting system. But instead we should focus on a reliable and accurate system that represents that will of the people. On the issue of source code, an open-source system would be better, because...
ONE: conspiracy theorists would be unable to come up with any good accusation.
TWO: better security, we see superior security in open-source program. mainly because more people are examining that software.
THREE: we could be sure no one is tamppering with votes.
The problem is that the issue has become politicized, and once an issue becomes politicized it is extremely difficult to get any objective factual review.
To allow the govt access to source code is a poor way to safeguard intellectual property.
Plus, consider how absurd such a conspiracy theory really is. It would require this select group of evil company leaders who have this megalomaniac desire to control the country. Hey, perhaps the executives of Diebold are also members of the Trilateral Commission and the Skull and Bones as well...
Thought, #9: Diebold is not a software company, it's a voting machine manufacturer. Its major stock in trade is the machines it makes, not the software that runs them.
Asking them to make their source code available to government inspection is not the same as putting a factory in escrow, as the software would still be available for Diebold's use. It's more like making tanks available for government testing, to make sure their aluminum armor doesn't release toxic fumes into the crew compartment when it's hit with a rocket. (Sound familiar? The deathtrap Bradley Fighting Vehicle was also the stuff of tin hat conspiracy theory, but if its flaws hadn't come to light before production, a lot more Americans would have died in the first Gulf War.)
So you're saying it's more important for a software company to maintain absolute source code secrecy than it is to maintain basic voting integrity? We're just supposed to take Diebold's word that everything's ok?
Wake up man! Even if Diebold were required to open their source code for review, it'd still be protected by basic copyright law. They could sue the hell out of anybody who tried to copy it. From the sounds of it, tho, nobody in their right mind would want to copy their crappy code.
After hearing all these quotes about the software being "trade secrets", I'm pretty dissatisfied with that excuse. As Shig put it, they're selling hardware, not software. This source code is not going to be anything special anyway. Coke makes sugar water that has a unique taste. Nothing about a voting machine is unique. You offer the user several buttons for the candidates, several buttons for navigation, some text informational screens, and you increment some counters in the background. I realize there's a little more involved but not a whole lot more. It's basically a state machine, and this source code need not be complicated at all, at least as it currently runs. There's no reason to make it escrow even, just make it public. Diebold would put to rest almost every complaint if it would release the full source code, and their only excuse for not releasing it is that they're not proud of it for some reason (evil or not).
Ask any software company how thrilled they would be to make their source code available...ask them how much they go to great lengths to protect that code.
As for Diebold being a hardware company rather than a software company, the truth is it is both, in that most of the machines it sells require proprietary software to run. Diebold does indeed develop a lot of its own software, and that asset cannot be taken for granted in its importance to the company.
For instance, Diebold makes ATMs...should they be required to turn over the software that runs those ATMs to the Federal Reserve? Why not...isn't financial security more important than one company protecting trading secrets? Why not imagine a conspiracy among Diebold to suck poor unsuspecting people out of their money through their ATM machines?
Sure, there are legitimate questions regarding any e-voting system, and that needs to be flushed out in public debate over the concept. But to dream up wacko conspiracy theories regarding Diebold wanting to run the world through voting machines is just that...crazy.
Let's also remember that the US isn't the only one to use Diebold voting machines...for instance, Canada and Brazil also use some of their equipment. So I guess the Diebold execs can run those countries as well...
Thought (and what an oxymoron of a name that is, as it seems you're devoid of it), somehow I think if the Democrats were in power right now, you'd be first in line demanding to view the source so you could add some credibility to how the Democrats fixed the election.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Work for Diebold, perhaps?
Trade secret or not: there should be a law saying that if you want in the voting machine game, you must reveal your source to the buyer. Don't like it? Don't go into that business. Pretty simple.
Hey, why stop at voting machine conspiracies?
Diebold also makes ATMs, as well as electronic security equipment used by banks. Maybe they're also behind a conspiracy to rob us all of much of our money and control the financial markets as well.
Diebold also factors into retail with regards to security products, as well as products for processing transactions. So maybe they're behind a conspiracy to grab even more money for themselves that way, at the expense of the consumer. Shoot, maybe through banking and retail, they're secretly controlling the economy.
Why, yes, it's the perfect plan...pretty soon Diebold will control the world...who would have thought?
Thought: "For instance, Diebold makes ATMs...should they be required to turn over the software that runs those ATMs to the Federal Reserve? Why not...isn't financial security more important than one company protecting trading secrets? Why not imagine a conspiracy among Diebold to suck poor unsuspecting people out of their money through their ATM machines?"
This comparison of voting machines to ATMs isn't valid. ATMs have checks and balances (pun?) run on them constantly by the people using them and by the institutions that own them. If an ATM says it gives you $40 and spits out one twenty-dollar bill, you'll probably call your bank and complain. Even if you don't, at the end of the day, the bank will notice that the amount of cash in the ATM would not match the amount it said it dispensed, and the bank would notice the error at that point as well.
Voting machines don't work the same way. When you vote, it says it counted your vote, but you receive no proof of that. At the end of the day, the poll workers may be able to find a discrepancy in the /number/ of votes, but what do they do then? Cancel the whole thing? Even if there is no discrepancy in the total count, how can you be assured that your vote for Al Sharpton didn't go toward George Bush's vote count? In this situation, it's vital to have a system in place that a) has source code available that is guaranteed to be foolproof, or b) a double- or even triple-checkable outcome based on a printed receipt, or some other form of hash. In ATMs, this is done by two parties: you and the bank; in voting machines, no one knows except Diebold ... and they're not telling.
"For instance, Diebold makes ATMs...should they be required to turn over the software that runs those ATMs to the Federal Reserve? Why not..."
That makes no sense. Why would they turn it over to the Federal Reserve? The FR has NOTHING to do with personal banking.
Now, if Chase or Wachovia or whomever buys the ATMs wanted to see Diebold's source, I can bet you dollars to donuts that Diebold would show it to them... Because in Diebold's eyes, a bank is a friend. The State of North Carolina is not.
I'd wager a tidy sum that Diebold has already shown their ATM source to some of their bank customers. The banks would be stupid NOT to request that.
It doesn't matter what Diebold makes, software or hardware. To ensure fair, open elections the federal and state governments should require source inspections and paper trails.
If they can't provide that, then we should demand product from a company who will supply it.
And as for the earlier example of Coke and other soft drinks not revealing their super secret formulas, I think the FDA would disagree. They are inspected by the government, tested for safety and labeled with nutritional information.
Don't let your political affiliations blind you to poor programming, technological loopholes, and corporate laziness. We should demand the best from our companies and our government not matter what side of the fence we are on.
Richard writes:
"Trade secret or not: there should be a law saying that if you want in the voting machine game, you must reveal your source to the buyer. Don't like it? Don't go into that business."
That is a perfectly legitimate position, and one essentially acted out in North Carolina, where Diebold pulled out.
Again, I'm not saying that there are not legitimate issues with regards to e-voting (although there are issues with any form of voting), simply that a conspiracy theory involving one company is absurd.
As to the rest of your comments, you just prove my point how difficult it is to get rational debate when an issue becomes politicized.
An important correction on the NC/Diebold matter. From EFF: "Diebold told the court that it would likely withdraw the bid if the company did not have liability protection."
But in fact they did not becasue instead, NC decided to (allegedly illegally) certify them anyway. This is far from over apparently...
The following story is from the EFF website: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_12.php#004227
#14 hit the nail on the head. I could probably take a 1 semester c++ crash course in college and write some effective voting software. It's not like we are talking about $500 computer software that, by being released, could cause the company to lose a lot of business. Well, in this case they might if the code is immoral or just horrid.
Even if the government escrow's it, only an expert would review it. So, let a hardcore programmer from the Left and one from the Right review it in a highly ontrolled enviroment.
A) They could easily program it themselves
B) Won't have people claiming the other 'side' is keeping secrets
C) Only 2 people see it.
Easy as cake.
doubtful: "Don't let your political affiliations blind you to poor programming, technological loopholes, and corporate laziness. We should demand the best from our companies and our government not matter what side of the fence we are on."
I agree with that statement, but I don't think it's the problem here. People like "Thought" are being the devil's advocate, but I don't think it's because he owns stock in Diebold or wants the republicans to win. If he were purely interested in the best interests of Diebold, he'd ask that they indeed open up their source. I don't think Diebold is up to anything evil, I just don't trust their ability to write reliable code. Like I said earlier, the source for a voting machine should be simple; there should be no trade secrets involved anyway. Thus, there's really no reason for them to be so secretive about it unless a) they're management types who don't realize how simple it is and they're worried about it getting copied, or b) they really do have something to hide, and there's evil afoot. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but they're making me want to be one. The more they try to hide, the more I want to know why they're hiding it.
Isn't trusting a voting technology nobody has insight into akin to using a stranger to vote on your behalf and hoping they tick the right box when they're in the booth?
Ultimately, the issues around proper representation of the electorate in a democracy is too important to trust to a third-party that cannot provide a window into how they manage the voting process. Better that the electoral commission is funded to produce software independently and open to proper scrutiny and public, rather than shareholder, accountability.
Thought:
There's no worthwhile IP in voting machines. The software is next to worthless from an IP or cost standpoint.
What you buy from Diebold isn't the software. It's a reputation (deserved or not), and someone you can pass the buck to if something goes wrong (even if their liability is nil).
Of course it's important the software is correct.
Any moderately skilled programmer should be able to develop a distributed voting program in a week tops; and that's very generous.
So the whole IP argument is as weak as it gets.
The misinformation in some of the comments is quite staggering.
Richard writes, with regards to my hypothetical involving turning over ATM source code to the Federal Reserve:
"Why would they turn it over to the Federal Reserve? The FR has NOTHING to do with personal banking."
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States, and has everything to do with personal banking. Read their website...consider that they take one of their missions to be "supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nations banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers."
As to the comments by "doubtful" regarding secret soft drink formulas such as that of Coke...sure the FDA has certainly tested the product, just as anyone could with the proper lab equipment and knowledge. I'm sure Coke's competitors have also subjected the product to rigorous testing. However, that is not the same as Coke revealing its secret formula...big difference.
Again, the point I'm trying to make is that all of this fingerpointing at Diebold is absurd. They are acting like any company in protecting their intellectual property. You can disagree with the legal points of intellectual property law, you can argue that such laws should not apply to election equipment, etc.
But they are not some secret manipulators of the country or of the world.
Thought, would you please google "source code escrow"? If it is so outrageous, why are there so many companies providing that service?
You (and Diebold) are the ones who sound like shrill conspiracy theorists. "OMG teh gubermint is after our source codes!"
Thought, are you that obtuse?
It's NOT the Federal Reserve's job to watch the ATM's. It's their job to watch the *banks* that watch the ATMs.
There's a substantial difference here.
Let me make it even easier for you:
Here's the banking heirarchy in America:
Federal Reserve ---> Commercial Banks ---> Public
Richard: you wrote that the Fed Reserve has "NOTHING to do with personal banking."
That is patently false. The Fed Res has an enormous role in personal banking. Their oversight of commercial banks guarantees this. Any govt entity regulating commercial banks has enormous impact on what you call "personal banking." Wake up and get real on this one. Shoot, try opening up a bank account and you will be handed a fair amount of disclosures required by the Fed Reserve.
You also write "It's NOT the Federal Reserve's job to watch the ATM's. It's their job to watch the *banks* that watch the ATMs."
Well, by watching the banks that watch the ATMs the Fed Res does indeed have a huge impact on ATM transactions. Don't believe me? Well, go search the Fed Res website for "ATM" and see how many documents the FR has released on this topic. For starters, there's a well known regulation in banking circles titled "Reg E" that governs electronic transactions, including ATM transactions. The Fed's role in regulating banking does include by definition regulating ATMs, as that falls under that purview.
So I don't see how you can say that the Fed Res plays no part in ATM transactions. They play a huge part.
As to your statement:
"I'd wager a tidy sum that Diebold has already shown their ATM source to some of their bank customers. The banks would be stupid NOT to request that."
That, again, shows profound ignorance. To assume that any company shows its trade secrets to its customers is absurd. Does Microsoft show its source code for Windows and Office to every company that purchases its software? Does Coke show its secret formula to every grocery store that retails its product? Give me a break. Your statement is ridiculous on face value.
Okay, you've just proved your ignorance:
"Does Microsoft show its source code for Windows and Office to every company that purchases its software?"
Microsoft DOES show the source to Windows to certain companies/governments!
Thanks for coming out.
Look, it doesn't matter what normal software companies do. I hope that a large number of states require that the source code be disclosed. Then companies that WANT to sell to those states will disclose their source code and those companies that DON'T want to disclose source code will NOT sell in those states. Let the market determine the outcome.
However, one problem for those states is: how do you VERIFY that the source code disclosed is actually the source for the code that is running on the hardware? Unless the state compiles and downloads the executable into the machines themselves, they still have to trust the manufacturer.
I'm sorry, in all this bickering, the key point is being lost.
Diebold machines are easily "hacked" without leaving a trace. In a test on a Diebold tabulator, a Stanford student was able to log on remotely, using default username/password, replace the count with one that was drastically different than the "real" one, change the access logs to remove the record of him even logging in and then exit, in about as much time as it took me to write this paragraph (plus file upload time).
Only partisan hacks who care more about "who wins" than "how they win" would say that this is a non-story.
If we all could just be patient, and instead of gluing ourselves to cable news, just wait a few days for the election results to be counted and certified (just like in the old days), we wouldn't be having these problems. What the hell is so wrong with having simple, easy-to-understand, paper ballots? This is one place where technology has infiltrated too far, IMHO.
Diebold machines are easily "hacked" without leaving a trace. In a test on a Diebold tabulator, a Stanford student was able to log on remotely, using default username/password, replace the count with one that was drastically different than the "real" one, change the access logs to remove the record of him even logging in and then exit, in about as much time as it took me to write this paragraph (plus file upload time).
And this one time,,, at band camp,,,,
No seriously, the dude snuck into her car while she was fueling up...
Gluteous Arachnis, seriously, they hide underneath your toilet seat and bite you while you're doing #2...
Bush knew about the hijackers 3 months before the 9/11 but chose to let them continue so he could offer defense contacts to Halliburton!!!
#2 As to why Diebold pulled out of North Carolina...well, again, the answer won't make the conspiracy theorists happy...it's because, like most companies, they don't want to reveal their trade secrets and turn over their source code. Dugh...
It is spelled Duh! Not Dugh!
You know what's really funny tho is this guy Thought has beeen getting his tech news here thinking it was predominately conservative site apparently & acually felt comfortable posting a starement like that. LMFAO. He must feel totally alone now. HAHAHA
Notice to "sickboy:"
I am impressed by your knowledge of the spelling of the word "Duh"...you must use it a lot.
As to me thinking this to be a "conservative" site...no, I think of this site as one devoted to technology and gadgets.
As to me feeling alone...what a joke. I'm not so psychologically weak that I allow who agrees or disagrees with me in the public comments on a blog to determine how I emotionally secure I feel. In fact, quite frankly, I enjoy a good debate and probably enjoy it more when most people are arguing against me.
Please feel free to disagree with me substantively, but do yourself a favor and don't make yourself look foolish with your personal disparagements.
Richard: you are correct in that MS does show some of its source code for some of its software to some govt agencies and companies. I stand corrected.
I think this board has intertwined several issues.
My original point never has been that Diebold's software is necessarily without flaw, or that software for voting machines shouldn't be open source, or that the integrity of e-voting is not important.
My comments simply were that the comments of this "Dieb-throat" individual, as cited in the original story posted that is the basis for this thread, hinting at some sort of nefarious scheme by Diebolt management, were rather absurd and had the whiff of some dumb conspiracy theory.
From that the discussion evolved into numerous other issues, some irrelevant.
I have stated over and over that an examination of e-voting is entirely legitimate, and that even demanding open source software to be used is a legitimate point of view.
But where I object is to the villification of Diebold as this grand conspirator out to rule the world through voting machines.
I've talked about this on "the other" Engadget Diebold thread...
But in response to the voting machines being easily hackable:
Their CE-based ATMs don't have Administrator passwords. If they do, that password is 'diebold'. If that doesn't work for you, the username/password combination 'diebold'/'diebold' will surely work. If that also fails, you have the opportunity to try and exploit basically any of the countless Windows vulnerabilities that have come out in the -- LAST THREE YEARS -- because Diebold doesn't believe in patching their systems. I pen-test financial networks every day, have been doing so for the last five years. I run into Diebold ATMs on a daily basis, they're horrible. Consistently the worst "locked down" devices I see next to HP JetDirects.
Yeah yeah, that's nothing super-spectacular, but it should give you (Thought) an indication of the state of security in their devices. Their ATMs are undoubtedly just as bad, if not worse. From what the BBV people say, it is apparently worse -- I've never been able to get my hands on one, however.
Thought, there is no IP to protect here, it's an elementary tabulation system that reads input via a touch-screen. That's absurdly elementary, I could write that entire system -- AND make it distributed, secure and functional -- in mere weeks in my spare time. As a matter of fact, I think that'll be my next Ruby project. Ruby? Anyone? Voting system? Hit me up.
@Mike, GOP hackster and hatchet man
This isn't a "conspiracy", it was a simple security test performed by a prof and his students. You can find the details at blackboxvoting.org, as well as other examples of Diebold's craptacular security.
Or just continue being a tool.
Is there any computer security expert anywhere who thinks that
(1) Our current electronic voting system is secure, and
(2) It is unreasonable for Diebold to escrow source code to its customers?
Diebold can't even find computer professionals who will take their money and shill for them.
On the other hand, Ed Felten, Avi Rubin, David Dill...all security experts who think that Diebold's software is a steaming pile...the list goes on.
So STFU about politicization already, when the only relevant experts agree that the voting system is totally FUBAR.
nein: Exactly.
I was thinking use a TCPServer and a gpg-se wrapper, and call it a down.
Claiming "IP" protection is a joke.
#42:
(1): Laughably insecure perhaps. Like I've said, I test their ATMs and not the voting machines -- but if the ATMs are any indication -- the voting machines are indeed stinking piles.
(2): No I don't.
It's beyond FUBAR, somehow. If I was 16 again, it'd be enticing to show people how FUBAR it is. I'd rather not go to jail though, so I'll just wait for the new onslaught of script kids to do something stupid.
You know what the funny thing is about conspiracy theories? History shows a whole hell of a lot of them that turned out to not only be true, but almost always engineered by greedy politicians and business owners in pursuit of more power and money.
Another funny thing about the term "conspiracy theory" is that it's a term that was coined by those same greedy politicians and business owners while they were trying to cover their tracks.
Whenever the selfish people among us want to remove something they're doing from the spotlight, they whip out the words "conspiracy theory" and "tinfoil hat" as disparaging terms to discredit their accusers. It's a nice way to shift the focus: Call people crazy.
This has gone on for thousands of years. In the old days, they might have used "heretic" instead of "crazy" but it's all the same. When accused, level an accusation back at your accuser that makes people doubt him.
Thought is quite the student of this type of publicity.
"It would require this select group of evil company leaders who have this megalomaniac desire to control the country."
So...the Kool-Aid went down well, eh? You're the scary kind of American that feels better about thumping their chests than questioning the motives of their leaders. Republican AND Democrat. Admit your candidate is a criminal and vote yourself a better one during the primaries.
NO private company should be allowed to oversee voting. ESPECIALLY when the CEO promises to deliver a state to particular candidate. We need an independent body for oversight.
First I would like to point out that tallying votes is quite simply one of the easiest processes a computer can do.
So why all the secrecy and BS, this is not rocket science.
In case some of you hadn't noticed (and obviously many of you haven't) computers are capable of much more complex computations. Deibold is quite simply full of shiat.
I read a couple of these posts and some of you don't know what you're talking about.
2. Posted Dec 7, 2005, 10:45 AM ET by Thought
An analogy that compares the election of the leader of the last superpower to fizzy soda-pop. Yeah, real cute dumbass.
If you are doing work for the federal government, it is not assumed that you own it. In the defense industry for example, many companies work on projects for the government and they are required to turn over all of that information to the armed service the product is for.
You're on an Aegis Cruiser and you have a malfunction... What do you do? Call GE/Martin-Marietta 2. tech-support (or whomever builds the damned things now) to send out a guy from the company to fix it?
8. Posted Dec 7, 2005, 11:14 AM ET by Thought
To a software company its source code is its major asset...that is its product. It would be like asking a real estate company to allow the govt to hold its land in escrow, just in case something happened. It would be like asking an auto company to allow the govt to hold its factories in escrow, just in case something happened"
Man, you are in incredibly stupid person, and from here forward are forbidden to come up with your own, wildly inflated analogies.
Real Estate companies, land owners and developers have to submit plans detailing their plots of land, and building blueprints, building permits, follow zoning regulations etc... Car companies have to submit their designs for crash and other safety tests. So just WTF are you talking about???
All they wanted was a copy of the code so if there are any irregularities, they can easily find out why, without waiting for the company to submit the code AFTER the fact - read: With enough time to change the code.
Free market economy. Someone will come along with an honest product and gladly give over a copy in escrow and eat Diebolds lunch.
Again.. I think Deibold is full of crap, they're up to something, I am not convinced that it's some grand scheme, but I wonder when someone acts this suspicious.
We're talking about an audit here... not stealing trade secrets.
And for those who whine about defending them, there's something called a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Personally, I don't completely trust Diebold. After all, their executives are MAJOR contributors to the Republican party.
I have a feeling that this is a sign of things to come and that North Carolina won't be the first state to give them the boot.
I can only wonder
what "proprietary information" they are worried about. The
code for voting machines cannot be other than completely
trivial. Apart from a few error checks and making
sure voters don't vote more than once, it's just
adding up the numbers for each candidate on the slate.
Any secure networking functions that are not standard
should be made standard forthwith, and even if they are not now,
they would hardly be worthy of the "proprietary secrets"
excuse.
The Diebold software cannot possibly be complicated
enough to warrant preventing people from seeing the
code, unless it's the hooks and handles into the software,
that allow for easy vote manipulation, that they don't
want you to see.