MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-12-02 |
| FROM | From:
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Another Blow to E-VotingCompany
|
Another Blow to E-VotingCompany
Associated Press09:26 AM Nov. 29, 2005 PT
One of the nation's leading suppliersof electronic voting machines maydecide against selling new equipmentin North Carolina after a judgedeclined Monday to protect it fromcriminal prosecution should it fail todisclose software code as requiredby state law.Diebold Inc., which makes automatedteller machines and security andvoting equipment, is worried it couldbe charged with a felony if officialsdetermine the company failed tomake all of its code — some of whichis owned by third-party softwarefirms, including Microsoft —available for examination byelection officials in case of a votingmishap.The requirement is part of theminimum voting equipmentstandards approved by statelawmakers earlier this year followingthe loss of more than 4,400electronic ballots in Carteret Countyduring the November 2004 election.The lost votes threw at least oneclose statewide race intouncertainty for more than twomonths.About 20 North Carolina countiesalready use Diebold votingmachines, and the State Board ofElections plans to announceThursday the suppliers that meetthe new standards. Local electionsboards will be allowed to purchasevoting machines from the approvedvendors."We will obviously have noalternative but withdraw from theprocess," said Doug Hanna, aRaleigh-based lawyer representingDiebold.David Bear, a Diebold spokesman,said the company was reviewingseveral options after Monday'sruling. "We're going to do what isnecessary to provide what is bestfor our existing clients" in NorthCarolina, he said.The dispute centers on the state'srequirement that suppliers place inescrow "all software that is relevantto functionality, setup,configuration and operation of thevoting system," as well as a list ofprogrammers responsible forcreating the software.That's not possible for Diebold'smachines, which use MicrosoftWindows, Hanna said. The companydoes not have the right to provideMicrosoft's code, he said, adding itwould be impossible to provide thenames of every programmer whoworked on Windows.The State Board of Elections has toldpote!
ntial su
ppliers to provide codefor all available software and explainwhy some is unavailable. That's notenough of an assurance for Diebold,which remains concerned aboutbreaking a law that's punishable by alow-grade felony and a civil penaltyof up to $100,000 per violation."You cannot have a statute thatimposes a criminal violation ...without being clear about whatconduct will submit you to a criminalviolation," Hanna said.But because no one has yet toaccuse Diebold of breaking the law,Wake County Superior Court JudgeNarley Cashwell declined to issue aninjunction that would have protectedthe company from prosecution.Cashwell also declined to offer aninterpretation of the law that wouldhave allayed Diebold's concerns."We need to comply with the literallanguage and the statute," Cashwellsaid. "I don't think we have an issuehere yet."Diebold machines were blamed forvoting disruptions in a Californiaprimary election last year. Californiahas refused to certify somemachines because of theirmalfunction rate. California officialshave agreed to let a computerexpert attempt to hack into Dieboldmachines to examine how securethey are.On Monday, California Secretary ofState Bruce McPherson said hisoffice might seek to expand suchtesting to all systems seekingcertification for use in California's 58counties.
|
|
