この記事を共有しなさい: これらのアイコンは読者が新しいWebページを共有し、発見できる社会的なしおりの場所につながる。

壊れる機械Pennslvaniaの検数で使用されるべきそれらと同じように

貝折れ釘のブログ セコイア投票システム」プリンストンのコンピュータ・サイエンス教授に対する法的脅威

ニュージャージー 選挙の役人は外見上彼らの意図されていた効果をもたらした。 腕ずくの電子メールは教授にエドFelten送り、アンドリューAppelに連合郡、ニュージャージーの2月5日極度の火曜日の選挙の後で最初にセコイアのAVCの利点のtouch-screenの投票機械の検数の失敗を発見した事務員Joanne Rajoppiへの2ページの手紙が外見上同伴した。 同じ間違いは少なくとも5つの他の郡で続いて発見された。

Mercer 郡 それらはきちんと働くこと会社が確信していればtouch-screen投票機械の独立した分析を妨げるセコイアの決定が意味を成していないように事務員Paula Sollami-Covelloはニュージャージーの時に言う。

“I think it’s unfortunate that they’re not letting an independent investigation take place,” Sollami-Covello tells the paper this morning. “They should have no problem with having a third party investigate the product if they are confident in their product.”

Another Mercer County, NJ, official sent a letter to the state Attorney General criticizing Sequoia’s bizarre explanation for failures discovered in the systems following state’s recent Primary Election, characterizing what he describes as the company’s “strange, confusing solution.” He said the company’s explanation for the problem, which succeeded in blaming voters and poll workers as usual, was based on a “bizarre scenario, with no cited evidence or testimony” to back it up. . .

Amazingly (or perhaps, not so much at this point), Union County’s attorneys folded to the pressure from the company, which claimed that Election Officials in NJ ― who spent millions on the voting systems ― are not legally allowed to examine them independently because “the voting machine software is a Sequoia ‘trade secret’ and cannot be handed over to any third-party.”

Fear of a lawsuit from Sequoia, which will also control the state’s elections in an upcoming June primary, as well as the November general election, has led to county attorneys backing down from their plans for the time being, unless the state AG jumps in to take action.

In the threatening email from Smith to the

Princeton professors sent last Friday, the company executive threatened legal action if a “non-compliant analysis” of their voting systems was carried out. “We will also take appropriate steps to protect against any publication of Sequoia software, its behavior, reports regarding same or any other infringement of our intellectual property,” Smith warned. . .

A Sequoia executive, Edwin Smith, put Union County Clerk Joanne Rajoppi on notice that an independent analysis would violate the licensing agreement between his firm and the county. In a terse two-page letter, Smith also argued the voting machine software is a Sequoia “trade secret” and cannot be handed over to any third-party.

Rutgers University law professor Penny Venetis stated what should be quite obvious in the Star-Ledger article today. . . “We shouldn’t have a corporation dictating how elections are run in the state,” Venetis said. “If an elected official believes there was an anomaly and the matter has to be investigated, then the official should be able to consult with computer experts without interference.”

Livermore Laboratory’s computer scientist David Jefferson jumped in to comment on our story yesterday, which included the full threatening email sent to the Princeton Professors, in order to note the importance of such a test being carried out on New Jersey’s Sequoia machines prior to the use of the very same systems next month in

Pennsylvania.

“We have only a matter of weeks before the Pennsylvania primary in which the same machines will be used in Philadelphia, and only a few months more until the general election,”

Jefferson wrote. “This bug (and any others discovered) must be fixed.”

USA News Voting Section has more related reports

Help keep RINF going..

Comment on 'VOTING COMPANY BULLIES ELECTION OFFICIALS' :

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Related News:

California Limits E-Voting

E-voting hacks to get Capitol Hill spotlight

Most vote machines lose test to hackers

Ohio voting machines have critical flaws

20 percent of election printouts were unreadable