|
Diebold, Incorporated today issued the following statement
regarding the voting system report issued by Johns Hopkins University
Updated 7/25/03, 10:00 AM, ET
NORTH CANTON, Ohio -- Johns Hopkins University issued a report on electronic
voting systems on July 23. We respectfully disagree with the researchers’
fundamental conclusions. It is unfortunate that the Johns Hopkins researchers
did not involve us or the election community in their analysis, including the
Federal Election Commission, which sets standards that all election processes
must follow; the federal certification independent testing authorities, which
tests and impose the standards; Secretaries of State and/or State Boards of
Elections, which control the voting process within their states and the county
election authorities. These entities would have added important real-world
experience to their analysis. In addition, the study did not use our current
software code. The code was also analyzed without knowledge of the voting
machine hardware in which it is used in actual elections, which caused them to
draw many incorrect inferences.
By
their own admission in Section 1.3 of the study, the researchers “have not
independently verified the current or past use of the code by Diebold or that
the code (we) analyzed is actually Diebold code.” It is also important to note
that the clinical research focused almost solely on software code, and
overlooked the total system of software, hardware, services and election
processes that have made Diebold electronic voting systems so effective in
real-world implementations. For example, the study cites Microsoft Windows
communications weaknesses which have been widely publicized over the past
several years. These weaknesses only apply if the voting terminals are
connected to the Internet or some other public network. This is NEVER the
case. As the terminals are not connected to such a network, there are no
opportunities to exploit these weaknesses even if they exist. In addition, many
of the published weaknesses have to do with Internet browsers, e-mail programs
and other Internet related applications. No Diebold elections terminals use any
of these applications.
Our
elections systems products and services undergo a series of certification
processes, which are conducted by federal, state and local officials, including
logic and accuracy testing, and represent a sequence of security layers in place
within the elections process for actual elections. We welcome the chance to
work directly with Johns Hopkins, its research team and other objective
electronic voting experts to continue to ensure the integrity of the voting
process.
America’s elections history has been one of continuous improvement, and Diebold
has been at the forefront of creating standardized systems that ensure the
highest degree of accuracy and integrity for voters, elected officials and a
wide variety of electoral jurisdictions. Our track record is exemplary as
illustrated by the recent streamlined elections in Georgia, California and
Maryland, among other locations. We currently have more than 50,000 electronic
voting units installed throughout the United States. |
|