We will. We won't. No, we will!
Excuse me while I reach for an aspirin, but this is the sort of thing that gives me a headache.
You may remember that voting machine maker Diebold last month went to court asking to be excused from part of the state's brand spanking new voting law.
Earlier this week, the judge, in effect, said "no, obey the law as written."
During and after the court heading Monday, Diebold's lawyers said they would be unable to bid on the state's voting machine contracts without the change to the law. They would withdraw from consideration, the lawyers said.
So who was approved as one of the three vendors allowed to sell voting machines in North Carolina next year?
Diebold.
And no, the law hasn't changed since Monday.
(Sequoia and ES&S were the other voting system makers approved.)
On hand at Thursday's Board of Election's hearing where this decision was made was Steve Metcalf, a lobbyist for the company. I asked him to sort things out for me.
"We're committed to North Carolina," he said. "We want to continue working with the board (of elections) to work out a solution to that issue."
What will be the solution?
Let me step back and summarize the problem. Diebold (as well as other voting system makers) use a combination of their own software as well as software churned out by third-party manufacturers. Diebold, for example, uses a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system to operate its voting terminals.
State law requires companies bidding on the state's voting machine business to fork over all the programming that makes their voting machines go. But Diebold said that it doesn't have the right to turn over source code that is the intellectual property of another company.
State officials said Thursday that anything the companies wrote would have to be compiled in an escrow house designated by the state. But third party software - think the Microsoft stuff - would just have to be escrowed somewhere. Much of the source code already is put in safe keeping, so it's just a matter of finding somewhere that it already resides and letting the state tap it if need be.
This solution is either a) elegant in that it meets potential needs and the letter of the law, or b) insufficient and setting us up for more problems. Depends on who you ask.
Joyce McCloy, who regular readers know works with NC Verified Voting, told the board that Diebold modifies the Windows software to a great extent and warned that what was in escrow elsewhere might not match what was on the machines.
Keith Long, a contractors working for the board, said that the state would be able to tell if Diebold changed the Microsoft source code. I'm still a bit fuzzy on what happens if they tinker with Windows but don't monkey directly with the source code.
All of this, I expect, will lead to a county-by-county debate over whether folks ought to be using Diebold systems or not.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Doesn't anyone care that Diebold was decertified in California for lying to the secretary of state? Over uncertified (illegal) software patches?
Or that their newest machine still is banned and over $20 Million worth are being warehoused while California tries to figure out how to make them less radioactive?
Or that a former Diebold employee (2002-2005)
Keith Long is overseeing the RFP process, and is giving our SBOE advice?
Mr. Long cites on his resume that he directed the successful installation of 22,000 Diebold machines in Georgia in 2002. It wasn't so successful, uncertified (illegal) software patches were added to the Windows CE operating system at the last minute. Some machines were "lost". There was a long punch list of problems with the machines.
Mr. Long also helped Maryland install their Diebold machines, and those were on lock down for several months earlier this year because of a failure rate over 10%.
see
www.blackboxvoting.com for the blogs on Diebold and Keith Long,
also see http://www.votersunite.org/info/Dieboldinthenews.pdf
for a 22 page partial list of problems with diebold, as documented in the news.
Posted on December 1, 2005 8:20 PM
This is one of those issues (especially as it relates to Diebold) that I wish I had more time to get personally involved with. But, since I don't, I'm gratefull to Mark for keeping us informed and to Joyce for watching out for the interests of the people. Thank you both and don't stop doing what you're doing.
Posted on December 1, 2005 9:54 PM
LIES: METCALF AND KEITH LONG:
"But Diebold said that it doesn't have the right to turn over source code that is the intellectual property of another company."
RESPONSE: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/GSP.mspx
New - Microsoft Office 2003 Source Code
On Monday, September 20, Microsoft announced the extension of the Government Security Program (GSP) to include Microsoft Office 2003 source code. Governments participating in the GSP may now review the source code for Word 2003, Excel 2003, PowerPoint® 2003, Outlook® 2003 and Office 2003 shared applications such as draw and search.
Top of page
Overview
The Government Security Program (GSP) is a crucial element of Microsoft's efforts to address the unique security requirements of governments around the world. The GSP provides national governments with information to help them evaluate the security of Microsoft products. In 2001, Microsoft launched the Shared Source Initiative, expanding its long-standing efforts to make Windows source code more transparent to industry partners and customers. A year later, the company announced its Trustworthy Computing Initiative, placing security at the core of all Windows development efforts. The principles of these two critical directives are embodied in the GSP, a program built upon the cornerstones of transparency and partnership.
Posted on December 3, 2005 12:01 AM
Marsha: I've read that and a few other licensing agreements from Microsoft. I've also spoken with a couple lawyers about their first blush reading of those agreements.
As of Friday, there weren't any of us convinced that they would have given Diebold the authority to escrow the code in question. Whether the company could have or not, or the state could have found/needed to find an other workaround or not, remains an open question I think.
Posted on December 4, 2005 7:41 PM