meta-roj

after this post i intended to do a full measure of homework on the subject of diebold and the voting machines that cannot work. this is an important story, but a convoluted one, and i can’t hope to catch up anytime soon. instead, i’ll drop in a “starter” syllabus, make my comments and let this thing unfold into the future…

back in september, there wasn’t a whole lot of traction for this issue, i’m glad it’s picking up. i’m right on the front line of people who may or may not actually get a vote with these diebold boxes.

as mentioned, this got my attention with the hopkins report and the fact that the state of maryland was pushing toward a statewide, $55.6 million contract for diebold machines. to briefly follow that up, the state asked for an independent review of the hopkins findings. science applications international decided that most of the issues could be “lessened.” with that report [pdf], the governor authorized the purchase of the machines. most recently, a couple legislators have asked for a follow-up review. lots of interesting details, but apparently the first saic report “never considered the option of buying different machines.” that’s the local/personal issue. that’s how i got involved.

as is the case with most corporate criticism, i think it’s important to start with the company itself and see what they are about. (it’s not much good to criticize a company that makes lumber for chopping down trees…) about us – the brand (diebold website). “We won’t rest until we measurably improve the extent to which our customers’ customers are delighted with our self-service and security solutions; and we measurably improve the effectiveness and profitability of our customers’ business.”

now that we have a good, solid corporate policy to start with, here’s what’s going on (some random links, slashdot links because they bring with them a lot more links)… go ahead – do some background reading and come back – or just skip ahead…

diebold issues cease and disist to indymedia (slashdot)
evoting patches skew election? (slashdot)
evote firm seeks voter approval (wired)
md. democrats want outside voting machine audit (washington post, registration maybe)
targeting diebold with electronic civil disobedience (why war?)
to win contract, diebold offers the state a carrot (cleveland plain dealer)
diebold memos disclose florida 2000 e-voting fraud (scoop, new zealand)

apparently, diebold “won’t rest” until nobody’s asking questions. i don’t think people are going to stop asking questions now.

it’s also very disturbing to me that more academics and internet service providers aren’t sticking their necks out in the name of american democracy. you are in this too. swarthmore college, and dean robert “we can’t get out in front in this fight against diebold” gross should be ashamed. this isn’t a fight against diebold, this is a fight for functional elections. if you can’t get “out in front” on that issue, in this country, you have no business being an “educator” or “role model.” i’ll put this in simple terms, despite being loathe to make this personal: you, sir, are a coward. stand up for a principle and lead by following your students.

shame on the isps and institutions that are caving at the first hint of law firm letterhead. you should know better. in case you needed the clue, i’m here to buy it for you. as people and as corporate citizens in the united states of america, you have a responsibility, and you’re not living up to it.

now, on to the whipping-boy company of the hour. diebold.

founded in 1859, this is a company that is built, entirely, on reputation. 144 years of building confidence have gone into this corporate entity. i haven’t gone over the whole corporate history, but one thing that did get my attention was that in 2001, diebold was awarded a contract to secure the constitution, bill of rights and the declaration of independence. the pieces of paper which define our form of government are nice, and certainly worth protecting. but the principles are more important, and are abstract so they can’t be locked in vaults with fancy alarms. diebold was [apparently] doing pretty good until it decided to acquire global election systems in 2002. now, more because of how they’ve responded to the situation than the situation itself, diebold is on the permanent list of bad corporate citizens.

diebold may be forgiven for being a “greedy corporation” and pulling every string they had available to win contracts, but they should never be forgiven for compromising the voting process in america with one hand while taking money to lock up the founding documents with the other. they may be forgiven for not realizing they were buying a company (global election systems) with flawed machines, but they should not be forgiven for compromising their 144-year reputation of trust by attempting to whitewash and backpedal once the flaws were identified. finally, voting is the most precious thing we do in this country, and they should never be forgiven for being anything less than fully transparent when it comes to their role in the process.

diebold, you swallowed a poison pill. we tried to save you from yourself. to induce vomiting, as it were, and get you to come clean. you had the chance to come clean and do the right thing and fix this mess. you had the resources. when the light shone on you, you ran for the shadows. much like sunncomm, you picked the wrong tool. you let lawyers run your policy and tried to get back a secret. you compromised your corporate vision (such as it was) and reputation (such as it will never be again) in pursuit of short-term opportunity.

put your lawyers on the folks at global election systems that sold you the broken systems. put your lawyers on yourselves for not doing enough homework to know you your boxes were compromised. it’s too late to redeem yourself in my eyes, but maybe you can save something.

this light will get hotter on diebold. the mainstream media will bring resources to this story. we (the voters) are not delighted. diebold should not be trusted.

update (2004.11.17): metafilter has a bit on the constitution contract.