A report released earlier this month details what experts say are the most serious electronic voting machine flaws ever documented. We speak with David Dill, a computer science professor at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org as well as a former Utah county clerk who was forced out after having Diebold voting machines independently tested in his county.

A report released earlier this month details what experts are saying are the most serious electronic voting machine flaws ever documented. The author of the report is Harri Hursti. He is a Finnish security expert who analyzed Diebold voting machines for an organization called Black Box Voting. Hursti wrote in the report that the defects in the machines could "cast a serious question over the integrity of the vote” and that “someone could attack the system to selectively disenfranchise groups of voters through denial of service.”

Though the report has received considerable attention, less known is about how the report came to light. Back in March, Bruce Funk, the County Clerk of Emery County, Utah, asked Black Box Voting to analyze Diebold machines the county was considering implementing. When the flaws were exposed, representatives from the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s office, state elections officials and the Attorney General’s office flew into Emery to meet with Funk. They were accompanied by representatives from Diebold who threatened the county with punitive actions for testing their equipment. Bruce Funk was forced to resign.

* Bruce Funk, former County Clerk of Emery County, Utah.
* Professor David Dill, professor of computer science at Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org.
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../05/31/1330240

Please spread around the web---It's not fox baby!

Little problem with credibility here, buddy!

David L. Dill
David L. Dill is a Professor of Computer Science and, by courtesy, Electrical Engineering at Stanford University. He has been on the faculty at Stanford since 1987. He has an S.B. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979), and an M.S and Ph.D. from Carnegie-Mellon University (1982 and 1987).

Prof. Dill has research interests in a variety of areas, including computational systems biology and the theory and application of formal verification techniques to system designs, including hardware, protocols, and software. He has also done research in asynchronous circuit verification and synthesis, and in verification methods for hard real-time systems. He was the Chair of the Computer-Aided Verification Conference held at Stanford University in 1994. From July 1995 to September 1996, he was Chief Scientist at 0-In Design Automation.

Prof. Dill's Ph.D. thesis, "Trace Theory for Automatic Hierarchical Verification of Speed Independent Circuits" was named as a Distinguished Dissertation by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and published as such by M.I.T. Press in 1988. He was the recipient of an Presidential Young Investigator award from the National Science Foundation in 1988, and a Young Investigator award from the Office of Naval Research in 1991. He has received Best Paper awards at International Conference on Computer Design in 1991 and the Design Automation Conference in 1993 and 1998. He was named a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 2001 for his contributions to verification of circuits and systems, and a Fellow of the ACM in 2005 for contributions to system verification and for leadership in the development of verifiable voting systems.
http://verify.stanford.edu/dill/

So now (in your mind) a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University is not credible.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../05/31/1330240


Idiot, partisan BS at its finest.

National Enquirer-esque writing.



Nevermind though, it's exactly the kind of stuff you LOVE.

Everything is partisan. Show me where there is no bias.

Oh yeah I forgot, every night on Hannity and Colmes.

Never watch them anymore. It's a stupid show.

Hannity kicks Colmes' butt & the guy just takes it.


Stupid, stupid show.


So what's your point?

I don't think that such a thing as an unbiased news source exists.

PBS is the closest thing we have in America to an unbiased news source.

If ratings were not allowed to be applied to news we would all be much, much better off in my opinion.

That's why I go for the quick fix. I don't try to get much beyond the headlines so I don't have to deal with biases. The only problem with that is that what makes the headlines is affected by political bias. Just something one has to deal with I suppose.

WHY INDEPENDENT MEDIA ?

For true democracy to work, people need easy access to independent, diverse sources of news and information.

But the last two decades have seen unprecedented corporate media consolidation. The U.S. media was already fairly homogenous in the early 80s: some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing and film. In the year 2000, just six corporations dominated the U.S. media.

In addition, corporate media outlets in the U.S. are legally responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits.

And U.S. “public” media outlets accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Every Corporation for Public Broadcasting board member is appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate.

Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, donations from corporations, or donations from governments. This allows us to maintain our independence.
http://www.democracynow.org/about.shtml