[CAVO] Memo - FYI

Mon Jan 9 15:33:13 UTC 2017

*Security memo from the computer science community*
It should be stated clearly that of this date the President of The United
States, the President-elect, nor members of the intelligence community have
adequately addressed the issue of vote count tampering within the United
States and have failed to specifically address the issues surrounding the
2016 Presidential election.
https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/po...
<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ficontherecord.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F155494946443%2Fodni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence&h=ATPwnGcDr0ybmNbaRERXqlrCTr53oM67cr9AyqIw8UqeZJEWixLdzV4DvAxDkQHMuybZ59nw1Cpy89RbApl1tBCqgHgc2YGsKfnyKa2JSZ0LDzrc1qjhjxH15g3ln3lDAkD_mfGG5GvukkerwpGk&s=1>
With recent statements coming from the United States government ( as well
as pundits ) it is incumbent upon the scientific community to issue
statement. This recent statement serves as foundation on point. In summary,
due to the “ privatized / corporate “ technology utilized by the current
voting systems and the surrounding intellectual property protections, it is
currently unknown whether or not, or to what degree, the 2016 Presidential
election accurately reflected the will of the American people.
http://navo-us.org/PDFS/2016-electi...
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnavo-us.org%2FPDFS%2F2016-election-not-democratic.pdf&h=ATPLpA-N1bTNN2yvg-82s_gMTd4bzz-W3Zh4R0D0fOOhSPc8tYzOw_UdUMvfQ2Im-WIqY1xoR4-myNACJ5lEP85dRplDAKmnKmdQReROBwBmxuxoM4xvXhn5RMzMUk2mJksluTw_NWqnZEiE1yzF&s=1>
ELECTION SYSTEM SECURITY ISSUES-
For many years the “intellectual property “ software purveyors contended “
security by obscurity “ was the optimal security practice. In other words,
the corporate owned “ secret “ code was appropriate for elections.. as the
hacker would not be able to penetrate the “ Diebold type” fortress. This is
now recognized as a hoax.
The 2000 Bush v Gore “ Hanging Chad “ incident .. . This failure to achieve
a precise vote count set off a series of policy and environmental disasters
that has kept the modern world reeling to the current moment . Still now,
in 2017, the current state of election systems, though shifted to
electronic versions, used for casting votes and counting votes has been
concluded by government study ( California Secretary of State “ Top to
Bottom Review “ to be deficient and INSECURE. This is not a “ conspiracy
theory “ but rather science. The systems run on buggy Microsoft platforms
and vendor created “ secret “ software with intellectual property
protections. This environment creates a system that is not properly coined
“ rigged “ but rather “ riggable “ In other words, it is stipulated that
with the current voting systems, a bad actor could manipulate the results
without detection. The foremost threat would not necessarily be from a
foreign “ hacker “ , but more obviously from an “ insider ‘ with access to
the system and / or it’s software code. Obviously either scenario strikes
to the heart of our democracy and statement or effort to deny this science
is detrimental to the American people. http://www.sos.ca.gov/election
s/vot...
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.ca.gov%2Felections%2Fvoting-systems%2Foversight%2Ftop-bottom-review%2F&h=ATN-9uHWqA9UdNoILQ1L869ZBfJCae1Aw0iCqBnAyxIj-yqanHCFCk0gzvRks-yKqHNUsXMSS2vvIAup5P7IDeaI65R1M5cyrqlRkuc3QT2S5BTHOIK87z_tB93t4S_tDmekll8_iKT90fkArK-u&s=1>
HOW DID WE GET HERE ? - The current systems were cobbled together in a
hurry to capture funding from the 2002 Help America Vote Act ( HAVA ) . A
handful of companies, some with nefarious backgrounds and convicted
criminal participants, received 4.5 BILLION dollars to provide voting
systems to the U.S. jurisdictions. These systems were flawed in their
design and security The Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) attempted
to provide remedy to this crisis by advising the National Science
Foundation ( NSF ) on a project ( ACCURATE - http://accurate-voting.org/
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Faccurate-voting.org%2F&h=ATMpaJ_q34S07jFcZ57wXRy7fqMcdR0GjzcFtbmvBdNLjf4zMEs33Wlu3SARcyOMZfoGcR3riFDeSrcNoM94ts3h_kGogYqOqfq5R3T5lg2BNGRW9TfBKpkFTKXm_FQFXppF4l1TupUyN-a2betV&s=1>
) but open source technology / best design direction was rejected and that
7.5 million dollars yielded no corrective results. The battle between the
“open source “ scientists and those working to retain the status quo of
vendor controlled proprietary systems had begun.
MICROSOFT’S ROLE- The agenda of Microsoft and the Intellectual Property
lobbyist community is well documented. The protection of routine sales to
the public and private sectors being paramount, Microsoft and it’s aligned
proprietary voting system vendors donate to both political parties and are
well skilled in “ black -ops “. They have inserted themselves into the
political arena as well as the “social justice“ space via contributions and
leverage. Their lobbyists have been very heavy handed applying pressure to
thwart best security solutions, with their main target to delay the
implementation of publicly owned “open source“ voting systems . The
proprietary community does not wish for open source progress to infringe
upon their “ gravy train “ Also it should be noted that the same groups
that absorb the grant monies and have relationships with the political
parties also control the activist conversation -
http://cavo-us.org/matrix.pdf
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcavo-us.org%2Fmatrix.pdf&h=ATNcupy1yfih9KnjrSogTfkR2B0Vla65TrVpk8IttDH4Q8yU0m9JNmhsXJWQ_uBLU9fkShpA69-b0gYiN80iuVQCOO7liq1ywWKbYSNS617hWJV9dpfgM8XhjOurKum2yQqPOr1-Jra0IiHTwPoF&s=1>
WHAT IS “ PUBLICLY OWNED “ ? Open source software is defined as “denoting
software for which the original source code is made freely available and
may be redistributed and modified. “ ( further definition at
www.opensource.org
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensource.org%2F&h=ATMg_acbhGb7Nf4u4PgrXFT_FdyLR0XXDSUC2v4RPyk5fG3g9COVcCWsuViaoNcoD8obDTqHdmW18VAGCxiPnNM8Gv59hCTQ53_oaMLFM4yLxtSNLVD9Ni82lAn4ssx_yImobjQ46mODDxOb7_nA&s=1>
) In a nutshell, open source allows a community of proof-reading “ eyes on
the code “ .. and creates an environment where the process is no longer “
faith based “. Some Microsoft allies like to inject a response to a
conjured up statement that has never been made .. i.e. “ Open Source is NO
panacea “.. Open source is merely a necessary component to a proper voting
system.. as the alternative is secrecy and corporate control.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Voting-Vulnerabilit
y-Could-Open-Source-Computer-Code-Thwart-Threat-from-Hackers-395867861.html
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcbayarea.com%2Finvestigations%2FVoting-Vulnerability-Could-Open-Source-Computer-Code-Thwart-Threat-from-Hackers-395867861.html&h=ATMbzmKEavkpREVhpCym-gjc5gj-Qn_gqpha7v8reYz9PejhmsCh9npEEbicYOBYm47pRoINSS5vzCEY_R62lJM53iiAmJVmxtBA5FSugdmGY1rfy0BX1Vswfm1PLlCWThtm0ywwzCCUyHhNd-kz&s=1>
A publicly owned voting system is a security upgrade as the transparency of
“ knowing “ is preferable to “ trusting “. and it is stipulated an open
source system must be surrounded by best security practices and procedures
( as open source is not a “ panacea “ ) to gain CAVO certification -
www.cavo-us.org
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cavo-us.org%2F&h=ATOqSgf1SO-BuUfq1mrGdcvHi0GjnpuOrvx9-j4IflgX-5yBws5L3T3ZHNRV-iMCboXIQrv6oun9GakwyxkxbGXT_JqcBAJ97b0HnhJHUXEnnhWrr14Pf-84Ae2DrDg6C2Tspj8LH4gTx4L86rw3&s=1>
.
SOLUTION CURRENTLY DEPLOYED -Here is an example of an appropriately
designed system that runs on appropriately secure software-
https://vimeo.com/99856962
<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F99856962&h=ATPQrvETClOZ0mQdnoR-hBk0T_yWEwP8rGDJTxlj9TksXDugjfy9ut35inwHzGjf6matZdbTXIJnKTOc0a2cysrH4faVHM0oKZqPkKd1X5TtXarCJauPvrxybZkVMpfCK9mRZEV81cM5T1qnnbk9&s=1>.
This was slated for use in Wisconsin but unfortunately was shelved after
the politicians were lobbied by intellectual property interests. Currently
New Hampshire is the only state using this secure system, albeit only
partially. New Hampshire still needs to complete the tabulation portion of
the former “ Prime lll” system,now called the “ All For One “ system.
SOLUTIONS COMING AVAILABLE. San Francisco County in California recently
began funding of an open source election system. The hoped for design is a
paper ballot printing system that tenders a perfectly marked printed
ballot. The software should be General Public License ( GPL v3) open source
( to be differentiated from “open wash “ newer licenses currently emerging
) . The hardware should be commercial off the shelf tablets and printers.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/02/09...
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fww2.kqed.org%2Fnews%2F2016%2F02%2F09%2Fs-f-officials-push-for-adoption-of-pioneering-open-source-voting-system%2F&h=ATNnzB-39NKDJWxyrYV6QpVPJU4N3qjz1aP2O8gVqYTeIMz_A1sQnD5Ddos2enauMi_xIUXFAjyT0qlWGQc940-HSZUfg_OWLQWpl1g05yNYPXUOzn046fqC4s6yKBv00IJwaJXF3BIeqlqXw8NK&s=1>
There are now other projects, including Los Angeles and Texas, purporting
to be open source, but there is concern about those projects and
Microsoft’s involvement. Election rights activists are “ watch-dogging “
those projects currently. Once California has a suitable system certified ,
it will be likely be utilized by all states as a less expensive / more
secure model. . Currently the proprietary vendors are rushing to sell US
jurisdictions another round of the insecure systems previous to the
certification of an open source system.
The general population is now well aware of the defective systems.. so
purporting the systems to be secure triggers more and more suspicion. The
best method now is to move quickly forward with the available open source
technology to create and deploy publicly owned systems - The U.S.
government-- from the White House ( Office of Science and Technology Policy
as well as Cyber-security ) to the Congress- Secretaries of States- State
and County Election Officials as well as DOD / DNI/ DHS etc.. have all been
briefed. Now it is merely an issue of ” political will” . With the recent
classification of election systems as “ critical infrastructure “ by the
Department of Homeland Security there is renewed hope that political will
can be garnered and funding of secure-publicly owned - open source- voting
systems obtained.

Brent Turner

650-726-1133
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170109/08316b98/attachment.html>