Whistleblower: Diebold doesn’t care about election security

A whistleblower from within Diebold has come forward and stated that the company not only knows about security problems with its electronic voting machines and central tabulator software, it doesn’t really care.

In exclusive stunning admissions to The BRAD BLOG some 11 months after the 2004 Presidential Election, a “Diebold Insider’ is now finally speaking out for the first time about the alarming security flaws within Diebold, Inc’s electronic voting systems, software and machinery. The source is acknowledging that the company’s “upper management’ — as well as “top government officials’ — were keenly aware of the “undocumented backdoor’ in Diebold’s main “GEM Central Tabulator’ software well prior to the 2004 election. A branch of the Federal Government even posted a security warning on the Internet.

Pointing to a little-noticed “Cyber Security Alert’ issued by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the source inside Diebold — who “for the time being’ is requesting anonymity due to a continuing sensitive relationship with the company — is charging that Diebold’s technicians, including at least one of its lead programmers, knew about the security flaw and that the company instructed them to keep quiet about it.

“Diebold threatened violators with immediate dismissal,’ the insider, who we’ll call DIEB-THROAT, explained recently to The BRAD BLOG via email. “In 2005, after one newly hired member of Diebold’s technical staff pointed out the security flaw, he was criticized and isolated.’

In phone interviews, DIEB-THROAT confirmed that the matters were well known within the company, but that a “culture of fear’ had been developed to assure that employees, including technicians, vendors and programmers kept those issues to themselves. — The Brad Blog

I let you know back in June that the Diebold system was easily hacked; the hack was even demonstrated for the unbelievers.

As it turns out, the hack can be carried out by one person, and the results tampered with in such a way that the tampering is completely undetectable by normal canvassing procedures. The election results have never been in more doubt than now; this Diebold system simply cannot be trusted. — IO ERROR

Diebold continues to state publicly that its systems are secure, but the evidence against that claim is pretty overwhelming at this point.

(Hat tip one again to Bruce Schneier.)