HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Voting
Machine Fiasco:
SAIC,
VoteHere and Diebold
by
Lynn Landes
August
19, 2003
The
voting machine wars are heating up and the implications of vote fraud in
America are even more ominous.
Computer
scientist Avi Rubin, whose Johns Hopkins University team found serious flaws in
Diebold Election Systems software abruptly resigned from VoteHere, another
election software company.
In
a related story, on August 6th Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) gave
a contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to review
the Diebold Election System's software in preparation for elections in
Maryland. The report is due in four weeks.
Avi
Rubin announced today his resignation from VoteHere, an elections systems
company. His statement reads:
"Effective immediately, I am resigning from the Technical Advisory Board
of VoteHere, and I am returning all stock options, which have never been
exercised, and which are not entirely vested." Unexercised stock options
may be the least of Rubin's problems.
Rubin's
relationship with VoteHere was a surprise to many.
He
does not list the affiliation on his website that features an extensive and
detailed listing of his work. In fact, Rubin's announcement appears to be in
response to an interview with this reporter regarding questions about his
affiliation with VoteHere.
In
his statement today, Rubin says, "...I had not had any contact with
VoteHere since I signed on to their board over 2 years ago, and I simply did
not remember nor think about it. In hindsight, that is very unfortunate."
And
that, as they say, is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
VoteHere
is being sued by its former engineer, Dan Spillane, for wrongfully firing him
in retaliation to his repeated warnings of potential defects in voting software
applications and in the certification process.
SAIC
is a behemoth military defense contractor with a shadowy, if not tarnished,
reputation, while former SAIC executives also have ties to VoteHere. Why is
that important? VoteHere is a growing company, which aspires to provide
cryptography and computer software security for the electronic election
industry.
Former
President, Chief Operating Officer, and Vice Chairman of SAIC is Admiral Bill
Owens, who is now Chairman of the Board for VoteHere. Owens also served as Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was a senior military assistant to
Secretaries of Defense Frank Carlucci and Dick Cheney. Carlucci's company is
Carlyle Group, while Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer is
Halliburton.
Another
former SAIC board member, also on the board of VoteHere, is ex-CIA director
Robert Gates, a veteran of the Iran/Contra scandal.
VoteHere
is already benefiting from the Diebold debacle, as it will be partnering with
Sequoia Voting Systems, "to provide a new level of electronic ballot
verification to customers of the AVC Edge touch screen voting system,"
according to the VoteHere website.
SAIC,
which is supposed to vet Diebold's elections software, is itself in the
elections business.
On
a webpage of Diversified Dynamics (recently purchased by Northrop Grumman), a
1998 legal notice states, "Diversified Dynamics has brought the election
process to the technological level of the new millennium by designing the
world's most advanced electronic vote recording and election management system.
We were supported in this effort by the engineering and software capabilities
of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a world leader in
systems development and integration."
All
of the above companies are military defense contractors as well as information
technology (IT) firms, whose clients include state governments and federal
agencies.
Is
it a conflict of interest when an industry insider reviews the software of a
competitor?
Yes.
However, these conflicts of interest may not necessarily discredit the Johns
Hopkins report. The basic tenet of the report is true, say many computer
experts who have reviewed Diebold's software. It is riddled with back doors
that can be easily opened, an "open door" so to speak to vote fraud.
It does, however, bring into question some of the conclusions of the report.
For
example, computer voting expert Dr. Rebecca Mercuri has made it clear that
although a machine may be used to produce a paper ballot, the ballot itself
must be voter-verified and "hand counted" in order to ensure
integrity to the voting process. In an interview with this reporter, Rubin said
that he's "against" electronic voting. However, in the Hopkins
report, the authors use language that indicates that they believe that paper
ballots should be used for audits or recounts only.
It
should be also noted that the handicapped are being used by the election
services industry to push for mandated electronic voting, and the Hopkins
report strongly supports this strategy, "A voting system must be
comprehensible to and usable by the entire voting population, regardless of
age, infirmity, or disability."
That's
code for "electronic voting is the only way to go." Tell that to the
Canadians and other countries around the world that hold elections, which
include the handicapped, without a Pandora's Box of electronic wizardry.
Meanwhile
SAIC is a piece of work all by itself.
"The
federal government, its main customer, often doesn't want the public to know
what the company [SAIC] is doing and, as one of the nation's largest
employee-owned corporations, it escapes investor scrutiny," writes AP
correspondent Elliot Spagat, in a July 26, 2003 article.
J.
Robert Beyster founded SAIC on February 3, 1969, "with a couple of
consulting contracts, one from Los Alamos and one from Brookhaven National
Labs," according to the SAIC website. Today, SAIC has racked up more than
$5.9 billion in annual revenues.
Bev
Harris and her investigative team have dug up some interesting facts about
SAIC. It seems that SAIC has had its share of legal troubles.
In
a 1995 article in the Web Review, editor Stephen Pizzo paints a disturbing
picture of SAIC. "In 1990 SAIC was indicted by the Justice Department on
10 felony counts for fraud in its management of a Superfund toxic cleanup site.
(SAIC pleaded guilty.)
In
1993 the Justice Department sued SAIC, accusing it of civil fraud on an F15
fighter contract.
In
May 1995, the same month SAIC purchased NSI (Network Solutions Inc.), the
company settled a suit that charged it had lied about security system tests it
conducted for a Treasury Department currency plant in Fort Worth, TX."
According
to a January 1994 article in the highly regarded Crypt Newsletter, edited by
George Smith, "In 1992 one of Scientific Applications (SAIC) government
projects blew up in the firm's face when it was charged with fabricating
environmental testing from toxic waste dumps. SAIC eventually conceded to false
claims and paid $1.3 million in penalties, a small sum compared to the
estimated $1.5 billion the firm is expected to earn in 1994.
The
Los Angeles Times cites government officials declaring Science Applications
(SAIC) guilty of the "largest environmental fraud . . . we've had
here" and an example of "corporate greed."
On
November 15, 2000, a joint venture between SAIC and Bechtel (Bechtel SAIC
Company, LLC) was awarded the contract from the Department of Energy (DOE) to
manage and operate the Yucca Mountain program and support extensive DOE studies
of Yucca Mountain's geology, hydrology, and climate.
In
a Nov 24, 2002 Associated Press reported, "Some workers at the Yucca
Mountain Project said there were flaws in the process scientists used to
determine whether the site was suitable for disposing the nation's nuclear
waste. At least two workers claim they were either fired or transferred after
raising concerns about the project's safety, the Las Vegas Review-Journal
reported in its Sunday editions. Susana Navarro said an audit by a prominent
law firm found "among other things, that Mr. Mattimoe's conduct as a
program manager for SAIC was inconsistent with a safety conscious work
environment."
SAIC
is perhaps most notorious among Internet aficionados for buying the company,
Network Solutions Inc (NSI), which received the no-bid no-compete monopoly
contract to privatize the government agency which registered domain names.
John
Dillon reports in MediaFilter.org, "Initially, the service was subsidized
by the government. But, in May 1993, the National Science Foundation privatized
the name registry (InterNIC - Internet Network Information Center) and paid NSI
$5.9 million to administer it. In September 1995, NSI instituted the fee
system. A few months earlier, it had been bought out by Science Applications
International Corp (SAIC)."
SAIC's
control over internet domain names set off alarm bells.
"The
shadow ruling-class within the Pentagon," describes SAIC to a tee,
according to the Crypt. SAIC has strong business ties to the military and
intelligence communities.
Dillon
quotes James Warren, an Internet civil liberties activist, "I don't want a
spook corporation, particularly a private spook corporation, to be anywhere
near a control point on the global cooperative Internet."
It
should be remembered that the CIA has a decades-long track record of assisting
in the brutal overthrow of democratically elected governments around the world.
Recently,
SAIC got the contract to assist other corporations, including Northrop Grumman,
in training of the Iraqi Army.
The
specter of corporations, littered with ex-CIA types, that both control the
voting systems and train the armies of countries around the world, is an
emerging and frightening reality.
"Currently
on SAIC's board is ex-CIA director Bobby Ray Inman, director of the National
Security Agency, deputy director of the CIA, and vice director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency. According to the OC (*Orange County) Weekly, "Inman
worked at the highest levels of American intelligence during an era (President
Ronald Reagan) when it displayed a stunning lack of it. Inman's achievements
include: failing to predict the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union;
prolonging violent, useless civil wars in Central America; and giving arms to
terrorists in exchange for hostages (Iran Contra)."
"During
the Bush administration, Inman, Perry and Deutch - while directors of Science
Applications (SAIC), were also members of the National Foreign Intelligence
Board (NFIB), an advisory group reporting to the President and the director of
Central Intelligence, which deals with production, review and coordination of
foreign intelligence," reports the Crypt. Both Inman and Deutch were
former Directors of the CIA. William J. Perry was also a former Secretary of
Defense during the Clinton Administration.
SAIC
proudly lists DARPA in its annual report as one of its prime clients. DARPA is
the controversial Department of Defense (DOD) subsidiary, which until recently
employed Admiral John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame. Poindexter was forced to
resign when it was revealed that DARPA was prepared to trade
"futures" in terrorist attacks. DARPA has also developed a program to
spy on American citizens, which has civil libertarians in an uproar.
So,
what should Maryland's Governor Ehrlich do? Cancel the contracts with Diebold
and SAIC, throw out all of the voting machines, and order a new batch of paper
ballots. And most importantly, let the people count the votes.
Lynn Landes is a freelance
journalist. She publishes her articles at EcoTalk.org.
Formerly Lynn was a radio show host, a regular commentator for a BBC radio
program, and environmental news reporter for DUTV in Philadelphia, PA. She can
e contacted at: lynnlandes@earthlink.net
* Other Related Articles by Lynn
Landes
* Offshore
Company Captures Online Military Vote
* Suspicion
Surrounds Voter News Service
* Mission
Impossible: Federal Observers & Voting Machines
* 2002
Elections: Republican Voting Machines, Election Irregularities, and
"Way-Off" Polling Results
* Voting
Machines - A High Tech Ambush
* Election
Night Projections: Cover For Vote Rigging Since 1964?
* Elections In
America: Assume Crooks Are In Control