Jim March, check this out!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

BB93YJ

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
269
Have you seen this yet?

Diebold retreats; lawmaker demands inquiry

By Paul Festa
CNET News.com
December 1, 2003, 5:12 PM PT


http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5112430.html

Diebold is facing threats on two fronts as free-speech advocates pursue monetary damages against it and a presidential candidate urges a congressional inquiry into the company.
Diebold, which makes touch-screen voting machines in use around the world, on Monday reiterated its withdrawal of copyright takedown notices directed at numerous Internet service providers with subscribers who posted copies of its internal e-mail correspondence--and in some cases links to those copies.

Those takedown notices, issued under a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), earned Diebold a lawsuit by an ISP with a client who linked to the documents and by two Swarthmore students whose school--acting as their ISP--had removed copies under takedown threat.




The DMCA takedown provision is designed to let copyright holders warn ISPs of copyright violations and ask that they be taken down before filing suit against them. Free-speech advocates argued that Diebold's notices had less to do with copyright protection than with damage control.

The internal Diebold e-mail correspondence in question criticized the company's software, security, certification and sales practices.

Diebold indicated in a Nov. 24 filing with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., that it would retract the DMCA notices and would not sue those who posted the e-mail correspondence or their ISPs. On Monday, the company restated that promise in the courtroom.

But lawyers who represent the Online Policy Group, an ISP whose client Indymedia had linked to the Diebold e-mails without posting them, indicated that they had not finished pressing their case against Diebold.

Instead, they pledged to seek a court order spelling out that publishing or linking to the Diebold e-mails doesn't amount to copyright infringement, as well as monetary damages under the DMCA on grounds of misrepresentation.

"It's a tremendous victory for free speech, for the Internet as a communications forum, and it's reaffirming the public side of the balance that copyright is supposed to embody," Wendy Seltzer, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said in an interview after Monday's hearing.

Seltzer, who represented the Swarthmore students, said the plaintiffs would seek monetary damages to dissuade companies from using DMCA takedown notices lightly.

"We've been saying from the beginning that Diebold shouldn't be able to use copyright law to stop discussion of technologies that are at the heart of our democracy, and Diebold has finally acknowledged that by dropping its threats of suit," Seltzer said. "And we plan to drive that point home to Diebold and anyone else who might be tempted to misuse copyright similarly."

Diebold did not return calls seeking comment.

Diebold's retreat in the courtroom comes as U.S. congressional representative Dennis Kucinich, who is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, jumped onto the anti-Diebold bandwagon by providing links to the Diebold e-mail correspondence from his House of Representatives Web site.

The Web site, launched Nov. 20, criticizes Diebold for both its product and its conduct in pursuing the Swarthmore students.

"Diebold has been using coercive legal claims to intimidate Internet service providers and even universities to shut down Web sites with links to its memos and remove the memo content," the site reads. "By abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Diebold has intimidated numerous Internet service providers to comply with its requests...Congressman Kucinich is working to address these problems by providing some of Diebold's internal memos on this site to increase public access..."

Kucinich also asked the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to investigate Diebold's DMCA takedown notices.

"Diebold's actions are representative of a growing body of abuses through which large and powerful parties unfairly intimidate ISPs to remove information those parties do not like," Kucinich wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21. "Powerful parties should not be permitted to misuse copyright as a tool for limiting bad press and barring access to legitimate consumer information."

The court hearing the students' and ISP's case against Diebold sent the case for mediation, scheduled hearings for motions in January, and scheduled a final hearing for Feb. 9.
 
Oh ya, well aware of what's up here.

This is only a partial retreat on Diebold's part. The cease'n'desist order they sent me is still something they're trying to back, although they've had almost three months to sue me now and they ain't done so:

http://www.equalccw.com/liebold.html

Basically, there's four types of Diebold materials floating around now:

1) The EMail stash. 15,000 EMails were smuggled out the door sometime between late Mar. of '03 and Aug. 7th when Wired wrote about them. "Damning" doesn't even begin to describe the contents. Diebold tried to quash the sites holding them, and has now given up. For excerpts, see also the bottom-left area of the yellow table at http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html

2) Voting data files. When Bev Harris found a Diebold FTP site with no passwords in Jan. '03, she grabbed 40,000+ files. These included test data files (Alameda, Cobb County) and at least one live vote data file from San Luis Obispo County (Calif) illegally taken off-site before the close of the polls on 3/5/02 (primaries). Diebold tried to claim ownership of these for a while, but soon realized they were public data and backed off over a month ago.

3) Program files. We have all the executables needed to build your own vote-tally box and test it's "security" (at which point you'll find there ain't none). I appear to be the only one publishing this stuff right now - see also http://www.equalccw.com/dieboldtestnotes.html

4) Manuals and documentation. The worst of these is the "infamous internal policy manual from hell", see also the bottom-left area of the yellow table at http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html for excerpts and the whole thing. Diebold would LOVE to take that sucker back!

The EFF/Swarthmore/etc lawsuit was about the memos (item 1 above). Diebold has backed off on that front, but they've not officially rescinded their cease'n'desist to me as what I'm doing is more "hardcore" :cool: than what the college kiddies have been up to.
 
I am still waiting for a reply from my ISP to acknowledge they got the letter. Jim does this mean I can post the three files safely? Sorry for this taking forever, I have not forgotten. If you want anything else hosted just ask, and again sorry for the wait.:(
 
Wowl, the Ap even used Jim's photo...Even though he's not mentioned by name in the article...Good job!



http://www.yahoo.com/s/38261
Electronic Voting Firm Drops Legal Case
Tue Dec 2,12:22 AM ET

By RACHEL KONRAD, Associated Press Writer

SAN JOSE, Calif. - In a major victory for free speech enthusiasts on the Internet, Diebold Inc. has agreed not to sue voting rights advocates who publish leaked documents about the alleged security breaches of electronic voting.

delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Quote Data provided by Reuters

A Diebold spokesman promised in a conference call Monday with U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel and attorneys from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that it would not sue dozens of students, computer scientists and ISP operators who received cease-and-desist letters from August to October.

Diebold also promised not to file lawsuits against two Swarthmore College students and a San Francisco-based Internet service provider for copyright infringement, according to a motion that company attorneys filed Nov. 24 in San Jose's federal court.

Diebold did not disclose specifics on why it had dropped its legal case, but the decision is a major reversal of the company's previous strategy. North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold, which controls more than 50,000 touch-screen voting machines nationwide, had threatened legal action against dozens of individuals who refused to remove links to its stolen data.

"This is a huge victory that shows we have weapons on our side to protect free speech from overbearing copyright laws so that the Internet remains a forum for public discussion," said EFF staff attorney Wendy Seltzer. "We're trying to hammer home that you can't go around making idle threats that aren't backed up by the law."

Diebold spokesman David Bear emphasized Monday that while the company had dropped its case, it will continue to monitor the online proliferation of the leaked documents, and may file lawsuits against others who publish the data.

"We certainly reserve our right to protect our proprietary information in future cases," Bear said.

Diebold's battle began in March, when a hacker broke into the company's servers using an employee's ID number, and copied a 1.8-gigabyte file of company announcements, software bulletins and internal e-mails dating to January 1999.

The vast majority of the file included banal employee e-mails, software manuals and old voter record files. But several items raise security concerns about electronic voting that voting rights advocates have been trying to publicize for more than a year.

In one series of e-mails, a senior engineer dismissed concern from a lower-level programmer who questioned why Diebold lacked certification for the operating system in touch-screen voting machines. The Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) requires such software to be certified by independent researchers.

In another e-mail, an executive scolded programmers for leaving software files on an Internet site without password protection.

In August, the hacker e-mailed data to voting activists, who published the information on their Web logs. Wired News published an online story. The documents have been widely circulated.

Seltzer said free speech advocates should hail Diebold's promise not to sue, but she warned that numerous individuals have already removed the offending material from Web sites.

EFF plans to continue with its case against Diebold, arguing under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) that Diebold must pay damages for intimidating Internet service providers. The hearing is scheduled for Feb. 9.

"The implicit threat was, 'If you don't take this material down, we might sue,'" Seltzer said. "Without them ever needing to file a federal complaint, they got these documents taken down from a huge number of sites. It was a chill on free speech that stopped discussion of electronic voting issues without ever getting before a judge."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top