more on Diebold Voting Machine Whistle-Blower being prosecuted for "Stealing documents"]]]

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [IP] more on Diebold Voting Machine Whistle-Blower being
prosecuted for "Stealing documents"]]
Date:   Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:26:18 -0600
From:   Eric Weisberg <weisberg () texoma net>
To:     ip () v2 listbox com
CC:     dave () farber net
References:     <440488C5.1070407 () farber net>



First, I don't think you can draw any intelligent conclusions regarding
the "disclosure" without reading  the relevant documents
and appreciate Ethan Ackerman's reference to

    http://www.yuricareport.com/Corporations/DieboldsSecretFears.html
    (for the privileged memos)
    and
    http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63191,00.html (for the Secretary
    of State's allegations of criminality)

Frankly, they don't seem to relate to the main fears of e-voting
systems, but merely to Diebold's failure to go through the required
process for certifying a modification in its software (which may or may
not significantly impact election results). Nor, did they
involve Diebold's denial of access to its code for expert analysis (or,
at least wasn't the last time I saw the issue discussed).

While I am extremely suspicious of Diebold (i.e. prejudiced as a result
of its founder's political commitments before the 2000 elections),
my quick read of the documents did not make me feel the "whistleblower"
had a strong case.  I did not see where the lawyers
were assisting in the perpetration of a crime/fraud.  Nor, did I see
where his disclosures were required to
prevent Diebold from doing anything wrong in the future. Here is the LA
Times summary of the documents he disclosed:

    The documents included legal memos from one Jones Day attorney
    to another regarding allegations by activists that Diebold had
    used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections
    beginning in 2002.

    In the memos, a Jones Day attorney opined that using uncertified
    voting systems violated California election law and that if
    Diebold had employed an uncertified system, Alameda County could
    sue the company for breaching its $12.7-million contract.

    The documents also revealed that Diebold's attorneys were
    exploring whether the California secretary of state had the
    authority to investigate the company for alleged election law
    violations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/socal/la-me-diebold22feb22,0,33600.story?coll=la-news-politics-local


While I don't see any excuse for Heller's publication of his employer's
legal memos in this case, I do worry about the chilling
effect of prosecuting him for theft.  I assume the prosecutor had
discretion in the matter which might have been exercised differently
with other parties, and caved in to pressure from a major law firm
embarrassed by its employee.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/