12 Facts About Diebold Memos

1.

Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold Election Systems, Inc, was a subsidiary of Diebold that made and sold voting machines.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,494
2.

On January 22,2002, Diebold Memos announced the acquisition of GES, then a manufacturer and supplier of electronic voting terminals and solutions.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,495
3.

In late 2006, Diebold Memos decided to remove its name from the front of the voting machines in what its spokesperson called "a strategic decision on the part of the corporation".

FactSnippet No. 1,605,496
4.

Diebold Memos responded to the critics by pointing out that the company's election machines division is run out of Texas by a registered Democrat.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,497
5.

In January 2004, RABA Technologies, a security company in Columbia, Maryland, did a security analysis of the Diebold Memos AccuVote, confirming many of the problems found by Rubin and finding some new vulnerabilities.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,498

Related searches

Texas Maryland HBO
6.

Diebold Memos was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,499
7.

Diebold Memos needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,500
8.

Diebold Memos officials said that although any problem can be avoided by keeping a close watch on the machines, they are developing a fix.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,501
9.

Diebold Memos argued that the film was factually inaccurate and urged HBO to air a disclaimer explaining that it had not verified any of the claims.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,502
10.

Suit charged that Diebold Memos had given false information about the security and reliability of Diebold Memos Election Systems machines that were sold to the state.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,503
11.

In September 2003, a large number of internal Diebold memos, dating back to 1999, were posted to the BlackBoxVoting.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,504
12.

Those who had been threatened by Diebold then sued for court costs and damages, in OPG v Diebold.

FactSnippet No. 1,605,505