Title: Hacking Democracy  

Year Of Release: 2007

Review Date: May 9, 2008

Rating: PG

Running time: 82 minutes

Box Office Gross: N/A

Recommendation: A great documentary on how dangerously flawed the U.S. voting system is thanks to Diebold machines and software. A real must see.

Site Rating: 7 out of 10 stars

What's the most powerful company in America? Wal-Mart with its $378 billion dollars in revenue? No. Microsoft with its $50 billion dollars in revenue? No. How about Google with its $16 billion in revenue? Once again, no. Any company that can single-handedly put a person in office from Congress to the White House, is the most powerful company in the nation.

Introducing Diebold. A company with less yearly revenues than the above mentioned corporate behemoths, $2 billion, but one with a much longer arm that extends into politics. Way into politics, shaping the nation's future, without most people even knowing it. This documentary's tag line should have been “Diebold – picking winners so you don’t have to”

Diebold is a U.S. company that manufactures voting software and hardware. Their products have been so unreliable, wrong candidates have been elected to office as a result. Error prone Diebold machines count 80% of votes in all elections. Yet, this documentary accurately exposed the terrible fact that the security on Diebold machines is so poor, that they can be quickly hacked and physically broken into "in 10 seconds flat." They showed this on camera.

A computer expert declared in the documentary that Diebold machines can be, "Easily hacked without being detected." Computer scientists at acclaimed universities further proved this astonishing, but true claim as well.

Checks And Balances


Checks and balances? There are none. The company that is supposed to test the Diebold software, Ciber, gave it passing grades across the board. The hackable, unreliable software passed the security checks in many categories. The main area they should have tested, they did not. The test results stated, “Penetration analysis not reviewed.” Translation - they didn't test if a hacker could penetrate the system. The documentary exposed Diebold machines and software as being so unreliable, that it was counting votes backwards. Candidates were wrongfully losing votes that were fraudulently going to their opponents.

Malfunctioning Machines

A candidate that was running for local office went to check how the voting was going. With a camera man in tow, she illustrated that on the 15 machines she tested by pressing her name as the candidate she wished to vote for, each time it registered a vote for her opponent, with his name flashing at the bottom of screen as the selected candidate, when he was not.

Statements About The Diebold Software

Diebold is, "Running uncertified software” - State of California

“Numerous, severe vulnerabilities in code” - A professor from Johns Hopkins University

“16 security flaws found” - Berkley University

"Optical scan machines are being rigged to produce the results for Bush”

Harry Hursti

A computer security expert from abroad, Harry Hursti, bought a memory card reader to explore Diebold voting software for the documentary. He found that the software has “a modifiable program” and “an executable code” meaning one can change the votes on the standard Diebold memory card to reflect whatever you wish. He wrote that a "program lurking” on the Diebold memory cards can change the result of votes. His report reflecting this information was “dismissed and stonewalled” by Diebold. They did various demonstrations, utilizing both digital and paper votes, that showed the machines malfunctioning on camera.

Dumpster Diving - Diebold For Bush

Normally, I am not for dumpster diving, as corporate entities often use this invasive practice to steal from others, but in this case what was discovered was very eye opening. The documentary's camera crew and host found documents listing account receivables to Diebold from the "8th District Republican Committee" in Texas. They also found a copy of a letter from Diebold chief executive Wally O’Dell to George Bush's 2004 campaign that stated, "I am committed to delivering the votes of Ohio to George W. Bush.”

After the election, where John Kerry led in the exit polls in Ohio, George Bush took that crucial state and the nation in a surprise victory, and according to the documentary, “The Feds stayed away.” The Feds did not investigate. Why would FBI director Robert Mueller investigate George W. Bush, when the President basically owns him. They meet every week according to published reports. Bush appointed him and they behave as though the FBI is a private, corporate offshoot of the Bush administration.

Supreme Court

Let's not forget, in 2000 the Supreme Court gave George Bush the highly disputed presidential election, via Anthony Scalia's coercion of the other jurists according to CBS. The arrogant, smug, cocky, incompetent Scalia was interviewed on CBS recently and his speech illustrated he is more concerned with publicity than justice and truth. It shall be your legacy.

What's the big deal, right. After all, you only single-handedly put into office a pathological liar that started a phony war over his obsession with stealing Middle Eastern oil, whilst bringing America to unprecedented lows, simultaneously costing the nation its place in the world, with thousands of soldiers losing their lives and over a million civilians theirs as well. Bush fooled many in the world, but those who knew better in government had a duty to rein in his madness, but instead for the lure of so-called power and fortune, helped it along.

© 2007 - 2015 AG. All Rights Reserved. Web site design by Aisha for Sonustar Interactive