Re: Potent new evidence completing the Windows CEfraud picture

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 17:28:45 CDT

Douglas W. Jones wrote:

>On Aug 4, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Jim March wrote:
>
>
>
>>Despite having the Diebold memo from Talbot Iredale on the one hand and
>>Wyle's testimony on the other that Diebold withheld the code, and no
>>mention of CE in the Wyle cert docs, there still exists a miniscule
>>possibility that Diebold DID turn over everything to Wyle and Wyle just
>>ignored it all.
>>
>>
>
>I'd say about even. I have no great confidence in the competence of the
>ITAs.
>
> Doug Jones
> jones@cs.uiowa.edu
>

OK, but...there is a very similar evidence trail (as Joe Hall points
out) for Accubasic having been treated as COTS too. Is this Diebold
hiding customized code from ITA scrutiny to save money, or is this the
ITAs garbling things beyond belief?

<scratches head>

I would assume Diebold reviewed the final report. If Wyle screwed up
and labeled either ABasic, CE or both "COTS", Diebold would have a duty
to speak up.

It's ultimately Diebold's job to get certification of their custom code.

Sidenote: major thanks to Joe Hall for pointing out that there's a
friggin' PATTERN here, in that ABasic was bloopered the same way and
that is absolutely no-question not COTS.

Jim

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Aug 31 23:17:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CDT