Diebold Whistle-Blower Charged With Felony Access 585
Vicissidude writes "An employee of law firm Jones Day found legal memos showing that their client, Diebold Election Systems, had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002 - violating California election law. The whistle-blower turned over the memos to the Oakland Tribune, which published the legal memos on its website in April 2004. The company's AccuVote-TSx model was subsequently banned in May 2004. Now, the whistle-blower, Stephen Heller, has been charged in L.A. Superior Court with felony access to computer data, commercial burglary, and receiving stolen property. If convicted on all three counts, Heller could face up to three years and eight months in state prison. Blair Berk, Heller's attorney state, "Certainly, someone who saw those documents could have reasonably believed that thousands of voters were going to be potentially disenfranchised in upcoming elections." Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the L.A. County district attorney's office rebuts, "He's accused of breaking the law... If we feel that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt in our minds that a crime has been committed, it's our job as a criminal prosecutor to file a case.""
Re:Legal Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL either, but it seems to me that a law criminalizing the act of an employee revealing internal company documents makes sense, especially when this involved attorneys speculating on the legality of actions of their client. I mislike calling information "property" -- for the life of me I can't understand why this guy is being charged with theft -- but the I think the principle of this suit is sound and makes for good policy.
Now, whistleblowing is good, but part of attorney-client privilege is that people should be free to ask a lawyer "I've done X -- was that a crime?" and be able to rely on the lawyer's office to keep that discussion secret. This should have been handled differently if the leaker was an employee of Diebold, rather than a subcontractor for their laywer.
Re:Legal Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just because you agree with him (Score:3, Interesting)
If it is not, then let us make it OK! In this case particularly, he should not be alone. He definitely has balls to be a whistle blower (either that or he is an idiot to get himself in trouble). Regardless, if we leave him alone and let him fight this battle alone, Americans should be ashamed of themselves. You do realize that if this doesn't make news, eventually your vote really doesn't amount to any thing when every election is managed or upstaged by Diebold. This is not about following law any more and I don't believe you should be following law when it is designed to only screw you no matter what.
why we have jury trials (Score:3, Interesting)
Common Law only has two parts that've been discovered thus far:
Civil law is when someone says "there oughta be a law". Legislators make shit up, try to pass it off as Law. Think of the damage done by drug laws. Yah, drugs are bad, but drug prohibition is worse.
No harm, no foul, no conviction.
Re:Legal Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
As this guy wasn't an attorney, and the Rules of Prof. Conduct exist to scare attorneys into good behavior, the prosecution is likely based on some law in a "computer tresspass" vein. Whatever -- the prosecutor needs to have his head examined. What a freakin' idiot.
The interesting question here for me is what may happen to the law firm. I know in WA that I'm held responsible for breaches made by my employees. That's not a small matter when it could put a very expensive license on the line -- I'll be paying $700/month in student loans for the next 25 years for mine and my loans aren't that bad compared to others'.
The Problem is with the media (Score:4, Interesting)
Once again, RTFA... (Score:2, Interesting)
From the la times: 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.
In other words, the documents didn't show that Diebold did anything wrong. Just that their lawyers were discussing the law.
I think this case has probably more to do with a law firm protecting its confidentiality and the security of it's documents, than Diebold protecting itself from exposure.
Re:Jury Nullification (Score:2, Interesting)
>I'll never have to serve on a jury as I find it my civic duty to ask a question relevant to the
> case that forces the judge to explain that concept to those jurors who _are_ allowed to stay.
What do you mean, exactly? What precise words do you say, and do you say it during voir dire? How do you know you'll get the chance to say it?
I've been excluded from a jury once because I refused to answer a question regarding my religious beliefs. Apparently I was the first person to ever do this. I explained that my understanding of the First Amendment was that no court or any other government agent could justify any concern of my religious beliefs whatsoever.
When I was younger and much crazier, I was excluded from a jury because I wore my Karl Marx T-Shirt.
Once when I was on a jury, the judge explained about nullification, and made it clear that while jury nullification may end the trial, there are still significant appeals and review processes.
Following instructions. (Score:5, Interesting)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis
Re:Legal Questions (Score:2, Interesting)
In matters where government might be fradulently elected you cant trust the police or any other arm of government. It should be recognised in law that a whistle-blowers first port of call is irrelevant and that they have a moral obligation to go to the source that will most readily dispense the information the public has a right to know to the public, whatever that might be.
The whole point is to guard against conspiracy, you cant do that if your only legal recourse if an arm of the very thing you are trying to counteract.
Re:Legal Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
If I knew a big corporation like Diebold was doing something like this in the USA, and I wished to prevent it, I would go to the media, rather than the law. I might of course do both, but realistically, which is going to get results in any kind of timescale that is meaningful.
What do you do? Call the local police? Lot of faith there. Begin procedings yourself? With what financial backing? Go to the government? At the speed they move and when there's a suspicion of complicity (not unreasonable with Diebold's ties)?
If you actually care about democracy, go to the media. Clearly it is the public that is the victim in a vote-rigging, so clearly the public should be told.