|
Margit – good reminder! The ERC found this out through a number of sources,
but Paul gave the best expose to this. The Kodak scanners have a print head included in the
mechanism. Hart claims that it isn’t used and is disabled. Despite that claim,
the head is still there. In fact its operation can be tested by using the
built-in front panel diagnostics. What Hart meant to say (I believe) is that
the print head was disabled or simply not controlled through their software. In 03 and 01 when mail ballots were used, there was a
Diebold ballot envelope scanner in use. It would read the barcode on the
outside of the mailing envelop and compare to the database of voters. If a
ballot showed up more than once, or a voter had been shown to have already
voted – then the scanner would print an error code on the envelope under the
barcode. This was a heads up to elections workers that there was a problem. The printing happened so fast that most people
couldn’t believe that the scanner was doing it. But it was. Opponents of printing serial numbers (or unique
identifying marks) have claimed that such printing would slow down the process.
Hogwash. If a ten year old scanner/printer from our esteemed friends at Diebold
can do this, then how could the bleeding edge Kodak scanner/printer be so darn
slow? paul t -----Original
Message----- Paul Walmsley, who should
be on this list, has pointed out that Hart's Kodak printers, used in Boulder
County, allow ID's to go on ballots at time of scanning, rather than when
the ballot is printed. This protects the voter from being associated with
a particular ballot. Margit |