Black Box Voting: the case of the vanishing trolls

[angka]

The BBV story has worked its way from DU discussion to national exposure. Backed by expert study and now being investigated by major media, every DUer should take pride in something so potentially huge owing so much to this talented and industrious group of people.

At the same time, my thoughts turn back to some of these folks along the way who made it clear how much they didn't like it. In the end, the generally piddly technical arguments made by these people were refuted without difficulty, usually by any of a host of other people posting in the discussions (as opposed to bev herself).

Quite frankly I am surprised, though, at their complete disappearance after the JHU study was released. You would think they would have stuck around and at least said something. Makes you wonder why they were here at all, doesn't it?

So without waxing overly tinfoil-hat(programmer), let me put the question to you, for posterity and a future paper of mine: what motivates these disruptors, and what can you interpret from a sudden influx of them into discussion about a hot-button issue?

[Junkdrawer]

1. A few of them seemed to have information that only a company..

insider would have. Draw your own conclusions.

[sybylla]

2. I noticed that too.

Some of them sounded "personally involved" with the programming.

[ret5hd]

3. seems i remember bev directly asking at least one of them...

if they were insiders.

got absolutely no response to the question, as i recall.

[trumad]

4. I'm proud as hell of Bev and her gang of truth seekers.

Activists second to none... Props

[Chesapeake]

29. No Bev No Publicity

Nobody can deny that. It's an ISSUE now and already having practical results

[PATRICK]

8. Someone should do a study

In an admittedly painstaking way of poster teams who naysay liberal or reform issues. Specifically, if you click on Yahoo stock reports web discussions you have hot and not too bright defenders of Diebold. One used an insider term and was outed as a probable employee. Most of the discussion is NOT as between stockholders but as cheerleaders for Diebold against all comers.

This curious bunch you see in many websites when you have to ask yourself what on earth they are there for if not for an aggressive hidden agenda. It's probably SOP in stock forums when so much is at stake that the buzz HAS to be suppressed. And things ARE heating up over there. They sound basically ignorant and trusting of Diebold and the sysytem and disdainful of the new critical research. But protesting too much with feeble bravado instead of argument.

They are simply trying to quiet things down and blow it all off. There is very very minimal defense on the details and(typical of conservatives) more time spent on sneering attacks on opponents.

An idea. Can key states be identified as possible and vulnerable targets for electoral fraud strategy? And not just Bush but getting more Repugs elected(as he DEMANDED of his operatives recently). Should California be carefully watched since Issa jumped the gun? I see many of the machines will not be in use for the special election.

Reporters and some(painfully, not ALL) Dem officials are looking deeper. Are lawyers looking for misrepresentation, consumer fraud or some easy approach? The RFK get-them-for-tax-evasion method. Would they REALLY want the issue technically and thoroughly adjudicated instead of these brainwashing sales pitches and political sells?

[tomp]

5. i have some advice for you.

though from the sound of your post you may not need it.

NEVER, EVER underestimate the lengths to which the govt will go to protect itself.

for every one of those who left, there are almost certainly a few who stayed behind, who are slightly less obvious in their disruptive intent. the "confusion" and "disagreement" that exists among the "left" is not an accident. (wonder where that trillion in missing pentagon money went, wonder how many govt operatives don't end up on payroll books somewhere?). propaganda is a crucial piece of their attack, and it's not all done in the "media".

[DeathvadeR]

22. Its like grass......

You mow it down and the shit just grows back.....

[shirlden]

6. We must remember

this story has just begun. Sure, it is breaking and I am certain there will be more in the news, but the hard work has just begun. Duers need to follow this with action in their states and on a local level.
We are not making much progress with the people who are going to be buying these machines. Without a paper trail we are sunk as a nation and as a democratic republic.
I forsee total chaos after the 2004 election as law suit after law suit over vote fraud works it slow way through the court system.
I am at a loss to understand why the Repugs are fighting so hard not to have a paper trail. This convinces me they are planning on some big time voting machine adjustments.

:argh:

[Lars39]

7. There was at least one

person whose arguments were very dismissive of the entire project, with total indifference to the answers given to the questions he/she asked. I've noticed that there are particular subjects that brings 1000+ folks out of the *woodwork*; subjects that tend to bring us together, and help us make progress. Being here way too much has helped me identify possible detractors/trends. You'd have to be dumb as a stump or have an agenda to argue against the facts that have come out about bbv.

[sybylla]

9. It sure is nice to have BBV threads of a more manageable lenght

I don't miss the trolls at all. No more 200 post threads with more than half of the posts full of off-topic bitching.

Way to go, Bev and crew!

[juajen]

40. Wow, you're right

The threads are way shorter; less arguing, etc. I'm reading about electronic voting everywhere, so I think it will be a success story. It's just not as interesting to the local yokel as "sex" or "murder", you know. They might have to use that brain for thinking! I'm talking it up every chance I get, but we sure have a lot to talk about lately. Hope it's not getting lost in the shuffle. I think the dissemination of this infor was brilliant on Bev's part. She and her super workers are heroes.

Will Pitt's thread on this was great!!! Did ya'll catch it? Anyway, gotta be going. Night all. Great work DUers. You never fail to amaze me.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[ninkasi]

10. I've been following as much of the story...

as well as I could. I've been in utter awe at Bev and the DU'ers who have brought this to light. I'm a complete ignoramus as far as anything technical is concerned, and am deeply appreciative that there are people who have the knowledge, and desire, to protect the voting process.

It doesn't surprise me that the other side would try to shoot the whole investigation down; they rely on secrecy to be able to manipulate the outcome of the elections. They do NOT fight fair.

[Melsky]

11. Why would they not want a paper trail?

It just doesn't make sense unless there is fraud planned.

IRS makes me keep a paper trail for my business. We need to hold the government to the same standards. Especially since this election is so important not just to America but to the whole world.

I was telling my dad about this and he refused to believe me, but could give no reasons other then "they wouldn't do that".

Thanks to Bev and all the other DUers who worked so hard on this story.

[Zan_of_Texas]

12. "they wouldn't do that"

I think this is one of our toughest mountains to climb -- the belief that other citizens would do something so dastardly as to steal huge amounts of votes -- entire states even.

As I researched the collapse of Enron last year, I kept finding my mouth dropping at the audacity, magnitude and sheer number of ways they were being dishonest.

I found this quote, which applies here too:

The American Indian tribes were tragically unable to understand the European invaders, as Kurt Vonnegut describes acidly in his classic "Breakfast of Champions":

"The chief weapon of the sea pirates was their capacity to astonish. No one could believe, until it was much too late, just how heartless and greedy they were."

If you look at the philosophies of the Straussian neocons who have inordinate influence in setting policy in the Bush administration, though (Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.), their beliefs probably include such Straussian pointers as:

"Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Shadia Drury, who has written books about Leo Strauss. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says, "The people are told what they need to know and no more." They believe in secrecy, elitism, and power.

We have to be vigilant, because even if we win the paper trail argument, a demonstration, with real votes, is already under way, by the Pentagon, to do email voting. This is even WORSE than the current paperless electronic voting!

No taxation without representation. If they won't give us honest, transparent elections, we need to stop giving them our money. They are not representing us.

[DEMActivist]

13. Oh, you noticed.....

I'm sure many did.....

Funny how they all went poof when the truth came out backed up by scientists, huh?

[Jim Sagle]

14. Suggested meme: Every public transaction...

needs a paper trail - including voting!

[angka]

15. waiting for an explanation from the naysayers bump

:kick:

[Eloriel]

16. Yes, you're not the only one who's been watching for

the trolls to reappear. I guess they're work is done -- or as done as it can be under the circumstances. Until next time, of course.

Cool thread.

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

17. At least one of them

brawled because said person is totally, completely, absolutely barking mad.

Trust me on that one.

[DEMActivist]

18. LOL, said person....

is back to doing their mad dog barking on Table Talk. Table Talkers tell me they wish we hadn't figured this person out so quickly. They were enjoying their vacation.

[ParanoidPat]

19. Just as we're enjoying ours!

:evilgrin:

[WilliamPitt]

21. Send them my apologies

:)

[Chesapeake]

27. you mean the one

badmouthing bev and naming him/her self conason's PR rep?
(maybe she _IS_.....?)

[WilliamPitt]

28. Dunno

I have deleted said person from my consciousness, lest I develop an ulcer the size of a car battery.

Sounds eerily familiar, tho. :grr:

[Chesapeake]

30. eerily........

Was being sarcastic (maybe she IS). Yeh,_very_ familar M.O of butting in where not wanted and magnifying non-existent role

[angka]

44. what a relief...

because (assuming we're talking about the same person) her stated connections to you were giving me credibility hiccups, and i was having trouble reconciling...

of course if it weren't for all that name-dropping, i would have never even listened to word one anyway.

[Eloriel]

56. If that Conason thing is true

Ya'll DEFINITELY need to alert him. Definitely. Will and Bev have credibility and are known. Seriously, we owe it to Conason to give him a good heads up.

Eloriel

[Chesapeake]

72. it's part of a pattern

He or she did it to palast who really did use her uh services before wising up,then tried to do it to Mark c. Miller but he was warned....
Then Will Pitt got the treatment.
Now he or she is giving notice conason's "_availability_" as if an agent.
Same ol'

[Fredda Weinberg]

350. yes, same ol'

I've always worked with publicists ... even when I started with Palast.

Unlike Bev Harris, I don't do promotion for a living - I'm a computer engineer.

[Fredda Weinberg]

202. Conason has a publicist

I've got his contact info if anyone has a progressive program to recommend. My role is the virtual world, which is my domain.

There's a method to get past mainstream media that Pluto apparently hasn't been able to reproduce without me. My new author is reaping the benefits and Joe reasonably wants to take advantage of my technique as well - he knows how I worked with Palast.

<u>Big Lies</u> is a great book - and I see lots more "advocacy media" from our side ... and my contribution is duly noted in Palast and Pitt's acknowledgement sections.

[Chesapeake]

259. as suspected

no help was requested and role is invented and magnified
Typical

[Fredda Weinberg]

267. I'm not a publicist

I'm a computer engineer who promotes authors I consider important. If you want to misrepresent my role, I won't let you - I'm happy with my day job.

But Joe's mentioned several times that he wants me to make this effort on his behalf - that's why he had the review copy sent.

[Chesapeake]

275. yup sounds like

roles invented out of wholecloth.
To anyone whose B.S. meters are on after palast and Will became victims. No one with a clue about certain histories would want _that_ kind of,uh help.
Mark Crispin Miller got aclue in time and chose to keep his internet supporters not turn them all off by associating with obnoxious _helpers_. He was attacked later for the scorning.

[Fredda Weinberg]

278. Victims?

Palast and Pitt both acknowledge my role in their books - do people here want to believe gossip?

[WilliamPitt]

20. Actually, I do have a potential explanation

I interviewed on Wednesday three hypersmart computer engineer PhD's who are deeply and personally invested in this fight. And, friends and neighbors, they know what they're talking about, right down to the diode. I got over two hours on tape with the three of them, and am transcribing like a hummingbird on speed to get this out to the presses.

One of the things they spoke of was the irony that this issue is being barnstormed by the Left's activists while several major progressive voter groups are fighting to kill the debate. The AARP, handicapped voter groups, and some chapters of Common Cause, along with some other huge ones, have come out against those who are pushing this inquiry.

The reason for this is no mystery. These groups have been battling for years to make it easier for the people they represent to vote. One of the problems that manifested in Florida was a level of confusion among elderly voters (Jews for Buchanan?). Handicapped groups, especially those representing the blind and wheelchair-bound, are als very in favor of the machines because it vastly improves their ability to actually go to the polls and vote, a privilege that most of us take for granted.

Their arguments carry merit and weight, which is why this debate and investigation should endeavor to find a solution that still makes voting easer for these people. The simple paper printout on the DRE, perhaps with some encryption for anonymity, is a priority IMHO.

There's another reason. A lot of people have been working under court order very hard for a long time to do what was mandated by the vote-reform laws that were passed after 2000. They think they have a solution with these machines, and it is freaking them out and pissing them off to hear that their decision may have such debilitating flaws. It's a combination of frustration, exhaustion, and good old CYA. No excuse, given the stakes here, but understandable.

So when you get people arguing against these investigations, it may not all be Diebold or ES&S. You may be talking to someone in a wheelchair. Just food for thought.

Of course, none of this may apply to the people who came here.

[DEMActivist]

23. Seeing as how...

several of them admitted to having voting machine company ties, I think we were pretty close to the truth in many of our assumptions.

The problem is that they still choose to deny the flaws rather than "repairing" them.

Fighting a voter verified paper trail makes no sense at all unless they have something to hide. All the voters are asking for is a way to confirm that their vote will be counted AS CAST.

What is the problem with being asked to load paper into the printer?

[WilliamPitt]

25. Not a diddly-damn thing

and the company connections you sussed out pretty much confirm that my thoughts don't apply to that crew.

But the online-subterfuge-tactic of killing this debate is only a part of the problem. You showed that you can rout them. We have to figure out a way to convince the AARP, the League of Women Voters (whose President came out publicly against the investigation recently), and the rest of these heavy-hitters that they need to listen. You can beat these online yahoos to jello, but the AARP is a whole different story. Beating the internet knuckleheads is the appetizer; convincing the big dogs is the feast. I'm hopeful my interview will help. I commanded them to speak as if they were lecturing a layman...which they were. :)

[DEMActivist]

26. I'm sure we can convince these folks....

especially with articles like the one you plan to produce.

Also, there's much more to come on this issue and some new ones. This story and the associated issues is far from over.

[MuseRider]

54. I was so freaking worried

that this would come out as a liberal (sneer implied) conspiracy. Bev and all of you did such a wonderful job of presenting this as a credibility issue. It will still be a hard fight, shouldn't be, but I think Americans will appreciate this.

[SharonAnn]

24. Will, we understand that and we LIKE the fact that these

machines can make it easier for the formerly disenfranchised to vote. And thanks for reminding us about that.

Our concern is that they apparently had no serious IT development people, IT standards people, IT security people, or IT audit people working with them in defining, developing or deciding on these machines. That's unconscionable!

I'm sorry that they're tired, frustrated, etc. but they should have had the right people involved from the beginning. Now they're going to have to deal with thse people at the end of the process which is the most expensive and most unpleasant place to be.

I've done many "product recovery" and "project recovery" projects in my IT career and I'm still amazed at how many people think they should have been handling IT related design, development, and decision activities all by themselves. It's nearly always the exact same set of causes when the project goes astray. It's sort of like deciding on complex brain surgery, designing the surgical and monitoring tools for it, and then performing the surgery yourself - without a neurosurgeon, heck without even any medical or engineering training. My recommendation is "Get the pros involved and fast!"

Yes, using a PC can be easy (at least sometimes) but there's a great deal of depth and complexity that goes into creating it. A secure, business-type or Dept. of Defense type system takes even more, much more. And, you can't trust vendors blindly.

I talked to a friend of mine at dinner tonight who is retired military. He worked at a high level on design and development of secure systems. He could hardly believe the highlights I was telling him about Bev's investigation and analysis. He said, "Diebold isn't even close to even one single thing that they should have done."

[ParanoidPat]

31. Excellent post and might I add.....

.....that if the basic problems with the machines as they now stand are addressed, a simple set of input devices based on simple PLC 'ladder logic' could be developed, at very low cost, to accommodate the disabled. These devices could output a 'code string' to the machines via the serial or parallel input port that would integrate seamlessly with the basic voting machine to add their votes to the database while affording them the same protections we seek.

The entire concept that all Americans must give up our right to 'see' how our votes are counted to accommodate the disabled due to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is ludicrous! :(

[Eloriel]

60. EXCELLENT argument:

The concept that all Americans must give up our right to 'see' how our votes are counted to accommodate the disabled due to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is ludicrous!

And, as you point out, also unnecessary.

Eloriel

[retread]

43. Rep. Rush Holt has introduced a bill called Voter

Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003. Amoung other
provisions this bill mandates a paper audit.

[Eloriel]

57. Their arguments DON'T carry merit and weight if

the tools they've chosen destroys our democracy by stripping our right to vote.

They have to get beyond their denial on this issue. Thanks for your efforts, and your insights.

Eloriel

[scottxyz]

314. Touch screens are separate from security and paper trail

Will, you make a good point that elderly or handicapped people might welcome newer voting technology (such as touch-screens) which makes voting easier.

However, handicapped and elderly people need to bear in mind that the touch-screen feature is completely separate from the security and paper-trail issues. As we have seen, it is quite possible to slap a glitzy, easy-to-use touch-screen on top of a very bad computer system.

In fact, it could be argued that the touch-screen is a sort of distraction which makes casual users think that everything's hunky-dory, when in fact the underlying system is junk. I think that's what happened in the case of these paperless, unencrypted, insecure, hackable voting systems: the cool-looking touch-screens might just be meant to convince people that they're dealing with a rock-solid high-tech system, when in fact we're actually dealing with one of the most hackable systems ever designed.

Accessibility and security are separate issues (sometimes programmers use the term 'orthogonal', meaning that these features are entirely independent of each other). Diebold's system might provide better accessibility than some older systems, but it provides MUCH LESS security. This is what needs to be emphasized to the various voting organizations representing voters with special needs.

Accessibility is worthless without security!

[JanMichael]

32. It's OK to disagree with people here, no?

While I've always been interested in Bev's work I can understand why some people would find it overly exaggerated and wildly paranoid.

To question their motives, one especially (she is a dedicated Activist and has been an organiser/publicist/scheduler *cough*) for several authors, seems rather cruel.

Another thing: I would suspect if this all (BBV) blows over those that pressed it the hardest might not be so keen to rush to the nay sayers with a bouquet of black roses.

All I'm saying is that just because someone is critical doesn't mean they're some sort of undercover fascist.

[WilliamPitt]

33. *cough*

You probably shouldn't talk about a subject you are poorly informed on. Clearly, you are poorly informed.

[JanMichael]

34. Ha! It's my hobby.

But I've read those threads, remember I'm a Bev supporter, and while I think there were some real suspect (seriously screwed) nay sayers I also though some were sincere.

The post that starts this thread made a blanket condemnation IMO and I thought it was unfair.

Hmm. I'm poorly informed you say? Perhaps I am but I can only comment on what I know.

Enlighten me.

[WilliamPitt]

36. It would be profoundly indiscreet,

not to mention just a plain old asshole move, to air dirty laundry like this on a public forum. Sufficed to say, your descriptions (re: *cough*) are not wed to reality in any measurable form. I know this from several months of personal, and personally damaging, experience.

[JanMichael]

37. So be it.

Actually it seems like it's pratically aired as is *cough-cough*.

No harm though.

Goodnight.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Not by a million miles

is this story told. Nor will it be here.

[BevHarris]

48. JanMichael: I usually agree with you, but explain this:

I can understand why some people would find it overly exaggerated and wildly paranoid.

I've broken four major voting machine stories in a row. All four have checked out. All four were (belatedly) picked up by mainstream press with bulletproof credentials.

Please specify any of my work that can be reasonably considered by anyone to be "overly exaggerated" or "wildly paranoid."

This indicates to me that you haven't actually read my work, though you may have read what others write, mentioning my name.

Statements like you just made are damaging. You have the right to say "I can understand why some people would find wildly paranoid" if you can point to a single piece of my writing that can fit that description.

I think you cannot. As other (mainstream) reporters are beginning to report, my work checks out.

Bev

[JanMichael]

50. You misunderstood me. Or I was simply unclear.

One of the two.

Regardless of which it is, it was late when I wrote that so perhaps I could have phrased it better.

Yes I've read almost everyone of your posts/threads on this subject.

My point though was how this subject matter could be initially viewed (by potential detractors without other motivations) as "extreme", "impossible" or "inconceivable" (props to the Princess Bride) and when pushed into the public eye could be concieved as "Damaging" to our cause. Just like you said about my post.

That's too easy of a stick to swing around IMO.

I know enough tech people to expect the occasional "fatal exception" when it comes to interpretation of software/hardware/communications.

Throw that on the political situation and some will simply not let go, or drop it publically, of their disagreement.

But I need to go back to my original reason for responding to this thread. It was a broad stroke personal attack on, what seemed at the time, anyone who voiced an opposition to the veracity of your claims. That seemed rather Rovian to me because I had read most of those threads and to insinuated that that they were all (though some obviously were/are) pushing some other agenda (Disrupter, company connections etc.), besides the topic at hand, wasn't very constructive.

So that's it.

Hope you can understand why I said what I said now:-)

[angka]

53. not at all.

by characterizing my remarks as a 'broad stroke personal attack on...anyone who voiced an opposition to the veracity' of bev's claims, you're making the same straw man of me that you accuse me of making of you. i reject all of that.

the people i'm referring to were obvious in their intent to disrupt regardless of all objective fact presented to them, and yes, their silence does roar.

such obvious trolling is entirely different than healthy skepticism, which i support, as do many others.

[JanMichael]

103. I never said that you were including me in the broad strokes.

Since I've been a supporter from the start that would make little sense.

That said we simply have a difference of opinion and I'm OK with that, I hope you can be too.

Cheers.

[jagguy]

139. everyone understands that you have a large personal stake in this

but please try to understand that there is some valid constructive critisism to be had on this.

Noone is out to whack you here, just trying to offer some other perspectives that are unlikely to be visible to you given your personal stake.

I hope that you can accept this for what it is intended to be.

[ParanoidPat]

251. LOL! Every American WHO VOTES....

....has a 'large personal stake' in this! :crazy::evilgrin:
Or do you deny that? :shrug:

[jagguy]

283. perception is reality

some people will look at that and blow it off,
others will look at it and see 'old software' and pass it off,
others won't even read that article.

Doesn't make it unimportent.

My original point was that the nature of the articles written and then picked up off AP gave the Diebold response and that this would satisfy a lot of people.

Then I was concerned that there was no push from the writters on what the research showed as not so (used in a real election). As well as no followup.

Bev later says that there is some followup on the way which is good.

The real issue is that it can be difficult to see that how the articles were crafted was a source for this making the troll count drop. Point being that to them, its over and done.

[ParanoidPat]

317. How cute!

"perception is reality" Where'd you get that line, an old Dr. Who? LOL!

If someone shoves a gun in your face and pulls the trigger your 'perception' that the bullet can't hurt you isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to the bullet! Nor will it make one bit of difference to whoever has to clean up the mess it makes!

The reality is that any thinking American will demand some absolute proof that shows that their vote counted. "Trust us" only works for Bush* supporters and the last I checked, their numbers are quickly dwindling!:evilgrin:

[jagguy]

348. "thinking American"

out of a ramdom sample of 100 eligible voters, how many qualify as "thinking American"s ?

Fifty or so won't vote, thirty or fourty will mindlessly either pull the "D" or the "R".

So we're down to, lets say, fifteen. Of those, maybe half will catch the article. So thats about seven or eight percent.

I perceive that Liberals are capable of looking at more than one idea and weighing them for validity. The reality is that you seem to be concentrating so hard on the bark of this one tree that you miss that there is a forest around.

But thats the great thing about America, we're free to disagree.

[Fredda Weinberg]

186. you're making sausage in public

I had this disagreement with another "editor" and she eventually agreed - it's wrong to pursue personal data in a public forum.

You appear to be taking claim for efforts of others, because every wild assertion you've made here hasn't been realized. Nothing shows that Diebold has done anything negligent, much less criminal - and accusations of collusion with public officials have magically evaporated.

But others hint of backdoors and hacks when no evidence exists; make up terms like "unsecure ftp", with implications of tampering - that's not in the mainstream press.

If the goal was to name this issue black box voting - it's not a registered trademark. If it was to sell lots of books ... the NY Times didn't help and Johns Hopkins mocked you.

There's a right way to do this. Go back to your private forums and express your opinions. But activities here must stand the light of scrutiny.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

195. Abso-Damn-Lutely

There's a right way to do this. Go back to your private forums and express your opinions. But activities here must stand the light of scrutiny.

After all, if one can't handle the heat from a few skeptics on one's own side without trying to shout them down (or dismiss them as disruptors, or condescend to them), then how in the world can one ever hope to fend off the attacks of the real right-wing?

DTH

[Jim Sagle]

351. She's BBBBBAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCKKKKK!!!!!!

:crazy:

[Fredda Weinberg]

194. And as you know, I'm still *ahem* promoting authors

I get to pick 'em, which is why I never went to work for Pluto.

It's not indiscreet to note my role in getting <u>The Greatest Sedition Is Silence</u> published for Pitt - or that my new cause has her website at http://www.modernjihad.com.

I've begun promoting Joe Conason's new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312315600">Big Lies</a>, because he was literally there when Palast and I began working together.

It's this kind of mendacity that characterizes the right - but we've got our own practitioners.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

197. Thank You, Fredda

This liberal certainly appreciates the work that you do.

I also appreciate Bev's work...but I am reserving judgment on it right now. Maybe there's more out there, and I definitely want more secure voting, but SO FAR, what I've seen hasn't lived up to the hype, or anywhere close.

DTH

[Generic Other]

35. I remain impressed by all the work so many put into this!

And to let those like me who followed the threads for months vicariously share your glory is really a thrill.

Good work all! Sounds like there's still a big fight ahead.

[KT2000]

39. Viral Marketing??

George Monbiot had an article about "fake persuaders" on internet lists.
A couple of people working for something like Bivings take different sides in a discussion on a list. Eventually they get the position they are paid to promote to take over the discussion.
At the time I thought there must have been "paid obstructionists" posting on Bev's work because there were some playing together. This time though the truth won!!
Thank you to Bev and others who worked on this.


"The Bivings Group specialises in internet lobbying.

An article on its website, entitled Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World, warns that "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first 'listen' to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously." A senior executive from Monsanto is quoted on the Bivings site thanking the PR firm for its "outstanding work".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,715153,00.html

[ParanoidPat]

41. I've seen this at work all over DU....

.....usually with very limited success! :evilgrin:

The average DUer is more intelligent than the people hired to disrupt public forums on the Internet. They come here and they try, with varying degrees of success, but they are outed pretty quickly with sheer logic and the power of, as my brother in law calls it, "Massive Parallel Browsing". :)

[KT2000]

42. Yes - have noticed

that disruptors do not last long here - and what a relief.

Looked up Bivings Groups and the Republican National Comm is one of their clients - along with folks such as Monsanto and the Petroleum Institute. Bet they look around here.

[IMayBeWrongBut]

121. Remibnds me of the guy that will post

on every single slashdot.org having anything to do with segways, his webpage about how great Segways really are and how he has actually lost weight since buying one! :)

[wyldwolf]

45. Bartcop...

...failed to mention it as well - unless I missed it.

[Bartcop]

201. hey from bart

What did I fail to mention?

[Imajika]

46. Well, well..

I just noticed this thread and as one of the original naysayers I am quite satisfied that this story did not make it to the level of the "Pentagon Papers" or was anywhere near as historic as "1776".

I still don't understand why Bev Harris believes her life is in danger or why she feels the need to check in here every so often so people know she has hasn't "dissappeared".

I firmly believe that this promised story was ridiculously overhyped and sensationalized, and personally I don't think it is having anywhere near the impact some people have deluded themselves in to believing.

There is no proof of any wrong doing, no proof anyone tampered with the machines to flip an election and not one iota of proof of any kind of conspiracy.

"Quite frankly I am surprised, though, at their complete disappearance after the JHU study was released."

I, for one, haven't gone anywhere. I had previously said my peace and saw no particular reason to keep commenting on the black box threads since I believe the story clearly never lived up to its billing.

I believe it is a good public service that is being performed by Bev Harris and others in acting as a watchdog and bringing attention to this issue - I am glad to know some people are doing that. But there is no evidence of wrongdoing and my guess is that Diebold will keep cranking out voting machines and States and localities will keep right on buying and using them.

I am impressed that Bev and company were able to propogate their story. I watched it spread, and though I suspect the vast majority of the public still have never even heard of the subject, it is still quite an achievement to get one's issue picked up by so many news outlets.

Saying that, this story was advertised as some sort of blockbuster - it simply is not that. No Republicans will be brought down, Diebold will not be brought down, no crimes have been shown and no evidence that the 2002 elections or any others were tainted by any voting machine conspiracy.

I would have actually been offering congratuations to those involved in getting the story out had they not led people to believe it was far bigger than it really was.

Imajika

[birdman]

47. Gee, you must work for a voting machine company

You're right, of course, this is a story about security
holes in computer systems and it's hardly earth-shaking so
far. I think there needs to be greater security on the machines
and have said so from the start but it's a long leap from
a security hole to vote stealing and too many people on this board
have jumped onto the black helicopter and declared that there
can be no fair elections next year unless the "voting machine problem"
is fixed. And yet there has been no evidence presented to
lead to that conclusion. From what we've seen of Diebold if
they set out to rig an election they'd probably throw it to
the wrong person.

The companies who sell the systems and the pols who bought them
are naturally going to defend the integrity of the system, but
because they need to cover their butts not necessarily because
they are involved with election chicanery.

[BevHarris]

49. birdman, you actually said something I agree with

"From what we've seen of Diebold if they set out to rig an election they'd probably throw it to
the wrong person."

Johnson County, Kansas, November 2002 general election: County election workers became suspicious when they found 125 votes somehow appeared in the write-in column. (Upon further examination, they found that at least six races had been counted differently at the precincts than on the county totalling machine. Diebold Election Systems Bob Urosevich got involved, and could not explain the problem. He said the machines count splendidly, it is just the totals that are wrong.

Bev

[Gordon25]

55. Evidence?

Here are four races from the 2002 elections, all counted on Diebold software. As someone who knows something about statistical probabilities, methinks this would certainly qualify as at least circumstantial evidence.

FOUR QUESTIONABLE ELECTION RESULTS IN 2002 ELECTIONS;
ALL RACES COUNTED ON DIEBOLD MACHINES

****Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution/WSB-TV of 800 likely voters on Nov. 1 For Georgia Governor
Roy Barnes (D)      51%  up 11
Sonny Perdue (R)  40%
** "Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines' on Nov. 5
Roy Barnes (D)      46%
Sonny Perdue (R)   51% up 5 - that's a 16-point pro-Bush swing
----------------------------------
****Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution Nov. 1 for Georgia Senate
Max Cleland (D)         49% up 5
Saxby Chambliss (R)  44%
**"Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines'
Max Cleland (D)        46%
Saxby Chambliss        53% up 7 - that's a 13-point pro-Bush swing
----------------------------------
****Poll by MSNBC/Zogby on Nov. 3 for Colorado Senate
Tom Strickland (D)  53%  up 9
Wayne Allard (R)     44%
** "Official Results"
Tom Strickland (D)  46%
Wayne Allard (R)     51%  up 5  - that's a 14-point pro-Bush swing
---------------------------------
****Minneapolis Star-Tribune Poll on Nov. 3 for Minnesota Senate
Walter Mondale (D)  46%  up 5
Norm Coleman (R)   41%
** "Official Results"
Norm Coleman (R)   50%
Walter Mondale (D)  47%  up 3  that's an 8-point pro-Bush swing
{SNIP}
http://www.bartcop.com/111102fraud.htm

Gordon25

[Imajika]

59. That is not evidence of anything

...other than some polls being wrong. These polls may very well have just not caught the way Georgia, and infact a fair bit of the nation, was trending.

Many polls showed Bush with a 2-5 point advantage going into the 2000 election yet he lost the popular vote. Most polls didn't catch the strength of our Democratic Senate candidates in 2000 either - yet when the dust settled we picking up around 5 seats.

Polls not reflecting the final outcome of an election generally just means the polls were wrong, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Your kidding yourself if you think what you offered as evidence is anything of the sort.

Imajika

[DEMActivist]

69. So, Imajika, tell me....

Is the following statement by Diebold's President evidence?

Representatives from Diebold, which sells both systems, told the council that Boston was better off with the optical scanners. John Silvestro, president of the company, said the optical scanning system reduces lines at polling places and helps preserve the integrity of elections by leaving a paper "audit trail." He also said the touch-screen system would cost the city about six times as much money, and that companies like his are still working the kinks out of the touch-screen machines, a newer technology.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/214/metro/Menino_OK_s_new_voting_machines+.shtml

I don't maybe it just means Georgia has a "kinky" Senator and Governor, huh????

[Gordon25]

90. Oh?

According to two statisticians I know at the university, those kinds of swings (with margins of errors taken into account) are in the one in trillions range. That constitutes circumstantial evidence." :evilgrin:
Gordon25

[Imajika]

93. No it doesn't

"That constitutes circumstantial evidence."

No, it quite clearly does not. I don't know what statisticians your talking to but if they are telling you that the odds of those polls being wrong were one in trillions, well I would suspect they were some of the worst statisticians in their field in all of history.

If the odds were really one in trillions a whole heck of a lot more people would know it and be investigating it.

Before you could even begin to make claims like that you'd have do an enormous amount of background research - probably including doing a historical study of the polling firms to determine how they did in past elections. You'd have to compare them with other polls - including internal polling, determine whether each of these polls was actually gauging accurately what they were intended to measure throughout the entire campaign, see how these polls were weighted and determine whether the formula was incorrect all along, find out whether a significant trend was taking place at the last moment of the election cycle throughout Georgia and other regions or states, etc, etc.

That these polls were wrong is just not evidence of anything other than these particular polls being innaccurate. Polls are wrong all the time. In 1990 (I believe) Christie Todd Whitman nearly beat Bill Bradley in New Jersey - not a single poll caught that the election was trending that way. I am sure there were 3 or 4 other surprise finishes that year as well. Was in one in trillions that this could happen? One in billions? Millions? No, the polling was just innaccurate.

Imajika

[Gordon25]

94. New American Heritage Dictionary

"circumstantial evidence. Law. Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute, but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurance of the fact in dispute."

Helps in a discussion to have an agreed upon definition.

Oh, and: page 244, right hand column, two thirds of the way down: Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76-86995:
Standard Book Number: 395-09064.

Cheers.

Gordon25

[DoveTurnedHawk]

185. You're Joking, Right?

Poll swings happen all the time, and a simple study of history would reveal it's nowhere near the "one in trillions" level of probability. It's probably about ten orders of magnitude less than that.

DTH, Who Heard That Dewey Beat Truman

[TruthIsAll]

248. Imajika, you are wrong...

Have you seen my post which calculates the probabilty that 4 out of 8 critical Senate elections would fall beyond the polling margin of error (+/- 3%) MOE and all for the Repukes?

The odds are 1 out of 40,000 (conservative). Proof? No. Heavily circumstantial? Yes. Especially since Diebold machines were used in 3 of the 4 states.

Remember the Rob-Georgia files?

[Imajika]

62. Agreed

I completely agree with everything you say here.

The sad thing is that I believe many people are missing our, or at least my, entire point (I won't speak for you).

My argument is not that it isn't a good, worthy and even noble idea to look into these electronic voting machines. On the contrary, I am glad that someone is spotlighting this issue because it can only mean Diebold and the other manufacturers will have to make an extra effort to make these machines reliable and accurate.

My gripe from the beginning was about all the hype, build-up and sheer exaggeration. This is an interesting story, but it is not a blockbuster event. There was no reason whatsoever to talk about people being "dissappeared". There was no reason to try to turn what is otherwise an interesting story in to some kind of scandal.

Common sense just screams that if were really that big, and real proof existed of something criminal or fraudulant, that the DLC or ACLU or someone along those lines would be sponsoring the entire effort. Yet people were waiting breathlessly for the BIG news to hit the press - and it just wasn't all that big.

Imajika

[BevHarris]

79. A triple set of books is a scandal. It's called fraudulent accounting

Apparently you don't get that point.

The software has hidden vote repositories, a triple set of books. That's a scandal. It pulls the totals report from a different set of books than the detail report, and you can add, subtract, or overwrite votes in that set of books. That's a scandal.

The second set of books disengages from the first set. That is a scandal. Any 10-year old can fake the password. That is a scandal. You can walk right in and change the audit logs. They actually disabled the function that would keep someone from altering the protective audit log. That is a scandal.

The entire set of lies about remote access is a scandal. Then they lied to certifiers, saying they used Windows "off the shelf" exactly as is. That is a scandal. Then they made unauthorized changes to Windows, very dangerous ones. That is a scandal.

Having smart cards so dumb that any 15-year-old can come in and assume supervisor priveleges is beyond scandalous.

Sticking a press release on your web site that says "the software examined by the Johns Hopkins scientists was never used in any election" when it most certainly was -- as evidenced by the matching version number in the NASED certified Diebold software and the source code version number -- is a scandal.

Putting everything a vote-rigger would need on an open web site and leaving it there for six years is a scandal. When you get busted on that, slapping together ANOTHER ftp site and sticking files on that is yet another scandal.

Tell you what: YOU use the Diebold no-paper-trail voting machines, but when the rest of us absolutely object to subjecting our own vote to that invitation to tampering, get out of our way. Go ahead. You use the scandalous machines. The rest of us want nothing to do with 'em.

It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to many of the rest of us.

Bev

[Imajika]

89. It is not a scandal because you say it is...

"A triple set of books is a scandal. It's called fraudulent accounting"

It would be a scandal were you to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing, flipped elections, GOP fixing the voting machines, Diebold working in cohoots with Republicans to rig the system, etc, etc, etc.

Saying you found security flaws and claiming it is a scandal is just not going to fly. If it were really a blockbuster story it would be generating a lot more attention than it is, certainly more attention than thread after thread on the subject on political message forums.

If your efforts cause Diebold and others to further secure their machines that would be great. The very fact that you've called attention to the voting machines, causing some to take a second look at the potential flaws and security holes is a good thing too.

But a scandal it isn't.

"It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to many of the rest of us."

I never said it was not necessarily a big deal. I've been told their is more coming so I will wait and see. I just have my doubts. Perhaps you do have something really big that would cause you to believe your in danger of being "dissappeared". I just don't see it yet.

Imajika

[BevHarris]

102. And your accounting/bookkeeping credentials are???

A triple set of books is a scandal.

It is fraudulent bookkeeping.

You claim it isn't -- back that up with a statement from any accountant. You can't have two (or three) sets of books that don't match. Not a gray area, it's called fraud.

You never pull the accounting data from two different sets of data (Diebold does). That is fraudulent accounting.

This is not a bug, it is a feature.

Not only that, it violates FEC voting machine standards in about six different ways. You also didn't address any of the other things that have been exposed.

But let's do this: If you aren't a troll, if you really do care, as you say you do, will you go on record here that you, too, insist on a paper trail?

Will you go on record here that you support removal of all remote access mechanisms from these machines?

Will you go on record here that you, too, insist on more robust auditing of elections?

Will you go on record that the (indeed, serious) problems already uncovered indicate that certification is MISSING a few things, and we need much better and more public scrutiny of the code in these machines?

Bev Harris

[DoveTurnedHawk]

192. Imajika Is No Troll

And you do yourself a disservice, IMO, by trying to dismiss him as one.

Oh, and for the record:

But let's do this: If you aren't a troll, if you really do care, as you say you do, will you go on record here that you, too, insist on a paper trail?

Will you go on record here that you support removal of all remote access mechanisms from these machines?

Will you go on record here that you, too, insist on more robust auditing of elections?

Will you go on record that the (indeed, serious) problems already uncovered indicate that certification is MISSING a few things, and we need much better and more public scrutiny of the code in these machines?

I absolutely agree with all of the above (although there might be a legitimate reason for remote access, so long as it's read-only).

DTH

[Junkdrawer]

198. Not to take issue with a conciliatory post..

but a "read only" link is almost impossible unless the transmitter doesn't care to know the transmission was successful.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

200. I'll Take Your Word for It

I'm not a programmer, myself. :-)

DTH

[Fredda Weinberg]

196. copies of tables are not sets of books

I saw the tables populated as the data was imported - they're not meant to be identical, ever. They're obviously work tables, suitable for rollbacks.

[Junkdrawer]

199. Work tables are cleared between runs of reports...

if these were "work tables", then changing the tables and rerunning the reports should have had no effect.

[Fredda Weinberg]

203. rollback tables aren't cleared for reports

and have you seen work tables that were cleared at the beginning of report runs, to allow for printers jams, etc?

[Junkdrawer]

205. Say what???

1.) Are you saying SumCandidateCounter was a rollback table for screen editing?

2.) In every system I've programmed, I used work tables when the requested format of the report didn't conform to the existing database structure. In this case, however, the "source" table CandidateCounter and the "report" table SumCandidateCounter differed only by a single field - there are no intermediate calculations performed. And that one field difference could have been obtained by a simple two-table join. I am honestly at a loss for providing a reasonable explanation for the need for SumCandidateCounter.

[Fredda Weinberg]

207. We have different experiences

There may have been a difference in just one field, but the hype at the time was that the tables were originally identical - but manual edits to one copy would report the wrong results.

I watched the data being imported - the two tables are filled with different procedures and the values differ immediately. That tells me that original sources are being protected and work tables are holding values subject to change ... manual entries are part of the work flow and late changes like challenged ballots could raise the need for a table that holds the original automated count values.

[Junkdrawer]

211. Replies:

1.) The original Scoop article clearly describes the structure of these two tables: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

2.) You keep implying that you have access to the source for GEMS. Where and how did you get it?

[Fredda Weinberg]

223. I downloaded the files at her request

I'm not implying anything. Links were eventually published at Bartcop - but the original pointed to Bev's site.

[Junkdrawer]

225. You said:

I watched the data being imported - the two tables are filled with different procedures and the values differ immediately.

Which procedures? Do you have the names of the source files?

[Fredda Weinberg]

230. these weren't source files ... they were databases

more specifically, the GEMS archives that were produced, presumably as part of training. They had actual county names, which made them interesting, but it didn't matter which one you imported ... the sumCandidateTotal (if I remember it correctly) and the CandidateTotal tables were populated with different procedures.

The original files are still available at the mirror and the link is at Bartcop. I'd consider it a waste of time to go chasing 'em again.

[Junkdrawer]

231. Procedures in the Access database???

Again, which procedures? :shrug:

[Fredda Weinberg]

241. the files didn't contain the source to the import procedure

but it would have been a VB module. we were also missing the manual entry module.

No, they were no Access modules.

[gristy]

179. jumping in here a day late...

Imajika - Time to stop harping on the messenger and/or how the message was conveyed. Just get over it. GET OVER IT! I really don't care what your opinion is on this particular subject, nor does anyone else, nor does is have any significant bearing on the prinicipal subject here - that of voting systems susceptible to fraud.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

210. well said

Yes... dissenters should be shot, comrade.

JC

[americanstranger]

51. That's what always bugged me about these threads.

Let me say up front that those who worked on this story deserve commendation for their dedication and perseverance.

Having said that, I have to note that it was distressing to me that anyone who even voiced the slightest bit of skepticism about the story was shouted down as a troll, a disruptor, on Rove's payroll, etc.

I've been posting here a relatively long time, and people I thought I 'knew' (as much as one can 'know' a person from interacting on a message board) were accusing me of being a disruptor. Hell, just about all the people here who also post on BC Forum who said anything on those threads were treated like shit. Accusations were made about certain stories that have circulated (Will Pitt alludes to one 'naysayer' in particular, and called JanMichael 'ill-informed' for voicing an opinion about that nay-sayer - and he's probably right, because he would know personally from actually dealing with that person). I noticed some pretty heavy charges leveled against BartCop for the Julie Hyatt Steele episode, when the person making the charges was clearly talking out of his ass. And when antoher poster - who did happen to know the real story - intervened, she was attacked as a 'disruptor, too.)

I can't speak for anyone but myself (so please don't challenge me to defend BartCop or anybody), but after getting my head koshed in that first thread, I decided it simply wasn't worth participating in the threads from that point on, and I'd guess that a lot of people reacted the same way.

Okay, flame if you must.

-as

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[americanstranger]

88. Just WHERE did I slam JHS?

Point it out.

I met Julie for maybe 5 minutes at JulieFest, said my hellos, went home. Don't know her from Adam, wouldn't slam her unless I actually knew the woman.

All I said - and go back and read the post again to verify - is someone spoke out of turn. And when another poster pointed that fact out, she got jumped, too. I slammed the person who spoke out of turn, but unless that person is JHS posting under a different name, you haven't got an argument.

And what's with the veiled threat? You gonna get me banned or something?

Note to self - explore the 'ignore' function. Seems like it might come in handy all of a sudden.

-as

[ianbruce]

158. FYI: "Qui Tam" money

The False Claims Act allows any person who knows that an individual or company has financially defrauded the federal government to file a "qui tam" lawsuit to recover damages on the government’s behalf. Under the False Claims Act, someone reporting fraud receives 15 to 30 percent of whatever amount the government recovers as a result.

Most everyone here sees Black Box Voting for what it is -- perhaps the greatest threat to democracy since this nation's founding. Unfortunately, a couple of others (and you know who you are) see dollar $igns. That's a singularly disgusting attitude, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery."
--Thomas Paine

For more information on "qui tam" lawsuits, see:

http://www.quitam.com/quitam6.html

[americanstranger]

160. Are you including me in that charge?

If so, you're really barking up the wrong tree. Clarify, please.

-as

[BevHarris]

165. american stranger -- I dont know why anyone is including you

in any of this mudslinging. I've never thought of you as a disruptor and I've never thought you had anything to do with any of them either. Actually, I didn't consider bart a disruptor, but I do think he and fud were (or are) after Qui Tam money.

This is kind of a pointless thread, and getting more so. Okay, I'll name them, those that seem to contribute little of value are: birdman, half man half biscuit, and those who sometimes have contributions of value, but seem to have an agenda are Fredda, TinfoilHatProgrammer, and Cocoa.

I've never seen that much to complain about, disruptors or not -- I either argue with them (because sometimes I like to argue) or ignore them. Only occasionally do they get damaging, and that is usually when they start making up things and attributing them to me, and in that case I call them on it.

You've never fit into any of those categories.

I don't know what JHS has to do with any of this, and hope her issues are not brought up in context of Black Box Voting again, since it is entirely extraneous.

More power to you and Take Back the Media, and I hope you guys kicked Michael Weener's butt.

Sincerely,

Bev Harris

[alaine]

169. You're between the sunshine and the bright blue sea...

I can't believe that the people who are intentionally disrupting, or are naysayers, or just skeptical, are not aware of how helpful they are being...

A pox on all of them, though, because they put a Christina Aguilera song in my head I didn't even know the words to and I had to go google it up 'cause it was driving me nuts, I saw her perform it once on SNL and I just got the jist of it, it's called "Fighter" and since I had to go to this effort...

"...Cause it makes me that much stronger
makes me work a little bit harder
makes me that much wiser...

...made me learn a little bit faster
made my skin a little bit thicker
makes me that much smarter...

My personal thanks to everyone for asking these questions because I'm not that computer literate and I learn more from these threads than the ones where everyone is speaking in techie-tongue.

I'm offended on a personal level that anyone wouldn't be alarmed and offended by Diebold's response. I guess posting here at D.U. disqualifies me as a jane q. public (it shouldn't, but I'm sure I'll be said to have an agenda like everyone on the plus side of the issue) but their flip response makes me angry.

Anyway just wanted to post this to say thanks to the naysayers because I don't think this thread is pointless at all, it's awesome to be able to go throught the arguments over and over to get talking points. Maybe tinfoilhat programmer is really pro-BBV and this is a humanitarian effort! If so, much obliged, "from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need".

[Fud]

172. Who is doing the trolling here?

You just made another accusation against me.I cannot speak for bart but i know he just wants the truth out.As far as making the claim that we are after the "Qui Tam" money frankly you lost even more credibility.Your site is filled with get rich schemes and moneymaking on the net sort of stuff.Shall i post them again?

Now if you just want to smear people for no reason who is the troll then?I work on 3 servers for absoulutly free maintaining them and happy to do so.

Also those people yapping about the JHS issue when they don't know what they are talking about"aka opinion" should shut up about it really if they don't know the whole story.

Nice trolling bev or should i say trolling for dollars.

Oh and do you need all the money to pay for the bodyguards since all these people are out to get you?

8 months ago i offered up real experts on the field and you ignored them completly.One worked in the DOD in software engineering the other guy is an expert in embedded systems.You just flipped them off.

To me you are nothing but a publicity hound.I feel like posting all your scamming links again but wont untill you accuse me again of something else.

Have a nice day.

[BevHarris]

176. Please post the "scamming links" if you have them -- but note

that there are several people named Bev Harris, one of whom has a direct mail business, another who writes booklets or something. I don't know that they have "scamming links" either.

My publicity business has been essentially shut down since April, but if anyone wants to see the services it provides (I am only doing fax blasts right now, and have been turning down other PR assignments) -- feel free to look at the "scam" -- http://www.talion.com

It is a generous site filled with free reports for those interested in publicity and marketing. As far as I know, there is nothing about "money making on the net." Most of the reports are, like "How to write a press release" and "How to market your book to associations" and there is a report for entertainers on how to get started with agents and so forth. I actually don't do much with Internet marketing, which leads me to believe fud has someone else's links altogether.

If fud says he and bartcop were not after Qui Tam money (I asked several times and neither answered this question) -- well, then I accept that and apologize for a wrong assumption. Each time I asked before, they avoided the question, and the aggressiveness when we found actionable flaws was a bit over the top. They became insistent that we share some sort of master password with them immediately (as far as I know, such a thing does not exist, though Fredda indicated there was such a thing if you put it in debug and double-click, something we have certainly never seen).

fud has had the Diebold files since February. Since it took the Johns Hopkins guys only a week to discover serious security flaws, I think we can judge expertise based on that. I have yet to see any report on the Diebold files from fud or bart.

I first heard of fud about 6 1/2 months ago, so it would have been difficult for him to refer experts to me 8 months ago. In fact, 8 months ago I didn't even know about the Diebold files. Oh well.

If he has access to experts, he could have worked with them and started breaking stories months ago. It's not too late, there's plenty of fodder left in those files.

Bev

[Fud]

177. Ok here we go

"that there are several people named Bev Harris, one of whom has a direct mail business, another who writes booklets or something. I don't know that they have "scamming links" either."

There are alot of people named bob smith as well but those were on your site talion.com

"If fud says he and bartcop were not after Qui Tam money (I asked several times and neither answered this question) -- well, then I accept that and apologize for a wrong assumption. Each time I asked before, they avoided the question, and the aggressiveness when we found actionable flaws was a bit over the top."

If you think i follow every single thread here think again.I never saw one question only making lame accusations.Do you think the whole world is supposed to pay attention to you and you only and everything you say?

"fud has had the Diebold files since February. Since it took the Johns Hopkins guys only a week to discover serious security flaws, I think we can judge expertise based on that. I have yet to see any report on the Diebold files from fud or bart."

Again the files were available i'm not arguing there are security flaws at all.And allways thought a system based on windows is flawed but when you make outrageous claims that kind of makes me miffed.What if i came out and said you were a crack whore without proof?How would that make you feel?You see smearing people like that is counter productive right.You repeatedly ignored the real experts.One who is a mod on democrats.com.You BJ Hudley again go out of your way to smear people.Thats your pen name right?

"If he has access to experts, he could have worked with them and started breaking stories months ago. It's not too late, there's plenty of fodder left in those files."

Actually you didn't want to work with them and i'll quote roxanne here "we have our own experts".Ok whatever you can just go about making claims and whatnot.It's allways easier to let other people do the work for you huh?You ignored a request for a notarised copy of the software that can be examined which will stand up in court.

Go ahead and keep making false claims about people it will only make you look more foolish.

[BevHarris]

190. "scamming links" -- if you have them, post them.

If not, you are just mudslinging. Post the links that you claim have to do with getting rich quick on the Internet, that you say are written by me or any pen name. Post the links that you say are "scams" written by me or any pen name.

Can you spell L I B E L ?

Name the DU mod that I "blew off" -- fud, this is just more lies and b.s. and I'm calling you on it.

I got feelers to work with fud -- tried it, you were dead silent for six months, waste of time. I was also told to work with Ben Burch, never heard a lick of information from him either. News flash: If you want to work with a writer, you have to deliver information. It isn't the writer's job to keep giving YOU information without getting any valuable input in return.

I currently have 18 computer people I work with, and they represent all areas of the spectrum. I welcome more, but our deal is they have to produce valid input that we can confirm with independent experts.

Currently we have a shortage of people with Windows developer experience. We have only four, and need to add some bulletproof credentials in this area. Alternatively, we will focus on doing a live demonstration using hackers. That's a pretty good hint on the next story.

If you have anyone who qualifies, let me know. If you want to take your "experts" and break stories yourself, have at it. So far, I've seen nothing productive from you.

If you make one more public statement about scams, you will want to back that up very carefully with evidence. That is clearly libel.

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

212. heh

I was going to make a list of various libellous claims you've posted here about Diebold but it's fairly pointless in this particular venue. I like it when you paint other people with that brush though, it adds extra hilarity to the whole thread. :)

JC

[DEMActivist]

191. OK, FUD, let's get serious here...

If this is what you mean by "You ignored a request for a notarised copy of the software that can be examined which will stand up in court."

In the mean time is there anyway to get one of the machines to XXX XXXXX (name redacted)? I mean you really have to have an expert at one that has experience in enbedded systems.

then you truly are clueless. Do you not understand that even the RECOGNIZED EXPERTS like David Dill, Rebecca Mercuri, Doug Jones, et al, can't put their hands on these machines?

Are you really that clueless?

You think your "self defined expert" can avoid the threat of being jailed for possession of these machines when the RECOGNIZED EXPERTS can't?

You mean Bob Fertik couldn't get his moderator a machine but you expected US to? Well, let's try some common sense, Fud.

You wanted me and Bev to get you a machine how? Theft? Subtrefuge? Lies? Catch a clue, Fud. Possession of those machines is a criminal offense according to federal law.

Notarized copy, my ass.

[americanstranger]

206. This is what I'm talking about here.

You call anyone who goes against the grain 'clueless,' delusional,' and all kinds of pretty nasty names.

Meanwhile, I asked you a question in the thread above. The question, some 10 hours later, remains unanswered - but you did level a couple of veiled threats that I'm still wondering about.

In the post that you originally reponded to, I mentioned that BartCoppers who participated in these threads, were, by and large, 'treated like shit.' Your post to Fud proves my point.

Fud was accused of going after money while deraiiling the voting machine investigation - a completely unfounded and outrageous accusation, which I note that Bev has backed off of. But I have to wonder why that charge was levelled in the first place, and whether anyone has any sort of proof to back it up.

This whole thing is so fucking sad.

-as

[Fud]

237. Well she asked for links

Here they go and they are on her site so how is that Libel?I think it is libelous to try and smear other people without proof.Bev you must think everyone else is stupid execpt yourself.


This email is an automatic message generated by a forum program at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

http://web.archive.org/web/19990222150235/http://www.talion.com/cigar.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/19991009084019/http://www.talion.com/cigar.htm

---just a few of the many unsenet posts--------

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:talion%40ix.netcom.com&start=10&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35FAA8B8.14F5%40ix.netcom.com&rnum=20

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:talion%40ix.netcom.com&start=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35FAAAE6.31F7%40ix.netcom.com&rnum=21


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:talion%40ix.netcom.com&start=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35FAAA1D.7CF3%40ix.netcom.com&rnum=22

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:talion%40ix.netcom.com&start=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35FAA38E.5E71%40ix.netcom.com&rnum=23

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:talion%40ix.netcom.com&start=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35FAA5E9.74D8%40ix.netcom.com&rnum=24

This was sent to me by a DU mod who will remain nameless so they don't get trashed either.Want some more links bev?You started this shit in the first place you know.Take me to court i don't care you will only be wasting your bodyguard money.In fact i should be taking you to court for slander.Telling bullshit about myself and my friends over at BC.

[angka]

254. so

all your talk about bev promoting 'get rich quick schemes', and all you've got is her selling Clinton-themed cigars back in 1998?

this is a goddamn joke, and if i were bev maybe i would consider suing you.

[ParanoidPat]

255. 7 links to the same sales pitch for a single novelty item.....

....but nothing advertising 'get rich quick' schemes.
Where are the links she asked for? :shrug:

You posted, "Your site is filled with get rich schemes and moneymaking on the net sort of stuff. Shall i post them again?"

She responded in the affirmative and that's all you could come up with?

Then you attempt to bolster it's significance with the claim "This was sent to me by a DU mod who will remain nameless so they don't get trashed either."

Although I find it quite intriguing that any DU mod would do something like that behind another members back, you paint someone's personal opinion as some sort of official warning issued by DU because it allegedly came from a moderator "who will remain nameless"!

Moderators of these forums are volunteers selected from the membership by the Administrators of DU.
The Admins of this site have been very open about the role moderators play here. They have issued clear instructions on how the volunteers acting in that capacity should do everything they can to avoid the appearance that their personal opinions reflect those of DU, the administrators or anyone else at DU!

Um, would the admins care to weigh in on having DU's credibility and trustworthiness called into question like this? Seem like a cheap shot to me! :)
Talk about HYPE!
That's
Fucked
Up
Dude!
:evilgrin:

[Junkdrawer]

264. Email notification of a PM...

Here's the clue from FUD's post:

This email is an automatic message generated by a forum program at

I think FUD mistook this as a message from a moderator.

[DEMActivist]

266. And if you'll look at the original Bartcop thread...

you'll find the author of that PM. He happens to be well known on other boards for starting trouble and then disappearing to watch the fight he started from the sidelines.

I'd just like to know why selling a product for a customer (the cigars) is a "scam" when the Bartcop hero is well known for his "marketing genius" of selling subscriptions to a non-existent radio station and playing cards he never had printed and the homemade video of a person who never gave her permission to be used in such a manner.

[Fud]

303. Ok then check them out

For all you cult followers that will drink Kool-aid laced with cyanide if she tells you too.

http://www.talion.com/dudley-1.htm
http://www.talion.com/bookmarket.htm

If that isn't self promotion then i don't know what is.So BJ Dudley bring on an libel suit and i will show that you claimed i penetrated your system ok?I mean if you are that stupid that you can't check server logs and expect people to believe you know anything about coding you are only fooling a few people.

The only libel here was lies told by you against me and others.Keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.

As far as i'm concerned you are not even qualified to look into this there is http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ and slashdot.org which are way more credible.Sure you can get publicity and all the which is all fine and well to bring the issues out but when you come out and attack people it just makes you look petty and that goes for you too rox.

[BevHarris]

304. Whew. That was some ugly HTML coding wasn't it?

For some unknown reason fud used the wayback engine, maybe to show the incredibly garish and ugly html code back then. Those pages are all old, but this is a more recent version:

http://www.talion.com/resource.htm

None of that is a scam. The reports were very popular but it was a hassle to fill the orders so I put them all up on the web for free. Haven't charged for them for at least five years.

Nothing in there is a scam, and most of those reports were written up in trade mags and got very good reviews. They do look pretty self-promoting.

Now, slashdot had about 400 posts in a row that supported my conclusions in this report http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm

Therefore, if slashdot is credible, apparently my Diebold report was too, since it did pretty well with slashdotters reviewing it.

None of the personal stuff matters, in the end, because the facts speak for themselves:

- over 112 elections have been miscounted on these machines, many not even close, and this is documented and sourced. This is a fact.

- Voting company ownership includes far too much secrecy and conflict of interest, and Chuck Hagel et. al. behaved inappropriately and, yes, suspiciously by lying about and hiding ownership on required disclosure documents.

- Diebold left its files out on a wide-open ftp site, which was idiotic security. This is a fact.

- Georgia put 22,000 unexamined patches on its machines shortly before the election, they came directly from Diebold, who then denied that it happened. This is a fact.

- Diebold uses Microsoft and Access and has improper database structure in the GEMS program, and its passwords can be bypassed by any 10-year old, its audit logs rewritten without leaving a clue, and its votes overwritten. This is a fact.

- The voting companies (except for Avante and AccuPoll) are going through absolute gymnastics and contortions in order to avoid a paper trail, which is what most voters want and is the only way to really safeguard the integrity of the vote.

Above are the issues. If the best anyone can do is avoid issues of ownership, erroneous vote-counts, security lapses, unauthorized patches, inappropriate program design, and the increasingly strange refusal to offer a paper trail -- in favor of discussing my firm's reports from 6 years ago (which are still pretty good, by the way; you should read them if you are in bookselling or marketing) -- well, that is kind of a strange set of priorities, but each to his own.

Peace.

Bev

[Fud]

345. Pffft wayback engine

Those are on your site and you blame it on bad html.Haha maybe the diebold people wrote those pages for you.

Deflect and dodge like (it's not my fault it was just bad html}

Well if you blame it on bad code on your own page why should anyone trust you?

Just keep going you are losing more and more credibility every day by throwing out bullshit.

Should i post more links from your site?They are not a clone bev harris but from your site.Don't deflect and say oh there are alot of bev harris's out there.

You must think everyone is an idiot but you.Think again.Think hard think deep about what you are doing.

[DEMActivist]

305. Perhaps you should listen to yourself

Who came HERE to attack Bev and I? Did we go to your house? No, you're on DU doing it.

Excuse me, FUD, but you are now, and have been WAY OUT OF LINE ON THIS. WAY OUT.

You've been had by your "moderator" who was never a moderator. Admit it and go back to Bartcop.

[BevHarris]

306. Dem: What they can't discuss is the facts.

So they attack cigars and 6-year old free reports (that are still pretty good, by the way).

How desperate is that?

Can you say "avoid the issue?"

Here's the issue: We need and demand a paper trail, elimination of remote access to voting machines, and robust auditing.

(Oh my God, six years ago she wrote a report about how to market books to associations)

We need and demand a paper trail, elimination of remote access to voting machines, and robust auditing.

(Oh my God, but in 1998 she sold 10 cases of Bill Clinton cigars as a gag)

We need and demand a paper trail, elimination of remote access to voting machines, and robust auditing.

(Oh my God, her web pages in 1997 were very ugly)

We need and demand a paper trail, elimination of remote access to voting machines, and robust auditing.

Actually, if these are the best arguments people can muster against the growing body of research demonstrating that we need to correct severe security flaws in our voting system, I'd say they are down to their last gasp.

We should be so lucky.

I think we have a huge battle yet to come, so let's not sap our strength with this bullshit any more, okay?

We need and demand a paper trail, elimination of remote access to voting machines, and robust auditing.

Bev Harris

- Conflict of interest and secrecy about voting company ownership

- Over 112 miscounted elections, and they weren't even close

- Appalling lack of security, leaving files that amount to a virtual tutorial for election-rigging on a wide open web site for six years

- Putting unauthorized patches on 22,000 machines right before the election

- A certification process that is a sham and a disgrace, and passes machines with whopping flaws right on through

- Passwords any 10-year old can bypass, overwriteable audit logs, changeable vote tables, back doors, use of inappropriate programs, smart cards that are very dumb, crappy encryption, and one lie after the next

- Contortions and going to absurd lengths to prevent voters from having a verified physical record so we can do proper audits.

This is what's happening to America.

(Oh my God she once sold joke Bill Clinton cigars)

Yeah, that sounds about right. What we've seen all along -- sell the U.S. democracy up the river while blaming it all on Bill Clinton's penis.

No more will I rise to the bait. Let's spend our energy hammering the issues that count.

[DEMActivist]

307. I know, I know.....

waste of time and effort. Moving on now....

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

308. amusing

Actually, if these are the best arguments people can muster against the growing body of research demonstrating that we need to correct severe security flaws in our voting system, I'd say they are down to their last gasp.

Let me be the first one to stand up and point out that your childlike web design skills have no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. The person who posted that isn't contributing anything of any substance.

These are only the best arguments when you wilfully ignore all the intelligent ones. Almost nobody here is saying that potential security flaws don't need to be corrected. The issue remains with the incessant over-hyping of the subject with grandiose statements like "we have just broken what may become the one of the biggest stories on the internet" and unfounded claims of malicious vote-rigging programming, active and ongoing election fraud, and the like. Same old same old. Carry on.

JC

[BevHarris]

309. Tinfoil: May I subject you to a cross examination?

I will be happy to send you a book if you comply.

Here's what I'd like to know:

You say the security flaws need to be corrected. What steps should this follow in order to re-establish trust in the system? (arguing that trust hasn't been lost doesn't qualify) And what specific security flaws do you feel should be addressed?

If you give a thoughtful, no-bullshit answer to this I'll do likewise for one of yours.

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

311. always happy to repeat myself

I'm not in the habit of posting bullshit answers to anything.

I think the smart card issue needs to be addressed, as I've indicated several times. It shouldn't be possible to manufacture forged smart cards and vote with them, or execute administrative functions on a voting terminal; the entire reason for the existence of smart cards is as a means of guaranteeing identity and/or implementing security. It's a relatively simple matter to make use of the security features of the smart card device, and there's no reason not to. I would like to see Diebold acknowledge this issue and state that either the hole will be fixed in an upcoming release, or that it's already been addressed in a particular release (along with the version number of any such release). I would like to see a technical description of the fix (a la MSDN), and verification of the associated code by a third-party agency. One of the certification labs would suffice for me (I recognize that most people here seem to feel the labs are all part of a larger conspiracy but I choose to be more reasonable); alternatively any accredited computer scientists would do. The Hopkins people would be fine; while I disagree with their "sneak attack" methodology I don't take issue with the technical merit of their findings.

I would like to see the encryption issues raised by the Hopkins report addressed. The use of a single hard-coded encryption key makes no sense and the choice of DES in CBC mode seems a little uninspired at best. I would prefer the use of triple-DES in an ECB mode, or possibly AES. Encryption/decryption keys should be generated at the very least on a per election (or per polling center) basis, by election officials, and without the participation of Diebold (implicitly via hard-coding of the key or otherwise). Perhaps Diebold would make the argument that they need to be able to decrypt the file for troubleshooting purposes (although I have not seem them make the claim), but I see no reason why that can't happen (if required) using decryption keys supplied by the election officials, and under supervision. While I'd like to believe that troubleshooting would never be necessary, I've written enough systems to know that it's inevitable in any computer system -- hardware failure, human error, acts of nature and other unplanned occurrences will always happen. Furthermore I see no reason why the data transferred between the voting terminal and the central server shouldn't be encrypted. If I interpret the Diebold response correctly, those results transferred to the server by phone are unofficial and the official results are the encrypted results stored on the memory card in the machine. Assuming that's a truthful statement (and unlike the BBV research crew, I'm inclined to accept it at face value), an attack that tampers with data transferred by that mechanism won't affect the outcome of the election -- it seems to me that it would (at best) introduce a temporary discrepancy that would be trumped by the official record on the memory card and which should be obviously be investigated accordingly. Despite that, any data transfer should be encrypted as a matter of course in my opinion. I would like to see Diebold address the encryption issue in the manner suggested or a credible alternative, or document that it's been addressed in a current release etc. as above. I'd like them to document the encryption strategies employed and have the implementation audited by a credible third party, as above.

I'm less worried about most of the other technical issues raised by the Hopkins team, and if that makes me a dissenter than so be it... wouldn't be the first time. I think they should be addressed by Diebold on principle, but my own feeling is that they're not especially exploitable in a real-world setup. *shrug* Still there's no reason to not fix them, and I'd like to see Diebold address each of them as above.

I'm also not worried about the use of Access in a standalone product, a stance which I'm sure will invite a pile of uninformed criticism. Oracle or SQL Server or whatever other database people would prefer simply isn't going to make any kind of difference -- scalability and performance simply aren't an issue in a product of this type. I once built a substantial portion of a web portal product for a high-profile software company and was forced to bundle an embedded, under-performing (in an enterprise-scale product) SQL database engine named "Velocis" in it because product management decreed that requiring the customer to purchase Oracle or SQL Server for their corporate portal was too onerous and bundling one of them in the box was cost-prohibitive. It wasn't malicious programming on the part of the development team, it was an uninformed choice made by some non-technical product management people. That's the way things sometimes go in the real world, in my experience. Why did Diebold choose to use an Access driver for their data storage? Who knows? In the end, I don't personally think it's significant. *shrug* That said, I do think they should make use of the available security mechanisms in the product. The fact that they apparently don't strikes me as sloppy and nothing more -- it would be the stupidest possible way to implement a back door for rigging elections.

I think you're completely off-base with the "triple set of books" to which you keep referring... I don't even require a comment from Diebold on the alleged "issue" behind their table design. I'm firmly with Fredda on this one and I recognize that you and I will simply have to disagree.

The use of Windows is a non-issue to me. Again various people will pooh-pooh the choice of Windows as a deployment platform and I'll simply have to disagree. There is nothing inherently "evil" or even "bad" about Windows. It's not the best solution for every single application (I use Linux for my web server and a set of redundant Solaris boxes to host my corporate database, for example) but then again, nothing is the best all-purpose solution. The voting station is a dumb terminal with a big screen designed to present even the stupidest possible citizens (for example, ones who are challenged by something as simple as a "butterfuly ballot") with a simple, functional, and familiar enough user interface through which they can cast their vote. I have no problems with the choice of Windows for an application that's primarily a big, dumb user interface, and I don't require any special comment or justification from Diebold on the issue.

I've said many times that I'm in favor of a voter-verified audit trail. I'd like for the machine to print out a slip of paper with my vote choices listed on it, and for the slip of paper to be deposited in a box at the poll center. I think it protects the integrity of my vote. In practice it'll rarely matter because of the strict rules about hand recounts, but in the case of another Florida debacle it'd be nice to know there's a box of paper receipts that confirm whatever the machine says. Unlike the people who intentionally misinterpret the published reports to support their arguments in favor of the paper trail, I don't think the voter-verified audit trail addresses any of the security issues listed by the Hopkins people, for reasons I've explained at least four times on this thread. It's totally separate. I would like to see Diebold (and ES&S, and Sequoia, and Hart Intercivic, and whoever else you may have mentioned -- I apologize for not keeping track as well as I might) offer some kind of receipt printer option with their product. I doubt any of them actually refuses, and moreover I'm fairly certain that for $100 or $500 or $1000 or whatever it costs per unit any of them would cheerfully sell a receipt printer to a customer that demanded one. You choose to see malicious motives, I choose to see simple economic feasibility... in a state with, say, 20000 voting machines, addition of a receipt printer adds (using my example numbers) $2, $10 or $20 million dollars to the total deployment cost. If none of the major competitors bundles one, they'll all be able to underbid. *shrug* If there are actually quotes from any those companies stating that they out-and-out refuse to sell a receipt printer just on principle I'd have a philosophical problem with those companies' stances on the matter.


In any event none of this is news, it's all stuff I've said before on the topic. As usual I fully expect the usual bunch of followers to attack, nitpick over a poorly-chosen word in my late-night reply, point out the odd dangling participle or claim that I'm a subversive freeper paid by a secret consortium of election companies to harsh the collective DU mellow. Whatever. It's primarily a story about security issues in a software product, and it has some merit as such. It's not anything approaching "the biggest story on the internet". It's not on a par with Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. Insinuations (or outright allegations) that actual election fraud has occurred are utterly unfounded. Implications, subtle or otherwise, that a team of Diebold goons might have you eliminated are completely asinine and do nothing but undermine your credibility. Claims such as the forgotten one about Diebold exploiting a specific (new) Windows security hole are simply libelous, even when they're later abandoned. And personally, I fail to see the point of gratuitously posting the names of random programmers either here or on your site -- what's next, addresses? Phone numbers? Credit histories? These are my main areas of contention -- not that security issues shouldn't be addressed or that a voter-verified audit trail isn't a reasonable thing.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

321. The point of the voter-verified paper audit trail was to...

facilitate spot checks. I assume you're in favor of each candidate being able to ask for hand recounts in a prescribed number of precincts of the candidates choosing AFTER the official results have been preliminarily declared.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

326. if I were in favor of it I would have said so

I don't remember saying I was in favor of any such thing. I actually have no strong opinion on it one way or the other. I assume losing candidates will always want to recount the results by hand in a prescribed number of precincts. I further assume that if the limited hand recount supported the result that said candidate lost, the conspiracy theorists will simply say that their candidate would have won if only different (or all) precincts had been recounted by hand. :eyes:

JC

[Junkdrawer]

327. Just as I thought.

A voter-verified paper audit trail is pretty useless if it is never used. And all a cheater needs to do is insure they win by a sufficiently wide margin so as not to trigger a manual recount.

Elections need to be auditable and audited. It's been my mantra since day one.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

336. no problem with "auditable"

"Audited" I care less about... most races aren't close enough for it to matter. Recount the close ones. Test the machines with hundreds of simulated elections year round between real elections and verify that they count everything accurately (or that they don't). *shrug*

JC

[BevHarris]

335. So you only want a paper trail if it is against the law to use it

In practice it'll rarely matter because of the strict rules about hand recounts

the deal is, a paper trail, and ROBUST AUDITS using that paper trail.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

337. that's not even a good try, bev

A simple statement of the way things currently work doesn't constitute an endorsement on my part. Claiming that I only want a paper trail it it's against the law to use it simply puts nonsensical words into my mouth in a juvenile attempt to make me look foolish.

I don't care about the audits... audit away. I simply referred to the current laws regarding hand recounts, none of which (as far as I know) were authored by any of the major election companies. Get the relevant laws changed and audit your heart out, I have no objection in principle to auditing the results. Based on the 2000 results, I suspect you'll find more problems in counties with antiquated punch card technology than with any of the major DRE systems.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

339. What an interesting response…

You said:
I don't care about the audits... audit away. I simply referred to the current laws regarding hand recounts, none of which (as far as I know) were authored by any of the major election companies. Get the relevant laws changed and audit your heart out, I have no objection in principle to auditing the results. Based on the 2000 results, I suspect you'll find more problems in counties with antiquated punch card technology than with any of the major DRE systems.

I would expect a lobbyist for Diebold, ES&S or Hart Intercivic to write such a response, but not an interested citizen. So, are you an industry insider or a concerned citizen like the rest of us?

If an industry insider: Why not let us know your affiliations?

If an interested citizen: Why would you not care that the election were audited?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

342. of course you would

Of course you would presume I must be some kind of lobbyist. :eyes:

I repeat (and why is it that I have to repeat myself so frequently just for you?) that I don't care about the actual auditing, only that the process is in fact auditable. I do not require that every single race in every single election actually be counted (technically re-counted) by hand as a matter of course. Where races are audited or recounted manually, for whatever reason, I expect the totals and results to match what was recorded electronically. If the current laws are amended to require that every race be manually recounted, I have no special objection. I repeat: audit away.

That being said, I don't think the crazy process used during the Florida recounts in 2000 is especially accurate or helpful. Guess that makes me a seditionist in addition to a paid lobbyist. Whatever.

Feel free to reply, I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit any more. You can just re-read my existing posts, it serves the same purpose and it's way less tiring.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

343. Yeah, I agree our "conversations" are exasperating...

You make outrageous statement X. I quote X back to you, show you the flaws in X and ask for your response. You then say you never said X but rather, of course, said Y. I then quote Y back at you… and on and on.

Fredda also uses the same technique. BTW: So far, she’s offered 4 or 5 different possible reasons for the SumCandidateCounter table, none of which makes any sense and, as of her latest response, was based on procedures she at first claimed to have read, but now admits she doesn’t know where they are.

Now, your latest outrage, in case you can’t see it, was that you have said that making the machines auditable is your concern, but actually auditing elections is not your concern. As part of the reason why you’re not concerned about audits you said:

“I don't care about the audits... audit away. I simply referred to the current laws regarding hand recounts, none of which (as far as I know) were authored by any of the major election companies. Get the relevant laws changed and audit your heart out, I have no objection in principle to auditing the results. Based on the 2000 results, I suspect you'll find more problems in counties with antiquated punch card technology than with any of the major DRE systems.”

Naturally, the “none of which (as far as I know) were authored by any of the major election companies” caught my eye. It just seemed to me you might be saying that since major election companies don’t write those laws, it’s not your concern. Can you see where one might come to that conclusion?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

344. nonsense

I say X, you quote X. I repeat X, occasionally with clarification. You repeat X and claim it says something different. I repeat X yet again, sometimes using small easy-to-understand words. You claim it says something still different. Sometimes for fun you intentionally misinterpret the clear intent of my statements and pick on a bit of wording you find suspect. Discussion with you is pointless. I am upfront and consistent. Your mischaracterization of my behavior is puzzling and uninteresting.

Once again: audit away. Recount away. Current law doesn't require it except in specific cases, and actually forbids it in many others. Get the law changed, I have no issue with auditing the results. I simply disagree that it's required for every race in every election. You may draw whatever personal conclusions you like from that statement; hopefully most people will simply take it at face value for whatever it's worth and either agree or disagree.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

346. There you go with the vocabulary again....

Look, if you need to expand your vocabulary, try reading some good literature and keep a dictionary handy. Don't be afraid to look up the words you don't understand. ;)

[BevHarris]

331. Thank you for your answers -- when DU is up and running better

I'll jump back in here. Right now my DU forum is functioning verrrrrry slowwwwly.

Bev

[DoveTurnedHawk]

340. Fantastic Post!

I look forward to reading the responses.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

341. Fantastic Post!

I look forward to reading the responses.

DTH

[ParanoidPat]

312. Let me be the first one to point out ....

....that you fool no one! Same old, same old, carry on, get lost! :evilgrin:
Why are you still here anyway? :shrug:
You have already made it clear to anyone who has read your posts that as a 'professional' programmer you would accept any old shit in a mission critical application as just the normal crap you're used to dealing with!
For Christ's sake, you couldn't even read the source code comments on your own to find what they led to! LOL! What the hell do you program? I want to make sure I never use it!:scared:
Do you use Outlook as your e-mail client as well? :)

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

329. personal insults from paranoid pat -- shock

I'm not trying to fool anyone.

I don't accept "any old shit" in any application. Ad hominem commentary does nothing to further the discussion. From your posts to date, it's unfortunately all I expect. :(

As you're well aware, I have looked at the source code from the FTP, comments and all. I declared that I found none of the secret malicious vote-altering, miscounting or election-rigging code that's been alleged here all along. I stand by the original claim and moreover I'm sure the Hopkins people will back me up on it. Oh wait, they already have... I think "ludicrous" was the word they used to dismiss that theory. Or are they simply not qualified either? :eyes:

JC

[Fud]

315. Rox umm read back

Who attacked who first or made unfounded charges?If you can't then go back to liberalisnotadirtryword and hang out there.Its not like there is much action there anyway.

I'll keep this simple ok.Who attacked who first?Anyone that can read can see.Good luck with LINADW you will need it since no one goes there and you are alienating people.

Don't worry you are not banned from BC since well we are not that mean.

[Fud]

347. Actually Rox

BJ Hudley went and started picking a fight in the first place.Do you think the other members are just going to stand back in fear or something?

If i attacked you first then i would expect you to respond to that as well.But that's not the way it happenend.

And rox since when was this "your" house?You have your own little playpen too so i don't know what you mean.

Why should i put up with other dems attacking dems?If you can dish it out then be preprared to get some back honey.

[DEMActivist]

349. Hey Mike....let's set the story straight shall we?

This shit started because someone posed a question on DU about why Bartcop would choose to slam Bev Harris on his web page.

At that point, your "moderator" who was never a moderator, but has always been a troublemaker, came calling to Bartcop to stir up some shit.

Then the Bartcoppers descended on DU. They began attacking Bev Harrs and all the Bev Harris supporters. You and Bart included.

Now, we can thoroughly embarass you by pulling the thread back up for all to see who is telling the truth here. Shall we?

So, Dear, yes.....you came to OUR HOUSE and started this shit. We finished it. Now run along and quit telling tales.

on edit:
Which version is true, Mike? The one you're telling today or the one you posted on my forum on July 6th? And I quote:

bart called me up and said if he should go on the attack on bev and i said no...as in NO then he called the other mod and she said no as well.I can't control what bart does nor can anyone.

[ParanoidPat]

319. Well lets see, you make claims like....

...."For all you cult followers that will drink Kool-aid laced with cyanide if she tells you too(sic)." without any reason to do so and claim that their actions make them look petty? :crazy:

Boy, you're losing friends left and right and all by your own doing! :evilgrin:
I can only judge people by my own experiance with them. My experience with you in all of 20 or so posts I know that if you are representative of what the Bartcop site has to offer I think I'll stay here and alert the mods to send you packing! BUH BYE!

[Jennie]

353. A NOVELTY item???

Is that right? What, pray tell, is the explanation for said 'NOVELTY ITEM"? Do you daresay that such NOVELTY was supportive of the last elected President of these United States, or was that an effort to make some money from his travails? What WAS the point of that little item? Was it to further the progressive cause? Could it have been to make some money offa, and further disparage Bill Clinton? Could that effort be seen as just a little, well, opportunistic?

Duh. Duh duh duh. I didn't just get off the bus from Stupidsville yesterday.

And yet, the purveyor of that NOVELTY can try to impugn the character/sincerity of Bartcop and Fud. Oh, puh-leeze. PUHHHH-LEEZE.

[The Night Owl]

294. So, where are the "scamming links" you so blithely mentioned?

All I see on the pages you provided links to is an ad for a silly novelty item.

Silly? Yes. Scam? No.

Bev Harris was exactly right... You did libel her.

[DEMActivist]

300. He sure did.....because...

a scam is when someone takes money and never delivers the product.

When one sells a product, takes money for said product, and then delivers said product, it's called a SALE!!!!

So, find a customer complaint about an undelivered product or what these folks have done is libellous.

libellous

Libelous \Li"bel*ous\ (l"bl*s), a. Containing or involving a libel; defamatory; containing that which exposes some person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule; as, a libelous pamphlet.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libellous

[angka]

257. well that would be because

bartcop came over here gunning for bev with every ad hominem trick in the book, and would up looking puerile and opportunistic.

and the gaggle of bartcoppers who bounced over here with him gave their little assault a cultish, almost larouchie feel. i for one was astonished by it given the good things i had heard about BC prior to this event.

[americanstranger]

279. 'Cultish,' LaRouchie.'

Why not just throw in 'freeper' while you're at it?

Some of you wonder why these exchanges get so testy. Look at the words you're using on fellow liberals.

Goddamned insulting, if you ask me.

-as

[angka]

285. i call it how i see it.

i'm trying to figure out how the bartcop incident was not, by the same standards, insulting. or any of the epithets hurled at the BBV people in this very thread. all against the intensifying backdrop of this story breaking out, to the repudiation of these petty detractors...

the trolls set the contentious tone, not me. but i am happy to oblige them. and if this outfit built up around one guy named bart wants to sway me with claims of liberal solidarity, i think an explanation as to what the hell happened there would be appropriate.

probably unrelated, but who knows: aren't you the one who got all bent out of shape about the questionw project a couple of months ago? maybe it was your friend, i don't remember.

[americanstranger]

288. It was me. And that got straightened out.

Not that it's really any of your business to begin with.

I'd make a snide remark about 'one woman named Bev,' but that seems to be your job.

-as

[angka]

291. well you know

once a subject is plastered across the DU general discussion forum (like your little ?W flap was), i think i can reasonably say whatever i want. not to mention that i am one of the webdevs at the nascent questionw.com, which makes me a little protective of it.

so i have no basis for hypothesizing that the two incidents might be related? perhaps psychologically? i think you perhaps were too irritated at the ?W dig to respond as you might have liked, not to mention you forgot to respond to anything else...

[americanstranger]

295. You know, I really, really should care.

But I don't.

After all, why should I concern myself with someone who drops troll-bait and then howls with satisfaction when he opens up a wound that was on it's way to healing?

And you're psychologically profiling me? Physician, heal thyself.

Buh-bye, angka. You've made the top of my 'not worth my time' list. Congrats.

-as

[angka]

299. oh please.

it amazes me how people living in glass houses continue to ignore the old truisms about throwing stones. spare me your plaintive bleating. this is the goddamn internet for christ's sake.

besides, i thought you weren't going to defend the actions of your bartcopper co-initiates, which is what i was originally talking about?

oh, that's right, i'm on your little list. buh-bye then.

[Whack_A_Mole]

302. Fully aware that you were on his 'ignore' list

you continue to post slings and arrows of supposed outrageous fortune. Would you consider such actions as reasonable or a fit of pique?

From my experience it seems to have been an attempt to get in the last word knowing that it would not be responded to by the object of your sheep insinuations.

Rather cheap & sleazy IMO.

W_A_M

[angka]

324. welcome to DU, whack-a-mole!

let's see, in your first-ever posts to DU, you are bashing BBV and referring to her supporters as the "BevBorg."

you know there are books on infiltration that you may wish to read before trying it...

[Whack_A_Mole]

332. Since my post totals are so low a review should not take but a moment

let's see, in your first-ever posts to DU, you are bashing BBV
Bashing the Black Box Voting subject? Perhaps you should re-read my posts. I believe I reserved judgment until Ms Harris' book is published so that it can be fairly evaluated. Given the paucity of actual documented information that I've seen I do no wish to leap into the void. Do you find fault with such an outlook?

and referring to her supporters as the "BevBorg."
Viewing the various D.U. threads on Black Box Voting from a 'newbie' perspective it struck me that nigh on anyone who voiced a doubt or asked a question which did not bolster the original thesis was treated in a shabby (or much worse) fashion. The "BevBorg" tag was/is not an insult to Ms. Harris but to those individuals, yourself included, who have all the open mindedness of a fanatic. Take five minutes to actually ponder if your mindset on this issue may not be based entirely on facts. Doubt is good, it makes you check assumptions and strive harder to find & verify facts.

you know there are books on infiltration that you may wish to read before trying it...
Finally, the subtle as a railroad tie to the groin, insinuation that I'm from the "Dark Side" of the farce. Not that, given the aforementioned behaviour patterns, it was a surprise. What is slightly surprising is that you didn't address your actions in replying to someone you knew had put your posts on "Ignore" with ad hominem attacks. Habits are difficult to break, but easy to apply even where they don't necessarily belong.

W_A_M

"What are the facts... ....oh, why bother.

[angka]

338. there's an enormous difference

between healthy skepticism and motivated disruption.

i am convinced that election fraud is real, a clear and present danger to freedom. despite dogmatic insistence from some people that nothing questionable has been demonstrated here, i submit to you that both empirical and quantifiable evidence of fraud in 2000 and '02, combined with studies like this one revealing gaping holes in the process which allow for such fraud to occur, do make this a 'massive' story, the importance of which (imo) cannot be understated.

The "BevBorg" tag was/is not an insult to Ms. Harris but to those individuals, yourself included, who have all the open mindedness of a fanatic. Take five minutes to actually ponder if your mindset on this issue may not be based entirely on facts.

i am an honors history major. critical thinking is my job. it's my open-mindedness that allowed me to consider the implications of what these people are discovering. if something were to come out that invalidated this research, i would happily concede, and find a new issue to hammer on. it would likely have some relationship to voting and election issues, though, because the issue is critically important. but this idea that i, or anyone else, latch onto the pronouncements of this research as gospel is absurd. you should really get some sun.

and as for your petulant remarks about my perceived ad hominem attacks, well, i make no apologies. i've read far worse stuff from the BBV-trolls than anything i have ever posted. funny to me how you can invent a term like "bevborg" and still cry 'ad hominem!' with any credibility.

i reject the insinuation that anyone who asks an off-topic or skeptical question in these threads gets beat on. that's total straw-man bullshit. so many people post reasonable inquiries, pro or con, and have them replied to in a constructive manner. this is one of the dumbest arguments you naysayers make, and you look foolish making it.

[Whack_A_Mole]

354. "there's an enormous difference"

I call them as I see them.

"i am convinced that election fraud is real, a clear and present danger to freedom."
And has been for years & years. Lincoln manipulated the duty hours of Maryland Army officers to stop them from even having the opportunity to cast a ballot. The fact of altered elections is a given fact. What may be new is the potential scale.

"i am an honors history major. critical thinking is my job.
I'm a systems analyst. Logical thinking is my career.

"and as for your petulant remarks about my perceived ad hominem attacks, well, i make no apologies. i've read far worse stuff from the BBV-trolls than anything i have ever posted."
So if little Bobby is an insanely rude rectum then you too can act in a similar fashion. Bad social skills, no biscuit.

"funny to me how you can invent a term like "bevborg" and still cry 'ad hominem!' with any credibility."
your critical reading / comprehension skills appear to be slipping. the 'ad hominem' was directed by me to you concerning the individual who placed you on ignore. This is where I use the word petulant. You knew that poster would not see your glowing rhetoric. Please give me an alternative explanation then you needed, required, had to, get the final word. Expecially after Ms. Harris personally took "american stranger" off her list of disrupters.

"i reject the insinuation that anyone who asks an off-topic or skeptical question in these threads gets beat on."
OK, then you can also reject out of hand my statement that a number of non-hysterical individuals have been flamed for asking skeptical questions.

As for appearing foolish, go edit out the sheep remarks and you might start climbing back to a 3.0 average.

W_A_M_

[Chesapeake]

260. everyone who makes it about Bev

is trolling. One thing to disagree. Trolls are jealous of success so can't disagree without personal attacks.

[Chesapeake]

261. everyone who makes it about Bev

is trolling. One thing to disagree. Trolls are jealous of success so can't disagree without personal attacks.

[ianbruce]

268. Woah! Absolutely not!

Sorry AmStranger -- no intent to offend here -- and I think you know me better than that.

Bev's been accused of promoting this issue to "sell books" (just like Nixon cooked up Watergate to sell his memoirs, I suppose). I just thought some equal time should be spend addressing the fact that there are people out there who are, in fact, seeking to profit enormously from this corruption of our democracy. Hell, if I were a just a bit scummier, I might go for it myself.

If Bev's book hits the best-sellers list, God bless her. The more people who are aware of this issue, the better protected are our democratic institutions. Believe me, spending days, months, and years researching, writing, re-writing, editing and publishing books -- especially non-fiction -- is no way to guarantee your personal financial success.

[birdman]

75. I'd have a new Benz in my driveway

if Karl Rove had paid me as many times as some people
have accused me of taking his money. You can be roundly
denounced and called a troll or disruptor for saying that :

- Al Gore didn't run the greatest of campaigns in 2000.

- There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bushes murdered
Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, all the Kennedys, Martin Luther
King, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Marley (I'm not making the last
two up I've actually seen that posted here).

- Real election fraud is a huge scandal and potential election
fraud is a "well let's fix the security problem" issue.



Fortunately the birdman has asbestos feathers and I've tried to point out to some of these BBV people that accusing skeptics of working for
voting machine companies does their cause no good.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

193. I'm With You

- Al Gore didn't run the greatest of campaigns in 2000.

- There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bushes murdered
Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, all the Kennedys, Martin Luther
King, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Marley (I'm not making the last
two up I've actually seen that posted here).

- Real election fraud is a huge scandal and potential election
fraud is a "well let's fix the security problem" issue.

All very legitimate points, IMO.

DTH

[Jim Sagle]

352. But luckily no cares what you think. Carry on.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imajika]

61. Awww, how nice...

"Who spit up hairballs on the carpet?"

That is the kind of intelligent, thoughtful response I'm used to on these Black Box Voting threads - which is one of the reasons I generally avoid them now.

"Takes a lot of gall to regurgitate that stuff, Imajika."

Well, I'll tell ya what, when this story rivals the "Pentagon Papers" or "1776" I will be happy to concede that I underestimated the importance of this entire drama. In the meantime, the story is nowhere near the earthshaking event that the hype would have led one to believe. Finding some security flaws in voting machine software is great work indeed if true, but it just doesn't amount to much more. I do wonder what the effect has been to date. How many sales has Diebold lost so far because of this revelation? How many States have disowned the machines? It is very interesting stuff, but it ain't no scandal.

But at least I am comforted knowing that the Diebold goons along with their pals in the CIA, BFEE, NSA, FBI haven't "dissappeared" anyone yet. Everyone's still alive right?

Imajika

[Generic Other]

63. No matter what the topic on DU

No matter what the topic, there's always someone telling the rest of us we shouldn't be talking about it, it isn't important, it makes us look bad.

I prefer to weigh the evidence for myself and make up my own mind. None of what Bev has ever posted on DU about BBV warrants the extreme negativity of the trolls who snap at the heels of anything she says or does.

I am sure I understand Bev's motives in investigating BBV. The trolls' motives are a bit harder to understand.

[Imajika]

64. See, this is what I'm not understanding...

"The trolls' motives are a bit harder to understand."

...why is it that to question this story and the build up to it mean one must be a troll?

Should we all just buy the entire thing hook, line and sinker without asking questions. I want to know why people thought that their life was in danger? It doesn't seem like a big enough issue based on what I've seen to warrant a person to fear for their life. How is this a story anywhere near the magnitude of the Pentagon Papers? It certainly doesn't seem that big to me. I doubt that movies will be made about this.

Isn't it healthy to have a least a few people who ask tough questions? Out of all the thousands of people on this forum, shouldn't at least a handful of folks play devils advocate?

Do we all just have to follow along like lemmings?

Imajika

[Eloriel]

67. But you're not asking questions, Imajika

Should we all just buy the entire thing hook, line and sinker without asking questions.

You're making pronouncements: this doesn't add up to the statue of the Pentagon papers; this hasn't lived up to the hype; and others far more meow-ish.

You're not even deft enough to acknowledge what has come out so far without trying to smear it. IOW, it's all negativity with you. That makes you sound like either someone who is jealous of the whole thing (sour grapes and all), OR someone with an agenda.

You're also at a disadvantage because there's a lot going on that you're simply not privy to. I don't say that as some sort of tease (or, heaven forfend, to "hype" the whole thing), but to point out the folly of your pronouncements, and how that fact alone makes you sound quite arrogant, as if you know it all. You maybe know 12% - 15%, I'm guessing, unless you know more from a source you've not disclosed.

So there you are -- some tips for you if you want to sound like an honest skeptic, instead of someone either with an agenda or someone merely catty.

Eloriel

[DoveTurnedHawk]

187. Wow. Pot Calling the Kettle Black, Much?

and how that fact alone makes you sound quite arrogant,

So there you are -- some tips for you if you want to sound like an honest skeptic,

:crazy:

DTH

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

150. we all understand bev's motives

It's all about selling books and Avante machines. Duh.

JC

[BevHarris]

155. Newsflash for Diebold: Put in a paper trail

and you'll have the main feature that Avante has HAD FOR TWO YEARS. AccuPoll goes one up on that, with open source code.

How about selling a product people actually want instead of trying to cram your unauditable secret-code machines down America's throat?

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

161. yay avante

They have, like, one customer, correct? I think Sacramento uses them.

Besides, admit it... if Diebold put in a receipt printer/paper trail of your choosing you'd still hate them for their "triple set of books" and the Republican leanings of its board of directors.

JC

[BevHarris]

166. Diebold needs a paper trail, and they need to eliminate remote

access devices altogether, and they need to open their source to much more public scrutiny due to the fact that they have source code that appears to dig into the voter registration database to grab personal identifiers.

Avante will soon have more customers because they have a quality product that voters want.

If Diebold produces a quality product that voters want, they, too will get on my good-guy list. If we solve the problems of paper trail, remote access, and opening the code for more public review, I don't care who is on their board of directors, as long as it is properly disclosed.

So far, Diebold has a poor record, in that they have lied to certifiers and the press. They may jettison Urosevich and crew, and get control of the fiasco and do it right, but it is now up to Diebold to prove they have solved the problems in their system.

By the way, if you aren't involved with Diebold, what do you care whether Avante gets the contract or Diebold? All we need is quality machines with a paper trail, no remotes, good robust auditing, and source disclosure, right?

Why would you be more concerned about Diebold than Avante or AccuPoll? Or Hart Intercivic, for that matter?

Bev

[angka]

173. wrong spot

oops

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

213. what contract?

I'm not more concerned with Diebold at all. I mention Diebold simply because that seems to be your primary target since you started posting these stories.

Out of curiosity, do you care to disclose your relationship with Avante or AccuPoll? I thought it was all about hawking some books but some people might read these threads and think you're trying to sell their products.

JC

[BevHarris]

219. I have no relationship whatsoever with Avante or AccuPoll

Would you care to post your relationship with players in the voting machine industry?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

234. I'm the puppet master

I'm the president of Diebold, obviously. :eyes:

JC

[gristy]

286. Why the smart-alec response?

hmmmm?

[Junkdrawer]

322. Nah, I think you "have a former boss who worked for Hart Intercivic"...

Your fetish with encryption kind of gives you away.

[Nederland]

325. I think...

...that you are confusing TinfoilHatProgrammer with me :)

[Junkdrawer]

328. Funny you make your first appearance since TFH showed up...

and you choose now. :think:

[Nederland]

333. Are you trying to say

...that TinFoilHatProgrammer and I are the same person? I am very sorry, but when you make an accusation like that with absolutely no proof you merely give ammunition to those that claim you have a tendency to make baseless claims.

[Zan_of_Texas]

74. Everyone's still alive right?

Well, just keep those coincidence caps handy, ok.

I'm sure it's all a coincidence. And, hey, maybe it is. But no, not everyone is still alive.

But, whether anyone was crashed or suicided, or just unlucky, does NOT make the voting machine story a small story. If we think we have a democracy, and we can't verify that the votes counted properly, perhaps we don't have a democracy. Perhaps the flag-waving and the terror alerts and the unbridled bully national stance is what we have, but not a democracy. Scary.

Okay. You asked.....

Diebold, of course, is one of the three largest voting equipment companies. Supplied all the 22,000 voting machines for Georgia's mid-term. ChoicePoint was intimately involved in the voter registration mess in Florida that Palast exposed, disenfranchising over 90,000 voters, and is busily collecting voter and additional info on millions of people in a lot of countries.

1. Dan Rocco -- April 1, 2002 -- ChoicePoint VP

He died on April 1, 2002, in a plane crash in Gainesville, Georgia. He was an executive vice president at ChoicePoint, the firm that gained infamy with their faulty "felons" list supplied to Katherine Harris during the 2000 election in Florida. As a result of this list, thousands of voters (mostly African-American voters) were wrongly identified as felons and purged from the rolls.
<<http://www.bk2k.com/bushbodycount/stolen-election/bodies.shtml>>


2. Wesley Vance -- April 26, 2003 -- Diebold VP

Pilot Killed In Plane Crash Was Top Exec At Diebold

April 28. 2003 10:50AM
<<http://www.wkbn.com/Global/story.asp?S=1253108>>
(Jackson-AP) -- The pilot of a single-engine airplane that crashed in southern Ohio over the weekend was the chief operating officer of Canton-based Diebold Incorporated.

The company says 45-year-old Wesley Vance of Canton was flying a private plane that crashed Saturday near the Jackson County Airport. ...The company says Vance joined Diebold in October, 2000, as president of its North America business unit. He was named chief operating officer in 2001. Chief Executive Walden O'Dell will assume the company's daily operational responsibilities until a successor is found for Vance. An airport spokesman says Vance was practicing takeoffs and landings in a six-seat Beachcraft A-36 when it crashed near the airport.

3. Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr. -- July 4, 2003 -- Diebold consultant

Anthony Celebrezze Dies

<http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1057397985113640.xml>
07/05/03

Former Ohio Attorney General Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr., 61, died yesterday in an Urbana hospital. Champaign County Coroner Joshua Richards confirmed that Celebrezze died about 9 p.m. yesterday, but would not confirm a cause of death.

Celebrezze, a Democrat of Columbus, was a stalwart in Cleveland and Ohio politics.... He was 38 when he was elected secretary of state in 1978.

He was Ohio attorney general from 1983 to 1991, and Ohio secretary of state from 1979 to 1983. Celebrezze ran against George Voinovich for governor in 1990 but lost.

Wayne Hill, Celebrezze's longtime communications director during the 1978 campaign for secretary of state and then attorney general, was in shock at Celebrezze's death yesterday.

Hill said Celebrezze, who enjoyed racing cars, was at Shady Bowl Speedway in De Graff for a Fourth of July race when he felt ill. De Graff is west of Columbus.

"It's beyond a shock. Tony had a passion for racing," said Hill in a telephone interview. "It's unbelievable. It's not right."

...After his loss to Voinovich, Celebrezze joined the law firm of Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, and recently was a consultant for Diebold Inc., promoting electronic voting machines. ...

[hedda_foil]

77. OMFG .....

Somehow I missed that they had FOUR "plane accidents" in 28 days in April plus another in July. I knew about two of them, but didn't realize that the first three happened in such a short time.

Unfortunately, I have no trouble at all inferring what has happened to all these people. In fact, I don't think there's more than one way to look at this and that chills me.

[Eloriel]

65. Actually, her work isn't done

And she said as much. There's more to come, and IMO the disruptors -- or skeptics, if one prefers -- who have suddenly shown up are taking the wishful thinking approach as they proclaim "nothing to see here, move along." However, it's probably useful for them to believe that that's all there is at this point.

Too, after reading that Hopkins report, which is pretty appalling, one has to wonder how others could read it (I presume they did!) and not be at least equally appalled. No, it didn't show malfeasance. But it did show either an absolutely alarming approach to security due to either incompetence (likely), or possibly some more sinister agenda (possible), or both (more likely).

IMO, it's also a mistake to dismiss or overlook the conflicts of interest between the voting machine companies' owners and the Repubican party. Or the lobbyists. I seem to recall one jurisdiction where Diebold spent more on lobbying than the contract was worth (Louisiana?). In another, they spent half as much ($100k for a $200K contract, roughly). Or the secretive role (not to mention background!) of R. Doug Lewis of The Election Center and our favorite buff NATIONAL certification person (person, singular), Shaun Southworth.

Or, let's not forget some truly amazing election results from 2002 where Diebold machines were in use. Three Repugs in one county in Texas winning by exactly 18,181 votes, which is just my favorite example of many, many, many unusual "results" or events which Bev has catalogued.

OR, the most important point of all, perhaps: why the unbelievable, recalcitrant resistance to simply providing recountable-by-anyone proof in the form of voter-verified paper ballot receipts?

Things just don't add up, at least in my mind. Why certain others are so willing to argue that somehow things are just fine, there's just a little incompetence in the code which has so far reported on, no big deal, is -- well it WOULD be beyond me, except that it too goes into my "doesn't add up column" with all these other points.

Eloriel

[Imajika]

68. Eloriel

Thanks for the reply.

"Actually, her work isn't done"

Okay, well, I am perfectly willing to wait and see how it all turns out. But I think my points and questions are still valid. I believe this thing was vastly overhyped - for what reasons I don't know.

"There's more to come, and IMO the disruptors -- or skeptics, if one prefers"

Lets give people the benefit of the doubt and go with skeptics =)

"Black Box Voting: the case of the vanishing trolls"

Look at the title of this thread. Ofcourse some of us "naysayers" are going to respond to it. I still stand by all of my doubts and concerns about too much being made of this when there doesn't appear to be anything other than some possible security flaws. I didn't vanish at all, just figured that for the most part my posts on this topic were not perceived as constructive and they just wound up annoying people - which ofcourse results in me being flamed in virtually every response (through truth be told, being flamed doesn't bother me much).

"Why certain others are so willing to argue that somehow things are just fine, there's just a little incompetence in the code which has so far reported on, no big deal"

Here is really the crux of my problem. I remember right after the 2002 elections that what seemed like a huge portion of this forum began buying into the fantasy that the balloting was rigged because we couldn't have lost an off year election to Bush. My argument is that, yes we could - and we did. When a good number of the members of the base of our party start running around believing we can no longer win because the GOP is rigging elections it worries me. It is not healthy and the odds of it being true are next to zilch. It can create a defeatism that results in less participation not more - and it will sound simply loony to most Americans who hear a person make the claim.

I suspect that some of the people looking into this voting machine issue already know what they believe - that the machines are rigged, and are just trying to show some sliver of something that might resemble evidence to back up these claims. If they could really show real proof that the voting machines are rigged resulting in unfair elections it would be one thing, but presenting evidence of possible security flaws, which by themselves amount to very little, and then hyping this "discovery" way beyond what is warranted is just not a good thing. It convinces people that their suspicions of rigged machines are true and that the real evidence will be coming soon. In the meantime they stop believing Democrats have a fair shake at the ballot box which results in still more defeatism and escalating fantasies of the power of Bush, Rove and the Republicans.

Anyway, thanks for responding Eloriel.

Imajika

[Eloriel]

70. Elections and defeatism

When a good number of the members of the base of our party start running around believing we can no longer win because the GOP is rigging elections it worries me. It is not healthy and the odds of it being true are next to zilch.

You are apparently not familiar with what went on in Florida in 2000? It was a massive, state-wide, no-holds-barred effort of vote suppression (preventing people from voting) and vote fraud (disenfranchising voters). George W. Bush KNEW that his brother was engineering all this. Katherine Harris was in it up to her eyeballs, as was Jeb, of course. They used every trick in the book:

* dropping people off the rolls
* defective or poorly maintained machines in Dem precincts
* traffic stops by state troopers in black rural areas (intimidation)
* cops or troopers inside polling places in black precincts
* moved precincts with no advance warning
* funny business with absentee ballots
* lost ballots - 2600 were found the other day, a majority for Gore
* butterfly ballots (which I no longer totally believe was an accident)
* precincts opening late
* precincts closing with people still in line
* no way for precincts with voter questions or problems to reach the SoS's office because they just didn't have the phone line capability
* scan machines kicking out (voiding, essentially) overvoted ballots in black or white Dem precincts, but not in Repug precincts
* not enough ballots
* not enough provisional ballots
* not enough machines or working machines so voters had to leave instead of wait long enough to vote

And more I'm probably not remembering, probably more I don't even know about.

And with all that, you are somehow doubtful that the odds are that it's not true for the 2002 election? :shrug: It takes all kinds, I suppose.

hyping this "discovery" way beyond what is warranted is just not a good thing.

As I've alluded, that remains to be seen. That's one of the things YOU assert as definitive, but you just don't KNOW for sure. Frankly, the security flaws alone prove that these machines are not fully capable of securing and accurately counting our votes. When there's that much potential for vote tampering, it's not a safe system. Period. I don't know what some of the naysayers don't seem to understand about it. However, more is coming. I'll be interested to see how some of you will try to shoot that done when it comes.

In the meantime they stop believing Democrats have a fair shake at the ballot box which results in still more defeatism and escalating fantasies of the power of Bush, Rove and the Republicans.


Oh, please. What it SHOULD convince Demcrats of is to get their rears in gear and DO something about it. There are activist "things to do" at Bev's http://wwww.blackboxvoting.org site. The only way we're going to solve this is for people to get involved and make a difference. Some people are calling for moratoriums on the use of these voting machines. That's the LEAST that should happen, and the security flaws alone are reason enough.

Eloriel

[ParanoidPat]

163. Well remember that Nixon was elected in between the summer that the....

.....Pentagon papers were first made public and he subsequently resigned! :evilgrin:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

189. Bravo!

I second everything Imajika just said.

DTH

[TruthIsAll]

245. How can you be so sure that nothing will come of this?

"Saying that, this story was advertised as some sort of blockbuster - it simply is not that. No Republicans will be brought down, Diebold will not be brought down, no crimes have been shown and no evidence that the 2002 elections or any others were tainted by any voting machine conspiracy".

The story has been out there for only a few weeks, and already has achieved credibility by virtue of the Johns Hopkins paper.

It's only been a few weeks, but quite a bit of progress has been made. We have a long way to go before the election.

I am quite confident that issues of criminal intent, fraud , etc. are not that far from being exposed.

It's a blockbuster when the facts are that the machines can very easily be rigged, especially in light of what we saw in Florida 2000 and in Georgia 2002.

[scottxyz]

316. Hackable computers are a big story

If millions of people found that their bank balances or foodstamp balances had been hacked because of faulty computer technology, that would be a blockbuster story.

If millions of people found that their medical confidentiality or private emails had been snooped on, that would be a blockbuster story.

Imajika may say about insecure voting computers that "this story was advertised as some sort of blockbuster - it simply is not that".

Imajika may not think that enabling motivated, corrupt politicians to steal elections is a 'blockbuster' story. I am sure that many millions of people would beg to differ.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

334. by analogy...

If millions of people found out their election results had been hacked, that would be a blockbuster story too. There's been nothing of the sort reported, however.

Security holes are reported all the time... check http://securityfocus.com/bid">here for a bunch posted just within the last week or two. There are frequent patches for everything from operating systems (including open source ones) to popular desktop or server products. Supposedly "secure" web sites are attacked with frequency -- ask eBay or Amazon. Security issues are real, and they are important, and they are eminently fixable.

JC

[jagguy]

66. may have to do with the reporting of it

Diebold had reasonable explinations for it which were reported. "People", as in the general public, would likely be OK with the explinations given. Most people understand the concept of "old release" of software and it actually sucks credibility from the researchers for having used something like that.

Best to take that locality up on the offer to "break" their actually used system as a followup.

[Chesapeake]

71. People won't be OK with _KINKS_ tho

Diebold admitted there are KINKS. That's all anybody needs to know to worry.

[Zan_of_Texas]

76. Nope

If the Diebold software analyzed was not current, then Diebold should be happy to make their current software available for analysis. Right?

Are they? Call them up and ask them. I did. The answer is, "No." "Not at this time."

Besides, the Hopkins team looked at that Diebold mess and said, no way you could make this stuff into secure software no matter how much you tweak it or revise it. They said you have to design security from the ground up, and this stuff was a piece of shit. (Yes, one actually said that.)

[BevHarris]

84. Diebold had lies, which thankfully were mostly not reported.

Reasonable explanation? "They looked at old code which was never used in any election."

Yes it was. Provably so. check the NASED certified version number. Check the version number in the source code. It matches. Next question: What does that say about Diebold credibility?

In Diebold's "reasonable explanations" they also so much as admitted the problems, saying things like "but that has since been corrected" but refusing to prove it was corrected, by showing anyone the code.

Bev

[jagguy]

95. all true but...

..."the people" are not prone to be that inquisitive. Even those lame explainations are likely sufficient for many.

Hell, have those that reported the story even questioned the point about 'not used in a real election' ? Had they reviewed the stuff that went out they would have seen that and called Diebold on it.

Didn't happen. Why ?

I'll admit that it's stunning to me about the very recent noises coming out of Diebold. Obviously they are more concerned about this than the media or perhaps some government agencies are asking questions.

[BevHarris]

105. The media is covering it. Their articles are full blown investigative

pieces. Two major media sources told me their articles will be out at the end of this week, and they are doing full blown 2,000-word articles.

Bev

[jagguy]

135. good to hear there is some followup

hopefully it will go AP and get wider distribution.

[BevHarris]

144. AP generally doesn't run with that length

The in-depth pieces are very important, though, because they provide fodder that gets picked up for months, and generate a lot more angles.

Bev

[bryant69]

73. I was critical of the story on a couple of occasions

not that I didn't think it possible, but more on how it was presented. If someone said, well, this is a problem we need to make noise about--I agreed with that.

But what I seemed to see more regularly was, "You're an idiot if you think that voting matters in America anymore." And on that level, I didn't like it. It's disheartening, and I think it harms other efforts to get Democrats elected. The people pushing that side of the story also seem to be ones pushing a revolution of some kind--but I could be mistaken on that point.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BevHarris]

85. Good God. "People pushing the BBV story pushing revolution?"

Take a reality pill, man. And prove it.

Pushing the story: Bev Harris, DemActivist, Will Pitt, Dr. David Dill, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Dan Spillane, Dr. Douglas Jones, Avi Rubin & the other Johns Hopkins/Rice researchers...

Show me evidence anywhere that any of us are advocating revolution.

This does sound like you guys are getting desperate.

Bev

[JanMichael]

106. Damn Bev...I only WISH I'd get that accusation!

That's a Radical's , um, "good" dream!

But no <kicks sand> all I get is "He's a nice Socialist, isn't that cute!?" That bites.

Just wanted to let you know that while I didn't dig the thread tone I'm still a big believer in this story. You know you're always welcome on the show!

K'?

[bryant69]

239. I dont' really know any of those people

And i'm not intersted in coming back through threads. But let me ask you this--do you think that this black box story proves that American Democracy is a myth?

[scottxyz]

318. Voting would be a "revolution"?

Since when is voting and having your vote counted a "revolution"?

Anyone who's not upset about hackable voting machines is obviously out of touch. If you think that wanting secure voting machines is some kind of "revolution" then you're either not too bright or you're deliberately disrupting and trying to confuse the issue.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

78. Naw, just a skeptic bored of the incessant hype

The biggest story of all time
The "hack"
The pentagon papers
The impending murders...

It is a story, just not as earth-shattering as some people pretend it is.

[BevHarris]

86. Misquotes.

Use the real quotes or go away.

[birdman]

97. I'm sorry Ms. Harris

You did compare your story to the Pentagon Papers
did you not ?

You did imply that if you don't post people should
start dragging the river, didn't you ?

Didn't SCOOP say this was bigger than Watergate ?
(the same day they reported the death of Katherine
Harris).

Thus far you have a story about computer system security.
Okay, but don't overhype what you have.

Up to this point you have a minor issue. Let's deal with
the security issue.

[DEMActivist]

98. I think the Diebold president is doing just that

Representatives from Diebold, which sells both systems, told the council that Boston was better off with the optical scanners. John Silvestro, president of the company, said the optical scanning system reduces lines at polling places and helps preserve the integrity of elections by leaving a paper "audit trail." He also said the touch-screen system would cost the city about six times as much money, and that companies like his are still working the kinks out of the touch-screen machines, a newer technology.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/214/metro/Menino_OK_s_new_voting_machines+.shtml

---

And it's your avoidance of this admission which makes you lack any credibility at all, birdman.

Your fictious strawmen didn't work before and they won't work now.

[birdman]

99. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issues I talked about

Please explain how this makes this a bigger issue
than it was before.

It's still a story about security holes. Okay, fix them.

You advertised "Bigger than Watergate".

Thus far it's a lot smaller than Britney-Spears-Virginity-Gate.

[DEMActivist]

100. Sorry, taking your tack....

Avoid the issues, throw out strawmen.

Now we can both waste bandwidth instead of you alone.

on edit:
Hint for you: no one is going to respond to your strawmen arguments.

[birdman]

104. So you have no answer

You have nothing to indicate vote fraud ?
Why am I not shocked ?

If you ever get a real story maybe I'll pay attention.

[BevHarris]

109. Start by getting your quotes right.

"Bigger than Watergate" was not my statement or DemActivist's. What do you do, run around the Internet finding stuff you don't like, throw it all in the pot and pull it out and throw it at anyone you don't like?

I'm not responsible for what anyone else says.

As for "The Pentagon Papers" I mentioned that I was told this was analogous to the Pentagon Papers. By two people, actually, but this one made it into print:

From Dr. Douglas Jones, one of the leading experts on electronic voting in the U.S., an expert witness on voting, has testified before congress, a member of the Iowa Board of Examiners for voting systems, associate professor of Computer Science: "There are parallels between this case and the case of the Pentagon Papers"

Find a quote where I said to drag the river. Never said it.

But as for keeping as much information and discourse as possible in the public domain, which includes DU, that's a sensible addition to basic security measures. I think it's reasonable to take some precautions, and the public nature of discussion here at DU is helpful in that regard.

Security concerns were particularly an issue during the time when some very damaging information had not yet made its way out into the wild (remember, this was BEFORE Scoop released the address of the ftp site with all the files). During this time I had a break-in (yes, reported it to the police); nothing was taken but my network box was trashed and my Internet lines were re-routed. Qwest had to send a guy out to put the DSL lines back to their normal routing. The lines had been split and one connected to something else. Qwest told me they never found where it went. There's a record of that too.

I was sent two packages that were unsolicited and one was so strange it was turned over to the authorities, do not pass GO, do not collect $200. It contained electronic equipment. Perhaps it was a happy little "gift" from an anonymous admirer; if so, it was about a $700 gift; perhaps it was something very undesirable. Who knows? There's a record of that too. Fed Ex thought it was suspicious and they called me to come to an office and fill out a statement -- they never actually delivered it, because they refused to cart it around. When it became apparent that the item was not from anyone I knew, Fed Ex turned it over to the police, who destroyed the item.

I got a weird certified letter that said "I know where you live" and had a photo of my house. Nice.

Glad you find my security to be a non-issue. It is somewhat relevant to me, and I don't go wild over this stuff, but I do take precautions.

Bev

[birdman]

117. Let's roll

I clearly said that it was SCOOP, not you that made
the "Bigger than Watergate" claim. So cut the crap.
You did reference the Pentagon Papers.

"Drag the river" was my own literary comment (I'm one of
DU's writers, albeit an amatuer I've had about 70 or so
articles published on this site). You certainly did imply
that you would be in danger because of your revelations did
you not ?

Your personal security is and should be an issue to you but to
be honest I have yet to see anything in what you've come
forward with that would cause anyone to want you eliminated.

It's been my point from the very start that this has to be
about vote fraud. If it's about computer security holes nobody
is going to give a shit.

[BevHarris]

123. Example of nobody gives a shit:

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Kansas City Star, MO - Jul 25, 2003

E-voting system flaws risk election fraud
New Scientist, UK - Jul 25, 2003

Election fraud risks attract wide notice
The Inquirer, UK - Jul 25, 2003

US researchers critical of electronic voting systems
The Age, Australia - Jul 24, 2003

Voting machine fails inspection
CNET News.com - Jul 24, 2003

Security Of E - Voting Systems Seriously Questioned
Information Week - Jul 24, 2003

High-Tech Votes Can Be Hacked, Scientists Say
Reuters, UK - Jul 24, 2003

Study finds computer voting system vulnerable to tampering
San Jose Mercury News, CA - Jul 24, 2003

E-voting flaws risk ballot fraud
MSNBC - Jul 24, 2003

Input sought on voting system Kaptur asks key critic to attend
Toledo Blade, OH - Jul 26, 2003

Voting system among county finalists blasted in study
Cincinnati Post, OH - Jul 25, 2003

Company says study\'s conclusions on electronic voting mostly...
Athens Banner-Herald, GA - Jul 25, 2003

New voting machines flawed, experts claim
Toledo Blade, OH - Jul 25, 2003

Study: Voting system flawed
Cumberland Times News, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Scientists: High-tech votes can be hacked
Help Net Security, Croatia - Jul 25, 2003

Study finds electronic voting machines are vulnerable
Cleveland Plain Dealer, OH - Jul 25, 2003

Defects reported in voting machines
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Hopkins Team Says Voting Software Has "Stunning Flaws"
WMAR (ABC2), MD - Jul 24, 2003

Voting Machine Study Divides Md. Officials, Experts
Washington Post - Jul 26, 2003

Company defends electronic voting system
Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA - Jul 25, 2003
Atlanta Journal Constitution, GA - Jul 25, 2003
Guardian, UK - Jul 25, 2003
ABC News - Jul 25, 2003

Electronic voting machines security risk
InfoWorld, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Flaw in e-voting software?
FCW.com - Jul 25, 2003

High-tech voting system can be hacked, scientists say
ComputerWorld - Jul 25, 2003

Computer voting systems vulnerable: Study
The Globe and Mail, Canada - Jul 25, 2003

Study: E-voting flaws risk ballot fraud
CNN - Jul 25, 2003

Researchers Call Electronic Voting System Flawed
InternetNews.com - Jul 25, 2003

Study Questions Security Of Md. Electronic Voting
Washington Post, DC - Jul 24, 2003

Voting machine fails inspection
BusinessWeek - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
ABC News - Jul 24, 2003

High-tech votes can be hacked, scientists say
Forbes - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Kansas City Star, MO - Jul 24, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Wilmington Morning Star, NC - Jul 25, 2003

Study Questions Security Of Voting Machines
SanDiego Channel.com, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Company criticizes study that found its...
Charleston Gazette, WV - Jul 25, 2003

Company defends electronic voting system from critics
Raleigh News, NC - Jul 25, 2003

Company defends electronic voting system from critics
Sacramento Bee, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Company says studys conclusions on electronic voting mostly wrong
Access North Georgia, GA - Jul 25, 2003

Company challenges study\'s conclusions
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Study Finds Computer Voting System Widely Vulnerable to Tampering
WTVM, GA - Jul 25, 2003

Voting machine fails inspection
Boston.com, MA - Jul 25, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Easton Star Democrat, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Security Focus - Jul 25, 2003

Dan Gillmor, the Electronic Frontier Foundation award winning technology columnist for the San Jose Mercury News...
DisInfo.com - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Carolina Channel.com, SC - Jul 25, 2003

Can electronic voting be made "truly" secure?
CIOL, India - Jul 25, 2003

Scientists: High-tech votes can be hacked
TechCentral, Malaysia - Jul 25, 2003

University researchers criticize Diebold Election Systems...
Network World Fusion - Jul 25, 2003

Study warns voting system open to fraud
Charleston Post Courier, SC - Jul 25, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Rapid City Journal, SD - Jul 25, 2003

Touch-screen voting risk of fraud high, study says
Contra Costa Times, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Group challenges voting software
Akron Beacon Journal, OH - Jul 25, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Rockdale Citizen, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Report: Voting machines vulnerable to tampering
Athens Banner-Herald, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Voting system called flawed
Washington Times, DC - Jul 24, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Access North Georgia, GA - Jul 24, 2003

\'Flaws\' found in computer voting system
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 24, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Times Picayune, LA - Jul 24, 2003

\'Significant\' flaws found in voting system
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 24, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
The Ledger, Florida - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Macon Telegraph, GA - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Times Daily, AL - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Grand Forks Herald, ND - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, IN - Jul 25, 2003

Company criticizes study that found its electronic voting system...
Times Picayune, LA - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Centre Daily Times, PA - Jul 25, 2003

Company Defends Electronic Voting System
Wichita Eagle, KS - Jul 25, 2003
Company says studys conclusions on electronic voting mostly wrong
Access North Georgia, GA - Jul 25, 2003

Company challenges studys conclusions
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 25, 2003

New voting machines flawed, experts claim
Baku Today, Azerbaijan - Jul 25, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Easton Star Democrat, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
New Orleans Channel.com, LA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WRAL.com, NC - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
NBC5.com, IL - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Kansas City Channel.com, MO - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WMUR Channel.com, NH - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WXii 12.com, NC - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WJACtv.com, PA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Omaha Channel.com, NE - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
News4Jax.com, FL - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
SanDiego Channel.com, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Channel Oklahoma.com, OK - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Channel4000.com, MN - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Jackson Channel.com, MS - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
KMGH, CO - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Boston Channel.com, MA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WFtv.com, FL - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WSBtv.com, GA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
INDYchannel.com, IN - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WBAL Channel.com, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WESH.com, FL - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WDIV, MI - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WISC, WI - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Channel Cincinnati.com, MA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WSOCtv.com, NC - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Click10.com, FL - Jul 25, 2003
Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
FoxReno.com, NV - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Bakersfield Channel.com, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Louisville Channel.com, KY - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Click 2 Houston.com, TX - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
KFOXtv.com, TX - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Milwaukee Channel.com, WI - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Champlain Channel.com, NY - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WTOV9.com, OH - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
WGAL Channel.com, PA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
KTVU.com, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
KSBW Channel.com, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Report Cites Flaws In E-Voting
Pittsburgh Channel.com, PA - Jul 25, 2003

Can electronic voting be made "truly" secure?
CIOL, India - Jul 25, 2003

Scientists: High-tech votes can be hacked
TechCentral, Malaysia - Jul 25, 2003

University researchers criticize Diebold Election Systems...
Network World Fusion - Jul 25, 2003

Study warns voting system open to fraud
Charleston Post Courier, SC - Jul 25, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Rapid City Journal, SD - Jul 25, 2003

Touch-screen voting risk of fraud high, study says
Contra Costa Times, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Defects reported in voting machines
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 25, 2003

Electronic voting slammed by security researchers
Silicon.com - Jul 25, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
The Porterville Recorder, CA - Jul 25, 2003

Group challenges voting software
Akron Beacon Journal, OH - Jul 25, 2003

Study pans system for electronic voting
The Tallahassee Democrat - Jul 25, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Rockdale Citizen, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Report: Voting machines vulnerable to tampering
Athens Banner-Herald, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Voting system called flawed
Washington Times, DC - Jul 24, 2003

Report: Voting machines vulnerable to tampering
Online Athens, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
The Porterville Recorder, CA - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Rapid City Journal, SD - Jul 24, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Access North Georgia, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Aberdeen American News, SD - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Wichita Eagle, KS - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Belleville News-Democrat, IL - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, IN - Jul 24, 2003

\'Flaws\' found in computer voting system
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Centre Daily Times, PA - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Wilkes Barre Weekender, PA - Jul 24, 2003

Computer Voting Systems Vulnerable
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS - Jul 24, 2003

Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering
Times Picayune, LA - Jul 24, 2003

Significant flaws found in voting system
Baltimore Sun, MD - Jul 24, 2003
Foreign press on this (some repeats with above)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31986.html

Watch this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3095705.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993987

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10676

The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2952389,00.html

Reuters, UK:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3155955

ZDNet, UK:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2138179,00.html?rtag=zdnetukhompage

Australia:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190013.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190013.html

Croatia:
http://www.net-security.org/news.php?id=3207

India:
http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/103072506.asp

Malaysia:
http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2003/7/25/technology/5924414&sec=technology

Baku Today, Azerbaijan - Jul 25, 2003
Study finds computer voting system widely vulnerable to tampering

Sun Jul-27-03 06:18 AM by Kellanved
Das Problem mit den elektronischen Wahlsystemen und der amerikanischen Demokratie
=" The problem with electronic voting systems and the American democracy."
Telepolis, Ger - Jul 11, 2003


URNENGANG IN DEN USA - Clever mogeln mit der Smartcard
= "Voting in the US - cheating cleverly with the smartcard".
Spiegel Online, Ger - Jul 25, 2003


US-Wahlcomputer sind höchst unsicher
=" US voting compters are most unsecure."
heise Online, Ger - Jul 25, 2003


US-Wahlcomputer mit vielen Manipulationsmöglichkeiten
= " US voting computers with many possible ways of manipulation"
Telepolis, Ger - Jul 25, 2003


Schwachstellen in elektronischer US-Wahlsoftware
= " Weaknesses in US voting software"
Yahoo, Ger - Jul 25, 2003

Voting system among county finalists blasted in study July 26
http://www.cincypost.com/2003/07/26/vote072603.html

Fraud potential found in e-voting systems July 26
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31986.html

Voting Machine Study Divides MD Officials July 26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48092-2003Jul25.html

MD Voting System's Security Challenged July 25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42928-2003Jul24.html?nav=hptoc_m

Chicago picks up article
Electronic voting system open to tampering, study finds
Chicago Tribune, 25 July 2003

Ascribe News
Electronic Voting System Vulnerable to Tampering: Computer Researchers Find Critical Flaws in Popular Software Produced for U.S. Elections - 24 July 2003

CMP Tech Web
Security Of E-Voting Systems Seriously Questioned
24 July 2003

Newsbytes News Netword
(picked up Washington Post article)
Voting Machine Study Divides Md. Officials, Experts
Newsbytes News Network , 26 July 2003

CP - Prep Cyber Corner
(CP = Canadian Press)
Prep-Cyber Corner
Broadcast News, 08:48 GMT, 25 July 2003

6289: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com//
991: http://www.blackboxvoting.com//
911: http://whatreallyhappened.com//
762: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
643: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00064.htm
612: http://www.hackerslab.org/korg/view.fhz?menu=news&no=1471
576: http://www.rense.com//
410: http://www.dailyrotten.com//
376: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/index.html
272: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
196: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/insideUSvote.html
180: http://www.daypop.com/top/
175: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/08/1949200.shtml?tid=103
148: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/07/13/1957243.shtml?tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99
147: http://www.thismodernworld.com//
147: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00198.htm
143: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/24/153258.shtml?tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99
141: http://www.ddj.com//
133: http://mikemalloy.pmachinehosting.com/index.php
131: http://a.wholelottanothing.org//
128: http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com//
120: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail265.html
92: http://www.allhatnocattle.net/7-8-03-joe-scarborough-dead-aide-me-fired.htm
91: http://www.orlingrabbe.com/homepage.html
89: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04952.html
88: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm
87: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99
84: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1949200&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=99
83: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10393
78: http://rense.com//
78: http://blogdex.net//
69: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10676
68: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/biggerthanwatergate.html
68: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/
67: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=34
66: http://www.globalresearch.ca//
60: http://www.disinfo.com/site/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=79&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
57: http://www.questionsquestions.net//
56: http://www.rense.com/
56: http://www.byte.com//
55: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/15193/1.html
55: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99
55: http://www.metafilter.com//
54: http://whacked.technine.net/main.html
51: http://www.daypop.com/news/
50: http://truthout.org/docs_03/voting.shtml
50: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
49: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1949200&tid=103
48: http://www.diepunyhumans.com//
47: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
47: http://www.disinfo.com/site/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=&topic=22
46: http://www.blackboxvoting.org//
45: http://whatreallyhappened.com/index.html
43: http://www.plastic.com//
42: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/signs.htm
41: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/index.php
41: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99
41: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/
41: http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001205.shtml
40: http://blackboxvoting.com//
38: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/08/1949200.shtml?tid=103&tid=126&tid=99
38: http://www.dailyrotten.com/
37: http://www.scoop.co.nz//
36: http://www.schindler.org/psacot/index.shtml
36: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=116
35: http://www.magnoliareport.com//
34: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99
34: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00108.htm
34: http://publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm
32: http://www.littlewhitedog.com//
31: http://www.oliverwillis.com//
31: http://www.popdex.com//
30: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=5&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change
30: http://boatertalk.com/forum/BoaterTalk/414663
30: http://www.pixelsurgeon.com/news/news.php
30: http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/hole_in_electoral_system.htm
29: http://whatreallyhappened.com/insideUSvote.html
29: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243
28: http://www.rotten.com/news/
28: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/vote_fraud.html
27: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/10/14479/4893
27: http://www.thismodernworld.com/
27: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/voting.shtml
27: http://www.democrats.com//
25: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12369&mode=nested&order=0
25: http://slashdot.org/index.pl?issue=20030708&mode=
25: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00110.htm
24: http://punkas.fuckyourband.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5350
24: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=QQQ&read=732469
24: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25312
23: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=182&mesg_id=182&page=
23: http://www.disinfo.com/site/
22: http://dailyrotten.com//
22: http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_07_06.html
21: http://www.inthemix.com.au/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59457
21: http://www.drmenlo.com/home.html
21: http://www.dashes.com/anil/
20: http://orlingrabbe.com/homepage.html
20: http://littleyellowdifferent.com//
19: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change
19: http://www.ibiblio.org/javafaq/
19: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/chris/
19: http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/editors-choice.htm
19: http://globalresearch.ca//
18: http://www.mrexcel.com/board2/viewtopic.php?t=56586
18: http://blackboxvoting.org//
18: http://host21.hrwebservices.net/~stereot/newsframe4.php?feed=pixelsurgeon
17: http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/13913/
17: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7354514~root=execfloor~mode=flat
16: http://thismodernworld.com//
16: http://www.plastic.com/index.html;section=politics
16: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19313740
16: http://www.wholesale4.com/directory/
16: http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com//
15: http://www.anu.org/newsservice.html
15: http://www.mandrake.net//
15: http://www.hermes-press.com/Voting/vote_rig.htm
15: http://www.cafeaulait.org//
15: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmpty2/message/3674
15: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=washposta618162003jul15&sid=37138469&mid=663
15: http://roundtable.truck.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=6456013822&f=2766031032&m=4406013073
13: http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=66043&group=webcast
13: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=4
13: http://questionsquestions.net//
13: http://www.geekradio.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=271
13: http://www.publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm
13: http://mikemalloy.pmachinehosting.com/show.php?id=A2003071
13: http://www.houstonjusticenotwar.org//
13: http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com/
13: http://www.orlingrabbe.com/archive50.htm
12: http://www.scoop.co.nz/
12: http://roundtable.truck.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=6456013822&f=2766031032&m=8716047173
12: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=1&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change
11: http://rense.com/
11: http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/
11: http://www.calvoter.org//
11: http://pub36.ezboard.com/fslayerrulesfrm4.showMessage?topicID=917.topic
11: http://www.unixreview.com//
11: http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldftp.html
11: http://www.alterslash.org//
10: http://www.dailyrotten.com/archive/2003/0711.html
10: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/08/1949200.shtml
10: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1949200
10: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&mode=thread&pid=6430652
10: http://www.deanforum.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=648
10: http://slashdot.org/index.pl?mode=&issue=20030708
10: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/archive50.htm
10: http://www.zgeek.com//
10: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/NM0307/S00010.htm
10: http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/categories.cfm?catid=43
10: http://www.disinfo.com/site/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=79&mode=mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
10: http://a.wholelottanothing.org/archives.blah/007140
10: http://www.newsnation.net//
9: http://www.lpgeorgia.com/ga/news/pr00009.html
9: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=197
9: http://pages.zdnet.com/sartre/rules/
9: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32341
9: http://www.daypop.com/redirect?id=7993989
9: http://mandrake.net//
9: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12369&mode=&order=0
9: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=nmbushafricadc&sid=37138469&mid=1627
9: http://www.ahoclan.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=419
9: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_seetheforest_archive.html
9: http://www.sideshow.idps.co.uk//
9: http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com/index.php
9: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
9: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/pf_politic/messages/1057853988_18605.html
9: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=74970&mesg_id=74970&page=
9: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=4&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change
9: http://www.ddj.com/
8: http://blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=34
8: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com//
8: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138456&tid=nmeconomydc&sid=37138456&mid=7095
8: http://www.jvlradio.com/forum/posts/1030652070.html
8: http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/
8: http://www.deantalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=135
8: http://dailyrotten.com/
8: http://www.geocities.com/revolution4u2000/
8: http://democrats.com//
8: http://www.atrgroup.no-ip.biz/postnuke/html/
8: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~prillih3/blog/
8: http://atrios.blogspot.com//
8: http://inamongus.com/bartstocks/
8: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1949200&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=126&tid=99
8: http://southknoxbubba.net/skblog/
7: http://politechbot.com/p-04952.html
7: http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/052050.html
7: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Philosophy_Religion/Q_20677077.html
7: http://www.infernalpress.com//
7: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97586
7: http://www.davidcogswell.com//
7: http://rushlimbaughtomy.blogspot.com//
7: http://forums.b5tv.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB5&Number=210311&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
7: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
7: http://www.warblogging.com/warfarking/
7: http://www.awakenedwoman.com/voting_machines.htm
7: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=126
7: http://www.magnoliareport.com/
7: http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=8430
7: http://ho.ro/url/
7: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243
7: http://www.opednews.com/sludge_bigger_than_watergate.htm
6: http://truthisbetter.org/database/ObjSubPg.php
6: http://www.humanshields.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=102
6: http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/electoral-integrity.htm
6: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum14/HTML/001534.html
6: http://popdex.com//
6: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=apbushintelligence&sid=37138469&mid=2654
6: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=nmiraqdc&sid=37138445&mid=438436
6: http://www.ambiguous.org//
6: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/index.htm
6: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com//
6: http://www.ddj.com/news/fullstory.cgi?id=6883
6: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=2
6: http://www.newstrolls.com//
6: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=QQQ&read=732475
6: http://www.abnormis.com//
6: http://whatreallyhappened.com/./
6: http://diepunyhumans.com//
6: http://www.weeklydig.com/Boards/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1490
6: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&mode=thread&startat=75&pid=0
6: http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=66043&group=webcast
6: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/homepage.html
6: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4031.htm
6: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00575&read=18115
6: http://www.midtnn.net/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1878
6: http://www.iaea.org/
6: http://www.thementalmilitia.org//
6: http://www.stewartswerdlow.com/qacomments.shtml
5: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578
5: http://www.blackwebportal.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=6&Topic=2904
5: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=6036&mesg_id=6036&page=
5: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GOV&read=369263
5: http://www.oliverwillis.com/
5: http://www.littlewhitedog.com/default.asp
5: http://www.booger.dreamhost.com//
5: http://www.themote.com/viewThread.asp?thread=137&Last=1
5: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258
5: http://www.bushwhackedusa.com//
5: http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/20030701.shtml
5: http://www.workingforchange.com/radio/index.cfm
5: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/news/scoops.html
5: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
5: http://www.metafilter.com/
5: http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=108677
5: http://mikemalloy.pmachinehosting.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=2110
5: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=apbushtenet&sid=37138445&mid=5496
5: http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001205.shtml#comments
5: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/./
5: http://liberalisnotadirtyword.com/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID14/14.html
5: http://www.ecotalk.org/BevHarrisScoop.htm
5: http://lightscion.com/CIA.htm
5: http://www.acutor.be/silt/
5: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=196695
5: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/15/22320289;cmt=20
5: http://groups.msn.com/ConfederateFlag/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=12188&LastModified=4675429610486554947
5: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LDS-Last-Days/message/23961
5: http://www.polizeros.com/2003/07/09.html
5: http://groups.msn.com/RushversusReality/rushvsreality.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=79049&LastModified=4675429694628677036
5: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;mode=nested
5: http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46108
5: http://www.byte.com/
5: http://www.plastic.com/index.html
5: http://www.truthtree.com/General/posts/7007.html
5: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/NM0307/S00011.htm
5: http://www.diepunyhumans.com/
5: http://www.plastic.com/
5: http://rands.jerkcity.com//
5: http://www.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36360
5: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=3
5: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=4
5: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CNBCHYPE&read=41857
5: http://agonist.got.net/yabbse/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7298
5: http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com/?z=post&y=archives/001490
5: http://www.duwep.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=93
5: http://www.dashes.com/links/
5: http://www.shellen.com//
5: http://www.houstonjusticenotwar.org/index.html
5: http://www.littlewhitedog.com/
4: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=3&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change
4: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cass/signs.htm
4: http://iviews.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0307-2030&p=3
4: http://www.calvoter.org/reading.html
4: http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/052122.html
4: http://www.samag.com//
4: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/26874
4: http://www240.pair.com/tomtom/
4: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=-1&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change
4: http://bb4.voyeurweb.com/messages/361/74001.html?1058295427
4: http://www.questionsquestions.net/index.html
4: http://www.talion.com/lies.htm
4: http://www.progress.org/cgi-bin/webbbs/config.pl?read=31794
4: http://www.orlingrabbe.org/homepage.html
4: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=178
4: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=apusiraq&sid=37138469&mid=498240
4: http://tallahassee.indymedia.org/otherpress/display/131/index.php
4: http://questionsquestions.net/
4: http://oliverwillis.com//
4: http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=256761
4: http://forums.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=7339589
4: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=8
4: http://alterslash.org//
4: http://www.timnews.com//
4: http://www.americanassembler.com//
4: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=4&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change
4: http://a.wholelottanothing.org/
4: http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/ptech/weblog/070903ccptechweblog.7702ede1.html
4: http://www.bluenitrogen.net/joseph/page.html
4: http://us.f202.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=904_25574743_2227369_1643_19559_0_120743_44048_4135391543&YY=9334&inc=50&order=down&sort=size&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
4: http://us.f415.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=805_16549358_718889_1443_486_0_6783_-1_0&YY=56984&inc=50&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
4: http://tanque.org/lss/
4: http://www.transfert.net/a9100
4: http://blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=4
4: http://www.questionsquestions.net/
4: http://www.webreview.com//
4: http://www.zive.sk/Article/Show_Article_Print.asp?ARI=106322
4: http://www.deanforum.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=647
4: http://cass.eahosting.com/cass/signs.htm
4: http://www.magnoliareport.com/Index.htm
4: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
4: http://www.midtnn.net/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1861
4: http://www.talkaboutusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=2044
4: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&mode=thread&pid=6430451
4: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fierce-Invalids/message/84393
4: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_voting.shtml
4: http://www.liberalartsmafia.com//
4: http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12167
4: http://publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm#post532
4: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=4
4: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/signs185.htm
4: http://www.democrats.com/
4: http://www.globalresearch.ca/
4: http://groups.msn.com/RushversusReality/rushvsreality.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=79049&LastModified=4675429643278105312
4: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=4
4: http://www.isp.nwu.edu/~fprefect/politics/
4: http://orlingrabbe.org/homepage.html
4: http://www.fringefolk.com//
4: http://www.thementalmilitia.org/index.php
4: http://calvoter.org//
4: http://whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/hole_in_electoral_system.htm
4: http://stinging-nettle.blogspot.com//
4: http://www.freespeechradio.net//
4: http://www.teoti.com/content.php?id=29780
4: http://nopc.antares-dev.com/yabbse/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=3321
4: http://paulfrankenstein.org//
4: http://heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/15193/1.html
4: http://www.sidra.vitale.net//
4: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=-1
4: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/NM0307/S00015.htm
4: http://pub38.ezboard.com/fdegrassiplusfrm1.showMessage?topicID=175.topic
4: http://www.pdurph.org/blog/
4: http://www.lightscion.com//
4: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=apfederalwhistleblowers&sid=37138445&mid=13
3: http://b-c.blogspot.com//
3: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/
3: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=32
3: http://ambiguous.org//
3: http://home.earthlink.net/~prometheus_6/
3: http://us.f415.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=9295_129097_262_483_306_0_8594_-1_0&YY=86220&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Sent
3: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ayakoholic/
3: http://skepticalnotion.blogspot.com/2003_07_06_skepticalnotion_archive.html
3: http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=EV&action=m&board=7088116&tid=presidentialelection2000&sid=7088116&mid=2134001
3: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00089.htm
3: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&mode=thread&cid=6430522
3: http://www.livejournal.com/users/origamipoptart/
3: http://www.moreover.com/cgi-local/page?[e-mail]
3: http://www.thismodernworld.com/index.html
3: http://www.unknownnews.net/previously.html
3: http://southafrica.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/4187.php
3: http://concatenation.blogspot.com//
3: http://webreview.com/97/10/17/webmaster/index.html
3: http://www.zive.sk/H/BiznisMagazin/Ar.asp?ARI=106322&CAI=2117
3: http://www.prague.tv/forum/viewpost.php?id=1285
3: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00066.htm
3: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=4&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change
3: http://www.legitgov.org//
3: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=1&mode=thread&commentsort=3&op=Change
3: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/NM0307/S00013.htm
3: http://www.google.com//
3: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4590
3: http://us.f803.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=2052_990139_12389_1719_852_0_29328_2526_2158213321&YY=86484&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
3: http://allhatnocattle.net/7-8-03-joe-scarborough-dead-aide-me-fired.htm
3: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=3
3: http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/21106
3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LoneStarPolitics/message/922
3: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=196398
3: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/71282_comment.php
3: http://www.lightscion.com/CIA_assassination_JFK.htm
3: http://www.hellblazer.com/archives/001351.html
3: http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=RepChoice&msg=1991.1
3: http://linkthing.com/screed/
3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/1704
3: http://groups.msn.com/ConfederateFlag/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=12188&LastModified=4675430328891954067
3: http://www.ibiblio.org/javafaq
3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=2405&mesg_id=2405&page=
3: http://www.propagandacomics.com/tips/tips_9.html
3: http://slashdot.org//
3: http://64.4.8.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=1a30a56349d6741538312abd3cab52ca&lat=1058499208&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minnesota4Kucinich/message/135
3: http://www.scoop.co.nz/welcome.htm
3: http://falloutshelternews.com/EMERGENCY_BROADCAST_NEWS.htm
3: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_07_06_atrios_archive.html
3: http://www.ruralpeacemakers.org//
3: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=0
3: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=1
3: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/voting.shtml#article2
3: http://industrial.org//
3: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&mode=thread&cid=6524555
3: http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22213
3: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ll_chat&Number=747289&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=
3: http://216.92.17.166/board2/viewtopic.php?t=56586
3: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=apiraqusoperation&sid=37138445&mid=337
3: http://byte.com//
3: http://www.unwrapped.net/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=584&PagePosition=1
3: http://www.dailyrotation.com/index1.shtml
3: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00076.htm
3: http://eep.burdell.org//
3: http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com/?z=post&y=archives/001490#comments
3: http://www.ddj.com/news/
3: http://www.legitgov.org/hot_articles.html
3: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/267666.shtml
3: http://www.tromamovies.com/i/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
3: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/
3: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=apusiraq&sid=37138469&mid=497886
3: http://csmail.compuserve.com/msgview.adp?folder=SU5CT1g=&seq=2
3: http://www.unknownnews.net/indepth.html
3: http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/categories.cfm?catid=43&STARTPAGE=2
3: http://jvlradio.com/forum/posts/1030652070.html
3: http://www.diepunyhumans.com/2003_07_06_archive.html
3: http://mail.interactivityfoundation.org:8383/Xa7eb939e9fc9c9cecceeab3c10/rmail.23680.cgi?&mbx=Main&msg=339&msguid=332295369&msgsort=5&mbxdate=37376
3: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=117
3: http://meettheg.com//
3: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12369&mode=&order=0&thold=0
3: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/scoop/S00065.htm
3: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=120
3: http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200307/msg00274.html
3: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GOV&read=369230
3: http://style.webreview.com//
3: http://www.negativedesign.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6146
3: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=137
3: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail265.html#Ed1
3: http://www.libertyforall.net/backdoor.html
3: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=180
3: http://daily.rotten.com//
3: http://scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=usacoup
3: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/16/17112614;cmt=4
3: http://www.vipworld-alpine.com/opinion/index.html
3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BlackWomen-WhiteMen/message/87355
3: http://www.geekman.com/blog/index.html
3: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&action=m&board=37138469&tid=nmbushafricadc&sid=37138469&mid=1627&thr=1617&cur=1617&dir=d
3: http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9655
3: http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=f187be178826a399&seekm=3F0CD0BF.A91681C1%40ieee.org
3: http://boatertalk.com/messageframe.php?frames=yes&forumid=BoaterTalk&mid=414663
3: http://www.geocities.com/vidiotcontact/pissed.htm
3: http://www.thealders.net/blogs/archive/cat_political_drivel.html
3: http://us.f212.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=3378_104362_6867_1280_2322_0_93_7995_2688764757&YY=8786&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
3: http://liberty.hypermart.net//
3: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12369&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0
3: http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=2036_3205476_44208_1580_237134_0_8684_414093_1209552979&YY=76286&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
3: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com//
3: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=206964;article=10221;title=Civilized%20Political%20Debates
3: http://www.kuro5hin.org//
3: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19313981
3: http://jack.gorb.org/u/mg/politics/voting.xml
3: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60355
3: http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.202939/discussion
3: http://ebonylove.net/forums/general/viewtopic.php?t=6766
3: http://mikemalloy.pmachinehosting.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1905
3: http://www.watchblog.com//
3: http://www.aglob.ru/en/analysis/
3: http://www.leanleft.com//
3: http://www.livejournal.com/community/progressivenews/
3: http://webreview.com/news/
3: http://www.zvedavec.org/zpravySQL.php?clanek_id=637
3: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/11385
3: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946050/posts
3: http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=562c375af3fb191aaeb30e28bfc5d592&lat=1057857767&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&mode=thread&pid=6430652#6431081
2: http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43641
2: http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=256730
2: http://au.f419.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Search=&YY=90034&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
2: http://www.inquirerinside.com/?article=10676
2: http://groups.msn.com/RushversusReality/rushvsreality.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=79049&LastModified=4675429762729535316
2: http://usrepeals.com/openwebmail/cgi-bin/openwebmail-main.pl?sessionid=mtb-session-0.212790731181489&firstmessage=1&sort=date&keyword=&searchtype=subject&folder=INBOX&action=movemessage&message_ids=%3C5.2.1.1.0.20030710021823.039d1d58%40mail.well.com%3E&message_id=%3C5.2.1.1.0.20030710010227.03effb20%40mail.well.com%3E&destination=mail-trash&headers=all&attmode=simple&messageaftermove=1
2: http://www.sidoine.net/vega/nouvelles/
2: http://www.geekman.com/blog/
2: http://64.4.14.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=337d56a8b0292ae7a0e5502edd92eba3&lat=1058476745&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=apbushtenet&sid=37138445&mid=5501
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00067.htm
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00086.htm
2: http://www.thinkpol.net//
2: http://sarahcarey.blogspot.com//
2: http://64.4.20.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=f5c9667abc46a2a90cf0e0d7800c954a&lat=1058060305&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://www.aacaw.org/main.html
2: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7080411&tid=rtn&sid=7080411&mid=35586
2: http://port-mail/mail/hcarver.nsf/38d46bf5e8f08834852564b500129b2c/3f3362b349b38f4288256d5e006b7e29?OpenDocument
2: http://www.learnlink.emory.edu/Login/000327D4-8000000C/00060271-80000001/00065C93-80000001/19F36F50-00249F0F-19F38D45
2: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/
2: http://www.filepile.org/index.php/file/170757
2: http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/
2: http://us.f213.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=9441_1208825_19043_2374_3699_0_12447_11238_1353105665&YY=91763&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
2: http://gwbush.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=3195&s=09dbf421897297a65f01992ae46bec0c
2: http://www.democrats.com/search.cfm
2: http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/index.html
2: http://www.shellen.com/
2: http://www.workingforchange.com/radio/index.cfm?CFID=8336590&CFTOKEN=44477098
2: http://ecotalk.org/BevHarrisScoop.htm
2: http://us.f140.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=824_705168_24292_961_1546_0_9527_3051_1265072393&YY=77917&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
2: http://webreview.com//
2: http://www.geocities.com/revolution4u2000/index.html
2: http://www.truthisbetter.org/database/ObjSubPg.php?article_id=3&info_category=CHALLENGE
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=4&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change
2: http://us.f118.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=3816_1500409_1598_1190_89_0_14578_-1_0&YY=71582&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
2: http://infernalpress.com//
2: http://www.christauff.com/c/christauff/
2: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&sid=35
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/16/17330147;cmt=33
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/15/22320289
2: http://littlewhitedog.com//
2: http://www.the-inquirer.com/?article=10393
2: http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm?cmd=Show&no=1&uid=2332&sid=c0
2: http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&ei=UTF-8&p=diebold&b=21&mb=21
2: http://www.naacpnet.org/exchange/forms/IPM/NOTE/read.asp?command=open&obj=000000003FAE86D71DFE5A4ABF1CBE85131F1D770700A58778DE472EFC46B3EE88250385E653000000EC140000004E2FC4E16058F5438D6B565723849D4800000018B5340000&timedout=
2: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/7/16/121542/183?pid=12
2: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49281
2: http://www.uday.net:2095/uday+uday.net/neomail.pl?action=readmessage&firstmessage=1&sessionid=udaykale-session-0.263491408740268&status=&folder=INBOX&sort=date&headers=simple&message_id=ef2029236c2842526985dc596a818a10
2: http://home.speedfactory.net/ncvw/vote_watch_108th_congress.htm
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/16/17330147;cmt=5
2: http://www.hel-guild.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=003790
2: http://www.dashes.com/links/?view=moz
2: http://us.f100.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Search=&YY=21014&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b
2: http://64.4.20.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=524c414d3b4773ec3f269e4695b2b5c3&lat=1057855751&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://ccfgg.org/home.php
2: http://lightscion.com//
2: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9181&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&threshold=0
2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Conspiranoia/message/14053
2: http://www.deantalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=135&start=0
2: http://64.4.16.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=5312042a4c4c0d46cc954e8c5567a751&lat=1059088700&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://weeklydig.com/Boards/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1490
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/37/94/200307141159.0a907fd3.html
2: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/HomePage.html
2: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/943794/posts
2: http://207.68.162.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=7881a48121d68d067559609a2edf5328&lat=1057872613&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/journal/2003_07_06_j_archive.htm
2: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25312
2: http://www.mandrake.net/
2: http://us.f409.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=8246_4343780_23880_1182_1810_0_10692_5175_1009830389&YY=1653&inc=50&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Sent
2: http://thorntree.lonelyplanet.com/categories.cfm?catid=43&STARTPAGE=3
2: http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=f187be178826a399&seekm=3F0CC94F.10406%40cavtel.net#link1
2: http://www.geekman.com/blog/arc/cat_Current_Events.html
2: http://home.earthlink.net/~prometheus_6/archives/2003_07_06_prometheus_6.html
2: http://www.sideshow.free-online.co.uk//
2: http://www.prorev.com//
2: http://whatreallyhappened.com//
2: http://us.f805.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=1938_2557583_7619_1013_171_0_38363_-1_0&YY=76640&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
2: http://aacaw.org/main.html
2: http://www.yorknewstimes.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000054.html
2: http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&frame=right&th=f187be178826a399&seekm=3F0CD0BF.A91681C1%40ieee.org
2: http://www.incunabula.org/blog/archive/2003_07_06_index.html
2: http://mobile.metafilter.com//
2: http://mail.nyu.edu/frame.html?rtfPossible=true&lang=en
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/_mediawhore_/
2: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=5&mode=flat&commentsort=0&op=Change
2: http://lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=F000000001&a=4606511b46f47864005aa8ac2ab054b1&msg=MSG1057845135.82&start=610472&len=1174&mfs=&cmd=next&lastmsgid=MSG1057712509.44&msgread=0&wcid=&soid=
2: http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl
2: http://www.ibiblio.org/javafaq/shortindex.shtml
2: http://www.dashes.com/links/?view=ie
2: http://mymail.alloymail.com/scripts/mail/mesg.mail?folder=INBOX&order=Newest&mview=a&mstart=1&msg_uid=1058317562&mprev=1058317570&mnext=1058317560
2: http://home.earthlink.net/~projectforanoldamericancentury/poac/
2: http://mandrake.net/article.pl?sid=03/07/10/1843204&mode=thread
2: http://www.webreview.com/style/index.shtml
2: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GOV&read=370353
2: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GOV&read=370355
2: T22cToMlrEJ:www.loopynews.com/LoopyNews/News.asp%3Fpage%3Dgeek+diebold+%22johns+hopkins%22+flaws&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache T22cToMlrEJ:www.loopynews.com/LoopyNews/News.asp%3Fpage%3Dgeek+diebold+%22johns+hopkins%22+flaws&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
2: http://www.accidentalexpert.com/blog/
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138459&tid=apiraq&sid=37138459&mid=199988
2: http://www.freedomfiles.org/start.htm
2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=12577&mesg_id=12577&page=
2: http://bb4.voyeurweb.com/messages/361/74001.html?1057977247
2: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/am-info/Week-of-Mon-20030707/012232.html
2: http://www.stryder.com//
2: http://65.54.246.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=44dadbebcce946f0f44eeef3d46013c1&lat=1057847253&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://penguinal.net//
2: http://us.f802.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=8438_5391448_66598_2464_948_0_4135_-1_0&YY=4336&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
2: http://64.4.16.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=14b751b5173bd708ef92455c5e28e9be&lat=1057860527&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001205.shtml#001205
2: http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=77c1b887e5bdaf14e5dd215a1eb1194e&lat=1057880041&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0211/S00081.htm
2: http://www.anu.org/nationalistnewsservice-Archives.html
2: http://www.stickysauce.com/news/websiteownersnews.htm
2: http://www.asianuncensored.com/072003/1107/at.htm
2: http://ddj.com//
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mercurialgirl/
2: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58164
2: http://www.rightwingnews.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1114
2: http://twincities.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=13458&group=webcast
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=131
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=134
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=135
2: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=103&mode=thread&pid=6430451
2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shelzar_PJD/message/3296
2: http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/000267.php?31
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=147
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=149
2: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/70932.php
2: http://www.flu-ent.com/politics/20030714.htm
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=153
2: http://www.zgeek.com/index.php?s=
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=156
2: http://www.lightscion.com/index.html
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=160
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=163
2: http://www.talkleft.com//
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138459&tid=apiraq&sid=37138459&mid=205458
2: http://www.knitwitology.net/knitlog/
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm
2: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=0&pid=0&startat=&threshold=5&mode=thread&commentsort=1&op=Change
2: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5
2: http://smail.hunter.cuny.edu/Exchange/armarks/Inbox/Scoop:%20Inside%20A%20U.S.%20Election%20Vote%20Counting%20Program.EML?Cmd=open
2: http://kysor.blogspot.com//
2: http://www.syzygyjob.net/conspiracy/messages/19694.shtml
2: http://www.curiousfrog.com/private/bookmark/select/
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/09/06563578;cmt=187
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&action=m&board=37138445&tid=apbushtenet&sid=37138445&mid=5499&thr=5259&cur=5259&dir=d
2: http://us.f140.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Search=&YY=26484&order=down&sort=date&pos=0
2: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000211.html
2: http://ncmail.netscape.com/msgview.adp?folder=SW5ib3g=&uid=224513
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/16/17112614;cmt=0
2: http://webmail.bellsouth.net/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+mobmain?msgvw=INBOXMN382DELIM2077
2: http://austin.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7931&group=webcast
2: http://www.triptronix.net/ishbadiddle/ishblog.html
2: http://www.calvoter.org/
2: http://www.metafilter.com/archived.mefi/7/1/2003
2: http://us.f209.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=4238_551048_6641_1086_409_0_13345_-1_0&YY=76050&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
2: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_seetheforest_archive.html#105830725579108110
2: http://liberty.hypermart.net/index.html
2: http://shreela.f2o.org/blog/archives/politics/2003/election_software.html
2: http://www.dogskinreport.com//
2: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/000901.html
2: http://davidcogswell.com//
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=apusiraq&sid=37138469&mid=499973
2: http://whatreallyhappened.com/biggerthanwatergate.html
2: http://www.rense.com/index.htm
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/iamblichus/41684.html
2: http://www.christauff.com//
2: http://us.f101.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=9441_1031454_7667_2405_3699_0_2179_11238_1353105665&YY=23715&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&mode=thread&pid=6430652#6431898
2: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
2: http://www.calvoter.org/home.html
2: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=flat&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=5
2: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Davei
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/staff/logs/accesswatch/
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/djpersefoni/friends
2: http://www.industrial.org//
2: http://www.humanshields.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=102&sid=23bc70afb4c28ef3cf77f7e41bfce082
2: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_voting.shtml#article2
2: http://www.polizeros.com/2003/07/08.html
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/spiderfarmer/75982.html
2: http://us.f409.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Search=&YY=85457&order=down&sort=date
2: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=flat&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=3
2: http://pub115.ezboard.com/fpoliticsofthepeoplefrm1.showMessage?topicID=3007.topic
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm
2: http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=76151&group=webcast
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/15/22320289;cmt=19
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/15/22224981;cmt=14
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/15/22224981;cmt=15
2: http://onewomanwreckingcrew.com//
2: http://soreeyes.org//
2: http://64.4.10.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=bce653c6c03ce73b2dfc147045b6bd8c&lat=1057876908&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://www.aci.net/Kalliste/
2: http://webmail.att.net/wmc/v/wm?cmd=Show&no=284&uid=5783&sid=c0
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243&mode=flat&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99
2: http://us.f140.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=1977_1328708_39610_1231_142_0_47298_-1_0&YY=97955&inc=50&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
2: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=19103324
2: http://www.admuncher.com//
2: http://quadrofonic.goldenvoid.com/quadrofonic/linkoftheday.htm
2: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&fr=326
2: http://webmail.att.net/wmc/v/wm?cmd=Show&no=3&uid=3912&sid=c0
2: http://xtramail.xtra.co.nz/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+mobmain?msgvw=INBOXMN382DELIM7990
2: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/07/16/01120617;cmt=43
2: http://ca.f406.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=8379_4674959_150633_1176_232_0_5515_-1_0&YY=57708&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
2: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=7080411&tid=rtn&sid=7080411&mid=35586
2: http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=65813
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307
2: http://blackamericawebforums.tomjoyner.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=431950&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
2: http://iam.bmezine.com/iam.exe?cmd=view&username=glider&diarypage=10
2: http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002642.html
2: http://frontpage.fok.nl/news.fok?id=30511
2: http://us.f802.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=8438_5391448_66598_2464_948_0_4135_-1_0&YY=9874&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/belmikey/friends
2: http://www.industrial.org/
2: http://2ndlight.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=32553
2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naijanet/message/69772
2: http://66.250.38.106/whatreallyhappened/www/
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&threshold=3
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/NM0307/S00018.htm
2: http://publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm#post533
2: http://www.humanshields.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=908
2: http://us.f411.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=8780_1644111_72890_1632_24420_0_56548_54162_253954871&YY=9182&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=&head=&box=Inbox
2: http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=444571
2: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/13/1957243&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201&tid=99&threshold=-1
2: http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=b78b3e487e5f624c2c3d28991620613a&lat=1057897084&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=11
2: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=17
2: http://www.workingforchange.com/radio/index.cfm?CFID=8324614&CFTOKEN=59350485
2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=72579&mesg_id=72579&page=
2: http://by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=F000000001&a=fc085caea5f3d0046a46274570f99a20&msg=MSG1058120046.15&mfs=&_HMaction=move&tobox=F000000004&direction=next
2: http://64.4.14.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=95280e27ca832e2bb4c6ef827b24c28c&lat=1057858076&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://blackboxvoting.com/
2: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=21
2: http://atrios.blogspot.com///
2: http://sirdan.vip.warped.com/archives/000059.html
2: http://www.bvalphaserver.com/gate.html?name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=23740
2: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001228.html
2: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=57747&ixReplies=33
2: http://www.metafilter.com/searched.mefi?option=2&search=electronic+voting&date=3
2: http://64.4.16.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=6c7fb22dea4efaae8f92a52e4a4861a3&lat=1057889033&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=apbushtenet&sid=37138445&mid=5499
2: http://us.f415.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=904_706323_9092_1641_19559_0_1171_44048_4135391543&YY=84137&inc=50&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
2: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138469&tid=apbushintelligence&sid=37138469&mid=2638
2: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=flat&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99
2: http://64.4.16.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=670f88a886bb93da3ab0a0151c0cea82&lat=1057937036&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackbox.html
2: http://www.0101010.org/index.html
2: http://soreeyes.org/archives/000614.html
2: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/#usa
2: http://us.f406.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?YY=81846&order=down&sort=date&pos=0
2: http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/~fprefect/politics/
2: http://www.livejournal.com/users/bright_eyes71/friends
2: http://www.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=315285&group=webcast%20
2: http://65.54.168.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=fa0d4087c9822f2d1b8e26aa846d92c0&lat=1059145110&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2escoop%2eco%2enz%2fmason%2fstories%2fHL0307%2fS00065%2ehtm
2: http://mikemalloy.pmachinehosting.com//
2: http://www.fourteenminutes.com/code/avantslash/live/avantify.cgi?url=03/07/24/153258
2: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/24/153258&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99&threshold=5
2: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/70932_comment.php
2: http://www.contrarianthinker.com//
2: http://forums.targetware.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6522
2: http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=savantsociety&msg=4604.1
2: http://fireboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=1931374

[birdman]

130. Guess I'm not spending enough time reading "Geekman"

Do you have any evidence that even one vote was
flipped ?

If so present it. At that point somebody will give a shit.

Otherwise at least be honest with your readers.
You have a story about possible election problems
not real election problems.

[ParanoidPat]

170. ROFLMAO!

You gotta be kidding! :evilgrin:

[angka]

143. woohoo! thinkpol.net's in there!

okay, that was a shameless plug...

[AWD]

262. But Bev

Do you have any sources??

:-)

[Eloriel]

136. I'm sorry, Mr. Birdman

You did compare your story to the Pentagon Papers
did you not ?

No, in one instance she was quoting someone she talked to. In another instance which I don't think Bev herself quoted, Dr. Doug Jones (is that his name? I always stumble on this one) asserted his opinion on the legality of looking at the code and compared it to the legality (according to the courts) of publishing the Pentagon Papers.

You did imply that if you don't post people should
start dragging the river, didn't you ?

YOU may not be aware of the string of bodies connected to the Bush Crime Family, but others here are. AND before you go off half-cocked here, NO ONE (incuding me) is connecting or has connected this voting machine issue to the Bushes. However, the Bushes were very well aware of vote fraud and vote suppression going on in FL in 2000, hency my comment. Some of these people (Bushes and their friends) most definitely play for keeps, and don't mind a little murder on the side to keep things totally under control.

Given that you -- and other naysayers -- still don't know the WHOLE story yet, I would say you're not in a position to weigh in on this one way or the other.

Let's HOPE Bev is being overly paranoid, or would you wish her premature demise to prove the hype -- and apparent paranoia -- were well-founded?

Didn't SCOOP say this was bigger than Watergate ?
(the same day they reported the death of Katherine
Harris).

Thus far you have a story about computer system security.
Okay, but don't overhype what you have.

No, what YOU seem to be concentrating on and all YOU seem to know is computer system security. In addition, Bev has written fairly extensively on such additional matters as severe conflicts of interest, lies and obfuscations from the lot of them, certification nightmares, questionable backgrounds of the "certifiers," highly questionable elections results which by themselves are proof of nothing but added to the mix lend considerable additional suspicion, and election anomalies that apparently cannot be explained by Diebold or anyone else.

Up to this point you have a minor issue. Let's deal with
the security issue.


The kinds of security flaws contained in the Hopkins report could HARDLY be called "minor." But I'll repeat: it's what YOU up to this point are trying to insist, without knowledge of the subject, is the sum and substance of the BBV Team's research.

Sit tight.

Eloriel

[birdman]

164. Oh Please

Ms. Harris has implied on numerous occasions that her
life was endangered because of her revelations which
thus far amount to a lot of computer security issues.

"string of bodies connected to the Bush Crime Family"

Only none of this relates to the Bushes as you yourself say
and even if it did the "string of bodies" is the nutty stuff
that filled the old "Clinton Death List" that the right wing
used to e-mail to one another. There's a lot of reasons
to despise the Bush family but there's no reason to believe
that they're Murder Incorporated. I don't wish Ms. Harris
(or anyone else) a "premature demise" and realistically there
has been nothing revealed so far that would cause anyone
to start looking over their shoulder.

And of course I know that the really significant revelations
are just around the corner. I know that because the BBV people
are always telling us that just before they reveal more
shocking tales of computer security.


In a world that offers us daily reports of dead bodies coming
home from Iraq the revelation that some voting systems have
left the garage door open is indeed minor. It's a problem
that should be fixed but hardly "stop the presses" material.

[BevHarris]

168. Name the numerous instances.

You can't. Quit making things up.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

214. he doesn't have to

Technically it only takes one instance. You clearly implied that your life was in danger from Diebold. Quit denying it.

JC

[ParanoidPat]

263. In a country where people are murdered daily for their sneakers....

....small sums of cash in a register, purse or wallet or even wearing the wrong color on the wrong block, are you saying you honestly don't believe someone could be in danger for threatening to expose something that could cost a company millions or possibly billions of dollars in sales?

That would require one to suspend all sense of reality! :evilgrin:

[Gordon25]

91. How big is the story?

Thirty seven states use Diebold systems, including several counties here in Arizona. How big is this story to them?

Our most precious American heritage and right, the right to free and fair elections, is housed and guarded in the county facilities of every county in the country. The elections division people here in Pima County, with the capable back up of the County Recorder and her staff, are without doubt stalwart defenders of our voting franchise. Their efforts to ensure the safety of our elections puts them head and shoulders over most other county operations I am familiar with. They dutifully and faithfully pursue thier responsibilities and faithfully lock the door behind them each night. For a number of years we have conducted elections this way, assuming because our security was impeccable, that the election results were correct and accurate.

The Harris and Hopkins studies have, however, brought some very disturbing news to our attention. It turns out that the building housing this most precious of our rights, in fact had three or four hidden entrances which were kept wide open all the time. And that there were handy evidence-erasing kits just inside those secret doors to eliminate any evidence of entry. Our county guardians had no right to know about the hidden doors because the blue prints of the building were ruled a trade secret. Because of that they have no way of knowing whether or not there are even more hidden doors.

Now, to make matters worse, the blue print to our building here along with complete descriptions of the hidden doors and how to acces them, have now been spread in the public domain at numerous sites on the internet. So, even though our election guardians are not allowed to see the blue prints, every hacker in the world has access to them. It’s like having your address, the key to your home alarm system, the contents of, and the combination to, your wall safe, and your work schedule published in the Professional Burglar’s Monthly Gazette.

And finally, our county officials, even when notified of the secret doors, are not allowed to lock them because the software code is propriatary.

Without decertification of this software, significant legislative reform, along with significant reform of the certification process, any measures we take to attempt a remedy equates to doing no more than hiring private security guards to stand outside the known secret doors.

Eventually, with the blue print to our building out there, someone will find new secret doors, or find a way to create them. The lure of the treasure we are trying to keep safe is very strong.

There is more news breaking on this story every day. Circumstantial evidence of electronic vote count manipulation continues to pile up. Eventually some responsibile official is going to have to call for full decertification of this system and complete reform of the certification process. The first to choose to do so will certainly be remembered by history as a hero for striking the first offical blow in defense of the electronic subversion of our election system.

To me this is a really big story. Maybe you just don't value the right to vote that much.

Gordon25

[RedEagle]

138. Gordon

That is a really great analogy. Can I copy it and send it to our voting activism group?

Heck, could I send it to some of our brainwashed, all I've read is the R.Doug Lewis paper, election officials?

(Not all their fault. They are fed this garbage from the State's election office. Our state officials want nothing to do with verified paper on DRE's)

[Gordon25]

152. Please do

It has been effective in some ongoing meetings to educate some of our officials about what is going on. Share it as widely as possible if it seems to work.
Its easy in a subject like this to lose sight of the simplicity of the situation. Nothing Diebold or anyone else says changes one line of spurious code or closes one single security hole. Hot air was never much use plugging the dike.

Gordon25

[BevHarris]

146. Some really wonderful images you've painted, Gordon

"It’s like having your address, the key to your home alarm system, the contents of, and the combination to, your wall safe, and your work schedule published in the Professional Burglar’s Monthly Gazette.

"And finally, our county officials, even when notified of the secret doors, are not allowed to lock them because the software code is propriatary."

Thanks!

On a high-tech story as large as this, it is very helpful to have people-friendly images to help describe the problem.

Bev

[Gordon25]

92. Oh, and...

...by my last count, over four hundred individual media outlets have picked up and run with this story in the past week.

Gordon25

[Fredda Weinberg]

80. Why gloat?

John Hopkins agrees with me ... there's no evidence of deliberate tampering.

All I had to do was wait for technical confirmation - I knew I was right.

There's no BBV story. It's been an ineffective publicity stunt for someone's book. The important issues remain.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fredda Weinberg]

127. I was actively campaigning against touch screens last year

working with local reporters in Florida.

You got nothing on Diebold - but I said that weeks ago.

[angka]

120. bwahaha (blowing soda through my nose)

"John Hopkins agrees with me" Such amusing audacity: you're surely powered by the energizer bunny.

i just thought of something. with your clients dropping you like a hot potato, i've thought of a position that would suit you, and has recently been opened:



"There's nothing suspicious about the construction of GEMS! Access is a great product. This is all just a publicity stunt!"

oh god, it's starting to hurt... :7

[Fredda Weinberg]

126. Clients? I haven't lost any.

and my new one knows the entire cast of characters ... look for our work in the October issue of Vanity Fair.

[ParanoidPat]

167. Could you please point out where the Johns Hopkins researchers....

.....Agreed that Access was OK to use for elections? :evilgrin:

I got the distinct impression.... :)

[Fredda Weinberg]

180. There were no accusations of deliberate misconduct

These are "security experts" who want to be consulted by companies like Diebold - as they said, they have nothing against the company.

Constrast those who claim that 'we have Diebold on the ropes.' The Johns Hopkins researchers are engaged in a useful dialogue with the company - which could lead to stronger crytography and my perennial favorite - better code comments.

[ParanoidPat]

265. The Johns Hopkins team only looked at a very small portion of the code....

....and admitted that they found serious flaws. Diebold LIED about the code that was reviewed by claiming it had never been used in an election. Between what is contained in the code that was NOT REVIEWED by the experts in question and the PROVABLE LIES issued by Diebold time will tell who's 'on the ropes'! :evilgrin:

Your assertions that "John(sic) Hopkins agrees with me" and There's no BBV story. It's been an ineffective publicity stunt for someone's book. just expose you for who you really are! And best of all they do it with your own words! LOL! :)

Define ineffective! :crazy:

[Eloriel]

141. Oh, Fredda, Fredda

What a HOOT you are.

They didn't happen to agree with you about Access which you defended so strenuously that AFAIC you pretty much based your whole reputation on that point.

Eloriel

[Fredda Weinberg]

178. Again, it's a question of deliberate action, not programmers ...

criticizing each others' technique. Even at DU, I had my supporters as well as detractors, so my reputation is secure.

It's that black and white thinking that characterizes our opposition. What a shame that some of us have adopted that intellectual laziness for political opportunity.

[Eloriel]

204. My point was your

undying support and affection for Access, which got thoroughly trounced by the experts you say "agreed with you," not whatever it is you think you're responding to in your clear deflection here.

Intellectual laziness? How about some intellectual coherence from YOU?

I won't even address "my reputation is secure" point. That issue speaks for itself.

Eloriel

[Fredda Weinberg]

209. Affection? It's software ... and good at what it does

Sadly for BBV promoters, it's not a scandal, or even a serious flaw. The security experts are already modifying their recommendations in the face of practical criticism - there are external methods to detect fraud that they are first hearing about.

That's typical of the BBV method: shoot first and never worry about consequences.

[Junkdrawer]

81. Looks to me like they waited until the shells stop falling...

regrouped, then began the counter attack.

As of now, the counter attack seems to be:

"Well, you showed a few easy to solve security problems in one manufacturers machines, but you're way short of what you promised and your concerns for your safety were silly." Am I stating it accurately?

Well, let me counter:

1.) The Johns Hopkins group showed, in a real life instance, the need for a voter verified paper audit trail.

2.) Bev & co. showed a method of cheating the goes beyond the touch screen issue and awaits Freedom of Information verification. And if that one is ever confirmed, Katy bar the doors. And Bev promises more to come.

3.) As for safety, I'd rather be embarrassed and alive than sensibly dead any day. I think Bev feels the same.

[DEMActivist]

83. My guess would be that....

The Diebold President is ready to admit defeat....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=118425&mesg_id=118425

[Generic Other]

96. If Diebold pres makes an admission like this, it's probably much worse

than I thought.

I don't get it. Activist DUers spent enormous time and energy for months researching, questioning, interviewing on the BBV and all some of you spuds can do is criticise the enthusiasm and energy generated. The efforts of all the activists are starting pay off. They are raising awareness, reminding us once again of the bad taste 2000 election left in our mouths, challenging us to take action.

These little insignificant security problems the naysayers keep dismissing are the tip of an iceberg that open up a flood of even more serious questions for me about the 2000 Florida results. They aren't even questions Bev has necessarily asked; they just float to the surface like scum every time the topic of BBV comes up.

Every time we mention the right to vote, we should be reminded who is putting that right in danger. Not Bev. The corrupted process should be the target, not those who have identified some of its components.

If you try and play poker with a marked deck of cards, and you get caught, it's not just a little "slip up." Go try it at some casino in Vegas sometime if you don't believe me. They'll kill you on less evidence than Bev has on Diebold.

Diebold has zero credibility, and will have even less if it tries to cover up and ignore what Bev and others have exposed. Obviously Diebold knows this if they are already warning potential customers against their own product. This is an admission of a big problem on the part of the company that goes well beyond what can be easily repaired. Kind of like ecoli in the fast food industry. All the assurances in the world still won't make me eat at Jack-in-a-Box. And a Diebold machine of any kind is always going to make me suspicious. Jack may be the cleanest spot in town today, but they still killed children with their food. And Diebold may end up with the squeakiest clean machines in the country, but they still counted half the votes in Florida.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

107. that's just way too ambiguous

Jack may be the cleanest spot in town today, but they still killed children with their food. And Diebold may end up with the squeakiest clean machines in the country, but they still counted half the votes in Florida.

Do you mean they counted half of the votes in Florida, or they counted only half of the ballots cast on their machines? And can you document the claim either way?

Nice touch associating Diebold with companies that kill children. I bet they assemble their nefarious voting terminals using child laborers in Indonesia too.

JC

[Generic Other]

111. You're the expert, you tell me

I smelled a rat in Florida in 2000, and throwing a handful of quick lime on top of it doesn't make the smell go away.

on edit: typos

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

119. a rat?

Honestly, now.

You "smelled a rat" in Florida. That's a pretty amazing insight. Wow.

Now in the interest of accuracy, you made a claim that Diebold counted half the votes in Florida in 2000. I would simply like to know whether you meant they counted half the votes (which is possible, I think I read that some Diebold equipment was in use in Florida) or whether you meant they only counted half the ballots that were cast on their equipment. And whether you can document either claim. I'm just a computer programmer, not a student of electoral statistics... I never claimed to be an expert on anything outside the area of software development. I would simply like to know whether your original claim is based on something resembling fact or whether it's totally untrue before deciding how to best respond.

JC

[BevHarris]

124. Diebold claims to have counted 40% of the votes in Florida 2000

according to sales literature they submitted in a county bid.

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

137. hurray for numbers

Wouldn't it be funny if they counted more democratic votes than republican?

I still want to know if the original poster meant Diebold machines counted half the votes or half the ballots cast on their machines. I suppose we'll never know, the best we'll get is stories of weird smells and something about lime.

In any event, on the (probably generous) assumption that the original poster meant the former, I'll simply point out the obvious fact that the presence of Diebold voting machines in Florida means nothing in isolation. Maybe if that fact were linked to specific counties where there were problems or something. From what I've read in the news, it seems to me that most of the actual voting problems (leaving aside the irrelevant issues of voter registration, turning people aside at the polls, closing polls with people in line, etc.) were in places with good old reliable paper-based systems. I will never, until the end of my days, forget the image of little old ladies holding paper ballots up to the light on TV and trying to decipher voter intent.

JC

[Generic Other]

151. I don't have to prove anything

Diebold must prove they didn't take advantage of the flaws to cheat. Can they accurately verify the vote count for Florida 2000? Wasn't that what they were hired to do? Since they can't vouch for the security of their systems, they also can't vouch for the accuracy of their conclusions. Same with 2002 results. Diebold owes all the states that use their machines refunds!

Why should I trust this company's flawed machines to protect my right to vote? It's like letting a pedophile run a day care center.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

154. well done

First the association with child-killing restaurants, now a gratuitous pedophile reference. That's a powerful case you're making there.

You said "Diebold must prove they didn't take advantage of the flaws to cheat."

Diebold doesn't have to prove any such thing, actually. In the US, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They don't even stand accused of anything other than some sloppy security in their voting terminal software... certainly none of the experts have accused them of anything malicious, at any rate. Moreover, it's impossible to prove a negative. If you or Bev or anyone else wants to accuse Diebold of a crime, someone's going to have to prove it. That's just the way it works. And there's been nothing approaching anything of the kind supplied to date, no matter how much you want to close your eyes and believe otherwise.

JC

[BevHarris]

157. Diebold has to prove their machines are secure

Since they have been proven insecure.

Check the FEC regs, and tally up how many have been broken. Can you spell d e c e r t i f y ???

[Generic Other]

159. I think sloppy security in voting machines is comparable

to pedophiles running a day care center for a good reason--both violate my trust in gut wrenching fashion.

You can call me illogical, crazy--whatever you like. I am a voter who thinks Diebold cheats, and that their executives are criminals. They don't have to try and convince me that I'm wrong.

It's like the person who asks to use your restroom and unlocks the window before he leaves. When you get robbed later, who you gonna blame?

Yup, every time I think of Diebold these days, I associate it with the evils of the world.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

162. wow

"The evils of the world." Wow. I'm speechless. You've certainly made me a believer.

JC

[BevHarris]

156. Or else it means that the prospect of a statewide hand recount

truly panicked them, to the extent that they decided next time, there should be no paper evidence that people might actually decide to COUNT...

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

215. of course

Yeah, that's probably it. :eyes:

JC

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

101. actually

Fredda's actually correct. You're drawing inappropriate conclusions, and using sources such as the Hopkins report to support it. To wit:

1.) The Johns Hopkins group showed, in a real life instance, the need for a voter verified paper audit trail.
Actually, they showed nothing of the sort. What they showed was a series of alleged security holes that would in theory permit people to vote more than once using manufactured smart cards. I submit that giving everyone a slip of paper confirming their vote does absolutely nothing to address that problem, and I'm quite certain that even the Hopkins people would concur. A paper receipt showing my vote was accurately recorded does nothing to tell me the guy in the next booth doesn't have 100 illicit smartcards in his pocket. The best it does is tell the guy with 100 smartcards that his 99 unauthorized votes were recorded correctly. The Hopkins report also demonstrated that unofficial results are uploaded to the central computer in an unencrypted form that may be subject to tampering by employees of the phone company, while pointing out that the original results are stored encrypted on the voting terminal. In the event of a recount or any discrepancy, there's no demonstration that the phone company employee's able to tamper with the results stored on the terminal or its memory card. By which the logical inference is that the results stored on the machine would be expected to match any results that would be printed out on a paper receipt. Unless, of course, the machine is rigged to count improperly, favor certain candidates, or otherwise alter actual totals. Which, according to the Hopkins people, is "ludicrous". As I've said before, I'm in favor of a printed receipt as well... however the reasons for it are fairly self-evident and they don't require wilful misinterpretation of the Hopkins report.

2.) Bev & co. showed a method of cheating the goes beyond the touch screen issue and awaits Freedom of Information verification. And if that one is ever confirmed, Katy bar the doors. And Bev promises more to come.If by a "method of cheating" you mean direct messing with database tables, she still hasn't shown how the adjusted total would be reconciled with reports from the touchscreens that contain the (ostensibly) accurate results. If you actually mean "general security sloppiness", that's not actually a "method of cheating" at all.

3.) As for safety, I'd rather be embarrassed and alive than sensibly dead any day. I think Bev feels the same. When Diebold kills Bev or anyone else, I promise to be appropriately shocked.

Don't feel bad because you're not alone in misinterpreting things to support your claim. Take for example Eloriel's claim on this very thread:

"Or, let's not forget some truly amazing election results from 2002 where Diebold machines were in use. Three Repugs in one county in Texas winning by exactly 18,181 votes, which is just my favorite example of many, many, many unusual "results" or events which Bev has catalogued."

I think it's been established many, many times (and Bev can surely back me up on this) that it was ES&S, not Diebold. How can someone argue with people who can't keep their facts straight? Sigh.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason why I (as a nay-sayer) don't respond much any more is simple: most of the people contributing to these threads are unwilling to listen to anything that doesn't reaffirm their pre-conceived theory that electronic voting is rigged in favor of the Repubs and that every significant election in which it's been used has been rigged. I've asked many times for someone to point out the malicious vote-rigging code and I'm happy that he Hopkins people confirmed my own analysis that any such claim was ludicrous. General security holes are another (valid) issue, which should be (and which I'm certain either have been or (now) will be) addressed by Diebold... I would be the first to point the finger at a company that failed to address demonstrated security holes in one of their products.

"Pentagon Papers"? I hardly think so. "Bigger than Watergate?" Laughable. Suggestions that Diebold would have Bev killed? Not even worth the effort of commenting. The whole thing is a fairly well-executed publicity stunt. I don't really have anything else to contribute to the whole voting thing until someone finds some kind of malfeasance, fraud or malicious vote-rigging code. In the meantime I need to catch up on a bunch of other threads... I read here last week that most of the administration would surely have resigned over the uranium thing by the weekend and I want to find out where that's at.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

108. Who's purposefully misinterpreting what??

You say:

I submit that giving everyone a slip of paper confirming their vote does absolutely nothing to address that problem, and I'm quite certain that even the Hopkins people would concur. A paper receipt showing my vote was accurately recorded does nothing to tell me the guy in the next booth doesn't have 100 illicit smartcards in his pocket.

I said "voter verified paper audit trail" - not the goofy encrypted receipt of the VoteHere method. I'd like to see a malicious voter hand 100 envelopes containing voter verified ballots to an election worker.

And as for she still hasn't shown how the adjusted total would be reconciled with reports from the touchscreens, that's exactly what we're trying to get with Freedom of Information requests. We'll let you know how that comes out.

Please TFH, you need to do better than that. Remember, you're trying to snow an educated audience here.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

112. votehere?

I never advocated anything of the sort, as you well know. Nor am I trying to "snow" anyone whatsoever. Please don't put words in my mouth, oh educated one... I'm capable of expressing myself without your assistance.

Wave your hands all you like. Your original statement was "The Johns Hopkins group showed, in a real life instance, the need for a voter verified paper audit trail." The report shows no such thing, for the obvious reasons I already pointed out. A voter-verified paper audit trail may in fact be a good thing (I certainly think it is) but it's not a conclusion one would draw from the points in the Hopkins report. I recognize your claim that you are educated, but I can only surmise that perhaps you should have gone to a better school if you can't comprehend the argument.

You'd probably like to see a malicious voter hand 100 envelopes to an election worker about as much as I'd like to see a malicious voter spend a few hours at the machine voting with the 100 fake cards in his pocket. Or asking for tech support on how to hook up his laptop or (better yet) his palm pilot. Of course any of those scenarious is idiotic, as you well know.

And yes I'm sure you'll let us know how the Freedom of Information requests work out. Unless it miraculously turns out that the data from the machines, the printed reports and the stuff in the central computer all add up... I wonder if you'll bother to post the results in that case, or simply use it to "prove" that the corruption simply goes higher? In any event, I'm waiting with baited breath and all that.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

116. If you're not trying to snow us, why did you change...

"voter verified paper audit trail" to "printed receipts" and then spend 270 words attacking the strawman you just created? As for VoteHere, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and interpreted "A paper receipt showing my vote was accurately recorded" as the receipt of the VoteHere method (http://www.votehere.net/about.htm). If not, what else were you referring to?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

128. I'll try to use small words

I would like a piece of paper printed out that I can look at and put in a box.

That being said, it's not a conclusion an educated person would draw from the Hopkins report. It doesn't in any way, shape or form guard against the malicious voter who wants to manufacture his own smart cards and vote multiple times. It doesn't guard against any tampering with unofficial results uploaded from the voting machine to the central computer. Your logic is flawed, and your interpretation of the report is incorrect.

There is no straw man here. I have repeated my original argument twice now, for your sole benefit. All you want to do is nitpick over semantics, since your original statement won't stand up to any kind of intelligent analysis.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

131. Use small words if that's the extent of your vocabulary...

You said:

A paper receipt showing my vote was accurately recorded does nothing to tell me the guy in the next booth doesn't have 100 illicit smartcards in his pocket. The best it does is tell the guy with 100 smartcards that his 99 unauthorized votes were recorded correctly.

I said:

I'd like to see a malicious voter hand 100 envelopes containing voter verified ballots to an election worker.

Then you said:

You'd probably like to see a malicious voter hand 100 envelopes to an election worker about as much as I'd like to see a malicious voter spend a few hours at the machine voting with the 100 fake cards in his pocket. Or asking for tech support on how to hook up his laptop or (better yet) his palm pilot. Of course any of those scenarious(sic) is idiotic, as you well know.

Somewhere in there, you were caught trying to change "voter verified paper audit trail" to "printed receipts" and so now you are condescendingly trying say you meant "voter verified paper audit trail". I believe every one here has your number. I'm off to bed. Spin away oh clever one.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

148. for the love of god

This is idiotic. I made my point three times. It never changed. I clarified as much as possible and yet you refuse to understand. I honestly believe that everyone here does indeed have my number by this point, except you.

And people actually wonder why the naysayers aren't around much any more. Jesus.

JC

[DoveTurnedHawk]

183. The Issue Is This

You posted a strong argument against the effectiveness of mere paper receipts. I agree with you on that.

The better course of action, however, would be to print a paper receipt which then needs to be handed to a poll worker in order to be counted as valid.

The "smart card" fraudster you describe would then be caught trying to hand his or her hundred illegal votes to the poll worker. Problem solved.

I think the appropriate course of action here would either be to admit that a paper trail would be very helpful in defeating potential fraud, or find another, more valid avenue of criticism.

DTH

[Junkdrawer]

188. I agree with that..

Out of these (sometimes contentious) arguments come suggestions that could make the voting and subsequent auditing process more trustworthy.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

216. that's too simplistic

I still don't think it solves the problem. If I have to hand in a paper receipt (or whatever term is going to satisfy Junkdrawer) I'm obviously not going to hand them all in to the same poll worker... I'll just go and vote at a bunch of different polling stations and hand in one receipt at each.

I'm in favor of the printed record of my vote because it ensures the integrity of my vote but it doesn't address any of the issues suggested by the Hopkins report. I stand by my assertion that the original poster's interpretation of the report was flawed.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

217. Perhaps you never read the Johns Hopkins report...

Because if you did, you would have surely read this:

The only known solution to this problem is to introduce a “voter-verifiable audit trail.” . Most commonly, this is achieved by adding a printer to the voting terminal. When the voter finishes selecting candidates, a ballot is printed on paper and presented to the voter. If the printed ballot reflects the voter’s intent, the ballot is saved for future reference. If not, the ballot is mechanically destroyed. Using this “Mercuri method,” the tally of the paper ballots takes precedence over any electronic tallies. As a result, the correctness of the voting terminal software no longer matters; either a voting terminal prints correct ballots or it is taken out of service.

Full report here:

http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

220. I have read the report

OK.

Suppose I manufacture a forged smartcard and vote two times, at different polling centers. Each time, I take my printed ballot, verify that it matches my vote, and hand it into the polling worker with a smile.

Show me how the printed ballot prevented me from voting fraudulently by exploiting the security issue raised by the Hopkins report. I'm just missing it, apparently.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

222. Don't change the subject. If you read the report...

Did you just miss the paragraph I quoted, or were you purposely trying to mislead us when you said:

A voter-verified paper audit trail may in fact be a good thing (I certainly think it is) but it's not a conclusion one would draw from the points in the Hopkins report. I recognize your claim that you are educated, but I can only surmise that perhaps you should have gone to a better school if you can't comprehend the argument.

And..

That being said, it's not a conclusion an educated person would draw from the Hopkins report.

And..

I'm in favor of the printed record of my vote because it ensures the integrity of my vote but it doesn't address any of the issues suggested by the Hopkins report. I stand by my assertion that the original poster's interpretation of the report was flawed.

BTW: Preventing voting in multiple precincts is a job for the voter registration system.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

232. pointless

The Hopkins report underlines security issues in the product. To wit, smart card authentication issues, encryption issues and the like are all highlighted. Forged smartcards would in theory permit vote fraud by letting people in possession of them vote multiple times -- this was a primary thrust of the report. The paper receipt doesn't address this, it's simply not a logical conclusion. Unencrypted data transfer is in theory susceptible to tampering by someone with access to the phone lines between the vote terminal and the central server -- this was also a primary thrust of the report. The paper receipt is relevant to this issue, inasmuch as it would confirm that the accuracy of the original encrypted results stored on the machine.

Shout as loud as you want, quote me as much as you like... you simply can't manufacture logic that isn't there.

And yes, I still think there should be a voter-verified paper-based audit trail. But it still won't fix the issues brought up in the report just because you'd like it to.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone at all, despite your repeated claim.

If preventing voting in multiple precincts is solely the job of the voter registration system, then why is it a big deal that anyone could manufacture their own smartcards? Seems like a non-issue to me, just let the voter registration system take care of it. :eyes:

JC

[Junkdrawer]

236. So.. how did those condescending words taste????

:evilgrin:

BTW: A voter registration system's job is to prevent access to machines in multiple precincts. Once you have access is when multiple voter cards come into play. But then you knew that.

[gristy]

229. that's a different subject...

Suppose I manufacture a forged smartcard and vote two times, at different polling centers. Each time, I take my printed ballot, verify that it matches my vote, and hand it into the polling worker with a smile.

So you registered to vote twice using two different addresses?

Not only is that a different subject, that is illegal, and you just may well get caught. Perhaps you already are a convicted criminal, and aren't allowed to vote at all?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

226. Aha

Now we're really getting somewhere, IMO. Please note that I appreciate your willingness to answer a straight question. It is a good trait to have, especially when you're taking as many slings and arrows as you are. :-)

I think we agree, it doesn't necessarily solve the problem, but it would make it MUCH harder to defraud the system. The damage one person could inflict would be smaller by an order of magnitude, yes? I mean, there's only so many polls you can visit in a single day. I can't imagine one or two isolated instances of this happening, and to the extent that more people are recruited, those are more people to spill the beans on any potential conspiracy.

That said, I think a valid question arises as to the cost-effectiveness of such an implementation. Depending on the costs (and I'm ignorant here), my preference might actually be for Diebold to get their shit together and tighten up the code so that the security breaches are made much more difficult or impossible. I'm guessing that's your preference as well.

But if they can't (or won't) do this, I believe they're fair game for criticism, investigation, and even more.

DTH

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

238. no argument there

I totally agree they're fair game for criticism and investigation. I also totally agree that the security holes described in the Hopkins report should be addressed, and I agree that a voter-verified audit trail is a good plan. Where I take issue is with all the overblown hype and mudslinging and accusations of all kinds of malicious motives and actions.

I'm not so much concerned by the damage a single person could inflict on the system -- as you point out, it's not very feasible for a single person to run around and vote at a bunch of different polls, nor (if I may speculate) is it feasible for that person to do so at a single poll (one presumes that if you take long enough at a polling station someone will come to check whether you're dead). I'm more concerned with a large-scale organized campaign where a thousand people are each equipped with one extra card, for example. It seems to me that election fraud is much more likely to be perpetrated by an organized group with funding behind it than by an individual.

JC

[Whack_A_Mole]

297. You challenge the

BevBorg at your considerable risk.

Please, don't get snuffed.

W_A_M

"What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the _facts_? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history,'--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

[ConsAreLiars]

153. You misrepresent the JH report

You claim: "Wave your hands all you like. Your original statement was "The Johns Hopkins group showed, in a real life instance, the need for a voter verified paper audit trail." The report shows no such thing,"

They say:
"The only known solution to this problem is to introduce a “voter-verifiable audit trail.” . Most commonly, this is achieved by adding a printer to the voting terminal. When the voter finishes selecting candidates, a ballot is printed on paper and presented to the voter. If the printed ballot reflects the voter’s
intent, the ballot is saved for future reference.

You might want to read the report more carefully before making such wild claims about what they said. Or maybe it is just not a problem in comprehension. You tell me what led you to claim that their position was exactly the opposite of what they stated?

[Junkdrawer]

171. Great post...

TFH et al do NOT want anyone to read the actual report ( http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf ).

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

218. I'm unconvinced

I reiterate that while a voter-verified audit trail is an excellent idea it doesn't solve the specific problems they raised in their paper. My original claim that their report shows no such thing stands.

Let me help you out: their report shows the need for better smartcard authentication procedures to prevent the use of forged cards, and encryption of data transfer between the voting terminal and the central computer. I have no argument at all with either of those points, or with the general desirability of a voter-verified audit trail. But the one does not follow logically from the other, no matter how many times or how vociferously you repeat it.

JC

[Junkdrawer]

224. Then perhaps you need to talk to Avi Rubin himself..

because that's the conclusion he comes to:

The only known solution to this problem is to introduce a “voter-verifiable audit trail.” . Most commonly, this is achieved by adding a printer to the voting terminal. When the voter finishes selecting candidates, a ballot is printed on paper and presented to the voter. If the printed ballot reflects the voter’s intent, the ballot is saved for future reference. If not, the ballot is mechanically destroyed. Using this “Mercuri method,” the tally of the paper ballots takes precedence over any electronic tallies. As a result, the correctness of the voting terminal software no longer matters; either a voting terminal prints correct ballots or it is taken out of service.

[BevHarris]

110. May I hold you to this?

"I don't really have anything else to contribute to the whole voting thing until someone finds some kind of malfeasance, fraud or malicious vote-rigging code."

If such a thing surfaces, will you then eat your shoes?

Wait a minute, I think you have been quite rude at times. I think you should eat my husband's (blech) shoes instead.

Deal?

Bev Harris

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

114. what's with the freaking shoes

I fail to understand your fascination with people eating shoes. I have no desire to eat anyone's shoes, let alone your husband's.

Show me the vote-rigging code and I'll cheerfully admit your claim that it exists wasn't just made up to sell your book. How about that?

JC

[ibegurpard]

115. You'll never be able to offer enough evidence for some of these people

They'll find some way to explain it away and just keep raising the bar higher.

[Lars39]

118. The burden of proof should be on the people selling the voting machines

for the mega bucks. I don't understand why/how it got reversed to become the burden of proof lies with the investigators. :shrug:

[scottxyz]

320. "Where's the proof?" is a bunch of bull

I keep hearing people say "Where's the proof?" like Joe Voter is supposed to be able to say "Hey, I voted for Candidate X, but actually my vote got switched to Candidate Y."

Or like Fred Losing Candidate is supposed to be able to say "This many of my actual votes were stolen from me."

How the heck are we supposed to come up with that sort of proof when votes are secret?

Bev has found the smoking gun: a hackable computer voting system. That's all the proof necessary.

[Gordon25]

113. Not to pile on, but

If by a "method of cheating" you mean direct messing with database tables, she still hasn't shown how the adjusted total would be reconciled with reports from the touchscreens that contain the (ostensibly) accurate results. If you actually mean "general security sloppiness", that's not actually a "method of cheating" at all.

In Pima county we use the GEMS system and don't have any DRE's so have no need for such a reconciliation. Hole in your data base?

Additionally, hidden back door access, with the inclusion of a spurious utility to alter time date stamps, along with hidden sets of totals and intentionally turned off security features amounts to a hell of a lot more than "general security sloppiness". If that doesn't add up to a method of cheating, their ain't no such thing.

Gordon25

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

122. clarification

You use GEMS and no DREs. Fair enough... so what do you use? An optical scan machine? Substitute the paper ballots for the paper report in that case and the argument remains the same. Are you suggesting that the paper record and what's in the central computer don't (or won't) add up?

Also, your contention that sloppiness is tantamount to cheating is ludicrous.

JC

[BevHarris]

125. Sloppiness is accidental. Building in a triple set of books is purposeful.

To date, no one has come up with a legitimate reason to have constructed the program in such a way.

It is a feature, not a bug.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

132. true enough

At least that's something we can agree on. I'm sure it is a feature, although I take issue with your characterization as a "triple set of books". Where we disagree is whether it's the world's most incompetent back door. You seem to think it is. I'm more inclined to think the database table design you described is probably an artifact of some report generation optimization or something equally mundane. I've never seen any GEMS code so I can only speculate, just like you.

JC

[Eloriel]

228. I'm pretty sure NO one ever called the triple set of books

anything remotely close to a "back door." Nice deflection.

Eloriel

[Gordon25]

221. What contention?

My post stated: Additionally, hidden back door access, with the inclusion of a spurious utility to alter time date stamps, along with hidden sets of totals and intentionally turned off security features amounts to a hell of a lot more than "general security sloppiness". If that doesn't add up to a method of cheating, their ain't no such thing.

Please explain how this amounts to a contention that sloppiness is tantamount to cheating.

Or are you arguing that intentionally created backdoor access, inclusion of a spurious utility which enables an erasable audit trail, and intentionally turned off security features are simply sloppiness? If so, please explain. I am seriously interested in your reasons for considering it so. Please provide other examples in other professionally produced software systems with include such "sloppiness" (maybe in Diebold's ATM software?)

Gordon25

[Fredda Weinberg]

227. what back door access?

There's no suspicious code - or the John Hopkin's researchers would have it in their report.

They found no pattern of cheating and their suggestions were reasonable - now the challenge is to convince the public to invest more.

Their resonable discourse with Diebold is sharp contrast to the hyperbole here. Private forums exist - use them instead of DU if you don't want to be challenged.

[Gordon25]

243. Before you slap someone in the face with gloves

you ought to at least read the post thread. I have never claimed anything about the Rubin study. We use GEMS and optiscan here. Remember the Harris study? If not, read it.

And tell me how the inclusion of a spurious utility enabling the alteration of time/date stamps on the audit trail is simply negligence or sloppy security on Diebold's part.

You want to challenge me sweetheart you better get your facts straight cause I challenge back.

Gordon25

[Must_B_Free]

87. Also happened with the wellstone crash threads

.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BevHarris]

133. Hey, at least we've determined he's afraid of eating his shoes.

To eat one's shoes: A promise made by a Crossfire host who, as I recall, said if WMD weren't found he would eat his shoes. Various shoes have been proferred; I believe he has yet to dine on them.

TinfoilHatProgrammer has been so very sure of himself, including trotting out supposed examinations of every bit of source code (hah! now there's a project that would take a small army of programmers several months, unless, that is, you work for Diebold and have been one of their programmers...but even that wouldn't do it, unless you have access to the private stash on Tab Iredale's computers...)

But Tinfoil won't eat his shoes even if every single thing he says is proven wrong. And really, an apology is no fun. I would rather that he connect up to a webcam and let us watch...

Okay, I withdraw the offer on having him eat my husband's (blech) shoes. It turns out he is fond of the old things.

Tinfoil, you really must promise us something more amusing than just skulking forward with an acknowledgement that you were wrong.

I'm waiting! (How fun! What will it be?)

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

140. no thanks

Since I'm not 4 years old, I'll simply stick with my offer to admit that you didn't make it all up to sell your book and you can just live with the disappointment. That's assuming of course you can produce the malicious vote-altering, count-rigging code that even the Hopkins people have dismissed as ludicrous. I think my offer's gracious, but it seems to strike you as inadequate. Oh well. It's a bigger gesture than anyone on your side's offered.

*shrug*

JC

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

142. haha

I'm not paid by anyone to post on DU. Although for around $150/hour I'll be happy to shill for whatever cause you like. (*shameless plug*)

Nor am I especially "bellicose". I'll cop to "sarcastic", but it's apparently only acceptable when practiced by the people on your side of the fence. Try reading just this thread with an objective eye and you'll see what I mean.

Your entire post is admittedly just baiting people (specifically me) and it contributes nothing in the way of intelligent discourse. "Shine the light" on me or whatever it is you said you want to do. Have fun.

JC

[angka]

145. actually

i think it may just have contributed a great deal.

if of course we are referring to 'intelligent discourse' as i understand it, which stands in stark contrast with you and your obfuscatory agenda.

ah, that would be the 'ignore' button.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

147. sad

What's obfuscatory about anything I've posted in this thread? I've been clear and concise and relevant. Your own ad hominem posts aren't contributing anything at all. It's like debating with a small child. I'm saddened.

JC

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

184. Bellicosity and Condescension

Nor am I especially "bellicose". I'll cop to "sarcastic", but it's apparently only acceptable when practiced by the people on your side of the fence. Try reading just this thread with an objective eye and you'll see what I mean.

I totally, 100% agree with you. The attitudes of certain people here who are supportive of the BBV Project bother me. There does seem to be an unnecessary level of nastiness coming from some of them. Reading this thread, it seems crystal clear.

In an ideal situation, people who ask legitimate questions should be answered politely, both to strengthen the hypothesis by addressing the issues raised and to increase credibility. Skeptics should not automatically be dismissed as disruptors.

IMO, of course.

DTH

[Jester_11218]

134. Great link for this topic

http://whatreallyhappened.com

This site does a great job of covering this topic!
Pease,
Jesse - http://tvnewslies.org

[angka]

174. LOCK this thread, mods

it's done its job. i tried to get the mods to lock it last night but instead they just deleted commentary from me (#129, #149) that offered an explanation, and was also pretty well-composed writing in general. too bad—there are many far worse posts in this thread. somebody must have alerted on me, then the mod didn't bother to get any context before deleting. that's a shame.

in any case, it would appear that my curiousity has been amply satisfied—they didn't vanish. and you can bring them out anytime you want simply by jamming a stick into their hive.

and just so everyone's clear: i don't work for bev harris. i'm not involved with the BBV project. at all. so don't use this thread as more evidence of her 'hyping' anything. this was all me, having a little fun with people who seemed to have disappeared under questionable circumstances. if i had really known they were lurking out there waiting for someone (like me) to give them an 'in' to start bashing bev again, well, there would have been no need for this thread.

[The Night Owl]

175. I agree...

Also, people who falsely attributed statements to Bev Harris should be banned.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

182. You Can't Be Serious

:crazy:

DTH

[The Night Owl]

271. Of course I am serious.

Numerous times on this forum, people have falsely attributed quotes to Bev Harris and/or her group. This tactic of falsely attributing quotes is not fair and should be considered a kind of personal attack.

My prescribed punishment for this tactic of falsely attributing quotes may be severe, but you know what... I am not creative enough to think of a better way to stop people from falsely attributing quotes. Sorry.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

181. I'm Guessing Your Posts Were Deleted Because

They contained personal attacks, perhaps?

:shrug:

DTH

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

233. good plan

If I ever start a baiting thread where I end up getting my butt thoroughly kicked I'm pretty sure I'll ask someone to lock it too.

JC

[angka]

235. haha

funny, my butt doesn't feel kicked. and to read your posts is to reveal unmistakably that you have an agenda beyond mere conversation. you expose it with every step.

i would go further but that would probably get this post deleted, too. suffice to say that we both know the score here now, at the expense of your nonexistent credibility.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

240. uh huh

Clearly my unwillingness to mindlessly chant along with the BBV masses is indication of some ulterior agenda. :eyes:

You're right that we know the score, though. Better luck next time.

JC

[angka]

244. really

so what exactly motivated you to come to DU? since every post you've ever made here is on this subject-and your handle is, after all, tinfoilhatprogrammer (which seems a little purpose-built for this discussion)...perhaps you could explain your motivation more clearly, so there's no mistaking them by presumptuous, troll-baiting persons like myself.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

246. really

Saw the story on slashdot, followed it back here. The topic piqued my interest, the requests for opinions from programmers and computer people sounded like an invitation to comment. The subsequent name-calling and bashing just made me want to stick around to point out the stupider claims and arguments posted on the BBV topic instead of just laughing quietly by myself.

Of course I'm also the president of Diebold, as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread. :eyes:

JC

[angka]

250. well that's very interesting, because...

i've gone back and read your very first posts at DU, and i'm trying to find the one where you expressed anything other than a bellicose desire to smack down everyone associated with the investigation. here's some quotes:

7/14/03 (1st post): "I've been following this whole thing with some not insignificant interest and amusement, and I thought I'd de-lurk to help out the cause...I hope this helps the cause, and I look forward to the forthcoming expose on the use of makefiles (ed. as if)in the software industry. Keep up the good fight!"

7/15/03 "You downloaded a series of files from an open FTP site at Diebold. You've demonstrated as recently as yesterday, with the uproar over mysterious makefiles (complete with totally unrelated commentary from a web site in Czechoslovakian), that you people are utterly unqualified to interpret it."

7/16/03 "Finally, and this is mostly just semantic quibbling, unless they're ignoring and failing to respond to more than just you it's a bit misleading to report that they're ignoring "people". That's just unfounded extrapolation without some supporting evidence. Maybe they just think you (specifically) are a crackpot."

7/17/03 "I'm happy to hear you allegedly have code-checkers from the media poring over the source code now, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you embarrass the cause every time you start blathering on about it. I eagerly await the results from the experts."

so since this idea that you're just some misunderstood individual who really wants to be constructive is undiluted BS, do you suppose i could ask again what your motivation is? and get a truthful answer this time?

president of diebold. that's rich. i'm sure you do get a chub from people reading more into you than you are. i have no such delusions, quite frankly the more you talk the less significant you seem.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

281. context?

All of those quotes are indeed from me. You seem to have abandoned all the context, however. Typical.

Quote #1: I've been following this whole thing with some not insignificant interest and amusement, and I thought I'd de-lurk to help out the cause...I hope this helps the cause, and I look forward to the forthcoming expose on the use of makefiles (ed. as if)in the software industry. Keep up the good fight!"
That was taken (as you know) from a thread in which Ms. Harris posted part of a makefile, suggested that it appeared to send a mysterious packet and then delete all evidence of itself. Nonsense, as you should well know. I note that you deleted the portion of my comments that explained politely and exactly what a makefile was, and what that particular one appeared to be doing. Care to comment on why you edited that out?

Quote #2: "You downloaded a series of files from an open FTP site at Diebold. You've demonstrated as recently as yesterday, with the uproar over mysterious makefiles (complete with totally unrelated commentary from a web site in Czechoslovakian), that you people are utterly unqualified to interpret it."
Taken from a follow-up on the same subject in which Ms. Harris had completely dismissed my (completely accurate and helpful) analysis of the makefile she posted, implied that I was "a disruptor", and followed up her nonsensical original post with links to a totally unrelated site in Czech and claims that the makefile proved Diebold was opening a specific security hole discovered in Windows that very same week. Faced with commentary from other posters corroborating what I'd said, Ms. Harris later posted something to the effect that she's very non-technical and had made her original (and implicitly erroneous) post without consulting with her technical people, and that she often gets in trouble when she does so -- i.e. she couldn't be held responsible for her false (and arguably libellous) claims because she didn't really know what she was talking about (i.e. "the Bush uranium defense"). Perhaps my use of the term "you people" was a bit too broad, and if that's the case I'm happy to concede that it may in fact be more accurate to rephrase my claim to state that only Ms. Harris is unqualified (by her own admission) to interpret computer makefiles, and apologize to the rest of the silent, qualified majority which chose to not point out the errors in her post.

Quote #3: "Finally, and this is mostly just semantic quibbling, unless they're ignoring and failing to respond to more than just you it's a bit misleading to report that they're ignoring "people". That's just unfounded extrapolation without some supporting evidence. Maybe they just think you (specifically) are a crackpot."
Ms. Harris is notoriously picky in her wording; she often uses the technique to go back and say she never actually made particular claims or statements, that said "statements" were simply inferences made by the reader (from implications made in her posts), not actual statements of fact. I'd addressed that technique previously in the same discussion. On the thread from which you cribbed my quote, she'd made the claim that she had called Diebold and they hadn't returned her call, so that she was henceforth going to claim that Diebold was ignoring people. In the spirit of picky wording and accuracy, I pointed out that (according to what she herself wrote) they were at best ignoring just her, and I speculated that perhaps the reason was simply that they thought she was a crackpot (later somewhat supported by reports from Ms. Harris herself that Diebold may in fact refer to her internally as "Paranoid Bev").

Quote #4: "I'm happy to hear you allegedly have code-checkers from the media poring over the source code now, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and you embarrass the cause every time you start blathering on about it. I eagerly await the results from the experts."
I don't really think this statement requires any additional context. Since I posted it, there's finally, thankfully, been some qualified analysis by the Hopkins people and others. I've not disputed either their credentials or their analysis, all of it seems fairly reasonable to me from a technical standpoint.

In any event, I'm not really sure what your point was. I'm not especially worried about what your personal opinion of me may be. I've already copped to sarcasm. I'm guilty. Guilty, guilty, guilty. You got me. But no guiltier than many of the pro-BBV posters. And not nearly as smugly belligerent as a few in particular. *shrug*

JC

[angka]

289. oh, certainly.

you've won. i concede that all of your vitriolic, disruptive broadsides were conducted with absolutely the most constructive intentions; and i'm surprised (now that i'm reading them in context) at just how truly polite and dignified you have actually been. just as you so patiently explained.

my quotes of you were exactly on target, as we both know. what a bunch of feeble nonsense—polite? and here i am without my waders...

and just so we understand each other: i'm quite comfortable with my smug belligerence, particularly in the case of some disruptive amateur who's number i have got.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

296. like a dog with a bone

You can't just let it go, lol. I'm admittedly sarcastic, but my technical posts have been entirely accurate and helpful despite what you may think. In any event, I'm glad you concede.

You can be comfortable with your self-professed smug belligerence if you like, although I wasn't especially referring to you. *shrug*

JC

[Chesapeake]

258. Bev deserves credit for this issue

There is no way it wouldhave drawn the attention without Bev's efforts. Can't forget that (or DENY it)even if some are trying to take credit for her success.

[Robb]

208. Here's a question for Bev:

Speaking as someone who nearly threw down on a pair of Mormons on my doorstep who were dressed just a little too much like feds, and who came by at just the wrong time -- :)

Seriously.

What are your thoughts now, as things progress, about your statements earlier about fearing for your well-being? Over the top? I myself backed up a bunch of data and sent it snailmail to three friends back when I thought I had something big on 9/11.

[Buzzcook]

242. Well since you ask

I suppose I am one of the few people to be called a Troll directly by Ms. Harris.

I’ve posted to one thread here on the BBV subject. It was shortly after Ms. Harris announced here a wonderful wondrous wonder of a new scoop. Foolishly I had thought it had to do with the “source” code for the Diebold machines. After a bit I realized that I had been talking at cross-purposes with the group and clarified my position. Unfortunately by that time the damage had been done. I had lost faith in Ms. Harris and her followers here at DU.

With Ms. Harris’ groundless accusation of Bart and Fud any question of my continuing participation in her BBV scheme had ended.

It was apparent that many of the posters were even less computer literate than I, not realizing that there is a difference between Source Code and Data Files. I can perhaps speculate that because Ms. Harris had used the term source code for all the Diebold files; that many thought she was working on a higher order of investigation than she is.
I suspect that Ms. Harris fostered this misunderstanding in order to garner more support and respect from her supporters.

This also is why many people who are programmers are distrustful of Ms. Harris and her revelations. “Show us the Code” is I’m sure a refrain that many people here have read from several posters. It is a request that is always rebuffed, either directly by Ms. Harris or by those who support her. If as claimed this is a group effort, the only explanation can be that neither Ms. Harris nor her followers have it.

There are cross currents that further muddy the already murky water. A verifiable paper trail (VPT) is maybe the biggest. Many of Ms. Harris’ followers are so invested in having a VPT and in Ms. Harris that they think any questioning of the Diebold revelations is also an assault on VPT. Let me say here that I don’t want computer voting in any form whether it has a VPT or not. But an investigation into malfeasance by Diebold is independent of whether a VPT is important or not. Yet here on these threads they viewed as conjoined twins.

The reception I and other posters were given is not indicative of a group of people working together toward a common goal, far from it. Each accusation of trolling or disruption lessens the likelihood that this project will become a true thorn in the side of the Bush administration. Why should any person invest there time where any question or even simple misspelling will get them branded as a troll and earn instant ridicule?

I have read the John Hopkins report with interest. The people who produced it did a great service in confirming problems with the Diebold machine that had been pointed out or suspected by many, many people. The report also confirmed my suspicions that Ms. Harris had no smoking gun. To borrow a phrase “There is no there, there”.

Buzzcook Bartcop forum Mod and poor speller.

[Gordon25]

247. Nice graphic, but...

... what are you asking here?

This also is why many people who are programmers are distrustful of Ms. Harris and her revelations. “Show us the Code” is I’m sure a refrain that many people here have read from several posters. It is a request that is always rebuffed, either directly by Ms. Harris or by those who support her. If as claimed this is a group effort, the only explanation can be that neither Ms. Harris nor her followers have it.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/

As I understand it, all the code is there. Were I a programmer, I would have downloaded it by now. Particularly if I cared at all about my voting rights.

In fact, based on what I knew about Diebold and ES&S and their interlocking boards and the source of their original funding and the poltical donations made by the companies and their executives, and Chuck Hagel's hidden ownership, and the firing of the sentate ethics committee staffer who called for an investigation of that hidden ownership,and the serious outpoints in the 2003 elections documented on votewatch.org; based on that, which I knew before Bev Harris broke her story on the security flaws in the Diebold Optical Scan GEMS system, were I a programmer I would have been working to get copy of and investigate that code. But I am not, so I did what I could. I undertook to set up a committee to do an official investigation of the electronic vote counting procedures and safeguards used here in my county. We use Diebold GEMS optiscan system.
http://www.pimademocrats.org/votingreport/votingintegrity.htm
As a result, their are efforts underway by public officials to enact the legislative reforms called for in our report.

Serious questions about the integrity of the voting franchise in the US have been raised as far back as 2000. The evidence (still circumstantial, admittedly, but men have been sent to their deaths based on enough circumstantial evidence) continues to mount that there is something seriously amiss.

How many hours of your time and talent have you invested in attempting to protect this most basic of American rights from the threats raised by those questions?

When you have spent months in combined effort with other good hearted and intelligent patriots investigating those questions, working to protect that right, then perhaps you will have the standing to criticize.

The distance between skepticism and cynicism is a short but important one -- it's off the edge of rationality and into the abyss of absurdity.

Gordon25

[Buzzcook]

310. I was not asking any question

I was making a statement in answer to the thread title.

Buzzcook

[Dover]

249. I am wondering whether the voting fraud issue might be used to further

boost support for Gore, if he returns to the race?

I haven't heard enough about the evidence being turned up in the ongoing voting machine investigation to know whether the machine were ever used was by the Dems too, to get their people elected, or if it was only Repugs.

But if the DLC/DNC wanted to ensure that Gore was elected, all they'd need to do is prove that the election was a coup, based on the voting machine evidence.
How would those DUers who have worked their butts off on this investigation feel if the info were used in that way?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

284. more misstatement as fact

You said:

I haven't heard enough about the evidence being turned up in the ongoing voting machine investigation to know whether the machine were ever used was by the Dems too, to get their people elected, or if it was only Repugs.

There hasn't been a single piece of evidence posted anywhere to demonstrate that the machines were used by the Dems or the Repugs to get anyone elected improperly. Ever.

As for the rest of your post, I doubt that any of the major companies supplying election equipment has the ability to get a black hole of charisma like Al Gore elected. That's just personal opinion, maybe those sneaky programmers really are that damn good.

Besides, the allegedly rigged voting machines counted more votes for Gore in 2000 anyway, it was the supreme court that foiled the plan.

JC

[gristy]

252. my 2 cents

Electronic counting of votes without intervening paper ballots (between the steps of casting and counting votes) significantly increases the risk of uncorrectable counting errors and, eventually, fraud.

End of story.

No one should have to worry (I certainly don't want to) if Diebold's code has 3 duplicate data files, if the source code has been verified by experts, if the voting machines are connected to the internet, if Diebold has contributed millions to the republicans, if there are interest-conflicted politicians on the boards of directors of various manufacturers of election machines, if the states are going to be too short of money to properly service all these touch-screen vote casting/counting machines, if this or that Secretary of State is being forced to adopt a certain position which may not be to the benefit of her constituency, if polls of election results seem to be out of whack with the reported results, etc. etc. etc.

The only things I want to care about are that all citizens who wish to vote and are legally allowed to vote have an opportunity to do so, and that those cast votes be counted in a manner that is both secure and visible while also being understandable to the vast majority of voters.

The security of paper ballots has been a concern for centuries, and many systems have been developed for this security. On that foundation I wish we could build.

[Gordon25]

253. Agreed, but...

...keep in mind that paper ballots are not a panacea. In Arizona, election law calls for any recounts to be done on the machines. Only the State Supeme Court can order a hand recount of the ballots. In Indiana, I believe, it is a felony for any election official to even touch a ballot without court order.

Even if all the code were perfect both in the precinct units and at central count county headquarters, there are still vulnerabilities, ones which even line by line examination of the software code may not reveal. Diebold makes the mother boards in the individual voting units. To my knowledge there are no security standards for the electronics on these machines.

In the use of any electronic vote counting system, even one like Australia's with open source code, there ultimately is only one defense against manipulation of the vote count. That is to require a hand count of the ballorts before they leave the polling places in the percentage of precincts necessary to achieve a 97% statistical certainty of showing up vote manipulation. It actually is a relatively small number, between ten and fifteen percent of the precincts. This must be coupled with the legal right for any candidate to request a hand recount of the votes at his/her own expense, and the establishment of the "ballot as marked by voter" as the primary document of record in any election. In Arizona right now, the machine count is the document of record.

To reiterate my agreement with you: a paper trail is mandatory. But it is only the first step. It must be coupled with local activism to reform election law in those states where it is required.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

Gordon25

[gristy]

256. mission creep dilutes the effort

To repeat my statement:

Electronic counting of votes without intervening paper ballots (between the steps of casting and counting votes) significantly increases the risk of uncorrectable counting errors and, eventually, fraud.

End of story.

Statements as broad and general as these:

To reiterate my agreement with you: a paper trail is mandatory. But it is only the first step. It must be coupled with local activism to reform election law in those states where it is required.

however unintentionally, opens Pandora's box to the free-for-all we have seen in DU, and indeed, across the nation, w.r.t. voting.

[trumad]

269. I've read almost every single thread from day one about BlackBox!

AND I find it one of the most interesting subjects that I've read in a long, long time!


With that said: I ask one simple question ... From all that we have learned because of Bev's great work... ARE THE BLACKBOX SYSTEMS that we are voting on secure? Can they be manipulated? Please notice that I did not ask if they were manipulated... I only ask, CAN THEY!

I know how the Bev Backers will reply... But I am interested in the folks with the dissenting opinions. Again...from what we know and from your experience as programmers, can experts break into these systems?

[DEMActivist]

270. Trumad, you'll find your answers here

or lack thereof:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=120832&mesg_id=120832

[trumad]

272. Thanks DA

I'll re-read it...

[gristy]

273. "Can they be manipulated?" may not be the central question

With that said: I ask one simple question ... From all that we have learned because of Bev's great work... ARE THE BLACKBOX SYSTEMS that we are voting on secure? Can they be manipulated? Please notice that I did not ask if they were manipulated... I only ask, CAN THEY!

I know how the Bev Backers will reply... But I am interested in the folks with the dissenting opinions. Again...from what we know and from your experience as programmers, can experts break into these systems?

Trumad,

I am an electrical engineer who designs components used in complex systems and also a programmer who writes code to help design these components.

IMHO, opponents of BLACKBOX VOTING SYSTEMS should not try to convince proponents of these systems that they CAN be manipulated, nor should we feel that the burden is on us to identify HOW they can be manipulated. I suggest that we simply assert that designing a BLACKBOX VOTING SYSTEM that is not vulnerable to fraud nor to undetectable and/or uncorrectable counting errors is not commercially feasable.

To reiterate:

Electronic counting of votes without intervening paper ballots (between the steps of casting and counting votes) significantly increases the likelihood of uncorrectable counting errors and, eventually, fraud.

End of story.

[Chesapeake]

277. is that a known fact?

"I suggest that we simply assert that designing a BLACKBOX VOTING SYSTEM that is not vulnerable to fraud nor to undetectable and/or uncorrectable counting errors is not commercially feasable"

have the manufacturers already said that? Once they do it would be a strong point against the systems.
Someone should ask the question point blank and get someone on record stating it as a fact.

[gristy]

282. No, certainly no manufacturer has said that.

have the manufacturers already said that? Once they do it would be a strong point against the systems. Someone should ask the question point blank and get someone on record stating it as a fact.

Designing a BLACKBOX VOTING SYSTEM that is neither vulnerable to fraud nor to undetectable and/or uncorrectable counting errors is simply not commercially feasable. The EXPENSE is a double-whammy. One has to first DESIGN such a system (JHU's report indicates that Diebold's attempt failed in many respects), and then you have to PROVE that the system behaves as you designed it - i.e., that it is invulnerable. Diebold (for example, only) has failed in both respects.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

287. simple answer to a refreshingly straightforward question

In theory, I think I could use my expertise to perpetrate fraud by voting multiple times or terminate election processing on one of the voting machines using manufactured cards in the manner described in the Hopkins report. Assuming, obviously, that particular security issue hasn't been addressed in the interim in a newer version of the software.

I'm skeptical that I could exploit the other holes they reported with the limited access afforded a voter. I'm assuming here that the memory cards aren't accessible for casual removal and there's no keyboard installed on the voting terminal, or anywhere accessible for me to install my own. Obviously I reserve the right to change my assessment if either of those assumptions is false.

If any of these potential holes is still open in the current version of the software, I think it clearly behooves Diebold to fix them forthwith.

JC

[gristy]

290. and if they fix all the ones you find

is it ready to ship? Eventually, I imagine, you may be convinced it is ready to ship. But how will we convince the average Joe on the street?

IMO, our voting systems are too "mission-critical" to trust to any system lacking the type of backup and verifiability that paper-ballots afford.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

298. er

I don't really see the "average Joe on the street" especially complaining. Just a handful of activist message board people, half of whom seem to predict that half the Bush administration is going to surely resign on any given week.

JC

[gristy]

323. links?

half of whom seem to predict that half the Bush administration is going to surely resign on any given week.

Links please!

[Chesapeake]

274. good point

the issue is already complicated enuff so KISS is even more important. There are alot of voter fraud reform issues besides machines but we should not confuse them with this effort.

[gristy]

276. thanks Chesapeake

for noting the importance of KISS. I agree!

[ConsAreLiars]

280. Start a BBV - KISS thread?

I agree it is important to be able to clearly summarize what is known about the dangers without geting mired in obscure technical questions. Different people will want more or less in the way of documentation, but a discussion of how best to get the main facts known deserves its own thread.

[ParanoidPat]

313. All the documentation anyone needs is on the Scoop server.....

.....It just seems some of the self professed pro's can't seem to 'see' the problems the experts 'see'! :evilgrin:
It also seems some of the amateurs who just want to 'see' how their votes are counted are being whiny because they just won't trust the pro's vision!
To make matters worse, the ADA people want everyone to be 'blind' to how the votes are counted so the disabled can have equal rights! :crazy:

[Whack_A_Mole]

292. Really happy that the news has spread so far and wide

that Ms. Harris is no longer in danger of being snuffed.

I eagerly await her tome detailing all the facts, to publishing date of course, so that a thorough review can seperate the wheat from the chaff.

W_A_M

"What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the _facts_? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history,'--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!" -R.A.H.

[gristy]

293. ahhhh, reinforcements!

What took you?

[Whack_A_Mole]

301. Was your post an attempt at sarcasm?

How could anyone interested in getting to the truth of the matter be opposed to vetting any findings Ms. Harris has made thereby reinforcing the impact of her work?

Or are you of the Borg?

W_A_M

"What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the _facts_? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history,'--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!" -R.A.H.

[angka]

330. BBV uproar in an historical context

towards the end of the civil war, many unionists were tired of what they viewed as an interminable struggle. this angst would ultimately manifest itself in a hotly contested 1864 presidential race, which lincoln of course won.

but in august of 1863, president lincoln wrote a letter to a convention of illinois unionists, hope to allay their frustration over the war (not to mention a latent, racist ambivalence towards freeing the slaves).

here's an excerpt, which as i read it this morning made me think about this BBV infighting:

"Peace does not appear so distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to be worth the keeping in all future time...And then, there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they strove to hinder it."

(on edit: wanted to head off the inevitable "look! now they're saying it's as big as freeing the slaves!" bullshit. this is strictly for conversation purposes, and nothing since 1865 has ever compared impactfully with liberating the slaves.)