{"article":{"id":122775,"heading":"LawSuit to e-Vict Secret Vote Counting & Hasten Death of DRE'$","author":" CultureJamCleveland","created":"2005-02-18 18:08:04","modified":"2013-11-11 00:32:09","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:32:09","article":"

*****

Freedom and the Contracts Our Govt Signed for Secret Vote Counting



Many of you know that the vote counting programs of voting

machines are considered \"proprietary trade secrets\" such that the

voting companies, such as Sequoia, have stated in writing, to

people such as me, that my wish to inspect and\/or test those voting

machines as a citizen (or even to obtain a copy of the operator's

manual) will be resisted by \"all actions\" necessary. This is

despite the fact that my brother in law Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman and I

co-wrote a 29 page research study showing irregularities favoring

one party over another due to malfunctions and\/or tampering.

http:\/\/www.votersunite.org\/info\/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf<\/a>

To imagine secret ballots is to imagine FREEDOM of the vote. To

imagine secret COUNTING of the votes by a multinational whose

parent company de La Rue was awarded a lucrative US contract to

print Iraqi dinars, is to imagine actual or potential TYRANNY. To

trust a political friend to count the vote in secrecy without

verification is to be an actual or potential TYRANT, who claims to

owe the people no duty. To imagine all of us adults together (WE

THE PEOPLE), smart and dumb, old and young, of all races, creeds,

orientations and beliefs all having the same vote as the President

of the United States is to imagine an image of EQUALITY that many

have paid a great price for. To imagine that vote not necessarily

counting based on the whims of the secret counting corporation is

to see the end of FREE elections. To see the end of free elections,

especially during a \"permanent war\" on \"terror\", is to see the end

of freedom itself.

Our greatest leaders have said there comes a time in each

generation for the true meaning of freedom to be discovered and

enhanced.

We can know that freedom not only by ejecting these secretive

corporations from our vote counting, but also by rediscovering the

radical equality inherent in our equal votes. Smart people don't

get two votes, and \"dumb\" people who \"don't follow instructions\" in

Palm Beach County don't get their votes taken away. Why? Because

there is such a thing as WE THE PEOPLE. Endowed by their creator

with certain INALIENABLE rights, meaning rights that we are born

with that can not be taken away, and we were born with them BEFORE

our government was ever formed.

All power ultimately comes from the consent of WE THE PEOPLE, but

we forget that sometimes, getting down on our knees and begging the

government for this and that. Sometimes that's necessary because

the people have delegated certain powers, but on occasion

government asserts a power it was simply never granted by the

people.

All of the lawyers working on this case will do so pro bono publico

(for the good of the public). All attorneys fees awarded go to

charity. All money raised for expenses is for out of pocket costs

only (like expert witnesses, travel, documents, blogging the case,

deliveries, court fees, etc), and if reimbursed goes to charity as

well.

Since we know that opposing counsel will have principles of their

own to stick up for such as trade secrecy, we will in the future

ask you to ask opposing counsel to also work on a pro bono basis,

in order to best figure out through the legal process what is best

for our democracy. Lawyers have few higher callings than bringing

the people together to discuss democracy. Sequoia's lawyers will

likely work for free in order to defend the important principles of

trade secrecy and secret vote counting, so the issues can be most

richly framed for the courts on both sides, without regard to the

expense of lawyers fees. Therefore, when we meet Sequoia's lawyers

in court, we will either meet like-minded public spirited lawyers

who see the importance of the issues, or else we will meet paid

mercenary lawyers (perhaps who are struggling to make ends meet

themselves) or else we will find no lawyers prepared to defend

Sequoia, because no one wishes to argue for secret vote counting at

any price.

In the event we find no lawyers opposed, any possible opposition

simply melts away. In the event we find pro bono publico lawyers on

the other side, we know the arguments will be well served on both

sides and justice ably served by a court very interested and

listening to the debate. And, in the event we find paid mercenary

lawyers, we shall sense that there comes a time every now and then

when lawyering is not a job but a call to justice, and it will be

hard for mercenary lawyers to beat We The People in a struggle for

democracy, right here on our home soil.

We have no specific requests, other than this general request. Just

please imagine what WE THE PEOPLE would do to restore the integrity

of the vote, and do accordingly, knowing that it is important that

you do it, but that \"it\" will not be televised by Sequoia or any of

its allies, paid or volunteer. I know some of us have gotten so

frustrated with the promise of America that we've become critics

and dissenters, and have paid the price sometimes of being unfairly

called anti-American when you've exercised your freedom to express

difference: the only thing freedom is actually needed for. But

unless you are so disappointed in the promise of America that your

love is frustrated to no end, remember today the ones, those

founding Patriots who pledged their lives, their fortune and their

sacred honor. They were both many, and few, and yet they acted for

the People nevertheless, in their time.

paul (at) lehtopenfield.com

Freedom and the Contracts Our Govt Signed for Secret Vote Counting

http:\/\/www.democraticunderground.com\/discuss\/duboard.php<\/a>...

*****

GOVERNMENT OWNS YOU?

Natural Law

BirthRights

Inalienable Rights

*****

The key is to frame the issue as one of secrecy. Then to make the

public realize that secrecy in vote COUNTING kills democracy.

My attorney has made case law before where none thought possible,

but ejecting secret vote counters from our elections is not based

on a novel legal theory at all.... (WA case Birklid v. Boeing)

It's my belief, based on actual interest around the country, that

various other jurisdictions will soon get sued to remove DREs

because of secret vote counting, shortly after our lawsuit is

filed. We will publish how we did ours so others don't have to

reinvent the wheel. Soon, if we collectively

know what is good for us, many people will want to be the first on

their block to sue, and you can have cocktail parties with

activists and ask others as an icebreaker: \"Have you filed your

suit yet?\"

One way to stop DRE purchases is to point out to elections

officials that their legal counsel will have to advise them of

their possible legal exposure if they privatize vote counting to a

corporate hard drive. They should budget for this exposure if they

want to turn our democracy into even more of a joke. And even in

the doubtful case that citizens have no legal right to observe the

counting of the votes to verify its integrity for themselves in

some particular state jurisdiction other than Washington state,

this issue will only grow and likely result in officials spending

money to take away citizens rights spotting their opponents in the

next election at least 5 percentage points, perhaps 20 or more.

This should be able to prevent DRE purchases, at least by

accountable elected officials.

Don't raise money for attorneys' fees, unless necessary just to

keep the lawyers' doors open as in Ohio. Don't quote me or other

lawyers may get upset, but if a lawyer wants to charge more than

that needed to stay alive, go find a more patriotic lawyer.

I'll go out on a limb and say DREs will be shut down in Snohomish

county before the end of 2005. Soon everyone will be able to see

the lawsuit online and send the link to their local auditors and

election officials for them to evaluate. Anyone that wants to bet

against that, email me back, the amount of the bet is $100 per USE

person accepting the bet (individual bets between me and any person

accepting, for $100).

The minute \"the people\" (more than just us, but we have a big role

in educating the people) realize that they own this democracy and

that democracy is nothing without a citizen-verifiable counting of

the vote, then they will instantly have the motivation to ask the

trespassers on our democracy to leave immediately. It will take no

more courage than it takes to tell a trespasser to leave your

personal property. Therefore, at the instant the people realize

that democracy is ours, at that instant victory becomes inevitable.

There can be no compromise with invisible vote counting. The secret

vote counters can NOT stick their hands all the way into the

pockets of democracy and then negotiate to back out HALF way.

Secret or invisible vote counting must be terminated, with

prejudice. (Open source code: good idea, but still invisible and

unverifiable by average active non-expert citizen) The ultimate

standard is whether the average citizen can see for herself it's

fair without needing to hire an expert.

A hundred technical tweakings of bills and amendments will cost you

everything and get you little. Keep your eyes on the prize, as MLK

said. Not on the details and the diversionary brushfires started by

bad bills.

The power, as always is in framing and creating the AGENDA. All the

debates under that AGENDA are the necessary but ultimately trivial

bleatings of bureaucratic detail. The AGENDA is OPEN (OBSERVABLE),

FREE, FAIR, TRANSPARENTLY VERIFIABLE BY AVERAGE CITIZENS WITHOUT

EXPERT HELP elections.

We can still debate under such a general standard, but if we can

agree on the test for democracy with integrity, whatever we come up

with will be acceptable in the end if it complies with the test

we've framed.

And if not, a very popular referendum can be fashioned around the

language we can all agree on. How many people will vote to retain

secret vote counting? Everyone that votes to retain will have the

votes counted by their political enemies!

http:\/\/www.democraticunderground.com\/discuss\/duboard.php<\/a>...

*****

HOW DARE THEE? Democracy IS Deliberately Criminally, Hastily being

frog-marched to the GallOWs. Adding insult to injury it's Horribly

OutRageous that, Insidiously it is AN OFFICIAL State-Secret! The

powers that be have coldly calculated that America and Americans

will lie to themselves, tell themselves lies and Live with a Lie.

For the most part they may be right, many are physically &

emotionally energy-sapped, distracted, conTrolled, apathetic,

demoralized and even Zombified. Many millions though, are ascending

to that MounTain Top where the view is so grand, omnicient and the

scent wafting from the grounds of our election system, smells FOUL

with falseness, fraud and an unholy alliance of corporations,

judges and elected? officials AND money twisting, unsportsmanlike a

process requiring fairness, transparency, integrity into an

abomination- a crime syndicate having undue control of the Public

and Human right to Vote. The basic Way to petition Our Servant,

elected governments, for a redress of grievances. This Liberty

Lover has written a Paul Revere-esque chain letter, a powerful

invocation to Clot the Bleeding Wound inflicted by a felonius

assault on Democracy. We will NOT or canNot Live with a

comfortable, despicable LIE....

...If you say it's crazy to expect a NewVote, take your lazy

negativeness over to Ukraine, the real loser over there needs

supporters. You know whats crazy, Bush's approval rating has been at

48%-for months, 50% of 118million voters is 59mil, partisan claims

of 60.7mil are being bandied about in the cuckoos-nest

money-motivated manipulated Media. 48% =56.6mil! It's ENABLING to

Allow the habitual theft to happen over and over. Whats really

crazy is snuffing out the life of an 180-pound Human with a

500-pound missile! (excerpt); America faces an apocalyptic moment.

On November 2nd, at least thirty three million Americans (John

Conyers estimates more than half of all who voted) lost their right

to vote; their votes are indeterminate since they cannot be

verified by hand count! This is an amazing and historically

disastrous fact! Most of us were forced to vote on computers

lacking paper evidence of who we voted for. Can any election be

more than a sham under such a condition? Even worse, our votes

could have been secretly and invisibly changed to favor George Bush

or other Republican congressional candidates by the Republican

owned business entities that secretly counted them. And all this

after publicly promising their Republican associates they'd win!

The bottom line: we really cannot know which Congressman, Senator

or President was actually elected on November 2, for the

vote-counting was able to be secretly and privately manipulated and

then blocked from audit because there were no paper trails

required. Thus, the entire national election of November 2 was

fundamentally and uncorrectably flawed! Below is a letter I'm

sending to one hundred non-profit organizations who represent the

best of America's thinkers and doers. I'm asking them to be the

Paul Reveres of this country and save us from the corporations now

in control attempting to turn America into the largest, most

powerful fascist nation the world has ever experienced. The

American people don't want that. They abhor it and won't stand for

it. I urge each of you to spread this letter as far and as wide as

you can. It is a matter of life and death. The life of a democracy

that began the 4th of July 1776 but which will die on January 20th

2005 unless we demand and achieve a new, honest election before

that date. The People are Coming! The People are Caring! The People

are CaaaaRRRinG! LET FREEDOM RING! Let My People GO!

Must! Do NOW !-1 Focus 1 Mission 1 Goal 1 RESULT=NewVote by J20

2nd January 2005

author: CultureJamCleveland

rePort= http:\/\/portland.indymedia.org\/en\/2005\/01\/307146.shtml<\/a>



Main Entry: re·deem

Pronunciation: ri-'dEm

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English redemen, modification of Middle French

redimer, from Latin redimere, from re-, red- re- + emere to take,

buy; akin to Lithuanian imti to take

1 a : to buy back : REPURCHASE b : to get or win back

2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as a : to free from

captivity by payment of ransom b : to extricate from or help to

overcome something detrimental c : to release from blame or debt :

CLEAR d : to free from the consequences of sin

3 : to change for the better : REFORM

4 : REPAIR, RESTORE

5 a : to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b

(1) : to remove the obligation of by payment redeems savings bonds on demand> (2) : to exchange for something of

value c : to make good : FULFILL

6 a : to atone for : EXPIATE b (1) : to offset the bad effect of

(2) : to make worthwhile : RETRIEVE

synonym see RESCUE

- re·deem·able \/-'dE-m&-b&l\/ adjective

How looong will they kill Our Democracy while We stand aside and look

WE MUST MOVE FORWARD THIS GENERATION

we've GOT to fulfill The Book

Our Minds, Voices were made strong by The Hand of The Almighty

SING Redemption songs- To RIGGGGHHT the...Wrongs!

*E Pluribus Unum

out of many ONE

*****

This is the liberty for which our military personnel are fighting

and dying so we can spread it around the world?

The world already has Rottenhead Infestation in nearly every

country one can name and a few none of us can pronounce. This is

the work of the globalism that is controlling every aspect of our

lives right down to how much we should weigh and what we should

eat, breathe, drive, read, hear and speak.

War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy and we have failed because

we are always at war. We use our military in the wrong places at

the wrong times and for the wrong reasons. The nation is geared up

to declare immediate martial law against its own people while

proclaiming it is liberating the slaves in other nations. That is

the ultimate in hypocrisy and disorder at the top.

If ever there was a time to call a national referendum, it is now.

DISORDER AT THE TOP

Dorothy A. Seese

February 5, 2005

NewsWithViews.com

http:\/\/www.newswithviews.com\/Seese\/dorothy3.htm<\/a>

*****

It's the integrity, stupid.

I wish my Republican leadership could see themselves from here.

They don't get that when an elected official dismisses and

ridicules credible evidence given by credible experts, they destroy

their OWN credibility. PhDs, mathematicians, statisticians,

accountants, auditors, retired judges, computer security experts,

Congresspeople, and Senators all stood up and pointed to a mountain

of questionable results and evidence, and we were told \"the flesh

is stripped off this dead horse\".

\"Get over it, you silly Republican Computer Security Expert!\"

What, do I think that I know more about computer security and vote

tabulation software than a Senator, who in many cases can't check

his own e-mail?

Yeah, I do. I may not be smarter than ALL of them (MAY not :-) ),

but I'm no mental midget or whack-job. I'm a professional Hacker,

a security expert, and an IT Auditor, and I know systems designed

to perpetuate fraud when I see them. I may be a Republican, but

this is what I do for a living, and election fraud is more

important than protecting people within my own party. I'm very

credible, I've done my homework, and I'm taking this very seriously.

They told me to \"get over\" an untrustworthy electoral system - as

if to say \"it's been 2 months, haven't you forgotten about this

yet?\" I'll be blunt - failure to address credible evidence of

fraud brought to you by credible experts indicates either a)

condoning of the fraud or b) complicity in the fraud. It's either

incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid, and probably both.

Either option is clearly not ethical OR consistent with

representation of the American voter. And here's something else

they don't get; I will not be dismissed - they work for me.

Dismissing someone and proving them wrong are two very different

things - and the experts, as usual, are right. They have no other

choice but dismissal, but that doesn't work against a group of

determined, credible people unless that group gives up.

They are so happy about their 'win', that they don't realize that

the eyes of tens of millions of Americans are focused on them,

wondering \"whose interests are you representing?\"

They certainly aren't ours, and more eyes are opening to that every day.

Scoffing? Feeling the urge to dismiss it? Check out what's

counting our votes - here and here. The 2004 election's over and

certified - so let's fix it before the next one! Corporations out,

hand-counted paper in!

\"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight

you, then you win.\" --Ghandi

http:\/\/www.chuckherrin.com\/integritystupid.htm<\/a>

*****

\"Optical Scanners are feasible - paper ballots aren't\"

That, to me, is unnecessary compromise. We are selling out our

main priority, integrity, because our elections staff would rather

not count by hand. Some think optical scanning is an easier 'sale'

to voters and legislators. I guarantee if the voters of ANY state

demanded hand-counted paper, they would get it. To say that \"the

voters won't understand it\" is to sell the voters short - do you

understand it? Are you a voter? Are paper ballots more difficult

to understand than, say, driving?

People will understand it if it's presented logically. That's the

beauty of paper ballots - not that complex. It doesn't take a

Norman Einstein to figure that out ;-)

Compromising when you don't have to only ensures that your

opponents will get their way. They aren't worried about being

'nice guys'. By allowing a little whining to influence your

decision, you are allowing people with other agendas to change your

priorities. Why don't others see that?

One brief point I have is about the priorities reflected by the

different solutions. It all comes back to priorities for me and my

constant attempts to keep things simple. I believe that the voters

of NC will understand hand-counted paper when the basis for the

decision is made clear. My priorities:

Integrity

Accuracy

Speed

in that order have led me to favor hand counted paper ballots based

on their strengths and limitations. Add to that the fact that there

is no tech support or expensive equipment involved, and we have

what appears to me to be a superior solution.

Optically scanned ballots offer a solution that goes with the

following priority set:

Speed

Accuracy

Integrity

Since hand-counting offers more integrity and resistance to fraud

than optical scanning, the question then becomes \"How much

hand-counting do we need to boost the integrity to an acceptable

level so we can still get most of the speed benefits of optical

scanning?\" 1%, 5%, 10%, etc? Since we intuitively

understand that:

1) hand counting is more trustworthy, and is always treated as 'the

final word', and

2) optically scanned ballots are subject to tampering and error

more efficiently than paper,

we then have to wrap compensating controls (some percentage manual

recount or 'spot check') around the process to compensate for the

weaknesses introduced by scanning.

Accuracy is pretty much a wash between the two methods.

I don't have a strong objection to supporting optical scanning,

since it does provide a paper trail that we are sorely lacking.

Better is better, after all.

But I do want all of us to go into this with a full awareness of

the trade-offs we're making if the voters settle for less than

hand-counted paper. I still feel that integrity is not 'A' factor,

it is 'THE' factor, but it appears that not everyone feels that

way. I'm not saying that they're wrong - No judging - I'm just

saying I disagree.

We are necessarily choosing speed over integrity and fraud

resistance, and then trying to mix integrity back in at 5% to get

the best of both worlds.

*

Corporate Interests in Election Systems:

Anytime corporations are involved there will be a conflict of

interest. Corporations are obligated to deliver returns to their

shareholders, and getting shareholder returns is a conflicting goal

with designing open, secure systems. Microsoft is not successful

because they write secure software - they are successful because

they write software and get it to market! They only started

worrying about security when when their customers starting

demanding it - any more testing than is required is just money out

of shareholder's pockets! And corporate \"secrets\" do NOT serve the

public interest in voting - witness the way Diebold, ES&S, et al

are hiding a public function behind the veil of \"trade secret\" and

the problems that has caused. They have even designed their systems

to defeat a random spot-check of precincts - I'll show you how on

Friday.

The profit motive alone is a conflict of interest, but when you add

the additional ability to influence elections and the power that

goes with it, I'm sure that any number of (private?) corporations

would even be willing to operate at a financial loss in order to

run the election systems. They lose money now in exchange for

political influence - it's called \"lobbying\". I'm sure they would

be able to make money other ways....remember how \"profitable\" Enron

was?

When we put a computer in between me and my actual vote, that

computer acts as my vote proxy since unlike a paper ballot, it has

the ability to change my vote. There is no way that anyone

knowledgeable would allow someone with a conflicting profit or

power motive to act as their vote proxy and trust that everything

will just be fine, especially when there's very little chance of

fraud being detected.

Corporate goals and public goals conflict sometimes, which is why

we don't just come out and do away with government and let

businesses officially run the country. Officially, anyway ;-)

This conflict should prevent corporate interests from being able to

design OR build the systems. Even when they would be allowed to

just build the systems as contractors, there is a huge problem when

it comes to verifying that there are no backdoors or secrets that

were not intended by the designers, and we're back here where we

started, except for now there's a false sense of security.

Even in a well-designed system the computers are tasked with

conflicting objectives of anonymity and

auditability\/accountability. Computers as we know them just aren't

well-suited for what we want to accomplish, since they are NOT

easily open to independent review by voters.

One final little point (sorry for the length) - the other companies

mentioned may not have a history of problems, but if they are given

the voting contracts, they will. Computer example: when people

started moving from Internet Explorer to Firefox, Firefox

vulnerabilities suddenly started coming to light much more

frequently. One reason for this is because it was now more of a

target. One reason these systems have not had as many problems is

because they are not the big players - if all of a sudden \"Joe's

Voting System\" gets adopted, then that system is the target for

anyone looking to \"influence\" an election.

This is a truth of computer science (and everything else) - which

is the main reason that more viruses are written to infect Windows

than any other platform. Linux viruses exist, but if you want to

have maximum impact, you don't target a system with technical users

and a 3% market share. There WILL be a way to exploit whatever

computerized system is put in place - I guarantee it - and I also

guarantee that it will be harder to detect than watching someone

walking away with 10,000 pieces of paper tucked in their sweater.

Paper ballots, y'all.

*

You're right, but EVERY problem with paper ballots boils down to

\"Humans can abuse them\". There are NEVER any problems with machines

failing, or computer screens breaking, or memory card failures. You

can drop and step on a paper ballot, and it still works fine. This

\"human\" problem exists with every method, but the ease of abuse

increases with the complexity and \"opaqueness\" of the method used.

I agree with what you're saying about paper ballots and their

problems, but the problems are not a failing of the ballots - they

are failings of the people involved. Also, I am not convinced that

super-fast tabulation IS a tangible benefit. To quote Edward W.

Spannaus in his testimony to the Missouri House of Representatives:

\"Impediments to vote fraud: Any use of computers opens the door to fraud. The

speed and complexity of computers creates an inherently dangerous and

fraud-prone situation, because, as we have noted, only a handful of

people know

how votes are being counted. Citizens can never have full confidence in any

such system of vote counting.

By going back to a universal paper ballot, which is hand counted, we are

creating additional impediments to fraud and tampering with results. If this

requires more people to count the votes than is needed when using computers,

all the better. The more people involved, the more obstacles we

have created to

carrying out vote fraud.

Transparency and voter confidence. The objection has been raised, that a total

paper-ballot system would be a slow, inefficient system for counting votes. In

our view, this is a great advantage. A slow, ponderous vote-counting system,

where citizens can watch their votes being counted with complete transparency,

is the best way not only to prevent vote fraud and election-rigging, but to

establish public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

There is no requirement, Constitutional or otherwise, that vote totals must be

made available instantaneously for the benefit of the news media or anyone

else. There is, however, a Constitutional mandate that votes be

counted fairly,

and that all votes be treated equally.

A 100% paper-ballot system is the best means to ensure such an outcome.\"

I agree with that 100% !

~just pieces, FULL Pie at....

http:\/\/www.chuckherrin.com\/sinceyouasked.htm<\/a>

*****

Some Questions for Our Elected Officials:

(Note: I'm updating these as I think if new ones - Feel free to

blatantly steal and ask your own elected officials any or all of

them. Go for it!)

What is the dollar value of a vote?

Who told you that electronic voting was a good idea?

What advantage does e-voting give that is more important than vote integrity?

Whom do you feel the burden of proof rests upon - elections

officials to prove that a system is secure or voters to prove that

a system is insecure? Do your actions mirror this? If not, why?

Since secret vote-counting is illegal, can you please explain why

computer-counted vote tabulation is allowed?

If the mechanism used to perform vote-counting is invisible or done

via a computer, please explain how this does not meet the

definition of \"secret\".

Please explain how plugging a tape into a tabulation machine

qualifies as a \"transparent\" or \"open\" tabulation of votes, when

neither the vote numbers or data is visible to the observer.

Please define \"encryption\" and explain how it aids in the open

counting of my vote.

Do you know how to run a cryptographic checksum or hash against

system files to verify that the software used is the software that

was certified? If not, how do you propose to prove to the voters

that the certified software is what is actually run?

Given that in 17 out of 17 precincts audited in California

uncertified versions of software was installed on Diebold DRE

machines, why should voters trust that the certified versions of

e-voting software is installed?

Since the MIT\/CalTech study concluded that DREs are the worst

performing solution in every category, please explain their rapid

adoption.

How much taxpayer money will HAVA potentially provide to your state

to subsidize the adoption of these \"blackbox\" machines?

What happens when voting machines or tabulation computers get a

virus? What would be the estimated cost to re-perform the election

if the vote data were corrupted by malicious software?

Who is More Credible on Security Matters, SalesPeople OR

Information Security Professionals? Compare and contrast what each

party (security people vs salespeople) had to gain by stating their

opinions of the security of these systems.

What did every information security professional who has ever

looked at these systems say, with the possible exception of those

on the payroll of the companies in question who were being paid for

a certification? Did they use a meaningful industry standard

certification, such as the Common Criteria?

Are you an Information Security expert? Why do you feel that every

Information Security expert who has examined these systems is wrong

about the security of these systems?

Do you want our voting system to be resistant to fraud? Is

corruption a problem in our electoral process?

How much money have e-voting companies spent to lobby you in the

last five years?

How much time and money has been spent in sales presentations,

rollouts, training, and investigations of the resulting problems

from e-voting, including today's meeting?

What is the best guess as to how much time and effort a

hand-counted paper ballot election would have taken? Compare and

contrast with the previous answer.

Given that Canada hand-counted their last parliamentary election in

four hours, do you feel that we are saving time by using e-voting

systems?

How much faith would your voters place in the results of a

hand-counted paper ballot election versus the current results,

where according to a recent poll 25% of the American public feels

that the 2004 election results are not credible and do not reflect

the will of the American people?

From above, is 25% a significant constituency?

How many votes would normally be lost during a hand-counted paper

ballot election? Compare that to how many votes were lost in this

last election.

Multiply the dollar value of a vote (above) times the number of

votes lost - did we save taxpayer money by rolling out these

machines?

Given the fact that a recent MIT\/CalTech study showed hand-counted

paper ballots have the lowest average incidence of spoiled,

uncounted, and unmarked ballots, what is the rationale for moving

away from this system?

How many people working in concert would it take to \"hack\" a

statewide or national election using paper ballots?

Can paper ballots be manipulated remotely when computers are not

used for tabulation?

Can paper ballots be manipulated remotely when computers ARE used

for tabulation? (http:\/\/www.chuckherrin.com\/hackthevote.htm<\/a>)

Why don't e-voting manufacturers hold themselves to the same

standards that the rest of the IT industry does and use the

industry-standard Common Criteria for systems security?

What is more important to the voting process than vote integrity

and auditing capability?

Why do the same companies make ATMs and vote machines, yet only

ATMs provide a paper trail?

Where we use the Internet for reporting, what happens when the next

Code Red, Slammer, Nimda, or other worm takes down Internet service

during an election?

What happens when the WINvote system, using 802.11B wireless, is

knocked out by someone turning on a microwave oven or a cordless

phone, or any other type of Denial of Service attack? When

information security professionals recommend against the use of

wireless on ANY system that is business or mission-critical, please

justify its use in e-voting.

What happens during a power outage where electronic voting is used?

If the voting terminals have battery backups, do the vote

tabulation machines or the network infrastructure used for

reporting?

What is the reason for not returning to hand-counted paper ballots,

and why would that not be the right thing to do?

Are politics more important than representation? Is saving face

because of a bad decision (adoption of e-voting) more important

than restoring integrity to the voting system?

Would voters support a system where they walked into a closet,

whispered their vote through a curtain, and walked away, hoping for

the best? Please compare and contrast this with e-voting using DREs.

Can you tell me three ways that electronic voting is more secure

than hand-counted paper ballots? Please answer keeping in mind that

arguments re: human tampering and malfeasance are constants

regardless of the voting mechanism used.

Please compare the problems introduced by electronic voting, such

as software bugs, vulnerability to remote hacking, intentional

backdoors, increased complexity, susceptibility to viruses and

worms, hardware failures, increased cost and training requirements,

and other problems to the benefits gained by its use and\/or

problems that e-voting remedies.

Is using the newest technology better than using a proven

technology, if it means an increase in cost, complexity, and

susceptibility to abuse, while introducing the ability to

compromise the system remotely and eliminating audit capability?

What would be the result in the business world if a bank's system

were repeatedly demonstrated to be easy to hack, but the officers

of the bank continued to rely on these systems, even after the

problems were widely known?

What if the bank refused to provide receipts for their

transactions? Would their customers have faith that their money is

being handled correctly?

What if several of the bank's developers and managers were

convicted felons? Would that affect the public's confidence in the

bank's code of ethics?

What would happen during the resulting shareholder lawsuits if it

were discovered that the bank's officers and board of directors had

repeatedly gone directly against the advice of their Information

Security experts in adopting these systems, even after serious

vulnerabilities were discovered?

Whose priorities do you represent when you go against the advice of

security experts and adopt systems whose security defects are well

known and have been described as \"stunning\" and \"blinding\" by

computer scientists who have examined them? Are they the priorities

of the voters?

What would be the problem with selling our voting machines to

another state and announcing to the public that you are being

proactive in protecting the integrity of their vote by going back

to paper ballots until a voting machine company meets the normal

security standards that are being used by the rest of the IT

industry? That's what Missouri is attempting to do (go back to

paper ballots), and I'm sure their voters appreciate it.

As a voter, I know I would.

Chuck Herrin, CISSP, CISA, MCSE, CEH

http:\/\/www.chuckherrin.com\/evotingquestions.htm<\/a>

*****

I am here today with one message.

I want paper ballots.

There is no reason for computers to be involved in our electoral

process. They have not solved any problems, but only created new

ones. This is not surprising news to anyone involved in the tech

industry, nor is it a surprise for criminals. It used to be that

you had to put on a ski mask and run down to the bank in person in

order to rob it, but now criminals can pull it off using a web

browser and free AOL account. Now, these are not new crimes- high

tech crimes are merely improvements on old, low tech crimes. New

and Improved Fraud, now with anonymity! It used to be that con-men

had to show up and lie to you in person to steal your money, but

everyone should know that computers make it much easier to commit

fraud on a grand scale. One statistic I saw recently showed that

last year, $80 million was stolen in paper money, but over $800

million was stolen using computers. There's one thing that everyone

can agree on - computers are great for efficiency! You simply can't

have high tech crimes without high technology.

Is it a coincidence that within the last 5 or 6 years the exit

polls have all of a sudden gotten unreliable and wrong, which just

happens to coincide with the introduction of electronic voting

machines?

Is it a coincidence that a man convicted of 23 felony counts of

theft in the first degree was employed by Diebold as Senior Vice

President of Development?

So, some felons can't vote, but they can write the software to

count my vote? THAT's a good idea.

Is it a coincidence that at the White House BBQ in 2003, when asked

if President Bush was beatable, Congressman Peter King, while on

camera with President Bush, said \"it's already over, the election's

over. We won!\" Keep in mind that this was in 2003, and when the

interviewer, Alexandra Polosi asked how do you know that?\" ,

Congressman King replied \"It's all over but the counting, and we'll

take care of the counting.\" This is on tape, with the President, at

the White House, the year before the election. The video clip of

that is on the net right now, if you'd like see it.

Now, there is an affidavit signed by a Florida software developer

named Cliff Curtis, swearing under penalty of perjury that he was

asked by Florida congressman Tom Feeney to create a prototype for

vote switching software. The reason? To quote \"control the black

vote in South Florida\".

I'm not making this stuff up, ya'll. Go check it out yourself.

Now, let me just touch on engineering for a second. Responsible

engineering is NOT using the latest technology just because it's

available. Responsible engineering means using the appropriate

technology to solve the problem. Sometimes that technology is a

hammer, sometimes it's a brick, sometimes it's a keyfob 2-factor

authentication system. It NEVER means sacrificing the integrity or

goals of the system just so you can make a change. Let me give you

an example of appropriate engineering that we can learn from:

Harm Lagaay was a Porsche designer for 33 years, and the design

director at Porsche for more than 15 years. When the Porsche 911

was redesigned, I remember someone asking him why the door design

hadn't changed in over 30 years. Know what he said?

\"It's a good door.\"

Change for marketing purposes or just for the sake of change is NOT

responsible engineering!

If a computer system were developed that was as simple, reliable,

and verifiable as hand-counted paper ballots, it would be hailed as

a technological marvel. Some people cite potential for abuse with

paper ballots as a reason against their use, without understanding

that the only way a paper ballot can be abused is by a person, and

that person must have physical access to it! This is NOT a failure

of paper ballots - it is a constant for EVERY voting system that

has ever been developed! The arguments citing human error and

malfeasance concerns with paper ballots are ridiculous, since human

error and malfeasance are equally possible regardless of the voting

medium used, and are actually amplified by the use of computer

systems since physical access is no longer required for tampering.

The technology just makes it easier. Efficiency and integrity are

often conflicting goals, and there is NO FACTOR more important to

the election system than system integrity.

The MIT\/CalTech study of 2001 shows that hand-counted paper ballots

are the most accurate out of the 5 methods currently used, and

Canada hand-counted their last parliamentary election using paper

ballots in four hours. Now before you say \"Well, we have more

people than Canada does\", remember that scale works both ways. We

have more voters, but we have more counters, too. Speed is NOT an

asset if integrity is lacking! I can design a system to count 100

million votes in 45 seconds, but it doesn't mean a damn thing if

those votes don't reflect the will of the people!

Know what reflects the will of the people and everyone can

understand? Paper Ballots.

http:\/\/www.chuckherrin.com\/paperballots.htm<\/a>

*****

E-Voting = Re-Voting

Humans need to be E-moting

If You..., OZ Keep Holding We'll ALL NEED ReVolting !

*****

Steal Our Vote STEAL OUR Future

What is democracy? What is tyranny?

Abraham Lincoln said democracy is government of the people, by the

people, for the people.

History teaches us that whoever conducts an election and counts the

votes can also control the outcome. Avoiding fraud requires an open

process. If all parties participate and observe, we have the

greatest possibility that our election outcomes will express the

will of the people.

Our November election is suspect precisely because 25-30 percent of

the voters used unverifiable electronic systems, and because many

states and counties prevented citizens from observing the counting

of ballots, handling of tally sheets, etc. Every American is being

forced to \"trust\" that unobserved and invisible procedures --

electronic and otherwise -- were accurate.

Widespread charges of fraud are circulating on the internet. Are

the charges \"bogus?\" Are the people behind these charges

\"conspiracy theorists?\"

In fact such suspicions are reasonable, given the intentional use

of unverifiable computerized election systems even after the

problems with them were publicized. The suspicions are realistic,

given the widespread secrecy surrounding election operations in

many counties and states. Secrecy suggests that something is being

hidden. In many counties, tally sheets were not required to be

posted in the precinct at the close of voting, ballots and precinct

tally sheets were not guarded under multipartisan observation after

the close of the election day, and counties have refused to comply

with FOIL requests in an open and honest forthcoming manner.

When institutions hide what they do, indeed often fraud, stealing,

etc. is taking place. Public servants should not only be honest,

they must avoid the appearance of dishonesty. This idea is not new.

There is no evidence to support or refute charges of fraud, or

resolve current suspicions about the November election. This in and

of itself weakens our democracy and undermines the legitimacy of

the election. A democratic government has only as much legitimacy

as the openness and verifiability of its elections.

Elections are not a court of law where a defendant is innocent

until proven guilty. Elections deal with a broader issue, the

legitimacy and credibility of representative democratic government.

Secrecy in the procedures of elections, especially vote counting,

is a constant when a system of tyranny poses as democracy by

holding sham elections.

Election directors and Secretaries of State have responded to

warnings about unverifiable computerized voting by saying \"I will

comply with legal requirements.\" This reduces a democracy argument

(democracy requires observability and verifiability) to a legal

argument (the law doesn't require openness or verifiability).

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, said (in 1682) that if the

people are good, the government will be good. If the people are

bad, no form of government will save them from their own evil. He

meant, that if those in power make laws that are just (tend toward

equal opportunity, equal protection, due process, and openness),

the people will thrive. If those in power make laws that are

unjust, they can use the same governmental structures and rituals,

such as elections, to support tyranny.

http:\/\/www.wheresthepaper.org\/<\/a>

*****

Who? would rise to defend SecretVote Counting?

Natural Law

BirthRIGHTS

Inalienable Rights

--------------------



I believe the people will do more to promote Peace than governments,

and one of these days better get OUT OF THE WAY and let them have

IT- many days AGO by Ike Eisenhower

There is one thing more powerful than all the armies in the world...,

and that is An Idea whose Time has Come-annie mouse



We are fiLLing a serendipitous void by a failing, corrupt and

compromised media and fighting for lead of a country against those

who avoid responsibility by not thinking for themselves and absolve

their humanity by worshipping aristocracy, father-figures AND FALSE

IDOLS, the sin most cautioned against.

*****

2\/5\/05: UPDATE...America's Illegitimate Election 2004

Never forget what happened on November 2nd, 2004... Here's a video to help...

We've updated the short video compiled by a few Velvet

Revolutionaries from Democratic Underground.

It is our hope that this video may serve as the definitive record

of what happened in American during the 2004 Presidential Election.

It documents -- in a few short minutes -- how your American right

to a free, fair and transparent electoral system has been taken

from you by the cynical and un-democratic powers-that-be.

This sort of thing should never happen in the world's most

important democracy. And yet -- again in 2004 -- it did. Enough is

enough.

It's time for the people to take both our country and our democracy

back. If you still have any questions about that, please take a

look at this video:

http:\/\/www.velvetrevolution.us\/#020505<\/a>

Americans have died for the Right to Vote. November 2nd, 2004 will

serve as a continuing reminder that we still have a long way to go

in this country before every American has that right.



Please watch the video...And then pass this link...

http:\/\/www.VelvetRevolution.us#020505<\/a>

...to everyone you know so they can remember (or learn) as well!

The mainstream media will not be doing it. Democracy in America is

now up to you!

Government OWNS You?

*****

FEAR=False Evidence Appearing Real

Fear is a test to FIND OUT if Your Mission on EArth is Finished...

....if your ALIVE !...,IT Isn't

Give a HOOT?

ROOT?

for those who LOOT,POLLUTE and SHOOT

I WILL NOT BE MOOT

shoot=moot

*****

SING IT ! ExtremeFundamentaListRegime

!!!!!!!!!ExtremeFundamentaListRegime

!!!!!!!!!ExtremeFundamentaListRegime

*****

****

***

**

!

WARNING:

It should be clear that more is at stake than the presidency

itself. Use of computerized vote counting

will only increase, as mandated by law. Vote counting is the

bedrock protocol of a democracy and

meaningful reform of a broken counting system is dependent on an

expression of public will ultimately

exercised at the ballot box and fairly, accurately, and honestly

tabulated. If the system has broken down

and is no longer counting accurately and honestly, there is no

effective democratic mechanism to bring

pressure upon a governing majority to reform a vote counting status

quo which is seen to work in its favor.

This is, as may be seen, a potentially crippling catch-22 for a democracy.

*footnotes from statistical proof on examination of vote count data

http:\/\/www.spiral-stairs.dailykos.com\/story\/2004\/12\/30\/<\/a>...

explanation of the ease of hackability at end of this post.



we are called to RISE to the Rescue and challenge of

http:\/\/www.thebattleforamerica.com<\/a> watch!



homepage: http:\/\/www.solarbus.org\/election\/index.shtml<\/a>

\"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no

passion or principle but that of gain.\" --Thomas Jefferson to

Larkin Smith, 1809.

\"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them

to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and

they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of

education to convince them of this. They are the only sure

reliance for the preservation of our liberty.\" --Thomas Jefferson

to James Madison, 1787.



Putsch OUT \/ Paper IN <\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"www.votersunite.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","summary":"DemocracyRE'scue - LawSuit to e-Vict Corp.TresPassers, Secret Vote \r\nCounting & Hasten Death of DRE'$ - CounTy, by CounTy by financiaLLy-$trapped COUNTy, to $ave moNeY, proTecT the Future and purrCHASE FREEd-ohmm! The man who knows what Freedom means will find a way to be FREE. e-Voting = e -VictSHUN.\r\n\r\nWhen it comes to something as fundamental as democracy, the \r\ngovernment lacks the power, through contract, to cede that power of \r\nvote counting in a democracy to a multinational corporation or to \r\nany individual to operate in secret, because vote counting is a \r\nPublic democratic Right. It is a Public Right for which the \r\ngovernment has literally never been GIVEN the power to give away. \r\nThe government, Plainly and Simply, combined with ALL of the \r\nworld's corporations, UTTERLY LACK THE POWER to Privatize Our \r\nVotes. We ought not legitimize that privatization in ANY way by \r\nassuming it has any validity, because it is Void Ab Initio (from \r\nthe beginning).\r\n\r\nMost importantly, (to put it plainly but crudely) WE DON'T NEED TO \r\nPROVE SHIT, THE VOTING MACHINE COMPANIES MUST SIMPLY GET THE HELL \r\nOUT of our democracy. Period.\r\n\r\nUNPRECENDENTED in American history for government to claim, assume THE \r\nInalienable rights to rig, run, ruin and OWN YOUR LIFE! and help \r\ndig your grave , how are you and WE going to rescue our country and \r\nhumanity from this dangerous abyss? Lets get real and ON THE BALL, \r\npick it up a notch, for..., We have lost the ability to replace our \r\ngovernment by the ballot box, (our creation) claims they don't need \r\nThe people's consent anymore. We must talk and act on this affront \r\nDAILY. Lawyers have few higher callings than bringing \r\nthe people together to discuss democracy.\r\n\r\nWhat happened to the AmeriCaN Dream? SORRY-thats classified. ReVeal NOT CONceal, People~over~Profit$, The Right OR Civil RIGHTS? DRE'$ = Democracy Reduction EnTiTies. Secret \r\nVote Counting Delays OUR Dreams.\r\n\r\n############################## ","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2005\/02\/shame_2.jpg","filesize":"15.4 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2005\/02\/122775.php","image":{"original":"\/uploads\/2005\/02\/shame_2.jpg","small":"\/uploads\/2005\/02\/shame_2.jpgthumb.jpg"}},"attachments":[{"id":122776,"heading":"HeadSpace For Rent ! , PropaganDist$","article":"","author":" CultureJamCleveland","parent_id":122775,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2005-02-18 18:08:04","modified":"2005-08-15 03:08:40","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/02\/head_space_for_rent2.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/02\/head_space_for_rent2.jpg"}},{"id":122777,"heading":"ExtremeFundamentaListRegime","article":"","author":" CultureJamCleveland","parent_id":122775,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2005-02-18 18:08:04","modified":"2005-08-15 03:08:40","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/02\/realize_1.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/02\/realize_1.jpg"}}],"comments":[]}