BBV- Exposing the Belly of the Beast

[RedEagle]

The closer you get to the lair, the harder- and probably dirtier, the fight will be. Tactics will vary from physical intimidation to psychological.

We should all be wary now. Various tactics will be employed to try and tear the grassroots effort appart. Mudslinging, you name it. What they want to avoid is growth at the grassroots level. Money and intimidation may not hold for long.

I think a prime example of that was the 2002 elections. Democrats lost in areas they were supposed to win. Well, we can figure out how that happened. Could the Dems have done better? Of course. Was that the ultimate cause of the failure? No. What did it do? Put the Dems in a down spiral of self-reflection and self-doubt.

You're about to see the same thing happen to us, if we aren't careful. The best tactic in the world is to try to get infighting started among us. As I posted previously, we're all a little battle worn, but the tide seems to be turning. This is the point where we either keep to the goal of a true representative form of government, or they get the sham facade they are so desperately trying to buy with PR and secret meetings.

Watch for the salvos in the comming days. Let your conscience be your guide, as they say. Figure out if the picture presented is telling the whole story. What they can defeat with maliciousness and lies and innuendo, they will, for to do more would really tip their hand in a way the public- and the press cannot ignore.

Challenge every allegation you feel to be false. They will be coming, that will be the next move as punishment for "infiltrating" their little planning session for how democracy should be handled.

[DEMActivist]

1. How right you are...

tenacity wins. Let none of us forget that the plan is "ignore them. They will get tired and go away."

I'm not going anywere. I'll not give up. I'll never quit.

This is my legacy to my children and grandchildren - protecting their right to vote and have the vote counted as cast.

There is no option but to stand and fight.

[Cocoa]

2. the most recent stories don't support this, imo

The notes from the meeting with the lobbyist showed a pretty typical sounding and benign PR campaign.

They believed that their meeting was private, and yet nothing really incriminating was said.

When speaking of their opposition, it was pretty businesslike, with no rancor that I could tell. It spoke more of persuading the critics rather than beating them up or discrediting them. The worst that was said was suggesting that some of them weren't credible.

Among the recommendations were what seemed to me to be constructive and responsible actions such as setting high standards.

[BevHarris]

3. Except for the part where they said careful, antitrust problems?

And discussed collusion.

And that the defense contractors were the ones that actually were the driving force behind HAVA.

And the gaffe by R. Doug Lewis when he asked voting vendors to pay ITAA -- oops!

Can we say you shouldn't have been at this meeting Doug? Maybe that's why they took pains to say "of course, The Election Center can't be involved".

Oh, that and a few more things.

Bev

[jimmynochad]

7. A note on antitrust...

Bev,

With all due respect and homage... Anti-trust is always part of any trade association. When I worked in the commercial circuit board industry, all work shops started with antitrust reading. The discussions really were a lot of what ifs.

I would say also that ITAA probably was bragging about the HAVA influence. The most these vendors would gain is the few millions from voter registration business.

No one mentioned that Tom Wilkey was in the discussion. He did not stay long but was all for it. Even though he has resigned from NY state, it really doesnt look good that he was so gun ho. I would expect Doug Lewis to be gung ho since we all know he really works for the vendors. He never challenges any of their certification.

[BevHarris]

10. Another note on antitrust:

When contributions become such that only the largest players can afford to play, this is called an antitrust violation.

[stickdog]

25. Tom Wilkey is as corrupt (or braindead?) as Cathleen Cox when it

comes to these fraud-made-easy machines.

He's been a central figure in this gig for years.

[jimmynochad]

4. It is not how they say it

Two important features from the conference call:

1. They want to create a standard that is higher in value not meaning. They want it to look like their standard is the gold standard. If they were so gun ho in creating better standards, then why don't they drive down to NIST and set up a complete voting lab for NIST to rewrite the current standards? One major reason is that they know a voter verifiable paper record would come up and open source would come up. If they use their own standard then they get to skirt these issues.

2. They clearly said that David Dill is the enemy. He truly is the ordinary citizen who found out, one day, that the BBV machines were coming to his county. He researched the issues and talked with all of the vendors. He only wants secure, verifiable elections, so why do the vendors not welcome him in with open arms?

Their meeting was never going to divulge secrets because there were other companies invited like Accupoll, Truvote, and Avante that oppose pure BBV devices. Do you think these small companies have thousands of dollars sitting around to help their competitors make BBV the gold standard?

[DEMActivist]

8. Simple analogies....

which I used in the meeting in Georgia on Friday...

We insure our automobiles, our lives, our health. Why would we NOT insure our elections with a voter verified paper ballot?

And again, in an after meeting discussion when I said "I can't take my accounting computer printout to an IRS audit - they want receipts. Why doesn't the state want receipts of the votes?"

[sendero]

22. simple...

... elegant and absolutely correct.

I don't see how any sane person can argue against this simple idea.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

6. no kidding

I yawned my way through the transcript. "Voting industry hires lobbyist." Wow. Compelling stuff. :eyes:

JC

[BevHarris]

9. Okay Tinfoil, perhaps this is more compelling:

SAIC Vice Chairman = Admiral Bill Owens
SAIC commissioned for "independent" report on Diebold
Admiral Bill Owens = Chairman of Board of Directors for VoteHere
(Gee. Do ya think the SAIC report will recommend the new "gold standard:: VoteHere to verify votes?)

SAIC Sr. Vice President = Ronald Knecht
Director ITAA ES Div = Ronald Knecht
Who wrote this proposal for massive PR for Diebold & others? ITAA ES div.

I think we have a matched set of truly horrific conflicts of interest

Bev

[ParanoidPat]

12. Bev, you don't suppose that ol' Tinfoil.....

....is one of those 'sleazy' people who renders opinions about voting methodologies while having ties to the industry? :evilgrin:
I keep asking but he refuses to respond! :)
My only ties to the election business is that I vote! (And I want a human readable ballot!) :)

[Eloriel]

18. No, no, no, Pat

He's not sleazy at all.

:evilgrin:

Eloriel

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

14. I have a different take

If SAIC is so closely tied to VoteHere, a Diebold competitor, then I'm forced to assume that their report will reflect poorly on Diebold as a result. If an impartial analysis is what's really desired then said analysis shouldn't be done by someone with ties to a competitor any more than it should be done by an academic with a stated bias against electronic voting and a financial stake in the matter. At least we agree that there appears to be a conflict of interest, although we probably disagree on just what it is. The assumption on DU seems to be that SAIC will "whitewash" any problems on the absurd theory that there's a conspiracy of voting machine vendors and associated companies like SAIC. My own guess is that Diebold is probably less than thrilled that a company with ties to a direct competitor is providing the "impartial" evaluation of their product. Maybe I'm wrong. Time will tell.

Given SAIC's purported relationship to VoteHere, any explicit recommendation from SAIC that Diebold should acquire/integrate a VoteHere product, or that Maryland should acquire a VoteHere product instead, would seem to be highly suspect. I'd be mildly interested in knowing who decided to pick SAIC, and whether they were aware of the link to VoteHere.

Mostly I'm guessing that SAIC will point out the same sorts of things that were in the Rubin report (assuming they're looking at the same version of the software, obviously, or that the software hasn't changed substantially in the last couple of years). They'll probably leave off all of Rubin's talk about the purported dangers of connecting the voting machines to the internet, since it's apparently not a normal practice with the machines. I'm sure they'll refer to the weaknesses in their use of smart cards, the unencrypted data transfer, etc.

JC

[BevHarris]

15. Re: Connecting to the Internet --

Do a quick search for GEMS, election results and you'll see dozens of web pages from counties who use Diebold Election Systems. You'll see that the format is a template (it's provided by the GEMS program).

Okay, so they do upload to the Internet using a standardized program provided by Diebold. The format, incidentally, matches the reports you get when you run GEMS on your own computer.

But do they connect on election day?

For this, look to the manual: It specifically says that the results upload automatically to the Internet every 10 minutes while the precincts are sending in their information.

And also: Look to the source code. The JResults program automatically converts the vote database into web pages, which are continuously updated during the evening.

And also: Look to the PowerPoint sales presentation made to the state of Georgia: It shows the GEMS computer connecting to the web server.

When they say the machines don't connect to the Internet, they are parsing the information. The touchscreens don't connect to the Internet -- the touchscreens connect to the county server. The county server, in turn, connects to the Internet.

Bev

[Eloriel]

19. Remember,

the SAIC report will be secret. We'll never know what they say or propose.

Further, it's doubtful they could DO a complete analysis in the month or so before the report comes out.

Finally, I'm not at all sure that VoteHere is a competitor of Diebold. Is it? For all products? Not the impression I'm getting from looking at their webpage. I could be wrong.

Eloriel

[BevHarris]

28. VoteHere is trying to sell its cryptography software to Diebold

And a report critical of Diebold's security, which says it is correctable by a voter verification system using cryptography (of course, not naming VoteHere by name) would benefit VoteHere directly, and actually, would provide an impetus to move the whole industry towards VoteHere's new "solution."

Bev

[stickdog]

26. As Rome would say, "Your take sucks."

If SAIC is so closely tied to VoteHere, a Diebold competitor, then I'm forced to assume that their report will reflect poorly on Diebold as a result.

Why? VoteHere has most of the same security/fraud problems.

If an impartial analysis is what's really desired then said analysis shouldn't be done by someone with ties to a competitor any more than it should be done by an academic with a stated bias against electronic voting and a financial stake in the matter.

What are your programming credentials such that you cannot evaluate the Hopkins report on its own merits?

The assumption on DU seems to be that SAIC will "whitewash" any problems on the absurd theory that there's a conspiracy of voting machine vendors and associated companies like SAIC.

Why is this absurd? Does the secret get-together make this seem absurd? What makes this seem absurd to you?

Given SAIC's purported relationship to VoteHere, any explicit recommendation from SAIC that Diebold should acquire/integrate a VoteHere product, or that Maryland should acquire a VoteHere product instead, would seem to be highly suspect.

VoteHere has most of the same security/fraud problems. Get it, TinfoilHat"Programmer"?

Mostly I'm guessing that SAIC will point out the same sorts of things that were in the Rubin report (assuming they're looking at the same version of the software, obviously, or that the software hasn't changed substantially in the last couple of years). They'll probably leave off all of Rubin's talk about the purported dangers of connecting the voting machines to the internet, since it's apparently not a normal practice with the machines. I'm sure they'll refer to the weaknesses in their use of smart cards, the unencrypted data transfer, etc.

And I'm guessing SAIC WON'T ADDRESS the fundamental flaws in the system that require a voter verified paper trail.

How about you?

[stickdog]

24. What?

The notes from the meeting with the lobbyist showed a pretty typical sounding and benign PR campaign.

What is "benign" about a PR campaign to hide the obvious and undeniable flaws in these fraud-made-easy machines?

They believed that their meeting was private, and yet nothing really incriminating was said. mong the recommendations were what seemed to me to be constructive and responsible actions such as setting high standards.

Sure. It was all talk about how to improve the systems so vote counts can be fully audited and verified, right?

Your take on this leaves me aghast.

[ParanoidPat]

5. I keep these on top of my monitor.....

....to remind me why I'm doing what I'm doing! :evilgrin:

[Booberdawg]

11. This is pretty scary

I see the infiltration on other issues. I see how this works and how well meaning members of this community fall for it. I see the psychological manipulation and how it divides people and cements others into positions they won't later be able to defend.

I haven't seen your previous post but I'll look for it.

BBV is such an important and history altering issue. I've seen the accounts of intimidation. I'm braced and prepared for the backlash and I do trust that those of you working on this are prepared for the intimidation tactics. I have no choice but to trust you. I am counting on you. But I don't have the same confidence in the psychological war aspects among my DU comrades. :evilfrown:

I don't know - your message is vague as to the subjects we should be wary of manipulation. I am assuming you refer to the BBV work and that attempts will be made to discredit work accomplished on this issue. I think DU can handle that. I may be wrong, but I think many of us unable to contribute to the issue have been following this as well as I have.

In closing, I'm afraid this will get very ugly. I am trusting you.:evilfrown:

Linda

[Eloriel]

20. Intimidation isn't the only issue

There's also co-optation, which is something I'm almost more concerned about right at the moment: they SAY they'll do something, only to either not do it, do a half-assed job, or paste a nice, shiney, PR-veneer over it so that it looks like they've done something. That "gold standard" shit is one example, but I'm concerned about others, possibly behind the scenes.

Eloriel

[punpirate]

13. For the naysayers....

Just ask yourselves what the issue is here. Two things--it's a paper-verified audit trail and open-source software, and state and federal law behind those two items, so that certification is more accurate and simpler and that states are forced to accept a paper trail as _the_ vote, rather than the electrons.

Okay, what are the objections? The manufacturers can pass on the costs of printers to the states and counties, especially since they've managed to get the feds to pay a substantial chunk of the equipment costs. So, what's the beef there?

Open source... oh, my god, we'll have to give up proprietary interests in this. Huh? Almost any elementary program to count and tally votes is going to do approximately the same thing as their software. What's unique in what they do? Nothing. A new algorithm to speed things up? Maybe. Who cares? It our vote, not theirs.

Here's a really good question for them: why doesn't the Federal government have its own hardware and software testing labs, completely independent of the private sector? The Feds are, in large part, paying for the equipment supplied to the states, so why aren't career government employees, with clear regulation and no ax to grind, the testers, instead of commercial ITAs which are answerable to no one?

Why? Because _someone_ doesn't want it that way, that's why. Who? Not sure, but just because there's private sector money involved doesn't make the current system right and proper and better.

Why is The Election Center involved in talks between manufacturers and lobbyists _at all_?

Why are these guys looking for PR and lobbying help when they've gotten some bad press, instead of addressing the problem directly? Why are they not protesting about being railroaded into ponying up a couple of hundred grand on short notice?

For all you folks who think this is over-hype, then you have not asked yourselves these questions, because you don't want to contemplate the answers.

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

16. You just brought up a point that is very important:

Several points, actually, and all are very good.

But here's a little nugget: If it's just an industry interviewing a lobbyist, why do they have to pony up $200,000 by this Friday? Think how bizarre that is. I've never seen anyone make a first approach to a whole industry and require a decision in five working days.

Note also, from the transcript: Some of the manufacturers point out that they are requiring the money without specifying the deliverables.

[trumad]

17. Questions about the 5 days

Anybody got Theory about that?

[Eloriel]

21. The only thing I can think of

is that the need IS urgent. They need to get on it if they're going to.

Of course, it's also an old selling trick: you gotta buy today, or the price will be higher tomorrow, or whatever the rationale is. Ingeneral, rushing the decision tends to make the decision fall more in the seller's favor than not.

Eloriel

[never cry wolf]

23. I am not sure of the chronology here,

I mean the timing of the meeting relative to Friday's meeting in which DA got a promise to be able to demonstrate the hackability of the system sometime this week. Will they be needing the PR boost to counter that demo maybe??

Alot of this is way over my head (the tech stuff anyway), but I do know you guys are doing a great job and something smells damn rotten. Thanks for your efforts and let me know if I can do anything to help.

[Eloriel]

27. Clarification

The two meetings on Friday were held more or less at the same time, and no one expected DA to show up and do her thing, so there's no causality between DA's meeting and the ITAA secret conference call. Sorry if I left the impression there was a connection.

The deal is that the industry knows that they're in trouble, and that this isn't going away any time soon. They may or may not be fully aware of what else can be revealed or can happen. The little incident where Gov. Perdue got caught on C-Span and ordered SoS Cox to do an investigation certainly got their attention. I'm SURE the SoS's office ran crying to Our Doug, as I like to call him.

In all probability, R. Doug Lewis filled the ITAA representative in on the details -- that the industry is fighting citizen activists who don't have any better sense than to try to actually save their democracy from the clutches of the military-industrial complex.

Eloriel

[Gordon25]

29. There's a bright side here

What you are saying, Red Eagle, is true. It is true of any wounded animal feeling cornered. But there is a bright side here.

These guys are shelling out two hundred thousand grand for the worst possible advice on how to handle the situation; advice from a group of self-annointed experts who are so ashamed of the work they do they can't call it what it is: lobbying.

What are they being advised to do? Boil it down and it is this: stonewall; spin; intimidate if necessary; do character assassination where effective; present a unified front; and "reengineer" things so the flaws aren't quite so obvious. They couldn't have gotten worse advice if we had been allowed to choose their lobbyists.

Imagine where we'd be if, instead, Diebold had come out and said: "We bought a company with a bad product which didn't meet the description of it we were given. We hereby award $1,000 Citizen Watchdog Awards to Bev Harris, DemActivist, and each of the other ten most active grassroots investigator for discovering this problem, researching its extent, and bringing it to our attention. We are preparing a ten million dollar r&d effort to fix all the problems."

It wouldn't matter what they did after something like that. With just the smallest of pr efforts they would essentially be untouchable in the public's perception. One open, honest admission can serve to hide a hundred future lies if one goes about it cleverly.

So, should we be prepared for the increasing intensity of the struggle? Yeah, and be on guard against the unexpected. But we should do it with smiles firmly fixed in place. They are playing by the Nixon playbook. All we have to do is continue doing what we are doing.These new revelations about their efforts to spin their way out of trouble are the signs we have been looking for. They've chosen their path, and as a result, we can't lose.

Gordon25