Wireless Plans for Precinct E-Vote Recording in L.A.

[JunkYardDogg]

Conny Dearest's Plans for her Inka Vote Upgrade include making the Precinct Based Ballot Reader-i.e. PBR unit- fully Wireless Functional
The PBR unit records the ballot images electronically, with 2-way interactive software, onto a harddrive, a removable USB Memory Storage Device, and a Flash Drive. The L.A. County RoV wants to make this unit Wireless.
From the RoV Addendum, Apr. 19, 2005:
"4. Enhancement of the InkaVote system will provide the ability to announce earlier
election night results by means of wireless transmission of unofficial results from
the County’s 4,500+ voting locations to the central tabulation facility in Norwalk
for immediate release to the public and campaigns."
see:
http://lavote.net/general/boardreports/PDFS/112-04192005.PDF
A group of us from CEPN went to the County HQ two weeks ago to view the Vendor's presentation of equipment to upgrade the InkaVote System. Thinking that this was going to be an InkaVote/Election Data vendor , we were not overly concerned.
Prior to entering the meeting room, we were forced to sign a Non-Disclosure form, agreeing NOT to discuss what we saw with Anyone after we left the meeting , including discussing with one another. Everybody refused to sign, we were told we wouldn't be permitted to enter the meeting unless we signed. We signed. Further, we were NOT allowed to get a copy of what we signed. We had to file Calif Public Records Requests in order to get a copy of what we signed.
Upon entering the meeting, much to our surprise, guess who the vendor was?
E S &S- they formed a joint venture with Inka Vote to supply the Equipment.
There were 6 Reps from E S &S giving the presentation. We were allowed to ask questions. At one point, the issue of Wireless
capability came up. The ES &S guy said he had the modem with him and offered to show it to us. Conny McCormack told him NOT to.
I questioned her and I told her did she not know that in the Apr 30,2004 decertification of the Diebold TSx, the SoS stated that Wireless and Internet connectivity was not permitted, as it was in violation of the California Constitution, Article 2.5. She said that she was aware of that, but she was going to submit it to the new SoS. ANYWAY.
Jim March and myself protested vehemently about not being permitted to see the modem.
We asked numerous questions, but we were really pissed.
The joint venture with Inka Vote follows a now familiar pattern of E S & S , buy out or co-opt your competition, as in AutoMark and now, maybe OVC.

[LightningFlash]

1. This is sickening.....McCormick needs to be fired.

She is advocating for allowing wireless connectivity in elections, in order to provide a wide open door for fraud. :mad:

I've never seen anything so disrespectful of democracy. She should have to step down period, if they allow wireless connected elections CA will be turned into a neo-con canard state.

[Wilms]

2. When is Conny up for re-election?

-on edit-

That's the thanks we get for voting for a supposed Dem.

[In Truth We Trust]

3. WTF?!?

[JunkYardDogg]

4. Plus-We were escorted out of the 7thFloor Lobby by 2 Sheriff Deputies

After the meeting ended, we talked to some people in the room.
One of our CEPN people was talking to the RoV Software Tech guy, he told her to go take Computers 101, he had all kinds of nasty things to say to her- so I walked up to him and asked
him if he has ever taken a computer and seen how easy it is to pick up Wireless computer transmissions. He didn't say an F'n word to me.
After that, we walked out to the RoV lobby, and 2 Sheriff Deputies showed up and stayed with us until we went downstairs and left the building. I told them that we were doing this so that Arnie could rig the elections and mess with their pensions. They were real nice to us.

[glitch]

5. So what is the penalty for a state official violating the state

constitution? Might be worth looking into...

"the SoS stated that Wireless and Internet connectivity was not permitted, as it was in violation of the California Constitution, Article 2.5. She said that she was aware of that, but she was going to submit it to the new SoS. ANYWAY."

[JunkYardDogg]

6. We are working on it

California Constitution Article 2.5 states:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in
this State may vote.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.


The Previous Calif Sec of State, Shelley, used this as basis to mandate anything which would jeopardize or compromise the security of
voting was a potential violation of Article 2.5

[glitch]

7. I want to see these people face personal jail time for intentionally

violating the constitution. Is that possible, or would they just get fired? Because fired isn't good enough.

[JunkYardDogg]

8. We'll see what happans in a couple of weeks

N/T

[Wilms]

9. kick n/t