Reply #49: What do you think about this as a hypothesis?

[hedda_foil]

Please feel free to cut it to shreds.

Start with VoteHere's clarification of their relationship to Rubin ... notice how they describe themselves and consider it their current business plan.

Wednesday, August 20, 2003

Clarification of VoteHere's relationship to Avi Rubin and VoteHere's position in the election market

VoteHere is a supplier of e-voting technology to election providers and has established software licensing relationships with several election providers worldwide. Most recently, VoteHere announced a non-exclusive agreement to provide its patent-pending VHTi election verification technology to one of the leading voting machine manufacturers (http://www.votehere.net/news/archive03/080403.htm). VHTi is a software add-on to electronic voting machines that ensures that each voter can verify that their vote was cast-as-intended and any independent observer can verify that all ballots were counted-as-cast.

Avi Rubin was a member of VoteHere's technical advisory board for approximately two years. During that period, Dr. Rubin had very little direct interaction with VoteHere, although the company has many advisors with varying degrees of participation. Dr. Rubin is an independent researcher and certainly has not been a standard-bearer for VoteHere. In fact, during his technical advisory board tenure, he has been an outspoken critic of Internet voting in direct opposition to VoteHere's position. VoteHere is proud to associate itself with tough, independently-minded, distinguished researchers.

VoteHere had no knowledge that Dr. Rubin's team was conducting a review of Diebold's election system, nor that they were compiling and planning to publish a report. VoteHere became aware of the report when it was first referenced in the New York Times on July 24, 2003.

Because of the report, Dr. Rubin has assumed a new de facto role as an industry watchdog during this period of US election reform. It is appropriate and necessary that he resign from our technical advisory board, and has done so effective August 18, 2003. VoteHere never paid Dr. Rubin for any services, and in returning all stock options he has dissolved any financial benefit from his former VoteHere relationship.

VoteHere is a technology licensing company. VoteHere does not manufacture any type of voting machine, does not sell directly to governments, and has no plans to do so.

If you have any questions, please email [email protected].
-----------------

Hypothesis:

VoteHere provides the fallback position on the chessboard because of its connections to SAIC and the military-industrial complex as follows:

1. If SAIC again flunks Diebold as they apparently did in Oregon, their (connected) competitors will be tainted by inference as well.

2. ITAA's "blue ribbon" panel makes VoteHere's online verification "add-on" the de facto gold standard.

3. Dill has already agreed to host VoteHere's verification add-on on his website for everybody to pick apart.

4. Boneh, who is an associate of Dill's and has signed the petition, vouches for the wondrousness of the encryption technology. He is expected to sway Dill and the other sceptics. Stanford endorses the VoteHere "solution" or Boneh comes up with a way to make them look bad.

5. Diebold may or may get through this. They could always go with the VoteHere software, which is already certified in Georgia, on their machines, and keep their contracts, though.

6. VoteHere's verification add-on is used in all elections.

7. At some point, buyouts occur in the industry.

8. At a slightly later point, online voting becomes the standard.


Granted, it's just one of many scenarios they would have had gamed out. What do you think, guys?

3. All the voting machine companies pick up the VoteHere add on to "ensure" the credibility of their results.

4.