Black Box: What happened at 3:31 p.m. in San Luis Obispo County?

[BevHarris]

And, calling Truth in All -- some reporters, and one of our leading computer scientists expressed an interest to me in getting a statistical analysis of the votes in this file v.s. the final tally. If interested, PM me.

3:31 p.m., 5 hrs before poll closing: Diebold voting machines “CALLED HOME”

What happened at 3:31 p.m. on election day in San Luis Obispo County California? A file from the Diebold stash examined by computer guy and voting activist Jim March, of Alameda County California, turns out to be from a real election, and it contains real votes. And it also contains a real problem for Diebold:

Jim March put the files on a web site: http://www.equalccw.com/dieboldtestnotes.html

For some reason, the Diebold optical scan machines in 57 precincts at once had an E.T. moment. They “called home” with election results while the election was still in progress, summing up the votes in 57 precincts, then tagged the file to a Diebold employee and placed it on a Diebold company web site.

This file is from the 2002 primary election in San Luis Obispo, California. It is dated March 5, 2002. It is date and time-stamped, and contains an internal audit log which confirms the date and time. It was saved as a “backup file” at exactly 3:31 p.m. on election day, about five hours before the polls closed.

This file contains a tabulation taken from 57 precincts. The votes in the file correspond with the final vote tally, which can be found on the San Luis Obispo County web site for that election -- but only about 40 percent of the votes had come in by 3:31 in the afternoon.

This file was put on the Diebold FTP site used by Diebold employees to transfer files. Why? It is against the law to count votes before the polls close.

(Was this file used for training?)
No one trains poll workers during election day. And why would you use real votes and a real file, during the middle of an election, for training?

(Was this file part of a “Logic and Accuracy test?”)
It was date and time-stamped at 3:31 on election day. L&A tests are done a few days before the election.

(Did they set the date forward for a Logic and Accuracy test?)
The audit log shows that this it was an election, not a test. When an L&A test is done, the machine is set into a test mode. The audit log reflects the test mode.

(Maybe the clock was off? It was for a different time zone? When it said 3:31 it was 8:31?)
Checking the date and clock is part of the election procedures, marked “important.” But more than that, after the polls closed there were more votes! About 18% of registered voters had cast votes as of 3:31 p.m., but the final number for the primary was about 35%. Therefore, the 3:31 vote tally was taken partway through the election.

(How do the votes correspond to the final vote tally?)
The voting pattern is essentially the same as the final tally, but there are fewer votes at 3:31 p.m.

(How did they add up all the votes in the middle of the day?)
The answer to this question raises more questions:

There are only three ways to get a central tabulation of 57 precincts in the middle of the day:
1) You can shut down the optical scan machine at each polling place, remove the vote database, which is stored on a memory card, get in your car, and drive the curvy California seacoast roads to the county office, give the card to the elections registrar, who will then load 57 precinct cards one by one onto the GEMS central counting system and tally them up. Then you can pick up the cards, get back in your car, and drive back to the polling place, restart the machines, and let people start voting again. Fifty-seven precincts would have to do this at once.

2) You can shut down the machines at 57 precincts, plug in a phone modem, and modem the results into the county server computer (which has the GEMS tabulation program on it), and add up the 57 precincts at 3:31 in the afternoon, giving you an illegal tally taken during the middle of an election.

3) While the machines are running, if they are connected to either a land line or wireless communication card, you can gain entry, either by an outside hack or by a Diebold technician using inside knowledge. You collect the data from the machines using remote access while the election is in progress, and tabulate it on your own computer using a copy of the GEMS program (readily available to anyone from the unprotected Diebold web site).

Although Diebold has claimed modem connections are one-way (but the machines must handshake and that creates a two-way pipeline for information), because it’s two-way, you can use the same method you used to gather the votes up to send data back into the voting machine. You can even erase the evidence that you accessed the machines.

But now Diebold and the county elections registrar claim that the optical scan machines are not hooked up to a modem at all. This is a recent development; interviews as late as February 2003 say the machines are equipped for remote communication, and so do the hardware and user manuals. However, if the machines aren’t hooked up, this leaves only option 1) Have all 57 precincts shut down the polls and drive in to the county office in the middle of the day.

(But there are paper ballots with an optical scan machine.)
Yes, but only one-half percent of the precincts in California are audited by looking at the paper ballot. It is illegal to count the paper ballots except in unusual circumstances, usually requiring a court order. Your chances of slipping by the paper ballot spot check are 99.5 percent. And if you do get audited, you can say it was a “computer glitch” and you’ll have the tech look into it. Enter the words “election” and “glitch” in Lexis-Nexis and you will find hundreds of “glitches,” many of which change the outcome of elections, even when the elections were not particularly close.

MORE

The tabulation was saved to a backup file labeled “ORIG” (original votes?). It was assigned a password and placed on a Diebold-owned web company web site. The password was: “Sophia.” Sophia Lee was a Diebold employee.

Pardon me, but what were they doing with this file again? Did Diebold steal voting information from San Luis Obispo County, or did the San Luis Obispo County Elections Registrar produce an illegal midday tally? Who did this? Was Sophia there that day? If these were the “original” votes what votes were put into the final votes? And perhaps most important: What mechanism was used to enable votes to migrate from 57 precincts into someone's central tally at 3:31 in the afternoon on election day?

[Howardx]

1. good god!

this bbv thing stinks worse with every passing day!

[grasswire]

2. it never ends, does it???

My God.

Paper and pencil, counted by hand. That's the only way.

[never cry wolf]

3. Great Find Bev

I hope the reporters will be interested!!

[AP]

4. This one really makes me sick to my stomach.

This is really disturbing.

[donsu]

5. kick

nt

[farmbo]

6. Is there a Prosecutor in that county with a Backbone?

This appears to be felony vote fraud if it occurred under scenario #2 or #3, irrespective of Diebold or the the County Board of Elections's "motives" for the early vote harvest. (And if scenario #1 actually occurred, the CBE ought to be jailed for utter stupidity).

Go Directly to Jail!

[Clete]

93. Predominantly Republican in this county.

I don't keep up with the local shmocal stuff that much here because then I have to listen the the local stations that are very right wing. All I do is gaag!

[Oilwellian]

7. Well I'll be....

This must be how Diebold can assure Bush electoral votes in 2004. :eyes:

[leftchick]

8. good lord this is frightening stuff...

it all just gets worse and worse. The Pandora's Black Box!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. The machine shouldn't even be hooked up to a phone line

The fact that these machines are allowed to communicate this information in the middle of an election day is grotesquely absurd.
The fact they are even designed to do this is an insult.
It's clear that the intent is to eliminate as many precinct workers as possible.
It's clear that the intent is to remove democracy, literally, from people's hands.

Could it be any more plain?

[Occulus]

10. kick

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. Kick

:kick:

[arcane1]

11. the plot thickens... and the recall is a month away!

November 2004 is going to be a very ugly day indeed

[Clete]

12. I live and VOTE in SLO County.

I find this disturbing. Is there anyway we can get them to count the paper ballots, meaning the ones we put in the scanning machine, to verify the result? I don't know how one goes about requesting an audit on a vote that far back. Also, I estimate that about half of the people vote by absentee ballot in this county, which could also affect the results.

[AP]

15. Get on the phone with Reg of Voters for your county

and ask some questions.

[NoKingGeorge]

14. Sophia prosecutable???

Would Sophia be open to prosecution? Would the folks at the central voting office be prosecutable for having other than state officials in the voting tabulation room?
Maybe the 'Sophia's' of Diebold would be less than happy with their job if it involved federal crimes....

[Occulus]

16. I wonder

how we can get these files on a faster server. I've tried to download them; can't yet because there's so much traffic. That's to be expected, since the page itself is 'hot' (posted today).

I'd very much like to demonstrate this to some of my friends who believe these machines are secure, when in fact they appear to have been designed solely to rig elections.

oh, and... :kick:

[BevHarris]

22. E-mail Jim March

This is one of the gutsiest fighters for the Black Box issue -- there may be demo CDs available. He is quite literally saying to Diebold: Come and get me, I can't wait to kick your ass in court.

Folks, the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation.

This is quite literally the Boston Tea Party all over again. I commend every one of you who will take the step to DEMONSTRATE this stuff to your local reporters and election officials. Jim March's site has a vote fraud demo kit using real Diebold files, with easy to understand instructions and installation software of the real stuff.

However, understand that in the bizarro down-the-rabbit-hole America we live in today, you can walk in and demonstrate that a crime is taking place with our vote, and it will be YOU that gets in trouble.

Of course, if 100 people do it at once, or 1,000, then we have the Boston Tea Party. And we will massively publicize any attempt at retaliation towards citizens who are educating the media and elected officials about the real risks posed by these systems.

Is it worth it?

Bev

[shanti]

23. bev, is this what happened

to your cohort, the one that challenged the people in GA about hacking? did this take place?

[BevHarris]

30. Oh that one is still heating up.

Watch the news.

[never cry wolf]

31. Hunh????

I'll need DUers to keep me up to date. 80 hour weeks keep me away from the tube.

[shance]

98. Whats his email address Bev?

n/t

[BevHarris]

117. Check your PM

Folks, if you sign in to the forum at http://www.blackboxvoting.org you'll find Jim March there too.

He's a Republican, or a libertarian, not sure which, and a gun lobbyist, and he was discussing his views in DU but got kicked out.

The reason we also have BlackBoxVoting.org is that this is a truly nonpartisan issue, and you get all political persuasions there, from Greens to Republicans, from libertarians to socialists.

Therefore, I'm not trying to drive anyone from DU (love it here!) but certain activism on BBV must be done in a multipartisan way.

Bev

[Zhade]

109. Is it worth it?

HELL YES it's worth it. People have died for the right to vote, and I know we're not going to let those sacrifices be in vain.

Those bastards are going to learn that it's not cool to fuck with our rights.

[TryingToWarnYou]

17. So have you notified the media?

How about the news stations?
How about the Elections Office for SLO County?

Make them explain how they got the tally and why.

[Occulus]

18. Oh, I'm sure

Bev et al are right on top of this.

[Clete]

20. Even if Bev hasn't, I have.

eom

[Nottingham]

19. Look at the Time it was 3:31 again 33rd Degree FreeMasons

at work!

:bounce:

This is the Extreme Evil taking away the American Vote from the Voter

just like Terminator 3 the Machines take over! what happened to humans voting for their candidates!

[shanti]

25. wooo!

:tinfoilhat:

[AP]

21. Who ended up winning this election? What were the tallies?

Is the historical data available on the web site.

Any mathematicians want to compare the data that year to the previous elections?

Perhaps a trend toward more votes for Dems was broken that year.

[BevHarris]

27. This web site has the final tallies for this election

http://www.sloclerkrecorder.org/elections/march02.htm

Statistical analyses wanted.

[Walt Starr]

24. QUICK! Somebody sniff this gun!

It looks like it may be smoking!

[shance]

26. Legal methods to stop the October vote.

Seems to me I read of legislation/statute regarding voting machinery that if it is not up to working 'standards', the election cannot take place. Actually there were a few statutes.

This obviously reveals that this precinct perhaps committed major fraud. Looks like this could CERTAINLY be included under voting machinerys working standards if it is vulnerable to outside manipulation.

Any attorneys here?

[seemslikeadream]

28. I just love Jim's message to Diebold

You are cordially invited to bite me. Bring it on. Make my day.

You made my day Jim.

[BevHarris]

132. "You are cordially invited to bite me. Bring it on. Make my day."

It bears repeating, doesn't it?

If there are those of courage who will mirror Jim's site linked above, jump into the fray (but do so knowing that your decision may be considered an act of civil disobedience.)

I think what Jim March has done here is nothing short of heroic. NO ONE has been able to come up with a single plausible reason as to how that data migrated from optical scan machines in 57 locations onto a Diebold FTP site, tagged with the name of Diebold employee "Sophia", in the middle of an election.

Thanks, Jim.

[Generic Other]

29. Explains why Bush seemed unconcerned about Florida vote

He was just soooo sure his brother would deliver the electoral vote.

I wonder how many times the votes had already been "counted and recounted" by the time the Gore people requested the first recount?

[BevHarris]

33. Re: San Luis Obispo and Florida 2000

I've been told that Diebold optical scan machines (then called Global Election Systems optical scan machines) counted 40 percent of the Florida vote in 2000.

They were saying "look over here!" at the punch cards. Maybe there is a reason that certain people were terrified of a statewide hand count, ya think?

My county uses the same system as San Luis Obispo.

Bev

[never cry wolf]

35. And why the immediate call went

out for all those loudmouthed brown suit reinforcements.

[qb]

I thought we were safe in MN with optical scan machines

The vendors are: Election Systems & Software and Global Election Systems.

[BevHarris]

51. About your vendors: Global Election Systems is Diebold

and ES&S optical scan machines were developed by current Diebold Elections president Bob Urosevich and his brother Todd; Bob runs Diebold and Todd is an exec with ES&S.

[qb]

62. Thanks for the info.

I guess it's time to do a little checking in my neck of the woods. We've got our own Katherine Harris here (Mary Kiffmeyer). She did her damndest to deny replacement ballots to absentee voters after Wellstone's death.

[AP]

84. Can we get a list of the GOOD and the BAD companies and machines?

I don't want to complain to my registrar and then end up with something just as bad or worse (like the switch form punch card to machines).

[DEMActivist]

87. Until we can get

a viable certification process and/or open source software, there are no good companies.

We can't possibly know if the software is counting our votes properly unless it is done with an open, honest and visual process with eyes to the source code that runs the machine.

Then we can move to hardware hacks.

[BevHarris]

90. Here are three companies that have touch screens/paper trails

Avante
AccuPoll
Populex

Avante has been in action the longest, and originally designed their machines with a paper trail. They focus their attention on three things that, in my opinion, put them ahead of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia if the latter companies add a paper trail:

1) Voter psychology: Attention given to dummy-proofing the voting process to reduce do-overs when voter goes to verify paper ballot and realizes they missed a race. Avante spent some time on this issue to minimize the do-overs.

2) Accuracy: Realizing that paper counts that don't match machines would give election workers conniption fits, they developed a battery of self-tests to get accuracy as close to 100% as possible.

3) Dummy and tamper-proofing: The voter views his paper ballot behind Plexiglass, and it drops directly into the sealed ballot box without people handling it. This also eliminates the argument that people with neurological disabilities will have difficulty handling the paper ballot.

By the way, they use headphones for blind voters, and there is a provision then for the headphones to read off the scanned version of the paper verification ballot.

AccuPoll is open source, a good advantage. Populex is new, but is also designed for paper ballot verification with a touch screen.

Avante is farther along in certification, but the others are getting there. Avante is used in California and now, Connecticut, but its certification has been mothballed and stonewalled in some states (like mine).

Bev

[BevHarris]

118. Revise that. Just heard -- Frank Carlucci, Carlyle Group is in one

Populex is new, no one seems to know too much about it. Somehow this new kid on the block just got the contract for Illinois. Frank Carlucci is on its board and is an advisory (???)

And one of the advisory groups for AccuPoll has James Baker III on it.

Just looked -- Populex uses a bar code card ballot. Question is: Can you READ YOUR CHOICES on the ballot or does it only contain a bar code?

Bar code only -- no dice. Bar code plus the ability to read your choices, a step in the right direction, but only if the bar code scan is done by a generic commercial product not made by Populex.

If the whole deal is made by Populex, including ballots without human-readable selections and a scanner by Populex, no dice. Hmm...always a new wrinkle.

Bev

[ewagner]

122. I still remember

that scene of Bush and how smug he was. My wife saw it too and said it still sends chills up her spine.

Now....now we know why he was so f&$#@^g smug!

[Cocoa]

32. Didn't Bush's man lose in this primary?

My understanding is that Bush took the extraordinary step of backing a particular candidate, who ended up losing in the primary, and that it represented a losing gamble for Bush, and that the stakes were high from his point of view.

If I'm right about this, then what would it mean that that primary was rigged. Would it mean that BBV is an anti-Bush conspiracy? But that wouldn't fit in with the ties between Bush and Diebold.

[never cry wolf]

34. IMHO

This was just a trial run by Diebold, trying out the system.

[BevHarris]

37. Huh?

Then why did it match final results?

Got this in my inbox today from one of the famous guys you've all heard of:

"...do the numbers in this file match the percentages in the final tally exactly? That would be extremely suspicious. That is, if each number in the final tally is 18/35 greater than the number in this preliminary tally (those being the percentages of registered voters represented by this intermediate tally), then something is wrong. If you take a random sample of 18 out of 35 marbles, where each marble is either red or blue, the fraction of the marbles that are blue in your sample will be similar to, but very unlikely to be exactly the same as the actual fraction of the 35 marbles that are blue."

This is why we need a more comprehensive statistical analysis. There will also be some differences in demographics between people who vote during the day and people who vote after work.

[never cry wolf]

41. Sorry

I just don't see what they may have to gain out of a primary election other than to putz around and make sure their system is working properly. I am not saying they didn't mess around. BUT, as always I defer to your judgement as I am really just a rank amateur and observer here.

I'll be quiet and watch until I feel I really have something to contribute. Thanks for posting this!!!

[Occulus]

46. Here's what they gained.

It was a field test. They wanted to know if indeed their rigging would work. What better way to throw us all off the scent (we weren't even really on it yet back then, either) than to rig it against those they are really working for?

I don't smell just a rat, I smell a sewer....

[DEMActivist]

53. Besides....

if it were an across the board, stunning upset, people WOULD have started asking questions.

That was the single most important thing to avoid.

[BevHarris]

54. NO! post away Steviet -- didn't mean to jump on you

I used to think the same thing about the primaries, until one of the activists pointed out that the most dangerous part of all is tinkering with the primaries -- because then, if our candidates are selected for us in both parties, even if we win we lose.

Sorry. A little less caffeine might be a good plan for me.

Bev

[never cry wolf]

64. I didn't take it like that at all.

One of my best assets is knowing my limitations, I don't presume to know 2% of what you do on this issue and I was just thinking out loud sorta.

AND, you are exactly right, as I can now see. That is what the Nixon dirty tricksters did in '71 and '72. Rigged it do they would be facing McGovern. I had forgotten about that. Seems as if it may be an old MO dressed up in new technology.

[shance]

66. What you said was important and very helpful Bev***

Dont ever apologize for that wise intuition and incredible intelligence of yours.

Thanks for this information.

[BevHarris]

36. Let me tell you about "Bush's man" (Bill Simon) and what happened

Candidate for governor Bill Simon (who was the primary owner of Wyle Labs, the voting machine certifier, until he sold it to a private holding group a couple years ago) was convicted of fraud and ordered to pay something like $78 million in restitution.

In a very very speedy appeal, remarkable for its speed, really, a month later his conviction was overturned. Because he was innocent? No. Because new evidence surfaced? No. Because, the judge said, Bill Simon's partner was also a criminal and no one could figure out who the biggest criminal was.

Simon, the son of former Secretary of the Treasurer William E. Simon, is apparently such a political doofus, not to mention having these inconvenient criminal convictions popping up while he's running for office, that even the Republican Party decided they weren't sure they wanted anything to do with him.

Bev

[Cocoa]

40. but Bush opposed Simon in this primary

Bush's man was Riordan in the election in question.

So if this vote was rigged, it was rigged against Bush. :wtf:

http://www.gray-davis.com/simon/republicans.asp

Karl Rove, Senior Adviser to the President for Strategic Initiatives
“…Rove and Bush backed Los Angeles Mayor Richard J. Riordan in the Republican gubernatorial primary -- a no-no in itself -- only to see their handpicked choice perform abominably as a candidate and lose convincingly to neophyte William E. Simon Jr. Rove declines to discuss this fiasco for quotation, but his analysis tracks with that offered by friends, adversaries, and independent observers. It goes something like this: Simon and California Secretary of State Bill Jones were unelectable; Riordan's personal fortune, name recognition, and moderate stances on issues made him the only viable GOP candidate against Democrat Gray Davis…”
National Journal
April 26, 2002

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. But notice we now have another election...so what

[Cocoa]

55. how does rigging the election against Bush make sense?

Your post was very short, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Bush deliberately undermined his own candidate so that Simon would win the primary, then go on to lose the general election, setting up the recall vote which is what was the real desired result?

I realize that this is not what you meant, but I don't see how rigging the election against Bush's candidate is rational for Bush.

[DEMActivist]

57. Simple, really...

It avoided the questions we are asking now.

They could NOT generate a stunning upset without creating questions they were unprepared to answer.

Same thing in Georgia...how did a DEMOCRATIC Lt. Governor WIN and the DEMOCRATIC Governor lose????????

[Cocoa]

60. I hate to use the "C" word

just because it's so loaded, but that answer is a classic conspiracy theorist's answer to results that don't fit the theory: "they didn't want to be too obvious."

[DEMActivist]

63. Oh, please....

ran out of answers to tough questions did you?

Pathetic.

Quite an attempt to avoid the REAL issue in this stunning thread as well.

So, Cocoa, tell me...how DO you think that file got onto the Diebold FTP site?

[BevHarris]

59. Good point, Cocoa. But notice that I generally avoid

focusing on a theory as to who is behind vote-rigging, or assigning it all to Bush or Republicans. I really didn't pay attention to who Bush backed, but I'll certainly take your word for it.

There are definite problems with Republican conflict of interest in Diebold and ES&S management and ownership, but what I think is of more interest is actual discrepancies in the voting software and files.

In fact, rather than focusing on who would benefit from having this rigged, I think the most important thing to look at is how those votes got onto that GEMS machine?

Because frankly, the most logical method is that they were uploaded while the election was active. If we find the mechanism for that, we have something very important.

Bev

[Cocoa]

74. You have been suggesting who's behind the vote rigging

In fact that is your product, a narrative and a cast of villains and heroes. The villains you've named by name, and the heroes are you and the "BBV Team." It's a very dramatic narrative, and the future of the world depends on the outcome.

The more sensible position you claim to be taking now seems closer to my own views, and closer to the way Dill and Rubin seem to be approaching it. Rubin said that it was "ludicrous" to suggest the flaws he found were created deliberately.

[DEMActivist]

75. So, Cocoa...

tell me.....HOW DID THE SLO FILE GET ON THE DIEBOLD FTP SITE?

[Cocoa]

80. I don't know

how could I possibly know that?

[DEMActivist]

82. Well, then...

I must question your appearance in the thread at all.

So, why did you reply to this thread if you weren't willing to discuss the TOPIC AT HAND?

Try to stay on topic, Cocoa. The topic is.....HOW DID THAT SLO FILE GET ON THE DIEBOLD SITE?

Do you have any ideas on that subject? Do you care? Is your curiosity about it peaked at all?

[Cocoa]

94. stay on topic?

you mean not point out obvious inconsistencies in the story?

No thanks, this is a discussion board, not a one-way outlet for one message.

DEMActivist, I never see you posting in non-BBV threads. Are you interested in politics?

[BevHarris]

77. Cocoa diversion #2297a: Let's not talk about how the precinct files

got onto the GEMS computer in the middle of the day. You want to talk politics.

I want to talk about this: How did the votes from 57 precincts get onto a GEMS county computer at 3:31 in the afternoon.

And what does the file name "ORIG" mean? "Original votes?"

Bev

[shance]

78. Facts are such a trivial matter to Cocoa......

But you already knew that.

:)

[Cocoa]

83. not a diversion

I don't talk about those details because I don't know anything about them, and couldn't possibly say anything meaningful about them.

My comment was about what I did know, which was that Simon won that primary and that that result doesn't fit in with the overarching BBV narrative.

Yes I realize you deny that that is the narrative, but I think this denial is just ridiculous. In fact that narrative is my main complaint with BBV.

[Occulus]

88. Wow.

Are you, um, being paid to do try to distract us?

Is that what's going on?

[Cocoa]

96. do a search on my name

notice that I post in many different topics, BBV and non-BBV.

Now do a search on BevHarris or DemActivist.

Tell me who's more likely to be a shill for some special interest?

[Occulus]

120. *snort* Fine, I'll bite.

Yes, they are acting in the special interest of causing corporate and legal pain to companies that manufacture electronic voting machines which have security flaws so pervasive that it appears to be part of an overall pattern fashioned to tamper with the process of recording, storing, and tabulating the vote of the people.

How's that?

[TrogL]

124. What special interest?

What, exactly, do you think BevHarris and DEMActivist are trying to accomplish here?

[Cocoa]

130. I don't know

maybe they're out only to do good for the country. You may not be surprised to hear that I doubt this.

Regarding specific guesses about what I think their real interest is, I have a number of theories but none of them is worth anything because the fact is I have no clue.

[Eloriel]

139. You got it right: You are indeed CLUELESS

I talk to DEMActivist every single day, usually several times a day. And SHE talks to Bev Harris every single day, usually several times a day. I have on occasion been in a 3-way conversation with them. I can tell you with absolute certainty that neither one has any ulterior motive or self-serving hidden agenda in this entire issue. Both have pretty much put the rest of their lives on hold during all this, and have made other personal sacrifices aplenty.

Your damning innuendo is disgusting beyond my ability to express, and beneath even you.

It has ALWAYS been beyond me why you especially are so willing to give up the one thing on which our democracy depends utterly and totally -- our vote -- merely because you seem to have some personal issues, suspicions, etc. with Bev and perhaps DA.

It has ALWAYS been beyond me why you automatically, in knee-jerk fasion, take up for and defend corporate interests which have some of the most red-flag-raising ties and connections as can be found in any industry anywhere.

It has ALWAYS been beyond me why you automatically dismiss tips and clues pointing to malfeasance by these same corporations, while jumping to their defense and/or detracting from Bev and DA and others. ESPECIALLY since, by your own admission here, you don't seem to even understand what the hell is going on.

Cocoa, hear this: Our vote is literally the sine qua non (the "without which not") of democracy itself. If we can't be assured that each and every vote will be counted AND counted accurately, we do not HAVE a democracy. We have a dictatorship posing as a democracy, camouflaged by a meaningless ritual of going to the polls.

I think Bev herself has said that vote fraud will always be with us. But we do NOT have to let that battle go unfought, and if we don't fight computerized vote-fraud-opportunity (if not established fact), then we will hand them the surest, easiest way to steal our elections NATIONALLY. That means we WILL lose our democracy, and it's just around the corner.

Just take the case of Chuck Hagel, for example:

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.com, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."

What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company.

…Between them, Hagel and Chambliss' victories sealed Republican control of the Senate.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/corporate_crime/doc1126.html

Hagel has said he wants to run for President in 2008.


Wake UP, Cocoa! Do you REALLY want these thoroughly Republican-aligned companies picking the Democratic nominee? Do you REALLY want to see them steal the California electoral votes in 2004 as they tried to steal Florida's in 2000? Do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush, and then the Bush Family's pick after that, and after that and after that?

WAKE UP, COCOA!

Give up your personal dislike or hatred or suspicions or jealousy of Bev and DA. THEY are not the enemies here.

And yeah, Bev has a book to sell. Whoopeeedoo. That's assuming she ever gets it done, and doesn't get arrested under DMCA as soon as it's published. Heaven forbid she should make a buck after all this work and effort, and enduring purposely hurtful remarks from the likes of you.

Eloriel

[stickdog]

158. You are. Obviously.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I see 'em.

Otherwise, exactly what is your motivation for constantly defending the indefensible concerning these fraud-made-easy machines -- typically using nothing more than transparently diversionary sophistry?

[shance]

101. Amazing isnt she/he?

You say black and she/he says WHITE on every single little fraction of a thing.

I bet you are a BLAST at a party Cocoa.

[Cocoa]

110. it's he

and it's called being stubborn, which goes both ways.

[aquart]

149. And which party would that be, Cocoa?

Disrupters naturally post on many different threads. There are so many leaks in George's dykes, they're running out of thumbs.

[Occulus]

125. So all these flaws

which just happen to provide multiple methods for invisibly hacking the vote are unintentional, and the overall pattern of flaws that allows this to happen is purely coincidence?

Is that right?

[Cocoa]

131. that's what Avi Rubin said

he said any suggestion that it's deliberate is ludicrous.

It makes sense to me that it could be incompetence.

In my own company, we've shipped out software with flaws that were accidental. Occasionally clients have accused us of doing it deliberately, but almost always it is an honest error.

Anyway, the point is that it's entirely conceivable to me that it was not deliberate, and that's backed up by the guy who did the Johns Hopkins study.

On top of that, logically the burden of proof is on the accusers.

Excuse me again, but I have to say that this is another of the conspiracy theorist's tricks, to demand that people prove their theory isn't true, as in "Can you PROVE John Kerry will not pursue the secret Skull and Bones agenda of evil?"

[Devils Advocate NZ]

136. Huh? I'm not buying anything from your company!

In my own company, we've shipped out software with flaws that were accidental. Occasionally clients have accused us of doing it deliberately, but almost always it is an honest error.

Almost? So sometimes, on very rare occasions it's a dishonest error?

When you ship your products, do you refuse to allow the client to see the source? Because that is what the electronic voting companies are doing. Remember, the people are the clients, and they are being denied (although Diebold fucked up) that right.

By the way, how can anyone say that something is LUDICROUS? Is he saying it is impossible that anyone would want to rig an election and thus it is impossible that these machines were intentionally flawed?

What evidence does he have that no-one would want to do it, and thus no-one could have done it? Or is he just making a blind proclamation and expecting us to take his word for it?

Who is the fool here? The person who seeks evidence or the person who takes ANYONES word that something is or is not so?

You say that it is possible that it is accidental, and thus you will go with that version. How is that any less ludicrous than saying that it is possible and going with that version?

You have no evidence it was an accident, yet you assume that that MUST be what it is. In other words blind faith.

People like Bev however say that it is possible that intentional fraud is being committed and are looking for evidence of it, and what do you do? Do you say, good, find the evidence if it is there and make your case? No, you say "it is ludicrous, stop looking, what is your motive for doing this?"

Can you not see how this makes you look? Are you interested in the truth, or would you rather stick with your unsupported belief and shut down all investigation into other possibilities?

I tell you what Cocoa, if you think it is all a fools errand, why not just ignore us "Conspiracy Theorists" and stick to the posts you ARE concerned about? Is there something threatening to you about us "Conspiracy Theorists" fooling ourselves? Why do you care if we waste our time on such ludicrous ideas?

Anyone would think you work for Diebold or something. Why not just let us wallow in our fantasies and bugger off?

[Zhade]

164. I just learned something interesting...

(Maybe someone can look into this more, as I need to go to bed!)

Avi Rubin used to work for Bellcore, now known as Telcordia Technologies.

Guess who owns Telcordia?

SAIC.

This information comes from the Bellcore Alumni page linked at Rubin's site.

It may be nothing, and then again it may be something.

[Eloriel]

144. I believe you've been corrected on this several times

Will this time stick? -- cause you're beginning to look foolish:

that's what Avi Rubin said
he said any suggestion that it's deliberate is ludicrous.



Avi Rubin and his group saw only a small portion of the total code. They saw the "upfront" portion -- not the guts of it. (Hpefully someone will come along and tell you the technical term for the part they saw.)

AND, the entire report covers security flaws and potential breaches, NOT the possibility of malicious code intended to be used for vote tampering. IIRC, he didn't address that issue at all. Nor could he have, since he didn't examine ALL the code.

Eloriel

[Occulus]

155. Ok, let me ask the question differently, then.

Who benefits if it is deliberate?
How did these companies get their money?

But, to directly address your concerns, if I find a flaw enabling a flaw to exploit a hole and it's all geared toward accessing or altering the vote count, I'm not supposed to worry that it just might be deliberate? Are you trying to say that involving this very serious issue, it would be unreasonable for me to assume that there was malfeasance and take appropriate action to at least ensure the fundamental issues (such as a paper confirmation) are addressed, even over the objections of the company in question?

Well, the lights are on, and I knocked a couple times, but....

[Eloriel]

133. And Rubin was absolutly right

but here's the part you're missing (and keep missing):

FOR THE VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE ENTIRE SOFTWARE PACKAGE THAT GROUP EXAMINED.

Eloriel

[Cocoa]

135. he said "ludicrous"

I didn't hear that qualification you have in bold caps there. Where did that come from?

[Eloriel]

145. It comes from common sense, for one thing

40,000 files (hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lines of code), 4 people, 4 weeks. Couldn't happen. Common sense.

But it also comes from private conversations with Bev and DA -- the Hopkins Heroes were pointed in one direction, and they took it and ran with it. They did NOT examine all of the code.

Eloriel

[stickdog]

157. The villains are the riggers, potential riggers, the idiots

who don't care about the clear potential for rigging, and establishment minions who minimize the undeniably disconcerting problems with these fraud-made-easy machines.

Could you please enlighten us once and for all which of these camps you belong to?

[hannah]

47. Jeb!

The last election of Jeb Bush was called way before the precincts were closed. I voted at 4:30pm, and by 5Pm msnbc fox and others said Jeb won buy 12 percentage points. Polls were not even closed. The whole Bush family was in Miami waiting for the party... It was disgusting,
I live in West Palm Beach and have had enough of the the Bush family fraud...........

[hunter]

38. Jim March wouldn't mind snagging some Democrats...

No, not at all.

:evilgrin:

[DEMActivist]

39. Me either

If they are complicit in stealing our votes, I'd like to snag a few myself.

And, if you don't want to, there's something wrong with your thought processes.

This issue is NON-partisan. We should be willing to prosecute the story regardless of who is involved.

Shouldn't we?

You think it's OK for Democrats to rig elections, but not republicans? I know that's not what you are saying, right?

[Walt Starr]

42. I don't care if it turns out Howard Dean is pulling the BBV strings

If there is criminal activity going on, I want heads to roll regardless of party affiliation!

[Eloriel]

45. Me too, but

uh, couldn't you have used a different example?

;-)

Eloriel

[Walt Starr]

48. Well, I figured I'd use the Democrat I support the most currently

as an example of how bipartisan this issue really is.

;)

[Cocoa]

44. well that totally contradicts most of the BBV rhetoric

clearly the BBV "meme" is that BBV is a republican conspiracy, specifically a Bush conspiracy. Pretty silly to deny it, just look through this thread.

[DEMActivist]

49. By YOUR intrepretation

Sorry, you can't define mine. I do that.

You're barking up the wrong tree, yet again, Cocoa.

[Occulus]

50. I don't think any of us care

WHO is responsible, D or R. The fact that it appears to have connections to the Pugs is merely a convienient coincidence; I'd want *any* politicians involved out of office immediately. Dem or Pug.

[qb]

56. For the most part it is

Questions:
1. Who owns the machines?
2. Who has benefitted (contrary to pre-election polling data)?

There's nothing wrong with following the evidence. The main goal is still accurate vote counts.

[BevHarris]

61. Actually, you are assigning your own BBV "meme" -- the real one:

Because after all, my publisher coined the term "Black Box Voting" and it is I who wrote the thing (which is slightly stuck in legal, now, folks, should wedge free soon)

the meme is not that Republicans are rigging elections.

The point is that these machines are not secure and we must demand three things:

1) A voter verified paper ballot, which is an evidence trail and the only way to properly audit the machines

2) Robust auditing using the voter verified paper ballot to check the machine tallies

3) Removal of remote access capability from all voting machines and their ancillaries

One tactic used by propagandists is to redefine the issue, then argue against their own (redefined) issue.

My issues are 1) 2) and 3) above. I can't speak for others.

Bev

[DEMActivist]

65. How right you are.

One tactic used by propagandists is to redefine the issue, then argue against their own (redefined) issue.

And you can see it right here in this thread. A deliberate attempt is being made to redirect the actual question from "How DID that SLO file get on Diebold's site?" to "Why would they want to lose the election for a republican?"

[Cocoa]

79. how wrong she is

BBV actually goes far beyond those reasonable-sounding points listed there.

Here's a snip from Scoop's "first volley" story:

<snip>

Evidence Of Motive

This is probably the easiest part of this puzzle to get your head around. The motivation of the Republican Party in general and the current administration in particular to gain ever greater amounts of power - by whatever means possible and damn the consequences - is evidenced most recently in the Supreme Court's partisan appointment of George Bush Jr. as President, the attempt to recall California Governor Gray Davis, and the Ken Starr investigation and attempted impeachment of President Clinton.

Evidence Of Opportunity ,

Republican connected control over the major election systems companies in the United States has been thoroughly researched.

Bob Urosevich, CEO of Diebold Election Systems is also the founder of ES&S, a competing voting machine company. Together these two companies are responsible for tallying around 80% of votes cast in the United States. Also significant, from what we can determine about the architecture of the software, is that its basic structure was specifically a creation of Mr Urosevich's company I-Mark.


more...

[DEMActivist]

81. Ahhh, I can see clearly now..

Several things:

1. You really, truly can't handle the FACTS when presented. So, tell me, which part of those quotes you supply are untrue?

2. You still try to divert the thread from the issue.

And I ask again.

So, Cocoa, tell me....HOW DID THAT SLO FILE GET ON THE DIEBOLD FTP SITE?

[Cocoa]

89. my answers

1.I'm not saying any of it is untrue. Those quotes are to show that BBV is about republicans stealing the elections, contrary to the claimm that Bev just made that it's not about who's doing it.

2.This is a discussion board. Everyone has issues.

Regarding how that file got on that site, my answer is of course I don't know.

[DEMActivist]

92. OK, cool...

Issue #1: Scoop stated those facts which you are attributing to Bev. Nice try.

Issue #2: If you're not going to stay on topic, start your own thread with your "issues" in it according to the DU rules.

So, getting back on topic....why are you uncurious how the law was broken to get the SLO file on the Diebold FTP site?

[Cocoa]

105. my answers

#1. Scoop actually didn't present them as proven facts, he presented them as a picture of what may have potentially happened, as an outline of what the problem is.

Yes, I attributed it to Bev. That's the story she presented as the "first volley" after weeks of hype. I think it's more than fair to associate that story with her. After all, she did get showered with a lot of praise for making it happen.

#2. There's no such thing as staying on topic. If you think I'm disrupting, hit alert, but I'm not disrupting. I'm arguing a very valid and relevant point and doing it nicely.

[BevHarris]

115. No, and damn it, quit attributing other people's quotes to me

Two stories appeared that day:

Inside a U.S. Voting Machine (that was mine, and the story to which you refer)
and
Bigger than Watergate (That was Alastair Thompson of Scoop.)

You have now successfully hijacked this thread. It is about issues with transfer of voting data that is unauthorized from a county in California, and you are discussing a Scoop Media story from New Zealand posted July 8, and misattributing that to boot.

I'm not going to respond to you at all again unless you are at least halfway on topic. Hopefully no one else will either. Yep. You've made your employers happy today?

Bev

[Cocoa]

126. I attributed it correctly

I said "here's a snipped from Scoop's 'first volley' story."

Yet another obviously false statement. No wonder you don't want people to challenge you. If I wanted to make obviously false statements I would rather people not say anything about it.

And hey, I think it's pretty reasonable to hold you to what's in that story of Scoop's. I mean after all, you did build up huge hype about your smoking gun story, for weeks, which culminated in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=6502

That thread is called "the first volley is out" and it starts with "go here" directing people to the very story that I quoted above.

So now you're distancing yourself from it?

[TrogL]

128. Your snippet was ascribed to "she"

Being Bev.

Bev didn't write it.

Get over it.

[Cocoa]

134. ridiculous

You people are playing games. The idea that I somehow misattributed the Scoop story to Bev, first because I clearly did not. The posts are right there where I say it's from Scoop's story.

Second, Bev clearly is pushing the ideas in that story. It's so insane to deny that BBV is about a conspiracy. It doesn't only push that angle, but it pushes it strongly and repeatedly.

And now denying it! What chutzpah!

And then failing to be able to explain how this election's results make sense in the light of the BBV theory, you're all turning on me for "hijacking her thread" or misattributing her, or being a mole for Diebold, or whatever other nonsense you can pull out of whatever orifice you're getting this stuff from.

[DEMActivist]

138. Oh, poor Cocoa...

so misunderstood and picked on.

Well, Cocoa, I know you've been trying to avoid this all day long, but what we have here is the PROOF you have been begging for all these months.

We have before you an election file, captured on primary election day 2002, sitting on the Diebold FTP site, marked as the ORIGINAL FILE, with a password of the name of a Diebold employee.

We've offered up the proof of illegal activities on the part of Diebold, with collusion of elections officials, and all you want to discuss is why the republican lost.

You see, we've just crucified your "conspiracy" label with the PROOF you have requested over and over and over right here on DU.

As much as you'd like to change the subject to something else, you can't.

[BevHarris]

140. You nailed it. Oof. They've been asking for proof --

We have before you an election file, captured on primary election day 2002, sitting on the Diebold FTP site, marked as the ORIGINAL FILE, with a password of the name of a Diebold employee.

Ahem.

[DEMActivist]

141. ROFL...

let's try to be polite....

I think we shattered Cocoa's world today. :evilgrin:

[BevHarris]

85. "Don't look there -- look here!" How did 57 precincts get to the county

at 3:31 in the afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to launch your own thread to discuss a Scoop Media editorial, Cocoa, but the title of this thread is about:

What really happened in San Luis Obispo County at 3:31 p.m. on election day?

That is the issue. So what is your theory, Cocoa, about how the votes from 57 precincts got tabulated five hours before the polls closed?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Bev

[Cocoa]

100. for argument's sake, let's say it was fraud

I don't know if it was fraud, but I'll grant you that part.

So this is where my point comes in, how does it fit in with all the rest of BBV? I think it's an obvious and very relevant question, and I'm getting a lot of different answers that aren't satisfying:

-- "it was just a test run." But why would they do this in such a high-profile and high-stakes election?

-- "the dems are in on it too." But Simon is not a dem, he's a republican.

-- "it's not about who did it." But actually it IS about who did it.

-- "stop changing the subject." What is the subject? Must everyone say the same thing, "wow this is scary"?

[stickdog]

159. Let's say, who cares?

We don't want fraud-made-easy machines counting our votes.

Why do you?

Why does Fredda?

More to the point: Why don't I have you on ignore yet?

[Zhade]

116. Right.

Because, of course, Bev controls Scoop and the author of the piece. In fact, you may be on to something - perhaps Bev uses mind control to force Scoop to do her bidding!

</sarcasm>

[stickdog]

161. Conflicts of Interest Are Conflicts of Interest.

Get your head out of your ass on this.

Do you or don't you want fraud-made-easy machines counting our votes?

[TrogL]

86. That's called the "straw man" logical fallacy

One tactic used by propagandists is to redefine the issue, then argue against their own (redefined) issue.

[Cocoa]

113. it's not a straw man

It's a fact that BBV does paint a picture of a republican conspiracy to steal elections from democrats.

All along, that has been my main beef with BBV, and all of my repeated dissents have been basically about this.

What the BBVers are doing now is too crude to be called a fallacy. They've been pushing a theory, and vigorously defending it, then when they can't defend it they say "we never said that."

[TrogL]

119. If the shoe fits

I'd hardly call it "painting a picture" (if we must insist upon throwing imagery around instead of facts).

I've been watching this unfold since the beginning. What I've been seeing in "divide and conquer" detective work.

[Eloriel]

153. Now, I can't say as I've found you to be

the soul of fairness here at DU, or an outspoken advocate of bipartisanship, either. Nor the peacemaker type who just can't abide by people not getting along.

So how is it that you're so concerned about REPUBLICANS getting pegged with "a conspiracy theory" that they have the ability to rig elections and may have already done it?

Something about that doesn't quite add up for me, bein's as we're here at DU and all.

Does anyone else find this downright ODD?

And for the record, this most certainly IS a non-partisan issue. For one thing, even if the only people involved are Repubican owners and some candidates, Republicans have primaries too. Sooner or later the Republican rank and file might want to have their own say about who gets nominated.

It's really more that CORPORATIONS are stealing our votes. (Yes, I am one who believes that votes have already been stolen electronically. No, I have no "proof," but we all have seen plenty of circumstantial evidence.)

Too, right here in Georgia DA and I have seen a little too little interest on the part of certain Dems to make us feel entirely comfortable that (a) none of them were complicit and (b) they have any incentive to do a single thing about the problem. Therefore, in my book, certain GA Dems are at least complicity, and who knows? maybe a whole lot worse than that.

Eloriel

[stickdog]

160. Dude, who cares? Cathy Cox is BBV public enemy #1.

She's a Democrat.

We don't want fraud-made-easy machines counting our votes. We don't want them no matter which corrupt Party hacks benefit.

Why do you?

[AP]

52. Wasn't Simon his man? (I'm drawing a blank) Simon won this county.

Am I missing something?

[Cocoa]

58. Bush opposed Simon in this primary

See my post #40.

[GregW]

67. Lots of 'shoulda', 'coulda', 'woulda' in this and the linked articles

Date-stamping files is NO PROOF of the time of their creation. Me thinks you are barking up an EXTREMELY big tree here.

Bev ... how can you PROVE the files were transmitted at this time. I don't mean say, "Oh look, the time-stamp is before the polls closed" ... I mean PROVE IT.

[DEMActivist]

69. Download the files and look yourself.

The proof is right there. This one is provable by using thier own devices.

It has absolutely nothing to do with time stamps on file names. It's IN THE FILE. Download it.

[BevHarris]

71. Audit log entries confirm the date and time

multiple automated audit entries all show date and time. And of course, we know you can change all those. But then again, it's funky election procedure to go in the back door and change the audit log, isn't it?

[shance]

73. Hey Greg - how about the burden of proof being on THEM FOR A CHANGE

You are so quick to come back and bark at Bev, when there are SCORES of smoking guns here, not to mention more SCORES of conflicts of interst.

If you want to attack, go start your own thread. We are trying to maintain fair voting standards here. What are YOU doing?

[Cocoa]

123. absolutely absurd

Someone accuses someone of election fraud on the Internet, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Pretty good system, I'd say, or a lot of people would be in jail.

What's all this about "get off my thread"? Everyone is saying it. Just a reminder that Bev has a discussion forum on her website. I could see how she might want to limit discussion to pro-BBV opinions.

The forum we're at now, on the other hand, doesn't require that everyone buy into BBV, despite attempts to make it seem that way.

[sexybomber]

68. sexy kick... people need to see this

[dusty64]

70. The idea here is to

prove these systems are riggable and open to fraud. Yes this particular county is rather repub, maybe thats why it was done here so as to not arouse suspicions. Proving a rightwing conspiracy wouldn't be too hard (I have NO doubt it exists), but the priority is to prove the method unsafe. How many more smoking guns are required? Any mention of this in this county's local media?

[shance]

76. Thanks Dusty***

You said what needed to be said.

I am amazed at individuals that attack what is merely an effort to return to honest elections and to maintain (or obtain**) what is an inherent RIGHT of all Americans - the right to vote AND the right for it to count.

[Robbien]

72. American Radio Works and the Center for Investigative

Reporting are doing a segment on BBV for public radio and television. See this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=95402

Maybe if these guys were contacted by someone close to this project it may give some exposure to the issue?

[TrogL]

91. A brute force proposal (edited)

(Original post deleted on DEMActivist's request)

PM me if interested

[Occulus]

95. can't even assume

the number of letters, as 'sophia' is six. I'll agree with you on this, though; there's likely something spiffy in that file.

[TrogL]

97. six is easy (edited)

PM to find out how/why

[DEMActivist]

99. MODERATORS, PLEASE DELETE THIS POST!

This line of discussion is ENTIRELY inappropriate on a public message board.

[TrogL]

102. Why?

it's covered under free use

[TrogL]

114. nevermind, I fixed it

PM me if interested

[BevHarris]

103. If this doesn't get deleted, here's what folks should know

password cracking may be a legal problem in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have not yet been defined in a court of law in this situation, which is unusual because it pits the public commons against what is already considered overly aggressive proprietary usage restrictions for copyrighted material.

However, the file in question may not be copyrighted. Don't know till you open it up. And if what's in the file is illegal, you can't protect a crime or intent to commit a crime using copyright law.

You see, you can't find out if there is dooky in the diaper unless you open the diaper.

The file in question is a vote database "repair" file dated five days after the election in Georgia, so it is somewhat suspicious.

That being said -- do not discuss techniques of password cracking on DU or on any message board. Bad idea.

ATL does not necessarily stand for Atlanta. There is an entire set of Active X commands called the ATL modules in Windows.

Bev

[TrogL]

106. This isn't even my idea in the first place

I quoted the original site. I'm just trying to coordinate it.

People want to get involved, PM me.

[BevHarris]

111. If you attend the tea party

understand that it's the Boston Tea Party (civil disobedience)

If you open the file and it contains something that is another smoking gun, you get into the history books.

It might have nothing.
It might not be copyrighted and there might be no problem anyway.
Or it might get you into the pokey.
And how do you know who to trust?
Tough issues.

I wouldn't advise joining such a tea party, because it might be entrapment. This is an individual decision of civil rights vs. civil disobedience, and without knowing who's who, that's a tricky call.

Citizens, you decide. (But isn't it bullshit that we can't even find out if our vote was rigged without this kind of risk?)

Bev

[DEMActivist]

112. You are exposing DU to legal problems

By using their message board and "home" to coordinate it.

I don't care who you are quoting, you are discussing how to crack passworded files belonging to someone else on DU's public message board.

That exposes DU.

[John_H]

147. Geez. I have this FANTASY that

someone on a differen planet, of course, would just for their own edification, divine through ESP what is inside some hypothetical files just to fantasize quietly to themselves about how to plan a hypothetical strategy.

[DEMActivist]

148. Ahhh, but then you might actually be dangerous

Because you see, you're already WRONG.

Just an FYI...even a password protected zip folder will display the CONTENTS of the folder without giving you access.

So, you see...it's not FANTASY, or divination, or aliens from outer space which tells us WHAT FILES THE FOLDER CONTAINS.

[John_H]

152. No, silly, you misunderstand my fantasy

In my fantasy, on the other planet, ESP gives someone the power to se what's inside the files so they might quietly ruminate to themselves how they might use the hypothetical information therein to develop purely hypothetical srategy.

On earth, in real life, I would have to privately hack the files, not to use for publicly disseminating the information within, but to see if I'm using the right strategy vis a vis the information I can disseminate, since I may want all the knowledge I could get to help myself not do a half-assed, unfocused job on a very important issue.

But I would never, in a million years, advocate hacking files because even for one's own private edification. That would be wrong.

[JanMichael]

129. I missed what you posted but if it's what I think it was...

...I contemplated the very same thing earlier today.

Something must be done.

[TrogL]

104. Can somebody set up a mirror

If somebody who has the files could set up a mirror, it'd take a load off the original site. It's getting clobbered.

[Occulus]

121. Let's fileshare it

fire up emule, connect to a specific machine run by someone on here, and we can cause the files to spread virally.

Filesharing for a legit purpose! I love it!

By the way, as soon as I get all the GEMS files- hopefully tonight- I'll be in touch with those on this thread via DU mail who have expressed an interes in getting such files. I'll let y'all know how to get them from me :)

I myself can't do anything with any of this; I don't have M$ Access. Can another utility be used that supports Access format? Or am I reaching here?

[BevHarris]

127. Excel 2000 lets you look but not touch

It will open the Access files, and you can look at them, but at least in mine, you can't change or save anything.

[Occulus]

156. Know of any

linux apps that might do it? I have RH 9.0... I think I'll look....

[alfredo]

107. Can we see if such a thing happened in other states,

or during a general election?

[4dog]

108. kick, nt

[BevHarris]

137. kick

:kick:

[AZTOY]

142. .

I have say i find this very interesting!!

[RedEagle]

143. Too Good Not To

Kick!

[scottxyz]

146. Hey Cocoa

Cut out the diversionary tactics please.

The original post pointed out that counting votes before an election closes is ILLEGAL. Period.

Stop saying that we no "proof" of a "conspiracy". If someone robbed a bank, would you go and say "But hey, we have no proof that this was a conspiracy"?

Diebold BROKE THE LAW by counting the votes before the polls close. End of discussion.

[AZTOY]

150. From Jim March

Message from Jim March

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID12/54.html

[TacticalPeek]

151. kick n/t

[kimchi]

154. Kick before night-night.

[shirlden]

162. kick

n/t

:kick:

[DEMActivist]

163. Kick

[loudsue]

165. Holy Moly!!!! I just read this thread by doing a BevHarris "search"....

Dirty, dirty hands at Diebold. And the media continues with their sensationalist non-news, while Democracy goes down the tubes.

:wtf: What dark cloud has this country fallen under? :nuke:


:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[RedEagle]

166. Kick!

168. Exactly--non coverage in the news

My local paper, the Seattle Times, won't cover the Diebold issue even though we use Diebold equipmentin Seattle King County, the biggest in the state.

My local paper won't cover my lawsuit vs. VoteHere either.

[BevHarris]

169. Well, they covered Diebold today --

in an interesting twist: They ordinarily report our frequent absentee ballot snafus as just that -- absentee ballot snafus.

Today they covered it by blaming it squarely on Diebold, which apparently also has printing plants for ballots.

That's the first time I've seen them do that. but yeah, they've been inexcusable about non-coverage on Dan's lawsuit. Even when it went national via AP wire service, as I recall, the Times didn't pick up the wire feed and the Post Intelligencer did so only a couple days late.

Bev

[Eloriel]

167. Another

:kick:

Tho might oughtta wait for the evening crowd, I suppose.

Eloriel

[BevHarris]

170. ALERT: There's going to be more on this shortly --

I spoke with the elections director of SLO County for about 40 minutes. She has a plausible explanation, but it doesn't seem to entirely check out when I examine the database for it.

Also, her explanation puts Diebold in even more hot water, because that file cannot have been placed on the FTP site if there is the physical security around the GEMS machine that Diebold claims, and their claims of physical security are the main rebuttal they have of the Hopkins/Rice report.

I have to dive back into that database again. She said the votes were absentee votes counted early. The database identifies polling place votes with "0" and absentee ballots with "1" -- So far I'm seeing 15,000 votes marked with "0", but also many many votes marked with "1" -- gotta go see about this.

Bev

[Zhade]

171. Just an FYI

The GEMS files are no longer downloadable at Jim's website. You may know this already, but I thought I'd mention it.

[BevHarris]

172. A minor point but not maybe...

Examining the files in more detail: Audit log at 3:31 p.m. says they saved backup copy to SLOprimary030502 but by the time the file migrated to the Diebold web site it was named SLOprimary030502-ORIG

This means they saved it, then renamed the file "orig" or made a copy, called that "orig" -- which begs a very important question, actually:

WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE ONE THAT WAS NO LONGER THE ORIGINAL?

"Original" implies it was the correct votes, first. Anything else would be the adjusted votes.

I'm liking this less and less. Most of the votes appear to be absentee, but not all, but the Access files don't seem to match the GEMS file (2 sets of books again???) This will take a fresh brain, tomorrow.

Regardless: Let's suppose, and I don't take this position yet, but suppose that all the votes were absentee votes cast and counted early. You put the file on a public web site and I'll tell you what's got to be illegal about that -- anyone who opens the file, and you can open it in 60 seconds, will have the interim count of the vote, before the polls have closed.

Bad.