BBV: Who owns David Dill's website?

[Eloriel]

It's since been changed (surprise, surprise), but take a look at this screen shot (as of 8/26):

[shirlden]

1. Damn and double Damn

Our "experts" are becoming our major problem.
What do you make of this??

:argh:

[bpilgrim]

2. he was affiliated with them wasn't he?

has he changed his stance on requiring a paper recipt?

if not i wouldn't worry too much about it and wait for him to explain it.

are yall worried he might be a 'double agent' or sometin? i would need to see a lot more to even begin to think that about him.

peace

[Eloriel]

3. And why is that, billy?

VoteHere has major SAIC ties (and SAIC has ties with the CIA); SAIC is doing the so-called quickie "review" of Diebold software for Maryland and Ohio after the Hopkins report railing against all the security flaws in the portion of the Diebold software the Hopkins/Rice 4 actually saw; VoteHere markets some cryptography or some such.

Why is David Dill aligned with VoteHere? Why is VoteHere co-opting the activism via David Dill's site? Why have they since camouflaged the ownership of the site?

What exactly do you need to be suspicious or concerned?

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

14. because he is a cs specializing in cryptography

something an electronic voting company would be interested in especially to ensure accuraccy and privacy.

after giving his site - http://www.verifiedvoting.org - another review it looks to me as if he is still pushing for a paper trail... until that changes he has my support.

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

107. He is a Professor of Computer Science - not specialiazing in cryptography

His primary research interests relate to the theory and application of formal verification techniques to system designs, including hardware, protocols, and software. He has also done research in asynchronous circuit verification and synthesis, and in verification methods for hard real-time systems. He was the Chair of the Computer-Aided Verification Conference held at Stanford University in 1994. From July 1995 to September 1996, he was Chief Scientist at 0-In Design Automation.

more...
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=47

sorry bout that :hi:

peace

[shirlden]

4. Not worried that he might be

anything other than what he appears to be. I trust him. But, I do wish these folks would be more careful about picking who they are seen with. The old saying about...."the appearance of impropriety"

[Eloriel]

5. Did he appear to be aligned with VoteHere before this?

And why did they change the ownership of 'his' website since?

Why wasn't the ownership of the site made known? Was it a secret? Why didn't they proudly proclaim it on the website?

Is anyone feeling good that he is aligned with someone in the industry but didn't divulge it, openly? Were you or anyone upset or unhappy when it came out after the fact that Avi Rubin also had VoteHEre ties?

Just some questions to toss out.

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

9. yes and he disclosed this as well

i understand that on the surface it appears suspicious BUT i am not suprised that someone in the computer security field is on the board of a company that makes voting machines and that he forgot, he probably is on the board of many companies.

i am a little suprised that he and others are speaking out but i am certainly supportive.

like i said, if he starts changing his 'tune' then i would start worrying.

why don't you ask him?

peace

[BevHarris]

8. Has he changed his stance on requiring a paper receipt? YES

Recent Dill email re: voter verified paper trail: "I'm not abandoning the idea, but I'm going to consider alternatives."

He wrote this after recapping the tired old talking points against paper trail that we always hear -- the disabled, printers will break, etc.

I have quite a bit more information from a whole series of phone calls and e-mails between Dr. Dill and I. Some of his answers were unsatisfactory, causing me to forward the above link on ownership of Dill's web site to Lynn Landes for a further look. That happened Sunday Aug 24, after two telephone conferences I had with Dill, on the 22nd and 24, where I questioned him pretty aggressively about 1) ties with VoteHere and 2) his feelings about the defense industry's involvement in voting.

I have his side on the whole VoteHere thing, and on the defense industry thing. It's more complex than what's here, but I can't go over it without quoting a bunch of private e-mails.

Here's what I will say:

1) Watch for Dill to bow out of the voting controversy within the next few weeks. This was in the cards at least since July. Don't know if he got a grant or a position in a prestigious national thing like NIST, or maybe is just going back to teaching.

2) Watch for Dill to post the VoteHere solution on his web site for review. However, he had promised to do that, and if it's an open source review and not just a bunch of "descriptions" of what it does, that will be interesting.

3) Watch very carefully to see if Dill goes public on his backing away from the paper trail. If he does, I expect he will get together with some other academics and cryptography experts and try to marginalize those fighting for transparency in the voting system.

4) Watch very carefully to see what the SAIC report says (SAIC vice chairman is the Chairman of the bd of Directors for VoteHere). See if they expose "flaws" that then can be solved by the VoteHere "solution."

5) Watch to see whether Diebold offloads its election machine division. This would explain why they have kept Urosevich on (he's a liability if they keep the voting machine division, but an asset worth $$ if they sell it), and this would explain why the info about Wally O'Dell's promise to deliver Bush votes was leaked. Instead of saying "we had to sell this thing because it was a lemon" they can say "we wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety so we sold it."

Certainly, they knew that Diebold would be an obvious target to usher in a VoteHere "gold standard" (discussed in the secret meeting on Aug 22, a method to devalue and work around the FEC standards. They did not mention VoteHere -- but it produces a cryptography program designed to go inside ALL the voting machines to "verify" the votes, and I speculate -- that's all it is -- that this is what they're trying to pitch as the gold standard).

Then, you sell Diebold Elections off to a crony, lock in a secret cryptography solution tied to the defense industry, set up the ITAA as a lobbyist to do a PR blitz, and voila! You've solved the problems.

Bev

[bpilgrim]

12. ""I'm not abandoning the idea" - doesn't sound like he has changed...

"I'm not abandoning the idea, but I'm going to consider alternatives."

sounds reasonable to me.

though you bring up a good point that and we should keep an eyeout no doubt.

yall know more about it than i do, i am just pointing out why i wouldn't be suprised by him having a site hosted by them if they were working together in the past.

anyways, we need more EXPERTS on our side then those three and there should be plenty willing to speak out about this i would suspect.


and he seems to be collecting quite a few names to back him up and seems to be seeking the same solution we all are according to his site...

<snip>

Here’s a solution!

Representative Rush Holt has already proposed a solution, in the form of a bill introduced into the House. The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 2239) would mandate the necessary safeguards for U.S. elections in every state. Now we need to get the bill out of the Committee on House Administration and bring it to action on the floor.

When enacted, this federal law would require all states to use election equipment that provides a voter-verifiable paper audit trail.

* This means that voters could check a paper ballot for accuracy before casting the vote --without having to trust the voting machine. Voter verification of ballots is crucial, because only the voter can check whether the ballot is accurate.

* A paper audit trail makes it possible to reconstruct the election results from the original voter-verified records, without having to trust the election equipment. In other words, it is possible to do a meaningful recount if an election is in dispute.

Working together with others across the nation, we must convince our Congress to pass H.R.2239. Click here to find out how you can help.

more...
http://www.verifiedvoting.org

i still think he is on our side but it is better to be safe than sorry.

:hi:

peace

[Cocoa]

6. Do Dill's findings help or hurt VoteHere?

Dill basically calls for paper-trail as a bottom-line recommendation is that right, or is it something else.

Where does VoteHere fit in, is it considered one of the good manufacturers or one of the bad ones?

[Eloriel]

7. Well, if you can figure out what it is VoteHere does

I personally will be quite grateful.

I saw something recently where they were insisting they didn't manufacture machines, but rather sold their "technology" to voting machine companies. SOME of their technology seems to have to do with cryptography, so that would address security issues.

Don't forget, Cocoa, having voter-verified paper ballots is only one half of a really large problem. If someone wants to steal an election, they can do it quite easily if they distribute their vote manipulation over a wide number of precincts/counties/whatever, so the numbers don't raise any real suspicions. Having VVPB will not be a particularly good protection against that, if no one get suspicious enough to call for a recount.

Hell, we had very anomalous results in Georgia and it didn't raise any official suspicions. When Chuck Hagel won his two elections with astronomical numbers (83% of the vote, where a Repug senator hadn't been elected for practically ever?), it raised suspicions, but no one was willing (or able?) to do anything about it. If the election results are all spread out, 2 - 3% here, 2-3% there, who's going to notice and raise the issue?

That's why I keep saying that as important as VVPB are for conducting a recount, Open Source Code to ensure there's no monkey-business in the code is equally if not more important.

Eloriel

[Cocoa]

10. thanks, but remind me if you can what Dill's basic position is

was I right that the paper trail is his thing?

There are many different positions here, which is why I object so much to the good vs. evil thinking.

What you say about the limitations of a paper trail seems to contradict the idea that the recent purchase of Avante in Connecticut is necessarily a good thing. Some could say that they were better off staying with their old punch-card system, or whatever it was. At least one person here wants to go to hand counted paper ballots, no punch cards no optical scanners. :shrug:

[bpilgrim]

13. yes the paper trail is something he is pushing for according to his site..

from his site...

Here’s a solution!

Representative Rush Holt has already proposed a solution, in the form of a bill introduced into the House. The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 2239) would mandate the necessary safeguards for U.S. elections in every state. Now we need to get the bill out of the Committee on House Administration and bring it to action on the floor.

When enacted, this federal law would require all states to use election equipment that provides a voter-verifiable paper audit trail.

* This means that voters could check a paper ballot for accuracy before casting the vote --without having to trust the voting machine. Voter verification of ballots is crucial, because only the voter can check whether the ballot is accurate.

* A paper audit trail makes it possible to reconstruct the election results from the original voter-verified records, without having to trust the election equipment. In other words, it is possible to do a meaningful recount if an election is in dispute.

Working together with others across the nation, we must convince our Congress to pass H.R.2239. Click here to find out how you can help.

more...
http://www.verifiedvoting.org

peace

[Eloriel]

26. Cocoa

Lots of people have posted things which address your post, but I wanted to add this:

10. thanks, but remind me if you can what Dill's basic position is
was I right that the paper trail is his thing?

At the present time, his position appears to be in flux. See others' posts.

There are many different positions here, which is why I object so much to the good vs. evil thinking.

I don't quite see it that way, that there are "many different positions here."

What you say about the limitations of a paper trail seems to contradict the idea that the recent purchase of Avante in Connecticut is necessarily a good thing.

No contradiction at all. It's not "either/or," but "both/and" AFAIC. Paper trail (VVPB) is essential. It's not the ONLY thing, nor does it IMO do the whole job. The two main issues are security (reducing possibility of external hacking) and ensuring there's no malicious code or programming errors that could affect accurate tabulation gets into the code. Certification addresses neither, but something needs to.

Some could say that they were better off staying with their old punch-card system, or whatever it was. At least one person here wants to go to hand counted paper ballots, no punch cards no optical scanners.

I could probably be persuaded to go that direction myself. ;-) So we may not all agree on the best solutions, the there is general agreement among those who've studied this about the problem. In all likelihood there are a number of possible solutions. 100% paper ballots without any computerization is one approach.

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

44. i'm for open source AND VVPB

but i could live with just PB for sure ;->

:hi:

peace

[BevHarris]

11. VoteHere is trying to get its software inside all the machines

of all the vendors.

Its software is designed to make sure the paper trail is eliminated forever. It is a cryptography solution. And yes, VoteHere is run by a charming and smooth salesman named Jim Adler who has cryptography credentials, has programming by Andy Neff who Dill and others like a lot, and has serious defense industry ties -- no make that, it is CONTROLLED by defense contractors and CIA guys.

Who are also with SAIC, by the way.

Here is the loop, and it's pretty tight folks:

Vendors: fighting the paper trail
VoteHere: fighting the paper trail by offering vendors a cryptography "solution" for vote verification
Diebold: The poster child for why voters want verification.
SAIC: Doing the "independent" report on Diebold security
SAIC-VoteHere -- Some of the same people run each company
ITAA: Proposing massive PR campaign to fight the paper trail and restore trust in the voting vendors
SAIC-ITAA -- some of the same people run each company
VoteHere-Avi Rubin -- He was on a VoteHere advisory board and held stock in VoteHere, then wrote the report about Diebold
Rubin-Dill -- Dill set it up with Rubin to write the report. According to article last week, Dill was behind the Hopkins/Rice report
Dill-VoteHere -- No financial ties that I know of. He began meeting with VoteHere way back last March. Name of his web site, VerifiedVoting.org, is similar to the sales pitch for VoteHere product (designed for voting verification). He owned the .org and VoteHere owned the .com, and after Dill started getting questioned by Lynn Landes this week, he bought the .com site back from VoteHere.

Dill met with VoteHere during the spring and certainly seems to have had conversations with them in June, definitely in July, when VoteHere issued a press release that their cryptography solution was going to be evaluated on Dill's web site. He met with them again in early August, and he has also come under fire for "bait and switch" for changing the focus of his petition, which originally insisted on a paper trail, to one which also allows electronic solutions -- after people had already signed it.

He told me in July he's getting out of the voting advocacy game this fall, and he said that again on Aug 24 in an email.

My main question will be: What prestigious position does he suddenly get with a scientific organization, or what research grant might he receive? If he's honest, more power to him. If not, let the chips fall.

I'm at about 51-49 whether he is compromised or just behaved in a dumb way.

[bpilgrim]

15. really? do you have a link?

"Its software is designed to make sure the paper trail is eliminated forever."

i haven't seen that yet, but if that is the case, then that surely must be defeated.

thanks :hi:

peace

[DEMActivist]

16. For more information on VoteHere

Why not interview Dan Spillane for GFP? Dan Spillane is an ex-VoteHere employee who is suing them for firing him when he was prepared to discuss their flaws to the testing agencies.

Ask Dan Spillane about VoteHere. I'm sure he has some interesting tales to tell.

[bpilgrim]

17. and dill seems to be all for having his testomony come to light...

as he feels it will draw the national attention to the real problems in the existing systems.

what is wrong with that? sounds like he is still on OUR side to me.

but anyways i was asking for specific information on votehere's plans to do away with VVPB forever since i am interested from a technicle perspective on how they think they might achieve such a feat.

i'll go check'em out...

peace

[DEMActivist]

34. Never said otherwise....

all I suggested was that you go straight to the source. Dan Spillane knows VoteHere (and their motivation) better than any of us.

[BevHarris]

19. Here is where you can ask questions about VoteHere

Here is an e-mail for Dan Spillane -- [email protected]

Also look up the vote verification system at VoteHere's web site, and their press releases.

As for Dr. Dill, I'm not thrilled with his backpedalling on the paper trail, but I've made a decision to remain focused on shooting at the elephants instead of persecuting the ants.

He was dumb. But until, or unless, he steps forward and sabotages the push for a paper trail, he's not the main story, and while his relationship with VoteHere is kind of inappropriate, it is not on the same level as Rubin's (a position and stock).

And NONE of those are on the totally inappropriate level of the VoteHere Chairman being Vice Chairman of SAIC, or the Diebold CEO promising to "deliver the votes" for Bush.

Those are the elephants. Dill and Rubin are both just ants. Me, I'm just a germ. (cough cough. Don't worry, it's just a little virus...)

Bev

[bpilgrim]

32. i don't see where he has changed direction

but i will keep an eye out.

peace

[SeanT]

18. hmm

interesting.

[RedEagle]

20. A Paper Trail is not always what you think

My understanding of VoteHere's solution is that it will offer WHAT THEY CALL A PAPER TRAIL, a receipt, that you can check against some posting at the polling place, courthouse, whatever.

But that receipt is cryptographically generated.

There are supposed, mathmatial solutions to an audit trail. But that still does not involve a TRANSPARENT accounting system.

Plus, while MAYBE you can get an individual receipt, you cannot conduct an county, statewide, or nationwide audit this way.

What Paul gives with one hand Peter robs with the other.

Think the details trough- there's lots of double speak and obfuscation in this whole, sordid mess.

Plus, counties would have to have a national caliber cryptologist to conduct any audit of the system. One person verifying the honesty of the system. Whoa....aren't we saddled with that problem now?

All DRE and Internet voting schemes have serious flaws and places where votes can be compromised before and after the encryption. It is even MORE susceptible to insider fraud.

Then too, a while back now, I traced a link to a company that was going to do a wireless internet via a bunch of satellites. I don't know if that got off the ground, but you can imagine the potential for compromise there.

And David Dill stated in his last newsletter he had NO ties to anyone, anywhere. Now, as asked before, is he telling the truth, or just exceptionally gullible?

And boy, I just read one of my last Lowdown's from Hightower, and he hits the nail on the head. When are people going to start looking after the common good and not the padding of their own pocketbook, fame, ego, you name it.

Anyone have printouts of Dill's original resolution? I probably do, buried somewhere. The detail will be revealing and it may have been changed subtlely without our realizing it. It is also telling that he initially didn't want to use the term paper, saying, to me, that he couldn't get other scientists to sign on if he did, that "advances" in technology might come along. Was that the truth or a clue?

By the way, now I'm wondering about all that info we're supposed to post for each state. Real help or did that allow VoteHere to easily figure out how to sabotage efforts?

Who is driving this? Several interersts or VoteHere?

[BevHarris]

21. I have a copy taken around June, which is in my book.

don't know if it's changed or not. He put the petition up in December, I believe. Anyone? The earlier the better.

Bait and switch, guys. My name is on that petition, and if it says anything but voter verified PAPER trail -- and that means look at the ballot, at the polling place, keep the evidence in a box -- he should redo the petition and collect signatures all over again.

Damn. Do we have to define voter-verified paper trail now as VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT? Probably so.

Bev

[depakid]

28. I believe he started the petition in mid- january

Around the time that word got out that the Santa Clara County Commission was preparing to ink the deal with Sequoia. There were several articles in The San Jose Mercury at around that time.

Here's one of them.

Interestingly enough, there's still a couple of goodies left on the stanford server, including Santa Clara County's revised April 29 contract with Sequoia.

[SharonAnn]

31. Yes, I think the term ballot is important. Paper ballot is what we

want. Anything else would mean that a recount is doing with something else, not the ballot. People can't be led into thinking that a "ballot" exists inside electronic chips in "0s" and "1s" or that it is "cryptographically" present somehow in the machine or the chip or the memory or whatever.

I'm very concerned about what you're saying about the "cryptographic" solution. Sounds like CIA stuff and they're very good at putting software in places that track what you're doing and/or give them access to informaiton they want. What if your ballot is no longer secret and they're capturing that information? Scared yet?

There's a SW program called PROMIS (from Inslaw?) that was my first exposure to this CIA sneaking in and placing "information traps" in software.

We want voter verified paper ballots, we want robust random audits", we want recounts to count the paper ballots.

[BevHarris]

42. Good! That makes you and me! I encourage others to weigh in.

Here's the ultimate irony: We put paper in the printer to print a secret code, so that we don't have to put paper in the printer to print A BALLOT!!!

Bev

[Eloriel]

54. SharonAnn

And don't forget there's all this vote purge, and voter registration getting standardized and centralized and so forth. MY fear is that ultimately they'll tie it all together.

Remember too, for some reason we've already bought the voter roles of several Latin American countries. (WHY ON EARTH???)

Contemplating all of this is what sorta sends me 'round the bend and towards the "paper only" fix. Probably unrealistic, but these guys just get craftier and craftier about camouflaging what they're doing.

Eloriel

[gristy]

61. Yes, you do.

Damn. Do we have to define voter-verified paper trail now as VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT? Probably so.

Anyone who reads my posts would not be surprised that I would agree that this needs to be done.

[BevHarris]

22. Re: The info for each state --

That did help, but when the double-whammy of the secret meeting and the hack-a-box-with-Rox-and-Cox challenge came up, we had too much of a news glut.

We'll pull that out of our hat soon.

Bev

[depakid]

23. I got completely different information from the WHOIS database:

For the .com domain:

Registrant:
VerifiedVoting.org
630 Park Rd
Redwood City, CA 94062
US

Registrar DOTSTER
Domain Name VERIFIEDVOTING.COM
Created on 19-JUN-03
Expires on 19-JUN-06
Last Updated on 29-AUG-03

Administrative, Technical Contact:
Dinger, Greg VERIFIEDVOTING.COM
GreyBeard Design Group
7 Redwood Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
US
415 459 7513


Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.GREYBEARDHOSTING.COM
NS2.GREYBEARDHOSTING.COM

For the .org domain:

Domain ID D96756548-LROR
Domain Name VERIFIEDVOTING.ORG
Created On 24-Apr-2003 08:21:47 UTC
Last Updated On 12-Aug-2003 10:27:42 UTC
Expiration Date 24-Apr-2004 08:21:47 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar R39-LROR
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID 5241A7539C02159D
Registrant Name David Dill
Registrant Street1:630 Park Rd
Registrant City Redwood City
Registrant Postal Code 94062
Registrant Country US
Registrant Email [email protected]
Admin ID:5241A7539C02159D
Admin Name David Dill
Admin Street1 630 Park Rd
Admin City:Redwood City
Admin Postal Code 94062
Admin Country US
Admin Email [email protected]
Billing ID 5241A7539C02159D
Billing Name David Dill
Billing Street1 630 Park Rd
Billing City Redwood City
Billing Postal Code 94062
Billing Country US
Billing Email [email protected]
Tech ID:5241A7539C02159D
Tech Name David Dill
Tech Street1 630 Park Rd
Tech City Redwood City
Tech Postal Code 94062
Tech Country US
Tech Email [email protected]
Name Server NS1.GREYBEARDHOSTING.COM
Name Server NS2.GREYBEARDHOSTING.COM

[depakid]

24. I should also add

that this information corresponds to the time period when Dr. Dill moved his BBV site off of the stanford.edu server.

[DEMActivist]

29. Details, details....

Look at the last updated date on whois:

Last Updated on 29-AUG-03

then look at the top line of the graphic for the date there.

Answers your questions, doesn't it? Or does it create more?

[depakid]

36. I saw that too-

but I'm not sure what all is covered under revisions to the database.

Could be it's significant, could be it's innocuous.

Come Tuesday, I'll run it by the guys at work who deals with this kind of thing all the time and see what his take is.

[bpilgrim]

40. i don't think there is anyway to tell what they updated publiclly

but the registrar probably could tell.

the only thing to update really is the contact info (including the owner) and the DNS

i still don't think we should jump to conclusions over this unless he changes his tune especially till we get his side of the story.

how many experts are public with BBV? because even if he did change we should be able to get plenty more to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to why we need an open source balloting system with a human verifiable paper trail.

peace

[DEMActivist]

41. Why are you trying so hard to ignore Dill's own admission?

He ADMITS they owned his website. His email is posted in this thread.

[bpilgrim]

45. huh?

i think you misunderstand...

i have said from jump that he has acknowledged his associatio with them BEFORE... so i could see this as being a leftover from that prior relationship.

i am just try'n to come up to speed so CHILL, sheesh... yall i think are even starting to suspect me, i think that should serve as a alarm, no?

anyways, bev has said he is changing his postion from a VVPB to all electronic audit - or something since i haven't seen a LINK yet, but never mind cause i TRUST YALL, and i got the DU so i will just be patient until someone post it later.

keep up the good work :toast:

peace

[BevHarris]

50. There is no link because this is from phone calls and emails

I have (until now, urk!) maintained a fairly cordial relationship with Dr. Dill. We spoke by phone and corresponded frequently, sometimes several times a day over the past several weeks.

Two things precipitated my even mentioning this to anyone:

1) I am very concerned about the mammoth conflict of interest we have with defense contractor involvement in our voting system. The Aug. 22 secret meeting held a smoking gun with that -- for anyone who missed it, read David Allen's "Meeting with the BBV Yakuza" at http://www.blackboxvoting.com. Because I became very concerned, also on Aug. 22, I called and confronted Dr. Dill on VoteHere's defense industry ties, and asked him point blank what he was doing with them. I wasn't altogether reassured with his answer.

On Sunday Aug. 24, after reading expose's in the Asian and European press on SAIC, which were pretty darn horrific -- basically, the SAIC has many contracts that are simply mercenary versions of Central Intelligence Agency assignments, and they are doing a LOT of stuff that privacy experts should be upset about -- and in the Asian press, they were looking into Admiral Bill Owens, who is with the SAIC and is the Chairman of the Board at VoteHere. I called David and told him that if they are investigating Owens and the SAIC, VoteHere isn't far behind.

At this point I went into a fairly impassioned lecture with him, and asked him several times what his position is on defense contractors getting involved in voting. He is quite wishy-washy on this point, but if you push him he says things like "well every organization has some conflict of interest" or "well there is no law against it."

Sorry, no dice. I found his positions to be profoundly disturbing. Because I am bossy I ordered him to familiarize himself with what our founding fathers had in mind when they started this country, and gave him some suggested reading, and told him to get out of his computer nerddom and learn something about history and the origins of our democracy. It was also in these conversations that he discussed his feelings about the VoteHere solution, when he could get a word in edgewise.

2) When Dr. Dill, for some inexplicable reason, decided to interfere with the Georgia Demo by DemActivist, siding with Cathy Cox, in effect, that the demo was a bad idea, and then -- even though he had nothing to do with the demo -- took it upon himself to start calling reporters to tell them it was a bad idea, that really raised antennas. It was at that point that I passed the VoteHere involvement in the web site over to Lynn Landes.

This doesn't need to erupt into a bunch of infighting. It does need to get onto the radar screen of voting machine activists.

[bpilgrim]

52. thanks for the info...

sounds like he may be smitten with the get rich bug.

so it is starting to sound like a set-up where the good Dr. who discovered the problem fixes it.

well this needs to be addressed at his web site then and the word passed since he has a ton of followers now who will be satisfied signing off on something on his say so down the road.

if it doesn't adhere to what he promtes on his site then this needs to get out.

thanks again for all yall do :toast:

peace

[gristy]

56. You go, girrrrrrrrrl!!

Sorry, no dice. I found his positions to be profoundly disturbing. Because I am bossy I ordered him to familiarize himself with what our founding fathers had in mind when they started this country, and gave him some suggested reading, and told him to get out of his computer nerddom and learn something about history and the origins of our democracy. It was also in these conversations that he discussed his feelings about the VoteHere solution, when he could get a word in edgewise.

:bounce:

[scottxyz]

184. The more I hear...

...the more it sounds like Black Box Voting really IS going to be as big a story as Watergate.

So we have Defense contractors with CIA ties setting up our encrypted voting systems?!? This is getting crazier every minute!

[BevHarris]

25. Here is Dr. Dill's explanation:

I have several e-mails on this and related matters from Dr. Dill. I would remind you that he has done an outstanding job of bringing credible media coverage to the voting machine problem. Issues are raised, however, when he switches from calling for a paper trail to advocacy for a non-transparent defense industry-tied cryptography solution, especially since people signed onto his petition when it was a call for a paper trail. If he includes cryptography, he needs to redo the petition and collect signatures all over again.

I believe him when he says he has no financial ties to VoteHere, but he did qualify that by saying no FINANCIAL ties, and it appears that he does have a relationship of some sort. I found his answers on the other question, regarding his position on whether the defense industry should be allowed to involve itself in the voting industry, to be totally unsatisfactory.

Here' is Dr. Dill's response, dated Aug 24, 2003:

=======================================================

Bev,

"A non-news item just occurred to me that someone else may notice, in which case it will be one more stupid thing to explain. If you go to "verifiedvoting.com", it gets forwarded to verifiedvoting.org with some stupid frames from register.com around it. Deeper investigation will reveal that VoteHere currently owns "verifiedvoting.com". Why is this?

"In June, my web guys strongly suggested that I buy the verifiedvoting.com domain (for obvious reasons). I left for my two week vacation in Montana a few hours later and didn't have time to do it. When I came back -- Panic! Someone else bought the domain. On a little investigation, it turns out to be VoteHere. Why? I haven't received an adequate explanation, but didn't bother to pursue it.

"It is fortunate that it was "only" VoteHere who grabbed it, since they wanted me to help with the review of their system. (It would have been awful to have one of the other companies controlling the domain). They have set up the forwarding, and I have some paperwork to fill out to get control of the domain, which I will deal with eventually."

Take care,
Dave
======================================

[Eloriel]

27. I find it unsatisfactory too

And forgive me if I remain unpersuaded that he has no current financial ties. Let's see if he continues to have no financial ties.

Eloriel
Ever the cynic, and sick and tired of citizens having to fend off the supposed good guys along with the bad, and/or not being able to tell for sure which is which.

[depakid]

30. It rings true with me

and you'd be hard pressed to find a more cynical and skeptical person anywhere.

This kind of monkeybusiness with domain names is pretty common- and all the more likely given the nature of the people running VoteHere. Also, as I pointed out in another post, the dates fit his explanation and Dill continues to be a vocal advocate for auditable paper trails, whereas VoteHere is pushing a paperless, "independent third party" software verification "solution."

To the extent that this little fiaso has cast any doubt on Dr. Dill's credibility or caused people to take their eyes off of the ball, VoteHere's underhanded tactics have proven successful.

[bpilgrim]

33. i agree

until i see him comming out and changing his own stance publiclly i am inclined to believe him especially with everything he has done so far.

peace

[hedda_foil]

35. Ah, but VoteHere gets around that little glitch quite cleverly.

Their "add-on" issues a coded paper receipt that the voter can use to verify his/her vote on the internet. One voter at a time. IOW, with Diebold's two sets of books systems, the internet system could check the records in the first set of books to give the correct response to the voter, while the second set of books is used for the actual tally.

Of course, this doesn't address the issue that the anti-paper folks continually bring up ... that votes could be sold because voters could use the receipt as proof that of how they voted. But I have a feeling that this issue will suddenly go away.

[bpilgrim]

37. you don't get to keep a recipt

in the system that dill is advocating... but as others have said open source is the other necessary component to try and keep our votes safe.

i would also like to have the paper ballots scanned and update a counter in realtime that can also be used as an audit meassure to ensure the accuracy of electronic voting that is easily humanly verifyable as well.

peace

[BevHarris]

39. bpilgrim: you're missing a few buttons here

I like you, but get the facts straight. First you say you see no evidence that Dill is advocating the VoteHere system, then you say "in the system that dill is advocating" --

According to my reading of the VoteHere info a few weeks ago, as I understand it the VoteHere system prints a receipt with a code that you take out of the polling place, take to the Internet and compare.

Now, Dr. Dill claims that the VoteHere system is a start-to-finish auditing method that would prevent the Microsoft Access hack and all the rest of them, that can stand up to good guys and bad guys, and he does leave himself a way out saying if it doesn't meet his standards, he won't endorse it.

I want them to get that thing posted. As in, THE SOURCE CODE, not just a description of how they say it works. Along with that they need to post the electoral procedures and give a much, much more detailed description of what the VoteHere "trustees" are supposed to do (they put all our trust in some trustees to oversee the whole thing, apparently.)

Bev

[bpilgrim]

43. i am talking about dill's verifiedvoting.org

"I like you, but get the facts straight. First you say you see no evidence that Dill is advocating the VoteHere system, then you say "in the system that dill is advocating" --"

http://www.verifiedvoting.org

i like you too :hi:

"According to my reading of the VoteHere info a few weeks ago, as I understand it the VoteHere system prints a receipt with a code that you take out of the polling place, take to the Internet and compare."

but at his site...
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/drefaq.asp

he talks mainly about a paer trail.


"Now, Dr. Dill claims that the VoteHere system is a start-to-finish auditing method that would prevent the Microsoft Access hack and all the rest of them, that can stand up to good guys and bad guys, and he does leave himself a way out saying if it doesn't meet his standards, he won't endorse it."

ok. i haven't seen that and if he changed his tune to endorse a paperless voting system and pick one that he has ties to then we should raise all hell.

do you have a link to where he says this please.

thanks :hi:

"I want them to get that thing posted. As in, THE SOURCE CODE, not just a description of how they say it works. Along with that they need to post the electoral procedures and give a much, much more detailed description of what the VoteHere "trustees" are supposed to do (they put all our trust in some trustees to oversee the whole thing, apparently.)"

i agree, we want that as well but there will undoubtably be an advisory commite as is common in the industry to set standards and if they vote for closed source then we should have a very detailed description of the requirements and testing the code goes through at the least but ultimately it should be OPENSOURCE.

remember who was one of the first to bring that up ;->

thanks for all your work on making this a REAL ISSUE :toast:

i just wanna make sure we don't eat our own in the frenzy.

peace

[BevHarris]

38. Beg to differ -- Dill is definitely interested in the VoteHere solution

He is now trotting out talking points about why the paper trail is a problem because of:

- the disabled (give this one a rest!)
- little old ladies who cant deal with a printer (give this one a rest, too; poll workers go through extensive training for handling the touch screens, the card activators and everything else!)
- "election officials don't want it" (that's why your advocacy is important, Dr. Dill!)

I don't know, he had about six of these in his most recent e-mail. He is definitely moving toward the VoteHere solution and away from the paper trail, judging from my contacts with him and those of many other people. I think at this point, he needs to get that "solution" on his web page pronto, since that's what he promised to do for some reason, and it needs to be OPEN SOURCE and then, we'll see what we see with Dr. Dill.

By the way, he was also dead-set against Roxanne's hack-a-vote challenge in Georgia, to the extent that he took it upon himself to call a reporter and advocate against the demo. He then e-mailed me that he didn't think any demos should be done.

Dr. Dill also, it turns out, turned down the same offer himself -- though he could bring vast resources to bear. As far as I know, he turned it down flat without even attempting to get permission to access the software and hardware. Now that's a strategic blunder (if you're on the side of voting accountability). You don't turn it down before they tell you the limitations -- you wait and let them dig a hole.

For example, by watching what Georgia tried to take off the table first, next and next we got a very good idea what they perceive to be the most vulnerable.

Rubin also immediately stated that he thought the Georgia demo was a bad idea -- yet Van Smith, a reporter for Baltimore City Paper, told me that Rubin said he might be willing to hack a Sequoia machine. (Sequoia signed up for the VoteHere solution just days later).

I don't know what's up with these guys, actually. They are either strategic idiots or quietly helping VoteHere. When you get a chance to go into a machine and its software, you don't turn it down before even looking at the terms of engagement. Or else, maybe they are so ivory tower that they don't actually know how to hack the machines.

Bring in a high school web geek; perhaps he can give them a tutorial.

Bev

[depakid]

46. Now that's the kind of info that makes me question

Dill's veracity and/or motivations. Thank you- I didn't know much of that. I don't know whether that puts him in the same suspect class with Rubin yet- but it certainly changes the tenor of things.

It's hard for me to believe that any reasonable person- especially a computer scientist- would NOT advocate open source for something so fundamental to democracy as voting software. Hell, if ANYTHING should required to be public property, it's selection and tabulation software- As I recall, that was one of the central recommendations of the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project and also a key provision in Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.

It's not like this is a new issue- I mean jeeze, Ronnie Drugger wrote an extensive article about the exact issue in The New Yorker in 1988 and before that, there was David Burnham's piece in the The New York Times. The time has long since passed when we should have dealt with this.

BTW: If you ask me, intellectual property laws have gotten way out of control in this country- to the point where they pose perhaps the biggest threat to freedom and democracy (not to mention our healthcare system and food supply) that this country has every faced.

[bpilgrim]

47. ditto - and OPEN SOURCE just got a HUGE BOOST YESTERDAY

Japan, China and Korea are gonna SCRAP MS and move in the OPEN SOURCE DIRECTION :bounce:

...

Japan, China, S Korea to jointly develop Windows replacement

Japan, China and South Korea plan to develop an original operating system in a bid to challenge the domination of Microsoft Corp's Windows, news reports said on Sunday.

Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma is to propose the plan when he meets his Chinese and South Korean counterparts in Phnom Penh on Wednesday on the sidelines of the ASEAN trade ministers' meeting, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun and the Asahi Shimbun said, quoting sources.

The three countries are expected to reach an accord in mid-September, when senior trade ministry officials are to hold another meeting, Asahi said.

The accord would be the first signed by major economies, the two dailies said.

more..........

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_356992,0003.htm
 
peace

[BevHarris]

51. Wow! Kewl!

I wasn't a f*Microsoft type at all. But when I called them and asked for a liason to help with some very strange Windows file programming on the Diebold system -- programming which removed the security functions and stuck a bunch of undesirable stuff (including several misspellings, and one notation that said "we stole this from some dead guy") under the MS copyright,

and I told them this system was used in 37 states, and that our democracy was at stake, and they first assigned it to a rapid response team and then suddenly came back and said, basically, "you'll have to talk to Diebold about that," I figured they don't represent democracy.

In fact, Bill Gates, why not just step up the microphone and renounce your right to have your vote counted in a trustworthy way? I'm waiting... (foot tapping)

Remember: I didn't ask Microsoft to look at Diebold files, I asked them to look at a file that held their own copyright header (but had misspellings and notations like "stole from some dead guy" and deleted and disabled security functions). They could easily have helped. I'm right here in Seattle.

I believe they will regret that choice as events continue to unfold. Are you listening, Microsoft? It's still not too late to wear the white hat (but it's gettin' near sundown, fellas).

[shance]

48. So David now is reciting essentially the same reasons Votehere uses

against having a paper ballot?

How predictable.

[angka]

140. The creatures outside looked from pig to man,

and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

-George Orwell, Animal Farm

[Junkdrawer]

53. This thread has several issues combined together...

1.) Who owns Dill's website? - From what I see on WhoIs, Dill's explanation rings true. This brings us to...

2.) Why did VoteHere grab VerifiedVoting.com and direct it VerifiedVoting.org? - They are obviously trying to get leverage with Dill. And, with Rubin's disclosure of far more direct ties to VoteHere, it's fairly clear that VoteHere wants to be the mainstream voice of auditless voting concerns. So it all comes down to...

3.) Who owns VoteHere, how does it work and can it be hacked? And that has been asked before. There are disturbing Military/CIA connections in VoteHere - more disturbing when you consider that VoteHere works via encryption, decryption being a CIA specialty.

At this point in time, my speculation is that VoteHere is Plan B with Plan A being totally paper-free machines. But if the voter verified paper audit trail movement gets traction, VoteHere appears and becomes the "sensible" alternative. I would further speculate that VoteHere assures that only the CIA can hack elections.

Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

[DEMActivist]

55. You give the CIA too much credit.

I would suggest that the only one who would be SURPRISED that an election was hacked would be the CIA.

It is exactly this kind of comment from the CIA which would prompt serious, malicious hackers to say "wanna bet?"

At that point, we would probably see Mickey Mouse or an Anime hero elected POTUS in Nov. 2004.

[Junkdrawer]

59. Have you ever heard the rumors surrounding the CIA and PKE??

PKE being Public Key Encryption? I'm referring to the fact that PKE works because no one knows how to factor a composite number formed by multiplying two large primes into those primes in "polynomial time". (That last statement says that PKE can be cracked but not fast enough to be useful to the crackers.) Well, speculation is that the CIA has methods to crack PKE.

[gristy]

60. I doubt it.

Well, speculation is that the CIA has methods to crack PKE.

If indeed there are methods to reduce the time to factor large primes from what is published today, you can be assured that grad students all over the country would be doing their research and writing their theses on this very subject. The CIA would not be able to shut them down even if they wanted to. And my guess is they don't want to.

The CIA doesn't have any monopoly on intelligence (hahaha) or sharp computer scientists.

[RedEagle]

69. How about this for Speed?

My SO related a story just a few days ago that the DOE, at Hanford (WA State) has a computer that works at a speed of 11 teraflops, (His term, you all more computer savy will understand that's FAST)floating decimal point operations.

That's a DECLASSIFIED computer. Which means, we can expect what is behind the magic curtain is something MUCH faster.

So, yes, I think we can assume they have the speed to compute the encryption code.

[Junkdrawer]

95. Yes, and what if there are factoring algorithms that could...

use massively paralleled architecture? No, I don't trust any audit method that relies at bottom on "uncrackable" encryption.

BTW: Where I said PKE, I should have said RSA (a particular form of PKE that uses the large primes algorithm)

[althecat]

62. LOL!!! DemA rocks this thread...

[4dog]

63. The CIA puts lots of resources into manipulating foreign elections.

According to something I read (no source I can recall), 2/3 of expenses for foreign ops into propaganda and elections. Whatever the number, and whatever their success rate, it seems they have experience and certainly have the intention.

[Junkdrawer]

109. I think that summarizes the pickle were in now...

The very weapon we have forged to control the "dangerous peoples" of the world has boomeranged to wind up controlling us.

[BevHarris]

57. Quicky double tinfoil for entertainment and pondering

CIA = Bush
SAIC = mercenary CIA tasks = Cheney

I don't always assume that Bush and Cheney are on the same page.
Do you?

Double tinfoil squared:

Diebold = Bush
VoteHere = Cheney

Anyone want to go for double tinfoil cubed?

[althecat]

66. Very neat summation of some of the findings of this thread..

(and there are lots of ideas here...)

Thankyou Junkdrawer...

[gristy]

49. With this thread, it appears Dill has crossed over.

How did this happen? He favors cryptography and no paper trail? This places him firmly to the camp of the "trust us" method of vote fraud prevention. A tiny fraction of 1% of the voting population will have even a chance of understanding how/why cryptography makes vote-counting secure and fraud-free.

If paper is eliminated from voting, that's it. Our 227 year-old experiment in democracy is over. Certainly in perception. Probably in fact. It will be a sad, dark day in the history of modern man.

[Eloriel]

58. So true. "Trust us. We're the CIA and we're here to help."

And actually, gristy, the way you phrase this makes me wonder if the players haven't been played -- or rather aren't in the process of being played. Wouldn't that be too funny?

I was telling my family about this turn of events with Dill tonight at dinner and I guess it was the first time it really sank in and hit me. I felt absolutely kicked in the gut. VERY despondent. Bev may consider him an ant (actually, I've got several other terms for him), and she's no doubt right.

You see, I remember periods of time back in the summer which I don't feel comfortable discussing the details of where he could have been more help, but instead kept dragging his feet, dragging his feet, one not very good excuse after another. Never quite came through, never quite delivered. Looking back, it all makes more sense now. Looking back, he doesn't seem like quite the absent-minded professor (slightly incompetent and really unfocused) type at all.

I also keep remembering how so many times Bev would make a remark about VoteHere, like "they always keep showing up, everywhere voting machines are." SHE knew in the back of her mind that this firm needed more scrutiny. Her intuition was working very well, thank you.

I'm just really bummed out by this pitiful little man. And *I* tend to hold grudges where betrayal is involved (just ask my ex-husband :evilgrin: ). I don't end up doing anything about it, but I sure do fantasize a lot.

Eloriel

[RedEagle]

70. Eloriel, you're not alone

I also gave these guys more leeway because they were in the type classification of: computer/scientist/academic/naive.

I have relatives in there, honest, by the way, so I was willing to assume them were being manipulated, led, and bamboozled.

Some of that may have occured.

VoteHere may have grabbed the site so they controlled the posting of their code, if they ever meant to. Dates important here, did they get the site before Dill's proclamation about posting VH's stuff? If so, it looks pretty planned. Or did they grab it to compromise Dill? If Dill knew about it before his vacation, and he knew it would make him look bad, why didn't he take care of it then?

So many questions.

But I will not ascribe innocence so readily any more.

[preciousdove]

71. Deja Vu all over again..

I watched so many University Researchers abandon true Lyme Disease research being forced out, bought out and even sent back to other countries. All emerging diseases are considered National Security threats and get "handled" by all those spooky government agencies.

It is the same thing that Accenture (formerly Anderson Consulting) did when they low balled the computer systems for the Univ of Minnesota, 3M, Republic Airlines and the State of Minnesota and they proceeded to extort additional fees. My brother said their legal department was twice the size of their technical department and most companies eventually threw them out, ate the loss and had to also pay someone else do the actual work. At the State of Minnesota the managers were recruited during the computer system selection phase and even when the evidence of wrongdoing over and over by Anderson Consulting in other companies was presented those people voted for Accenture and then left their state jobs. I wonder how much of our budget shortfall is just misplaced somewhere in Accenture's state acoounting software.

I urge you to do damage control and treat Dill at arms length. It sounds like you have already confronted him and got the answer to the question who's side he is chosing. Since they poisined the CT well of the founders of the Lyme Disease Foundation don't think that their persuasive techniques are only psychological.

If the WTO is in Cancun to shut down the media. Having the CEO of Diebold be visable on the NYSE ringing the closing bell. Seems to me they are saying they figure they have it "handled". I never got a reply about the TVEyes quote from the news source it appeared on.

I think they think they have won but I don't think the game is over. "Never think that a small group of determined individials..etc, etc, etc.

[Eloriel]

117. Thanks preciousdove

Just for clarification: fortunately I am not the one who has ever dealt with Dill personally. I just knew about some of the things goig on.

OT: If you or someone you know and love is suffering from Lyme disease, please PM me because I know of something that's helped a lot of people when nothing else has.

THanks again,

Eloriel

[Eloriel]

64. Just a simple kick

So more eyes can see it.

Eloriel

[TacticalPeek]

65. Voting counts > > > count the votes.

kick

[shance]

67. Some questions.......

How solid is the Holt bill as far as maintaining what most Americans** would advocate as a separate paper ballot from the machine?

Does the Holt deal with the 'source code' availability issue?

How helpful is the Holt Bill going to be to American voters in terms of safety and potential loop holes?

What legislators other than Holt are looking into this and are fully informed as to the problems and conflict of interest?

I mentioned the Holt bill to Barbara Boxer as she was running out of a reception and apparently unless Im mistaken shes involved on it. It was a rushed answer and she mentioned that the Holt bill is a House bill and that she (of course) is not involved there. Thats a very broad and sketchy summary. Otherwise that is all I know. But I heard earlier Boxer was involved on some voter iniative.

AND anyone have information or statements from what the candidates have said, and which candidates other than Dean have addressed it?

If anyone has a chance to ask any of the other candidates, I hope you will jump on it!!

[shance]

68. Correction on Boxer ***

"apparently unless Im mistaken shes involved on it"

I meant to say that I thought she was involved on something involved with the paper ballot issue....***

[shance]

75. Doesnt anyone have answers to these questions?

If not guys, thats pretty disturbing!

[loudsue]

72. Who's the guy who kept pushing the boulder up the hill...

only to see it roll back down again?? Seems like our work on this is going to be ongoing...trying to stick our fingers in the holes that keep appearing in the dam.

My county elections supervisor will hear about this Dill reversal and conflict, as well.

I'm disheartened and FURIOUS that Dill peed on DemActivist's demo with the voting machines. To me, he has sold out to the dark side; and I WOULD be surprised if there isn't a threat or a payoff that happened under the radar. Why are so many Americans such prostitutes? Isn't real Democracy worth DYING for anymore?? Where are the rest of the true patriots in this country, besides here at DU and some of the other sites. <shaking head in disbelief and despair>.

This topic is absolutely CODE RED....we need to take to the streets in pre-Iraq war numbers....this time we'd even have some of the repukes and libertarians there, too.

Thanks DU BBV team, for all you are (so competently!) doing to stop this outrageous theft of our Democracy.

O8) May you all be immeasurably blessed and protected. O8)

[dill]

73. Another hour down the tubes

I don't regularly read or post on DU, but someone brought
this thread to my attention.

I'm, of course, deeply disappointed to see all of these attacks on me
here. When I took on this cause, I expected and received attacks from
voting machine vendors and others with a vested interest in the
current system. I didn't expect to be slandered here.

I am most disappointed to see all this energy going into fighting
amongst ourselves instead of fighting for trustworthy voting.

Given that I've been fairly effective in this battle, people who want
to damage my credibility ought to stop and think about
what they're trying to accomplish. The primary beneficiaries will
be the people pushing self-auditing DREs.

Let's start with facts:

• The resolution on electronic voting, from when it was released
  January 20, 2003, called for a voter verifiable AUDIT trail.
  Paper was not specified. So far as I can tell, not one word
  has changed on the new site.
  
  The resolution also points out that the only tried and true
  technology at this time for providing that audit trail is
  paper.
  
  The resolution was intended to be a "least common denominator"
  thing. The most ardent advocate of a paper trail ought to be
  able to sign it. It may not go as far as such a person would
  like, but such a person would agree that we need an audit trail.
  
  I wrote it this way because I wanted the broadest appeal. Many
  computer scientists wanted to leave open the possibility for new
  technologies in the future.
  
  As a technologist, this seemed to me to be the right thing to do.
  Of course, any new technology would need to be held to a high
  standard.
  
  For the record, my position is that anything that I want a voting
  system I can trust. I don't care whether it's done with paper
  or magic. If I can be convinced that it's trustworthy, I'll
  support it. In particular, I support a voter verifiable paper
  requirement if we can get one.
  
  The resolution hasn't changed, my position hasn't changed, and I'm
  not backing off on anything.
  
  
• I think the personal email to Bev about VoteHere (posted without
  my permission) explains the situation well. They grabbed a site
  name similar to mine and we bought it back from them. I don't
  see why VoteHere's actions should raise questions about MY motives.
  I didn't ASK them to grab the name. Maybe they had their own plans
  for it, or maybe they were worried that another company would get it before
  I did. I don't know.
  
  So far as I know, the ONLY reason anyone but VoteHere and the
  volunteers working with me know about this is because of that email
  I sent Bev. The reason I sent the email was that I got a phone
  call from her expressing suspicion about my motives. I explained,
  but realized that I hadn't explained about the verifiedvoting.com
  domain. That should be clear from the message that was posted.
  
  
• My "connections" with VoteHere consist of agreeing to host some
  technical material disclosing the details of their system for a
  public evaluation. I will extend a similar offer to anyone else
  with similar material.
  
  VoteHere is the ONLY election vendor who has offered to disclose
  enough details of their system that it can be independently evaluated.
  
  VoteHere makes many claims about the system, which ought to be independently
  verified. One of those is that voters can verify that their votes are
  properly counted (not just recorded), without trusting VoteHere or
  anyone single individual or organization.
  
  As I thought I made clear to Bev, I am NOT endorsing VoteHere or
  accepting any claim they make at face value. I want an independent
  evaluation by competent people whom I trust.
  
  Suppose the VoteHere system fulfills all of the technical claims
  they make (which has not been determined). There remains the issue
  of whether it is going to be sufficiently understandable by the
  voting public that they can trust the system. I don't know the
  answer to that, and, while I can have an opinion on it after I know
  more, I don't feel it is my place to try to dictate that to others.
  I think we should let the voting public decide.
  
  
• The "tired old talking points" about the disabled, etc. are our
  biggest political problem. In California, the Secretary of State
  got 6,000 letters about the paper trail issue. 2/3 were on our
  side. Many of those on the other side were from disability rights
  organizations. Go check out www.aapd.com, and click on the link
  about opposing a paper trail. The Leadership Conference on Civil
  Rights, a coalition of 180 civil rights organizations including
  the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and lots of others, came out with a policy analysis
  opposing a paper trail requirement.
  
  We are getting a LOT of opposition from voting rights organizations.
  That's not who we want opposing us on a voting rights issue!
  
  Support, or at least less opposition, from these organizations
  would greatly enhance the chances of success.
  
  
• I WILL be going into semi-retirement on the voting issue shortly.
  My sabbatical is ending, and I have a research and teaching career
  that I want to resume.
  
  I've put an incredible amount of work into this (much more than
  I would have imagined). I can't continue at the current level,
  although I will remain involved. Others are going to have to
  shoulder some of the burden.
  
  
• I have no financial relationships with any voting companies, such as
  investments, employment, consulting, grants, contracts, gifts or
  anything else you can think of. I don't have any other connections
  that would bias me, such as relatives working at them.
  
  I also will not have any such relationships in the future. I feel
  that the fight for a trustworthy voting system is more important
  than financial gain, and, in fact, I've made significant other
  financial sacrifices to pursue it.
  

Ok, for those still with me, here is an explanation of the Georgia
hacker challenge:

In the exchange that lead to the challenge, my name was mentioned
specifically. Dr. Britain Williams, Georgia voting technology guru,
specifically said that he had challenged us to something or another,
and that we hadn't delivered.

"Hacker challenges" are often problematic. If the rules are set up
wrong, they end up making the wrong point even if the hackers succeed.
And, of course, the biggest risk is that the deck will be stacked
against the hackers. I was watching the news, waiting for someone to
try to define the rules of the challenge to bias it against the
"critics". Then it happened: Cathy Cox announced that she could not
share any Diebold intellectual property, and that any challenge would
have to be in the context of a "realistically simulated election."

I called the reporter who wrote the story to explain why this was
unreasonable, why we had not responded to William's challenge (it
wasn't serious) and to explain some of the complications of hacker
challenges. I explicitly said that we wouldn't rule out
participating, but there were many issues.

I also said that the security risks we were most worried about were
not at the local level, such as insertion of malicious code at the
vendors.

My goal in doing this was not to "shut down" a challenge, it was
to prevent Cox from defining the terms of such a challenge. I don't
know what various other people were planning to do, and I still don't
understand why they can't pursue it (although participating in a
"realistic election" doesn't sound like a good idea to me).

Maybe this was the right thing to do, and maybe it wasn't. But my
motives were reasonable, and, given what I knew at the time (and maybe
even now), the strategy was sound.

Now, can we get back to work? How many of you have contacted your
U.S. Representatives and Senators about supporting HR 2239?


David L. Dill
[email protected]
www.verifiedvoting.org

[never cry wolf]

76. I don't know all of the ins and outs of the entire issue

though I have followed as best I could. I, for one, think that you sound reasonable here Dr. Dill and do hope we can all work together to ensure fair voting.

[salin]

77. Thank you for your detailed response

and for your work on this issue.

(you also make me proud for my affiliation with the U.)

[DEMActivist]

78. I have only one question....

Why is it that the rest of the voters have to give up confidence in our voting system to accomodate the disabled?

If the disabled need a voting system, and don't care if it's reliable or not, let THEM have the rigged voting machines.

It's not an either/or situation.

However, I do believe the disabled are just as concerned about reliable voting systems as are the rest of us. Has anyone bothered to ask them?

As for your interference in the Georgia challenge, I'll only say that you had no invitation, you had no request to inject your opinion in the subject, Dr. Dill. You called the reporter, not the other way around. You used your academic title to close the discussion.

Quite frankly, I had made it a point to DISINVITE you from the process over the previous weekend. Shall we start posting dueling emails?

[gristy]

79. The disabled lobby vs disabled individuals

Why is it that the rest of the voters have to give up confidence in our voting system to accomodate the disabled?

If the disabled need a voting system, and don't care if it's reliable or not, let THEM have the rigged voting machines.

It's not an either/or situation.

However, I do believe the disabled are just as concerned about reliable voting systems as are the rest of us. Has anyone bothered to ask them?

The only good answer that I can come up with to the question you raise here is that the "disabled" lobby, when it comes to voting rights, is not who they say they are. From what I've heard it appears they have an agenda well beyond just making it possible for the disabled to vote privately and conveniently.

As for your other comments, remember we are on the same team!

[never cry wolf]

80. I don't believe Dr. Dill was advocating for the disabled groups

merely pointing out that they are some of the main challengers. By the way, do you know exactly what about the machines you are advocating with a verifiable paper ballot makes them inaccessible for the handicapped? I am an architect and we have to deal with accessibility issues on a daily basis and am quite familiar with the ADA, Illinois accessibility code, etc. There are all types of handicaps and all types of solutions for various problems. It is not just wheelchairs but prostheses, blindness, deafness, arthritis, missing digits, obesity, etc. I don't see how ANY machine could overcome all the possibilities.

I'd be willing to do what I could on this particular side of the issue seeing as how I am pretty much useless on the technical end.

[DEMActivist]

81. Answering your question....

By the way, do you know exactly what about the machines you are advocating with a verifiable paper ballot makes them inaccessible for the handicapped?

No one has ever answered that question satisfactorily. It seems to me that the only disabled group that a voter verified paper ballot would impact is the blind. They would certainly be incapable of confirming a piece of paper.

Given your expertise, perhaps you could explain to all of us how a piece of paper being spit out of the current machines would prevent a disabled person from using said machines?

[bpilgrim]

84. unless there was braile on it as well...

"It seems to me that the only disabled group that a voter verified paper ballot would impact is the blind. They would certainly be incapable of confirming a piece of paper."

i think we need to figure out how to work with them to make it work for all of us - as federally mandated.

peace

[never cry wolf]

86. Frankly I do not know

how any machine could be accessible to the blind without a trusted associate along with. True, ATMs have braille keys (even the drive up ones, doh!) but how do you know that the screens is showing what you want it to. Certainly you can't have a braille touch screen now can you. I suppose you could have an audio machine in a booth for the blind but do you then put one in every polling place and even at that how do you know what the screen is showing.

Now that I think about it, that's what this is all about, isn't it. Even the unimpaired that can see the screen can't see the little electorns recording or registering their vote properly, we are all visually impaired by BBV.

The ADA has some strict rules for accessibility that we are all familiar with, HC toilets, lever handles in lieu in knobs, ramps, etc. but there is a plethora of gray area that just cannot be written and codefied and that is covered by stating that you must make "reasonable accomodations." The ADA is a civil rights legislation, not a law or building code, therefore "reasonable accomodations" are only defined in court when a civil suit is brought.

I don't know if any of this helped but if anyone is aware of any specific accessibility complaints I feel that I could take a reasonable shot at shooting them down. Actually, we could start our own objections to the touch screen machines, just how do they accomodate the blind or armless??

[gristy]

85. A paper ballot, by itself, cannot be verified by a blind person

By the way, do you know exactly what about the machines you are advocating with a verifiable paper ballot makes them inaccessible for the handicapped?

So, many are advocating that paper ballots be eliminated entirely and a secure vote-casting/vote-counting system (without paper, but with audio and visual feedback which displays how one voted) is needed.

Others (and most DUers) are loathe to give up the security that is virtually inherent in paper ballots. I have recommended for some time machines that assist the disabled in generating AND verifying their ballot in private (these would include a keyboard, headset, printer to print the completed ballot, scanner to read the completed ballot, and software to convert the scan of the completed ballot to speech). This paper ballot is then submitted right along with all the paper ballots completed with the high-tech assistance of a pen or pencil.

[never cry wolf]

88. And neither can a touch screen

but I like your proposal.

[Eloriel]

121. Not only that, DEMActivist

But why on earth would an academic who had a professional PR Person as handy and available as the phone RISK mucking up something so delicate, something he knew absolutely nothing about on this end (and which didn't involve him AT ALL)?

You're damn right, you didn't do the right thing, Professor.

Eloriel

[DEMActivist]

123. I think if HALF the people here knew the TRUE story

they'd feel very differently about David Dill. Perhaps it's time to tell the truth - the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth.

I feel a new article on it's way....don't you? :evilgrin:

[bpilgrim]

125. well i sure hope so...

be sure to post it here as well all this innuendo is not helping.

so yall think dr. dill messed up the hack challenge on purpose?

to be honest i don't see how that sets us back much, we can turn the challenge into a campaign shoot that would probably garner even more media and hoopla before all is said and done then what this one may have. maybe it's a blessing in disguise? and gives us even more time to prepare for what dr. dill cautions against a set-up that may send out the oppossite message then what we INTEND which clearly would not be good.

i need to see more proof and my 'tin-foil' credentials are pretty rock solid.

peace

[DEMActivist]

126. What us?

I haven't seen you show up on the activist forums or offer any assistance.

There's no US where you are concerned.

[bpilgrim]

128. oo i c it's your 'SHOW'

fine no problem, i'm just here tryin to spread the word ;->

:hi:

peace

[DEMActivist]

130. No, not mine alone

But you can damned well bet that it belongs to the people who have been slaving away for 8 long months to make this issue come to the surface.

There are many people who have worked their asses off for a very long time.

Of course, you might know that if you had become involved at some point.

[bpilgrim]

131. thats right

also - fyi - there are other projects going on besides yours, with people 'working thier a$$es off' and all that AND i have pitched in where i thought i could as well as publish stories about the issue - trying to pass the word an all...

but i am sure that doesn't mean a thing to you when someone like dr. dill who has done a substantial ammount more for 'OUR' - weTHEpeople - cause is now under public assault by his own side for a simple misunderstanding apparantly.

i think we... i mean, YOU need to be more careful before we accuse folks who are apparantly helping is all i am saying.

:hi:

peace

[never cry wolf]

133. now, now

i realize that i have little room to talk here but let's keep our eyes on the prize please. we are all after the same thing, let's not let any dissention in the ranks arise but find a way to work together for a common goal.

[bpilgrim]

134. now thats what im talkin about

:hi:

peace

[Eloriel]

139. steviet and bpilgrim

The problem is we at this point have reason to believe we are NOT all after the same thing.

I think DEMActivist's frustration, and I'll add mine for sure (and boy is ThAT an understatement), comes from the fact that Dr. Dill had ample opportunities to be of more help than he has.

He had ample opportunities to be more forthcoming about his ties -- oh, that's right he doesn't have any -- with VoteHere. So did Avi Rubin, btw. That was hardly any "help" to "our side," Rubin amazingly enough forgetting a stack of stock options from a company he amazingly forgot he'd agreed to serve on the Technical Advisory Board of.

If you honestly don't know enough about this whole subject to realize:

1. VoteHere is itself a compromised company (IMO a severely compromised organization)

2. VoteHere is busily injecting itself everywhere it possibly can -- good marketing, or good co-optation of the voting machines issues not to mention the academic "experts" that might line up to aid and assist

3. That any "solution to anything" from a compromised company is simply not acceptable, period

3. Any and all associations by "our side" with VoteHere compromises and threatens to destroy "our side," (as if we had much of an "our side" left!!!)

And if you also don't trust DUers who have been here posting frequently and some of us many times daily for months and years when we say: there's much more to this story than has been revealed here...

Then I'm not only disappointed in you (you esp., bpilgrim, sorry but it's true), but I despair even further that we will be able to solve this problem. Dear GOD -- we're up against the friggin' CIA, people!!! DO YOU WANT YOUR VOTES OWNED BY THE CIA or its front groups??????? That's what VoteHere looks like. Proof? No, I don't have proof. But why WOULD a bigwig at a huge (and CIA-connected) defense contractor take a job with a little bitty (by comparison) firm like VoteHere?

A small handful, very small handful of people with no money, no real "connections," just a (usually) hospitible discussion forum to has things out, a little PR talent and some (really good!) computer programming talent and our wits. (I say "our," but ya'll know it's been Bev and DEMActivist doing 99.9% of the work, with some really good assist from a few people you're all familiar with, or should be.) That's IT. That's all "our side" brings to the table -- hell, "our side" even has to figure out a way to fend off or convert the well-meaning disability rights people and groups.

Why WOULD David Dill align himself with VoteHere? Has he not bothered to check them out? Oh, pardon me, I forgot. He hasn't. He just got snookered by them buying up a domain name behind his back. He just offered to host their whatever on his website. (THEY'VE GOT THEIR OWN DAMNED WEBSITE, WHY DO THEY NEED HIS? AND WHY IS HE LETTING THEM? THAT'S NOT ASSOCIATION? THAT'S NOT A LEVEL OF ENDORSEMENT TO CONSIDER LETTING A CIA-CONNECTED COMAPNY COME UP WITH A "SOLUTION" TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS???

Wake up, people. I might be crazy, I might be paranoid, but DAMMIT. If we lose our vote, we lose EVERYTHING. All that will be left is the illusion of democracy.

I'll say this to David Dill: if he genuinely has no "association" or other inappropriate ties to VoteHere, he should immediately withdraw his offer to host their whatever-the-hell-it is on his site. As I pointed out: they have their own website. A linke from his will be MORE than sufficient. More than.

For the rest of those reading this thread. Think about it. Think of our recent history and recall how many, many, many times "the other side" (yes, the dark side) has co-opted our initiatives, our movements, our plans. The Bush cabal is especially good at it, promising one thing and delivering another, or rather doing what they damn please. Why the hell are the ownership of all these companies so filled with Bush cabal and CIA, etc., ties and sympathizers?

Look at the record: http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm
And if you haven't reviewed this remarkable webpage in a while, it's absolutely appropriate that you do so again. ANd "get it" what we're up against.

Now, figure it out -- whose side are YOU on? Because all this talk about Dem candidates is just so much mental masturbation if we don't get this voting machine problem fixed. Write it down and date it: I absolutely guarantee it.

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

144. Eloriel

I am simply trying to get to the bottom of a very serious charge against an apparant ally.

Dr. Dill is on the record pushing for a paper audit trail.
he has come here and said he has no ties to votehere NOR does he even know how it is possible to make an electronic audit system he could trust and has cast legitimate DOUBT on the current process as it now exist.

now unless that wasn't him and his website - or he via the media - changes his's official stance i am left with doubts.

shoot don't get down on me, i am just pointing about some doubts that any reasonable person might have. look on it as honest advice from one member of the du 'think tank' who is on OUR side.

shoot, who do you think one of the first ones around here was promoting open source let alone paper recipts, ME.

i am only asking because i see him as an ally and if he ain't i need to see some REAL proof.

lets NOT eat our own

peace

[gristy]

127. I would like to discourage you from doing this, DEMActivist

Perhaps it's time to tell the truth - the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth. I feel a new article on it's way....don't you?

It might make you feel better, but from where I sit I think such a rant would do much more damage to OUR cause than would help it.

[DEMActivist]

129. I didn't say it would come from me

But I do think we should all be prepared for the truth to surface like it did with Avi Rubin.

[bpilgrim]

132. so there is more and yall will explain it in an article?

good i will wait to read it.

peace

[DEMActivist]

135. Not "us" - the mainstream press

Because they are the ones who brought it to OUR attention.

We were too busy trusting David Dill to do any investigation into his motives. Others weren't.

[bpilgrim]

137. they brought what, to your attention ?

that he is pushing a commercial, electronic verifiable solution?

well he said he isn't here so i will take his word and his actions ocer the media till i see more proof.

i think that is a pretty damning charge to make and i hope this is not made lightly especially after everything that transpired here.

i guess we will learn more when the article comes out... when is it expected?

peace

[zeemike]

82. What bothers me about this is

You said “ a paper trail if we can get it” That to me says that we will not get it
And any election that does not have a verifiable paper trail must be considered fraudulent.

[dill]

87. What bothers me about this is

The current situation is that about 20% of the country
is using DREs, and lots more plan to buy them. We've had
a few local victories, but we're a long way from winning.

So, yes, we might not get a voter verifiable paper trail
requirement. That's why there is a fight on.

[shance]

91. Am not sure how you can say that David. Paper is not simply an hoped

for item. It is a must.

That is, if we are concerned about any chance of maintaining a Democracy. The way you seem to imply such a vital component as if its a technicality or a kind of gee whiz sure hope we can get our paper ballot, makes me understand why Bev has probably become cautious with you. I hope you'll excuse the sarchastic tone, but after all its our Democracy we are talking about isnt it?

Thats not just a 'technicality' our country, or for that matter any other country can afford. These machines must employ a separate paper ballot or no election will ever be fully valid.

Its more than easy to do, and so MUCH Ado about Nothing in terms of implementing a paper trail. Wheres the problem other than special interests saying it cant be done?

[never cry wolf]

94. I think he is just being realistic

not saying we should just give up. Saying it is a must will not replace the 20% of the country the machines are already placed in and it is a fact that we may not be able to win this fight totally, as much as I pray we do.

[shance]

96. Realistic? We are talking about our Democracy.

How much more realistic need I get?

If Im missing something let me know, so far I am not seeing it.

[never cry wolf]

98. Read what he said

"The current situation is that about 20% of the country
is using DREs, and lots more plan to buy them. We've had
a few local victories, but we're a long way from winning.

So, yes, we might not get a voter verifiable paper trail
requirement. That's why there is a fight on."

There is much to do, there is much already in place that needs to be dismantled and there are forces fighting against that. Again, I am not saying, nor do I believe Dr. Dill is saying, to give up or that it is a battle not worth fighting, just that we are a long way from winning and there are no assurances we will win.

[gristy]

99. I'm with you, shance - paper ballots are a must

Paper ballots, along with a few other straightforward details (see signature line below), are a must so as to preserve our democracy. But Dill is right in that we may not get paper ballots in every state by 2004. But if we can get them into enough states, and if we can get out a sufficient vote so as to landslide bush*, then (hopefully) the Dems can reverse this whole electronic voting juggernaut.

And note: I believe paper "ballots" refer to vote-recording paper that is not only counted in recounts and audits, but also counted in the very first count on election day/night. There is/should be NO electronic tabulation from any voter-controlled machine.

[never cry wolf]

103. Agreed

But the punch cards are computer counted, aren't they?

[shance]

112. Thanks for the clarification Gristy**

And I apologize to David if I misunderstood what he was saying about the paper ballot.

With that said and from everything I am reading, there is no option to a paper ballot and the machines can easily implement this procedure.

[BevHarris]

136. We will get a voter verifiable paper requirement

There is no question about that.

By the way, the "groups" who are against it are not representing their own constituencies. Those of us who called the local chapters of the League of Women Voters quickly found that out. Same goes for the grass roots level of the disabilities groups -- they want the paper trail, and they got sold out upriver.

The civil rights groups are already figuring it out.

We will get a voter verified paper ballot.

Therefore, there is no point in discussing VoteHere.

We will get a voter verified paper ballot. Dr. Dill, get back on the train, please.

Bev

[gristy]

138. That's what I figured...

By the way, the "groups" who are against it are not representing their own constituencies. Those of us who called the local chapters of the League of Women Voters quickly found that out. Same goes for the grass roots level of the disabilities groups -- they want the paper trail, and they got sold out upriver.

[bpilgrim]

83. I appreciate your reply

I am familiar with your work on this issue and certainly appreciate that as well and hope that you can understand the level of frustration many of us have regarding this issue with the looming elections and everything that has happened since the last one and forgive some overzealous patriot suspicions here.

You raise a very valid concern regarding the disabled that needs to be addressed since we certainly don't want to be fighting with them.

I am curious if any compromise solutions have been put out there yet which would address theirs and our concerns at the same time.

I understand that it is early and yall might still be sifting through the responces or not even seen them all yet but i also wonder what your thoughts are, at this early state, on, in paticular, a wholely electronic solution to the audit problem? Is there any that exist now even in therory that you would feel comfortable with?

Thanks again for your responce and for your work in this regard :toast:

peace

[dill]

89. Electronic voter verification

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an electronic
voter verifiable audit trail, but I don't know how to
do it.

I'm not going to be satisfied with anything that requires
me to trust the designer, manufacturer, "independent testing
laboratories", or election officials. So how could you do it?
I don't know. Someone else has to invent it, provide a detailed
design for PUBLIC review, and prove that it's a meaningful
audit trail even if you don't trust any individual or organization.

[bpilgrim]

92. thank you

i thought that you would say that and i am glad you did because i can't think of one either and would have a problem with those very same issues but would be willing to listen to someone who thought they had come up with one.

after having read your site i felt very confident that you as a computer scientist without any hidden agenda would be very hard to convince that an electronic system can be made secure enough to not need a human verifyable audit trail and so again i like to say thank you for comming here and spending time to clear this up.

you are CERTAINLY an ally and we all apreciate your efforts to make our votes COUNT :bounce:

btw: welcome to the DU :toast:

peace

[Junkdrawer]

97. I would begin by also thanking you for your hard work on this issue...

Question: What if VoteHere relies on something like RSA? Would you support it if it said something like "well, 2048 bit RSA is secure, so we can assume that no election official could crack that private key"?

[gristy]

101. I know you didn't ask me, Junkdrawer, but

By all means, demand that Touch Screens produce a voter verified paper ballot and that that ballot is the ballot of record and used in all recounts and audits.

I'll throw my two cents in. The problem is that one has to clearly state what problem one is solving with encryption such as RSA. My guess is that the problem being "solved" is one that simply does not exist in a paper-ballot-based voting system. As soon as you have electronic tabulation of votes with no paper ballots, quite a few new problems are created, and encryption may not be of much help in solving any of them.

[dill]

102. RSA

I think VoteHere uses El Gamal, which I would have to review
even to explain (I'm not a cryptographer, contrary to what was
posted previously).

There is a basic question about whether to trust cryptography.
In general, there is no mathematical proof that the practical
systems are hard to break. RSA depends on 400+ years of failed
attempts to factor large composite numbers. Maybe someone will
discover how to do it tomorrow. Maybe the CIA has already
figured it out (as suggested earlier).

The dependency of the scheme on particular cryptographic algorithms
would have to be identified explicitly, and then we would have
to think about these questions. At some point, the questions
either get down to crypto or politics/sociology, at which point
I have no special knowledge.

[Junkdrawer]

108. Thank you. I have a gut feeling that this particular detail...

will turn out to be key - no pun intended. ;)

[Junkdrawer]

111. FYI: Here's a "simple" description of the El Gamal cryptosystem...

While it is quite efficient to raise numbers to large powers modulo p (recall the repeated squaring algorithm), the inverse computation of the discrete logarithm is much harder. The El Gamal system relies on the difficulty of this computation.

More...

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~goodrich/teach/ics247/notes/elgamal.pdf

[Eloriel]

114. Let's START by getting the right terminology

A "voter verifiable audit trail," which is the term you used in your post, will NOT do, not by a long shot.

IF you are David Dill, and unless I missed it I think you need to admit to that or deny it, then you should be very well aware that an "audit trail" won't cut the mustard.

The State of Georgia has a law specifying that the only legal vote is the "electronic vote." Therefore, in the case of a contested election, a voter verified audit trail does NOTHING. It's a waste of time. In fact, in such a case I'd side with the likes of Cathy Cox on the matter -- why go to the expense and time and trouble for something that cannot be used in recounts, and cannot be used to prove fraud or anything else? Audit trails are only as good as the honesty of the programmers and their corporate owners.

I've become enamored from a line from Rebecca Mercuri (and I beg forgiveness if I get her exact wording wrong -- I'm not going to take the trouble to look it up): Any programmer can program the computer to show one result to the voter, record a different result, and print a report {I'll add: send to HQ} something else entirely.

And I'll tell you something else, IF you are David Dill (and even if you're not).

I'm not going to be satisfied with anything that requires
me to trust the designer, manufacturer, "independent testing
laboratories", or election officials. So how could you do it?

You start with open source code and a very rigidly controlled chain of custody over that, you continue with voter-verified paper ballots which can be legally used in recounts, and you add very randomly chosen precincts all around the state to be randomly audited by hand recounts (I'm talking pieces of paper drawn out of a hat to select these precincts at random). You ALSO add exit polling conducted by a completely non-partisan organization.

Oh, and NO VoteHere "solutions" for anything, ever. Corporations (not to mention the CIA) need to get the hell out of our elections, period. And probably our universities too.

Edited to add: Yes, I missed it. He did announce himself.

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

124. "voter verifiable audit trail" can = a paper trail

and he said he did not know of ANY electronic system that would suffice AND he mentioned all the other major areas that needed to be accounted for before you could be assured so WHAT is the 'problem'?

and he said he is not involved with any votehere solution...

why are yall jumping down his throat?

i betcha he will be VERY supportive of an open source model for the software part of the equation but it would not be MANDATORY necesarily IF we had VVB which he also states he is in favor of so i will LEAP to the conclusion that he would also be in favor of a system that employed both methods.

why don't we ask nicely, instead of giving folks the third degree is all i am saying :loveya:

peace

[gristy]

90. The problem with electronic audits of the vote in my view

i also wonder what your thoughts are, at this early state, on, in paticular, a wholely electronic solution to the audit problem? Is there any that exist now even in therory that you would feel comfortable with?

is the same as that for an electronic voting system that does not use paper ballots (i.e., DRE). That, due to the complexity and the high-tech nature of electronic voting or electronic audits, it is much more difficult to prove that they are accurate, correct, and cannot allow for stolen votes. And you have to prove it again and again with each hardware upgrade and software update. Fuggetaboutit! A paper-based system, where the paper-ballot is the master record, is much simpler, and its risk for fraud therefore more readily identifiable and contained.

[never cry wolf]

93. Agreed

The whole HAVA thing has to be rethought. Everyone here knows the problems with compatibility between different computers utilizing different OS, different software and even different version of the same software. If there are half a dozen or more different type of electronic voting machines out there, each with varying software, patches and upgrades it will be a TOTAL mess just screaming "bitch up the results" on all levels from National elections to school referendums.

It HAS to be paper, even if counted by the scanners as in my polling place.

[sendero]

100. I don't claim to understand everything...

... that is going on here. But I would say that *as a technologist* I cannot envision *any* system that doesn't allow the user to verify that their own vote has been correctly (and if need be auditably) recorded that does not involve a human readable paper receipt.

I'm waiting for someone to correct me, because I don't believe there is a possible correction. And make no mistake, I don't trust the machine vendors, the cryptography vendors, none of them. So telling me something is "unbreakable" carries no weight whatseover. It makes no difference if the ctypto is unbreakable - if what is encrypted is incorrect.

[gristy]

104. You are correct.

I cannot envision *any* system that doesn't allow the user to verify that their own vote has been correctly (and if need be auditably) recorded that does not involve a human readable paper receipt.

If someone disagrees with you, they're a "moran"! :) No, not really. It is possible that some people will disagree with you. If they do, ask them to describe in as much detail as they can what such a system would look like. Either they won't have any idea (trusting in technology types), or (these would be the morons) they'll propose a system with more holes than a slice of swiss cheese!

Remember, David Dill can't envision one either!

[Cocoa]

105. regarding the groups opposed to the paper trail

What is your overall opinion of this opposition, is there any common ground, or are the differences completely incompatible.

And do you think the opposition is legitimate, or do you think these groups have been compromised in some way.

One point that has been made that I tend to go along with is that the issue of election security is about more than technology, though technology is important. For example, I think it was Brit Williams that conducted a study whose conclusions involved mundane things like what kind of rubber band was used to bind the ballots or something like that.

Not sure if I'm being clear, but basically what I'm saying is that I think it's a mistake to dismiss the concerns such as the accessibility for disabled people, or the benefits of DRE's compared to the older technologies as far as speed and accuracy. Naturally, electronic security is your field, so it's going to be your priority, but it's not the only concern.

[dill]

115. Accessibility

The opposition is a bunch of groups who don't necessarily
agree, and members of those groups don't necessarily agree.

There are a few people who are spokesmen for voters with disabilities.
Are they really representing their constituents? I don't know.
I've seen email that has been sent out to large email lists, which
is definitely presenting a one-sided and often inaccurate view
of the debate. If people are only getting this information, they
might come to the wrong conclusions.

I don't know what people's motives are. I've talked to a number of
people in voting rights groups, and they seem sincere. But
they are coming from a different world, where concerns about election
fraud have often been used to deny people their right to vote. And
the people I've met are highly non-technical.

I suspect we're going to be at odds in the short term, because there
is so much pressure to spend money NOW on DREs, which they want.
In the longer term,
we can think about how to make sure everyone gets what they want and
need.

I'm certainly not dismissing the concerns of accessibility. Precisely
the opposite. Accessibility is not just a propaganda ploy by voting
machine companies. It is a huge concern for voters with disabilities,
and a huge political issue that may determine the difference between
success or failure on our part.

[BevHarris]

106. Before everybody trips over themselves to suck up

Notice this, because I think it says it all --

Both DemActivist and I have a trail of emails clearly indicating that the Georgia demo was not in any way a part of what Dr. Dill was doing, that he and his cohorts had nothing to do with strategizing, issuing, accepting, or planning for the Georgia challenge. But in fact, before he called the reporter, he had e-mailed DemActivist three times in six minutes trying to insert himself into it. That would have been fine, except that we had a plan and he would have been expected to follow it, not run his own show.

Look at this wording, and you can see what the problem is:

I called the reporter who wrote the story to explain why this was unreasonable, why we had not responded to William's challenge...I explicitly said that we wouldn't rule out participating...I also said that the security risks we were most worried about were not at the local level, such as insertion of malicious code at the vendors.

There was never any "we" about it. A specific plan was being followed, which Dr. Dill had access to with a password, and he did the specific thing that we had admonished everyone NOT to do, which was to start criticizing the terms of engagement before we had ascertained exactly what they wanted off the table, thereby giving us info on what they were afraid of and making them look worried and foolish all at the same time.

Dr. Dill has since written to me that he didn't know what the plan was because he never used his password and he never familiarized himself with it before he made that call.

I have refrained from doing anything that smacks of infighting for two months now, but I will tell you this: Dr. Dill has consistently asked us to hold off, slow down, avoid doing things, "wait a couple weeks," "wait until Usenix," "wait until August" and even in his last e-mail to me he admonished us to avoid any demonstrations and "hold off a little longer" on things, for reasons "he can't reveal."

We are winning the battles, folks. If Dr. Dill wants to step aside and let other activists execute their plans without interfering, that would be good. If he wants to help, so much the better.

Guess what? There are two more demos afoot besides Georgia. Though I know about them, they are not my show, and I am not trying to insert myself into them, even when they do things differently than I would. It's not up to me to appoint myself the guardian of all voting machine activists in the USA.

Love to have Dr. Dill aboard the train, as he has been in the past. If he continues to lobby for a paper trail, and if he supports rather than interferes with other activists, that would be great.

However, I have yet to see him support anything any of the other activists are doing. Even solid computer studies like the MS Access hack, which has gotten very good validation from many computer scientists, have been studiously ignored by Dr. Dill. When we asked him to help go public with the Windows hack, he said "I can't make head nor tails of this code" and said he didn't know anyone who knew Windows.

Oooookay. Excuse me Dr. Dill, but I believe you, Dan Wallach, and Adam Stubblefield are very familiar with Ed Felten, are you not? As I understand it, he went to the University of Washington for awhile and he has exactly the expertise that's needed. In fact, he was referred to me for exactly this purpose. I believe he has co-authored work with you folks.

Bev

[bpilgrim]

110. is that what this is... a 'SHOW'?

sheesh... i thought it was a LOT more than just that AND we better learn how to PLAY NICE with one another if we actually hope to move forward and win.

now he has stated that he is not aware of any electronic audit system that he would be comfortable with as well as the regulatory process that now exists.

AND he said that he wasn't against a hack demo but that we needed to control some of the ground rules and cautioned against being setup, something i did as well, albeit sarcastically - make sure they are actually plugged into a network - and i see no malice in that just good sense, no?

sounds like he is still on our side, i say lets give him the benifit of all his previous support for OUR SIDE not to mention the DOUBT and chill with the rhetoric so we are talking with eachother and not at.

peace

[DEMActivist]

113. Yes! It's show and tell time!

We've "talked" this issue to death.

This issue is not going to get the widespread attention it needs until we do a show and tell.

You are damned straight we've moved to the SHOW stage. Without it, this issue is dead in the water and our democracy is gone.

on edit:
In case you hadn't noticed, we are RAPIDLY running out of time.

[bpilgrim]

116. so lets get our 'ACT' together...

and work together.

peace

[DEMActivist]

118. Been doing that for 8 months

Where have you been?

[bpilgrim]

122. then what happened here?

that is what i am talking about.

nevermind... i am out, just glad dr. dill came and responded in person or yall would have had me thinking he was against us.

you might be too close to the trees right now to discuss this :shrug:

chill and keep up the good work :toast:

btw: i've been busy myself these past 2 years ;->

peace

[Eloriel]

142. This is easily the single most disheartening post I've seen on

DU for a very long while.

I admire Bev greatly, for she has character strengths I do not have, willing to continue to work with people who have demonstrated that they are NOT on "our side," whether by intention or just ineptitude. Some days I think she's brilliant for this; other days I think she's nuts and could tear my hair out.

The very least of his "sins" is that he had no right to insert himself into the discussion about the Georgia demonstration. He screwed it up -- and we can quibble about whether it was intentional on his part or just a screw up. At the very least it was arrogant almost beyond measure. We could quibble about the same re what "intention" there was behind all the other events he was involved in just enough to keep Bev and Roxanne at arm's length while appearing to be oh so helpful.

It very much reminds me of the massive stonewalling Roxanne and I got from Cathy Cox's office (when we were trying desperately to HELP her be aware of this problem so she could fix it): eventually you get the idea it's not just incompetence they're trying to cover up.

sounds like he is still on our side,

Well, not from where I sit. Bev thinks, apparently, he can still redeem himself. I wouldn't give him that chance. You know, "can't be fooled again" and all that.

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

145. well, as you said even bev still has faith in him...

i say we keep an eye on him and move on, until his public postion changes there ain't much we can do anyways cept petentially alienate a SUPPORTER.

to charecterize this as someones 'show' that they control seems a bit petty to me considering the stakes.

look what do yall expect when yall call out a guy whos public pronouncements - that i am aware of - support a paper audit trail?

sorry, but i am just asking questions, trying to be polite and rational, i don't know why that should be shocking or why i should be riddiculed for it.

yall will have me in your 'suspect' file next at this rate now can we chill until new info is made public.

or at least bring us/me up to speed.

:hi:

peace

[shance]

146. Thanks Eloriel. What's the problem Pilgrim?

(having John Wayne flashbacks)

Perhaps you really are confused and struggling over something regarding this issue, but the criticisms are becoming old and insulting, considering Bev is working 24/7 to get the simplest of a remedy implemented into our voting machines! Why are you essentially fighting a paper ballot? You say you arent and then you back track with some contradictory statement.

Perhaps you're just a concerned closet tree hugger and are worried about the Redwoods, because other than that I cant explain the tremendous conflict over such a simple remedy. It doesnt make sense. Apparently I am not the first one to bring this to your attention either.

If you want to work with Dr. Dill - by all means go do it! You support him enough, why stay here? But please stop wasting time here being the naysayer on everything especially after all Bev has done. There are better ways to utilize cyberspace.

[BevHarris]

147. Actually, bpilgrim, you have a reason to take a special interest in

the community of people of color, no?

And you are right that we should take action. Visit this thread -- what is asked of you is constructive and easy --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=262189

and those of you who belong to, and have family members who can help with the issue in the above thread -- ie, start by getting your local contacts for the database -- please, let's get going on that.

Let's "play the race card." (They do, but they cheat!)

Bev

[bpilgrim]

148. oh please...

i said i didn't see him not supporting the same things we are, in public anyways.

look if he is undercover i am sure bev will out him. she has raised my suspicions and i TRUST HER but i am the type who likes to know for sure especially when he appears to be an ally.

for now i am backing off and will wait to hear more from bev. and dr. dill.

so chill, please.

peace

[gristy]

150. I am hesitant to say this

but what the heck.

Eloriel, DEMActivist, Bev: you are peggin' my shrill meter. What is WITH all the ad hominem attacks?

There are folks working this issue all over the country, especially since the story finally broke in the Times (yes, I will thank you folks for that). Many were working on it (myself included) even well before that. And many work on it independent from DU or your group. Some of the comments in this thread indicate that sometimes you might forget this. We may not know all you know, nor spend the hours you spend on it, nor share your exact perspective. But don't denigrate us for this.

I commend bpilgrim's patience.

[althecat]

119. Dear David I have read your post carefully and thankyou for making it..

Dear David I have read your post carefully and thankyou for making it.. I have posted below a new thread with the substance of my reply. I would appreciate it greatly if you can review it and respond.

Regards

Alastair Thompson
Scoop Media

(Edited to provide link to post #120... my full response to David Dill.)

[SharonAnn]

74. Sisyphus was the guy. Albert Camus also wrote a book by

that name, didn't he? Hmmm, my memory's not so good any more.

On edit:

The Myth of Sisyphus

[althecat]

120. Scoop Editor's response to David Dill... including a few questions...

Dear David,

I have read your post carefully and thankyou for making it.. for your information I am Alastair Thompson editor of Scoop Media who published the original GEMs story by Bev Harris.

Firstly, welcome to DU.

Secondly transparency is extremely important and to be fair to your critics, it is the completely opaque role/position of VoteHere in relation to this debate is what prompted concerns about your links to them.

The fact that Avi Rubin - who was also connected to VoteHere as we now know - was apparently encouraged to do his analysis by your good-self further compounded our confusion.

And while it may take some of your valuable time to do so. I can assure you that explaining yourself to this group. Which includes a far wider group of people than Bev, DemA and myself, is well worth your time.

As you say we are on the same side. And infighting should be avoided at all costs. That said, it is also very important that we understand the roles, connections and motivations of all the activists involved in this issue upon whose integrity we rely.

Turning to the substance of your comments.

I see from your answers above that you cannot envision any VVAT which does not involve paper. In this regard I think the words "Voter Verifiable" are probably the critical part of the phrase. No method of auditing that is dependent on having a degree in computer security would meet this standard.

Ordinary people can verify ballots, and here in NZ the way we do it is with human eyes (several sets, scrutineers from the parties + official counters) looking at the ballots and sticking them in piles. While I appreciate that with complex ballots like you tend to have in California in particular this is much harder.

Meanwhile VoteHere is peddling as I understand it some sort of online solution which enables voters to go online and look at the ballot that they cast. This seems on its face to be an attempt to provide some sort of solution to the demand for a VVAT. In my view it is a gimmick. But what is your view of this?

From our perspective the problem with VoteHere is that we do not have any detail on how their solution works, why it works or what it is supposed to achieve. On its face it seems to defeat everything we are seeking, i.e. a genuine "Voter Verfiable" audit trail.

I have two questions for you which arise out of this.

1. Since you presumably know more about VoteHere than we do, what does its technology promise?

2. At this stage in your knowledge of what they propose do you think this solution is a) adequate b)a step in the right direction or c) unacceptable?

The second major issue in the posts above that you have not yet addressed is the question of who VoteHere is, their connections to SAIC, the military and the CIA.

In the interests of completeness I think it would be very helpful for is for you to set the record straight on the questions that arise out of this.

I.E. Are you aware of these connections? Are you concerned by them? Do you think military IT contractors ought to play a role in the delivery of the US vote counting apparatus?

Regards from downunder

And thankyou again for posting your reply to this forum.

regards
Alastair Thompson
Scoop

[BevHarris]

141. OKAY GANG: Let's start moving in another direction: See this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=262189

And watch for the Sonny D posts here and in an upcoming Sonny D forum at http://www.blackboxvoting.org

He's working on his first salvo. It will no doubt involve collecting e-mails, contact info for all the local chapters of the civil rights organizations in your area, and especially, the black churches.

He just made a presentation to Tabor 100, an organization of black businessmen in the Northwest, and will be helping folks create awareness in among people of color.

Go to this link, post your support, and send PMs to those here who you think may be interested. And stay tuned.

Bev Harris

P.S. I know this guy. I have absolutely no control over him, we just unleashed a loose cannon, folks :)

[Eloriel]

143. Well, there are loose cannons and then there are loose cannons

I'll vote for this kind.

Eloriel

149. But WAIT

I am sorry, but that makes TWO recent connections with VoteHere--Avi Rubin, and now David Dill.

And that is BESIDES the third, with a key HAVA amendment? (see my website)

I am afraid I forwarded a letter to David Dill months ago, which I had written to US Senator Daschle, explaining the horrendous problems (related to VoteHere and certification) I found. It was days later that David Dill started his online petition. I probably still have the fax receipt.

...funny that now, VoteHere has sponsored him in some sense...

When pressed, David told me he had gotten people to sign on to the campaign with the intent of paper ballots...but then he was willing to "slide" on the issue, and I said I thought this was a "bait and switch." Isn't it?

What I don't buy are TWO lame excuses surrounding VoteHere:

1) I don't believe that Avi Rubin "forgot" he was on the VoteHere board. That is extremely unlikely, since VoteHere had been in the news a lot recently.I confronted Avi in an e-mail two weeks before his resignation, and his name disappeared from the VoteHere roster!? And only AFTER he was confronted by a reporter did he officially resign?

2) I don't believe that the ownership of David Dill's website JUST HAPPENED to be VoteHere?!? Which also, by the way, seems to be consistent with VoteHere's marketing strategy ("Vote Verification")?!?

AND

DAYS AFTER the Rubin critique of Diebold, VoteHere announces a tie up with Diebold's major competitor?


Dan S.

www.libertywhistle.us

[BevHarris]

151. Re: VoteHere and Sequoia -- I'm curious about THIS

Supposedly VoteHere has not provided Dr. Dill with enough specifics for him to go ahead and post their "solution" on his web site, which he has promised to do.

Yet, Sequoia "signed on" with VoteHere for their verification solution. How does a voting company "sign on" without the specifications of what this system does?

Bev

152. We assume they were...

Assume VoteHere and Sequoia were planning this for months--to tie up. Perhaps planning even before Avi got his position at JHU, which was only earlier this year.

A position at JHU which, receives funding through the Senate high-tech and NSF grants. Ahem (emphasis added).

Understand what creature you are dealing with.

Dan

[loudsue]

153. bpilgrim....I love ya...

And I don't question ANYTHING about your loyalties or motives.

I've been around DU almost since the inception, and I've seen what you do and who you are. You're one of the good guys, for sure, and you've been fairly well beaten up on this thread, but have taken it in a spirit of concern, reconcilliation and humility. I have a lot of respect for you.

All of you BBV folks are ALSO the good guys, and have put nothing less than your lives (and safety) on the line to fight for our Democracy. Bev, Roxanne, Eloriel, Alistair....many of us here feel you guys walk on water, and believe me when I say most of us know how outraged you had to be by the interference of Dr. Dill to the well-planned show-down in Georgia.

Regardless of Dr. Dill's motives, guilt or innocence, many of us, who participate locally based on your guidance, share the tremendous feeling of betrayal...and the horrible frustration of yet another set-back. I personally have been hanging on the edge of my seat in anticipation since I heard about your courageous challenge, DemActivist. The fierce blow of suppression and oppression knocked the wind out of many of us.

But I'd like to echo Bev's optimism that, though you might have to make an end-run around the back field, I KNOW YOU WILL PREVAIL at showing the vote-stealing bastards for who they are.

Forgive me if watching the in-fighting on this thread has me a little rattled. It just seems like the whole world's blood is boiling, and blood is splling everywhere we look. Maybe it's because Mars, the God of War's planet, is so close to the earth....who knows?

I hope everyone involved here in the activism over the voting machine fiasco, in whatever capacity, will continue to move forward from here to prevent our Democracy from being trashed.

Thank you, DUers for all your passion about this....our Democracy may very well depend on it.

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

154. You left me out

Re: "to fight for our Democracy. Bev, Roxanne, Eloriel, Alistair"

I lost my job and all my savings over this, and am still bleeding...

Not to mention, my votes...

Dan Spillane
www.libertywhistle.us

p.s. Tell me, why is it, the New Zealand Press is acting as an investigative agent where our government should be accountable?

[loudsue]

155. Oooops! Hugs & many thanks Dan!

"I lost my job and all my savings over this, and am still bleeding...

Not to mention, my votes..."

I had no idea...and I'm 'shocked and awed', I guess is the best way to put it.

Yes, you've bled for the cause, too, and I apologize for leaving you out of the 'walks on water' group.....you're in good company, 'cause I left out a few others I can think of right now, too. I guess I was just pretty rattled seeing different ones of my true heros turning against one another.

I lost my job and savings for the 18 months I couldn't find work after 9/11, and it's still a very difficult time to be finding work. Even though I have found work, many of my colleagues are living with their folks...the ones who still have folks...at the ripe age of 45+.

O8) I wish you the best of luck O8) in getting back on your feet. And thank you -- hugely -- for helping to fight this fight.

:loveya:


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

[Eloriel]

156. Loudsue and gristy

Gristy -- yes, I was shrill. Quite. I think if you reread the thread, Bev and DEMActivist were not, really. Or at least I didn't perceive that from them, so I don't want them tarred with it.

Truth to tell, just coming back into this thread I could easily go all shrill again. But I won't. But, oh, I could. It didn't help to have some DUers fall all over someone against those who have been working on this (working on it despite that certain someone's so-called "help," I might add). And, I could still get shrill about that part of the equation too.

So I apologize for being shrill. I probably could have couched what I said in different, less shrill language. But my sentiments are NOT changed, nor will I apologize for them.

So, LoudSue -- as you can tell, I'm rattled too. I appreciate your optimism that we will prevail.

So let's just let this thread die a natural death now, and go on to the other thread Bev has started.

Eloriel

[GregD]

157. If you want to know the truth, here it is from the webmaster...

Hello folks,

My name is Greg and I live just outside San Francisco. I'm a professional webmaster, and co-manage the Verified Voting site along with a fellow named Keone on a totally volunteer basis. In an effort to demonstrate complete transparency as to the identity of those working on this project, I posted this some weeks ago: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12 If someone wishes to speak with me personally, I’m not too hard to track down, as all the contact information has been posted publicly on my business web site.

Frankly I am really frustrated that the integrity of David Dill, and therefore our entire project is being assaulted. I can't begin to tell you how hard we all work on this (without compensation, and at substantial cost to our businesses), and if those that would challenge us would seek to become a part of our volunteer staff and help move this issue forward, there are plenty of opportunities. We need people to help us, not fight with us.

In order to calm the concerns about the domain name ownership I would like to explain how and when we discovered that VoteHere (temporarily) owned the .com domain name, and the actions we took to gain control of the domain name. The simple fact is that when David bought the .org, he overlooked buying the .com – and this gave everyone else the opportunity to buy it.

On June 22, we were pressing hard to launch a redesign of the site. We discovered that someone had bought the .com domain, and David was on vacation. He returned on June 29 and contacted VoteHere in the following days, asking them to transfer the domain to us. I don’t know why VoteHere bought the domain name (they claimed they were protecting it), but they were entirely cooperative in transferring it to us, and that’s all I care about in this regard. In my business, I have to transfer domains all the time and it can be a real hassle with an uncooperative transferor. In the light of more recent discoveries, the simple fact that they had it for a few weeks looks really bad – but I guess that’s just Murphy’s law working against us.

Well, the transfer didn’t happen right away, as my first contact from Scott Axworthy was July 24 – assuring us that the domain would be transferred. We were up against the schedule to attend the Denver workshop, and busy working on post-launch issues with the site. We didn’t press the issue that hard – it was all we could do to manage the site along with our respective businesses…

Frankly, the issue didn’t trouble me all that much, as the VoteHere people had redirected the site within the register.com account, and I had bigger thing to worry about – LIKE WINNING THIS BATTLE AND PROTECTING OUR DAMN VOTES!

The next thing I heard (Aug 26) was that there would be a $200 domain ownership transfer fee that Register.com wanted to charge, and this was the latest holdup in completing the transfer. I finally pressed the issue, insisted that I take charge of it, transferred the domain to another registrar, and changed the ownership records in the process of making the transfer. Problem solved, or so I thought… Then this thread turns up…

Well, we control the domain name now, and that’s that – end of story. No conspiracy, no funny business, no hidden agendas, just a stupid oversight that caused me to spend valuable time today posting this reply. And NONE OF US work for the CIA!

We have no vested interest to VoteHere, no connection other than what has already been stated by David Dill. All we planned to do was ANNOUNCE the availability of their code for public scrutiny (this is a good thing, right?) and post a link to THEIR site where the code can be downloaded. I had no plans to have their code on our site – I didn’t frankly want to foot the bill for the bandwidth – let them handle it! That is the SUM of the relationship! And as David has stated, we will do this for anyone who wishes to submit their code for scrutiny. (Maybe I am missing something here, but part of the controversy is that voting-machine manufacturers refuse to let us look at their code. So if our site provides that visibility to those that would cooperate in such a manner, isn’t that a good thing, rather than a conflict of interest? )

I hope this settles your concerns, because that’s the whole story – it is just a silly case where we should have purchased and controlled the .com domain in the first place, and if I had been more assertive, the problem would have been resolved two months ago. But we’re all running as fast as we can to run this site “for the common good” and it’s a LOT of work. There is only so much time in each day, our efforts have to be balanced against our business and personal lives, and this issue simply got away from us!

As I said above, I’m available by telephone if you really feel a need to discuss this further. And better yet, if you believe in this cause as much as WE DO, we could really use some help. We have an IMMEDIATE need for some assistance with ASP and XML scripting in order to add a news feed to the site, and to enhance some of the back-end tools that run the site. Or help raise awareness of HR2239 (did you call your congress person today?), research your state and feed us the data so we can get your state’s page updated. Or help raise funds to support this effort. Or any of ten other activities we don’t have enough time for!

[gristy]

158. Thanks for the explanation, Greg

I accept it without reservation. And thanks for all your work on protecting our votes. I am the guy who sent the MN update for your "What?s Happening in Your State?" section to keone.

Through my distant "association" with David Dill (maybe 10 emails and 1 or 2 phone calls), I have never had any reason to doubt his integrity.

But one difference between David and I is that I believe that any voting system which claims to protect our vote must use the paper ballot as the master record. And he does not.

You can fit the Grand Canyon between these two views.

Without paper, you have the "black box" that everyone talks about. And you have the massive effort to control and to see what is in that box. You have "open source" requirements, you have hardware documentation requirements, you have hardware and software upgrade requirements, you have certification requirements, you have crytography requirements, you have mountains of user manuals. The list just goes on and on. Just because you are dealing with a black box. If you peel off the box, throw it away, and put each vote on a paper ballot that is "verified" by the voter, scanned by an in-precinct scanner, and then locked in a ballot box, and combine all that with basic accounting and multiple sets of eyes in each precinct, you have set the stage for fair and honest elections. You have no "open source" requirements, no hardware documentation requirements, no hardware and software upgrade requirements, no certification requirements, no crytography requirements, and no mountains of user manuals.

To meet HAVA, you design a machine to help blind or otherwise disabled generate their paper ballots. Some companies are already selling or designing such machines.
To meet contrary state laws - I understand a few states have even made it ILLEGAL to count paper ballots - you change the laws. And you recognize that you won't change all the laws overnight.

I have not settled on a satisfactory explanation as to why paper ballots are not a universal requirement from all those fighting for our democracy. Perhaps technologists such as Dill have a greater faith in technology than I (I too am a technologist - MSEE). By way of example, consider the space shuttle. A very complex machine, many orders of magnitude more complex than a voting system. But not infinitely more complex. And in spite of a HUGE effort to do so, they can't keep it in the air. Compare that to an admittedly simpler system such as an electronic voting system, which should be much easier to keep in the air. Unfortunately, unlike the shuttle, there are people and forces all around this system who wish to hijack it. So the system is simpler, but the required defensive effort is so much greater - so great that I believe it probably cannot be done. Certainly, it is impossible to prove that you can't hijack it, since you can't prove a negative. Not one this complicated, anyways. And the frustrating thing about it for me is that to get fair and honest elections, this effort isn't even necessary.

All you need is simple system based on a simple paper ballot.

[Eloriel]

159. I disagree with you utterly and totally about paper ballots

doing away with open source requirements.

Here's why: unless an election gives you really whacky results -- and even when some of them have (18,181 votes for 3 Comal Co. repugs; Chuck Hagel; GA 2002; AL Gov 2002; many others) -- that election may not get challenged or a recount demanded.

Any programmer could easily distribute their very own "election results" across a large number of machines/precincts/counties, etc., in such small increments (1, 2, 3%) and no one would be the wiser.

Do you know how campaigns, for ANY office, plan a campaign? They figure out how many votes they have to get. How many is that? 1/2 the votes PLUS ONE. Any election can be stolen with 1/2 the votes (in a 2-person race, obviously), PLUS ONE.

There is NO substitute for open code software. Paper ballots (VVPB) are great; they're essential; they're one part of what's needed.

And btw, certification (at least what I know of it) is enough of a joke it can be gotten rid of now, with no ill effect whatsoever.

Eloriel

[gristy]

162. Eloriel - Here's a process that DOES eliminate open-source requirements

for the optical scanners (I assume that it was the scanners that you were concerned about). This process should be mandated to occur immediately after an election, contains many elements of Rush Holt's bill HR2239 (summary), and shows how the particulars of that bill can be integrated into a robust process.

1) Select a subset of precincts (say, 1% of the total in each state, maybe more) to "audit" - call these precincts the "audit precincts". How the audit precincts are selected is important. These selections are not made until after the precinct results are reported. I suggest 1/3 are selected randomly (ping-pong balls would work well), 1/3 are selected by the Democrats (or, if there is a presidential race, the Democratic presidential candidate or his/her designee), and 1/3 by the Republicans (or, if there is a presidential race, the Republican presidential candidate or his/her designee).

2) After all the paper ballots have been transferred to a central facility in the state, and for a first quick check only, re-scan the paper ballots from each audit precinct on three optical scanning machines (one selected and controlled by the democrats, one by the republicans, and one by the scanner manufacturer) and make sure all the results are the same as the earlier in-precinct scan.

3) Regardless of these results, then hand-count the votes on the audit precinct ballots for a handful of races (I suggest four: President, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Governor), and make sure these totals match the scanned results to within some tolerance.

4) If any significant discrepancies are found in any races (re-scan or hand-count), then hand count ALL the ballots for those races. A procedure based on multiple sets of eyes would govern all hand-counts.

5) The hand-count totals then override the scanned totals.

There you have it. NO open-source requirements on any machine. A well-designed audit of the master-record paper ballots completely eliminates all open-source requirements. Voters can understand the audit procedure since it is so simple, and they can decide for themselves that it protects the integrity of the counting process. No "experts" required.

Note that while you may think this process is complicated, you can be comforted by the fact that it is the ENTIRE process. You would need several years of schooling and a year of study (at least) to even come close to the same level of understanding of a DRE-based voting system.

Note that the political factor is not considered here. As we have seen, forces at both the national level and state level have shown their desire to block any attempts at providing for fraud-free voting. Those forces would still have to be confronted, as they are being now.

[never cry wolf]

163. Don't computers count the votes now

with the punch card ballots anyway? Just wondering.

[gristy]

166. Yes, computers count the votes on punch cards and paper ballots

I'm sure that the nature of existing procedures to try to ensure the integrity and accuracy of those machines varies.

[BevHarris]

164. That is not an audit procedure designed to catch fraud

That is an audit procedure for catching random error.

Random spot checks are only part of the solution.

[gristy]

165. Bev,

That is an audit procedure for catching random error. Random spot checks are only part of the solution.

1) Only 1/3 of the audit precincts are chosen randomly. The others are presumably chosen by the parties where they suspect there might be a problem. That's why they aren't chosen until the initial in-precinct results are in.
2) ALL of the ballots are recounted on a second set of optical scanners (see (2) for info on who controls those scanners).

[BevHarris]

167. Thanks -- hadn't had my coffee yet. I would tweak in this way:

I would probably want to see the 100% check happen at the precinct level, using a generic bar code scanner. By doing the verification at the precinct level, it is quite fast (about 20 minutes if two people do it) and provides the "many eyes" protection that is so important. You might have one precinct that is crooked, but you'd have to corrupt thousands of precincts per state, which would be difficult.

Because the optical scan machines have remote communications devices in them, especially if they are wireless -- this is still a weakness. Even if you switch machines, you don't want someone dialing in. However, I agree that what you suggest is much, MUCH better than what we have.

Bar code scanners are generic and readily available, and can be small hand-held devices unlikely to contain communications devices. It would be easy to eyeball the ballot as compared with what the generic bar code scanner reads out, and thus difficult to do a fudge on the bar code itself.

However, I'd be completely behind your solution too. Both yours and mine would significantly impeded election tampering through the electronic machines.

Bev

[gristy]

168. You might want to rethink this twist

I would probably want to see the 100% check happen at the precinct level, using a generic bar code scanner.

When I think about bar codes, I can't think of any good reason to use them, but I can think of quite a few to not use them.

Are you implying that there would be essentially two records on each paper ballot? One human readable (the one the voter verifies) and one not (the bar code)? To me, that would violate the accounting principle of using just one set of books (or, more accurately, one set of records).

Put another way, if the paper ballot is to be the master record, you don't want to provide a means by which that master record could be corrupted or made self-inconsistent by printing the voter's intent on it twice, and with one of those records being unreadable by the voter, no less.

And finally, but actually most importantly, keep in mind that an important goal of this system (and one that can actually save the states money) is that most voters can vote the "old-fashioned" way. With a pencil or pen filling in little circles on their ballot. There won't be any bar codes on those ballots.

Regarding your other point, yes, there should be some security in place to ensure that the vote totals from the in-precinct scanners are accurately reported. But since in my proposal all the ballots are re-scanned at a central collection point, inacurrate reporting from precincts will be quickly uncovered.

A summary point: It is my intent that state-wide vote totals initially made from in-precinct totals and before any audit be "unofficial". This proposed 5-step process is then followed to make those totals (or modified totals, if discrepancies are found and acted on) "official" and ultimately "certified" by the state's SOS. This general concept is nothing new.

[never cry wolf]

160. VERY well put, gristy!! n/t

[shance]

161. Why all the fight over a simple paper ballot?

Its obvious there is more than room for fraud and error with computerized voting with virtually NO WAY to track it.

SO whats the problem?

Its easy and cheap and heres a novelty, its Democratic to use a paper ballot.

Its ridiculous all this fighting to fight a separate paper ballot and it looks like a conflict of interest bottom line. Theres simply no reason not to have one and its easy to install.

[yellowdawgdem]

169. Greg's response

I'm glad to hear your explanation about the domain name problem, etc. To me, it seems like it would've been easier to just change the name than go through all that. It does seem really odd that Votehere would suddenly grab that name.
Also, the big concern that I have is, will your project still be pushing for a paper trail? Because many of those working on this issue see this as a bottom line. It seems especially important to have a consistent goal, not changing it midstream
.:crazy:

170. Actually, there are more strange details

Like I said, it was a LAME excuse given. I agree, why not just pick another domain name, like "voterverify.org"

I just checked, ALL of the "voterverify" domains are available!

What's more interesting is the person who registered the domain at VoteHere appears to be A NEW public relations person VoteHere hired, to fix their image(a reporter called me to say this PR person had frantically called them on another matter). The person who registered this domain was NOT VoteHere's Mr. Axworthy or one of his assistants. Having worked at VoteHere, it SHOULD have been Mr. Axworthy who registered the domain. Why instead the frantic PR person?

There is more, but discussion would go into details on my lawsuit which should wait for court.

Despite all this, Mr. Dill, though diminished in reputation, is still fairly high up in my book, compared to the companies involved. Let's hope it stays that way.

Dan Spillane
Spillane vs. VoteHere
www.libertywhistle.us

[GregD]

171. Hey Dan - Lame happens... Get over it!

Hey Dan,

I really have to share some candid thoughts with you... And the same goes for anyone else that still refuses to get a grip on reality, and hasn't accepted my explanation yesterday... Your comment about "lame excuse" indicates to me that you still don't get it.

When I read the following post yesterday (among several others), I felt compelled to reply - the assertion in the last sentence was based ONLY in the coincidence of timing, and had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the facts.

<<< Dill-VoteHere -- No financial ties that I know of. He began meeting with VoteHere way back last March. Name of his web site, VerifiedVoting.org, is similar to the sales pitch for VoteHere product (designed for voting verification). He owned the .org and VoteHere owned the .com, and after Dill started getting questioned by Lynn Landes this week, he bought the .com site back from VoteHere. >>>

Although the timing of my finally "putting my foot down" and insisting that I was going to resolve the problem with verifiedvoting.com domain, and the fact that "Dill started getting questioned by Lynn Landes" were in remarkable alignment, they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other. They were random events that simply coincided nicely to allow a message thread that appears it may reach 200 posts before it runs out of steam. All this energy would be a lot better placed toward winning this struggle - instead of trying to tear apart an alliance that has infinate value in this cause!

Lame excuse or not, the facts are as I have stated them. The ONLY driving force that resulted in the timing of our finally getting our hands on the damn domain name was the fact that I got tired of waiting for something to happen so I did what I do whenever anything else that is important and is not getting handled at a pace I am happy with - I did it myself! Not that Dave or someone else couldn't do it, but I just sat down and got it done - and last week just happened to be when I became impatient and pushed it through. Period!

Now we can sit here and knock around conspiracy theories all day long, but you are worrying about crap that is only in your mind - Votehere grabbed the domain, and until I made it a priority to freaking do something about it, NOTHING CONCRETE GOT DONE!

There! I've said it three more times? Am I clear enough?

Our gaining control of the domain, and Landes contacting Dill about the registration concerns had as much to do with the fact that some automobile driver rear-ended someone on 9/11, just about the same time that a missile struck the Pentagon, and it was all caused by a remote controlled steering device controlled by a terrorist. NO! Better yet! BUSH did it! Yeah, that's the one...

Please! Get over this issue - it's done and there is NO CONSPIRACY IN THE TRUNK, NO MYSTERIOUS MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.


Let me share some background on myself:
I got into this campaign (on nearly a full time basis) within 48 hours of learning about it; I have lived, breathed and slept "electronc voting" for the past 3 months. I attended the workshop in Denver, at my own expense, to help make certain that David had whatever support I could offer. I am so passionate about this issue that there is a banner on the front page of my business web site, and a full-page personal note expressing my concerns around it - just so that more people (I have a fair bit of traffic to my site) will know about it. Does that sufficiently clarify my intentions in this regard? How many of you have posted this issue to YOUR business web site? My friends and clients are all sick of hearing me spew on about it. Get it? Although I'm a bit late to the party, we're on the same side... We all want election results that are fair and trustworthy!

WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE - QUIT TRYING TO IGNORE THAT!

173. What are the odds of this?

Let me quantify "lame"...

The odds of two parties picking the same domain name at the same point of time are exceedingly low.

Let's see, I'll do a simplified calculation, which assumes everyone chooses domain names of the same length (14 characters), and with no digits.

(1 in 26)**14 * 1/3

equal 1 in 1.8x10e37

given that I have simplified my calculation, the odds of this are LESS than
1 in 180000000000000000000000000000000000000 !!!!

Applying Akim's razor, given the basis that Mr.Dill and VoteHere communicated previously, it is MUCH more likely that VoteHere chose the web site name for Mr. Dill ahead of time, and then transferred it, rather than that you both chose the same name.

[gristy]

176. Dan, is it possible that, after learning about verifiedvoting.org,

VoteHere simply discovered that verifiedvoting.com was still available and jumped on it? I mean, the things are practically free. I can imagine someone at VoteHere was snorking around some morning, and said "well, look at this!". And they bought it. And when Dill got in touch and said he wanted it, they gave it to him. Maybe he bought someone lunch for it. I just don't see anything here.

Also, put your web site name in your signature line (go into options) - then people will be able to find it more readily.

178. Maybe

Applying some sort of logic to that series:

One would assume they were somehow watching and aware that David Dill got verifiedvoting.org (a stretch)--or that David Dill was getting domain names at all--and they wished to keep him from doing it, so they acted quickly.

One might assume that they would do the same for me, but they did not. A direct example: I had no trouble getting "votehow.com" and the .org, etc. representations are still free.

See

www.votehow.com

And therefore, they pre-empted him, with intent.

But then later, why would they turn it over, which would be at odds with an attempt to pre-empt?

Possible, and a viable explanation, yet unlikely. I think the simplest explanation is that they communicated about the domain in advance.

Next, what are the odds that Avi forgot he was on the VoteHere board?

I do not want to see anyone's reputation destroyed based on conjecture of this type, without full exploration of the facts.

Coming away from all this, the least we can conclude, given all possible explanations and regardless of odds, is VoteHere is or tries to be manipulative through direct or indirect actions.

Give the benefit of the doubt to the computer scientists, but keep in mind what kind of creatures are working behind the scenes.

Agreed?

174. Please read my web site, and white house news releases...

You said:
"NO! Better yet! BUSH did it!"

The truth of the matter is, Bush DID do "it". or his cronies, at several junctures. with respect to problems with voting systems and regulation. Just as one example, Bush assigned the powers of election oversight committee to himself, taking them away from Congress and the people, and assigned these powers to himself, but never appointed the committees.

As a result, there is no oversight of anything, resulting in chaos.

I agree that you have not studied the issue long enough.

Please study my website. Thanks.

175. Yes, on the same side

You said
"WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE - QUIT TRYING TO IGNORE THAT!"

I agree that we are on the same side.

I am not ignoring that. It is others who ignore details and history, simplay because they haven't studied it yet.

[GregD]

180. I'll do that (read your site), if you will do this:

E-mail or call me personally. I'm in this for the long run, just as you are. I'd enjoy having a brief (or long, your choice) conversation - and you can fill me in on a few things, bring me up to speed.

We're allies, and it would be nice if we could work together - at least be aware of each other on speaking terms. The web is great - and it sucks for personal interaction. I'd like to have a chance to "shake hands" over the phone, and figure out if there is a way we can grow from this *time consuming* thread and gain some benefit from all this (otherwise wasted) energy.

Greg
[email protected]

181. Okay

:-)

[BevHarris]

182. GregD -- does "D" stand for "Diplomat"

Outstanding.

Bev

[GregD]

185. We cannot, must not, allow stupid stuff to divide us.

This issue is too important, and the more I read (like the SLO revelations) the worse it all looks...

I'd like an opportunity to visit with you as well Bev. Call and say hello please.

Thanks,
Greg

[BevHarris]

186. Will do. Thanks, Greg

Bev

187. What is a 'SLO revelation'?

I am sure I am not the only reader who doesn't know what that is.

[BevHarris]

189. SLO = San Luis Obispo county -- smoking gun file found

more here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/JimMarch.htm

[GregD]

191. SLO

In California, San Luis Obisbo is known to some as SLO

[BevHarris]

192. Hey Greg -- a word about how DU works

To drop a thread like this out of sight stop posting to it. When ignored for several hours it drops to back pages, when ignored for a couple days it migrates back to the archives.

I should follow my own advice.

This is my last post to this thread, let's discuss voting machine activism in new threads that don't have the bashing and trashing in them.

Bev

[GregD]

172. why a new domain name?

yellowdawgdem:

Honestly, the only reason we wanted the .com was to tie it up - long before I got involved, David had established VerifiedVoting.org as a "known entity" and it has significant name recognition. The .com only was going to matter if an "industry competitor" was going to use it against us. Keone and I actually did talk about renaming the site if we couldn't get the .com back from VoteHere, just because we didn't want confusion or competition. But they really didn't give us any trouble about transfering ownership, and might have happened much quicker if not for other factors - it's just that none of us had that much time to deal with it. We're both running *really busy* web development businesses (nearly into the ground) at the same time as trying to push the VV site and related activities as hard as we can possibly manage.

Anyhow, thanks for the kind words - and to Gristy as well.

Now let's win this fight - they can't steal our democracy unless we allow them to! Get the word out as loud and wide-spread as you can...

Peace,
Greg

[BevHarris]

177. Okay, we are so past this, folks. Here's what's really going on:

1) Smoking gun in San Luis Obispo -- at 3:31 in the afternoon on election day, 57 Diebold optical scan machines had an E.T. moment and decided to CALL HOME. What's up with that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=269727&mesg_id=269727

2) New Diebold files FTP site is up and looking for mirrors. Says its owner Jim March to Diebold: "You are cordially invited to bite me. Bring it on. Make my day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=272260#272396

3. What the hell is this "Populex" voting company? Avante struggles like crazy to get certified, bashes its head against a wall for three years, and in marches Populex, who does a test in a HIGH SCHOOL that was "basically accurate" and starts selling its system in Illinois? Head honcho: Frank Carlucci, of the Carlyle Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=271817&mesg_id=271817

4. Black Box Voting activism moves into the civil rights community.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=262189&mesg_id=262189

(group hug)
:grouphug:

179. Yeah, let's move on! ALSO

REMEMBER:

A MUST LISTEN...

http://www.talion.com/Overcome-Dudley-Mix.mp3

[BevHarris]

183. Woh == thanks for the plug, Dan! Those are kids on that, you know

We Shall Overcome - Dudley Mix
http://www.talion.com/Overcome-Dudley-Mix.mp3

This song was first cut during the Florida 2000 ripoff and it is specifically designed to be an anthem for voting rights. It's about 10 times as upbeat as the old we...shall...ohhver...commm

And besides, Dan's ferret likes it.

Here's a couple more links to send to your friends and blogs (along with Spillane's http://www.libertywhistle.us)

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/JimMarch.htm
(smoking gun -- Ooof! Proof!)

and
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/JimMarch2.htm
("Diebold: You are most cordially invited to bite me. Bring it on. Make my day") with the new Jim March Diebold files FTP download, designed to go on CD for in-person demos with reporters and election officials.

188. Amazing voices

That song is a fantastic cut, I find it very inspiring, and my ferrets' heads pop up from behind their little-hiding places when I play it, and I sing along.

Speeking of ferrets:
Did you know ferrets LOVE to go in holes in boxes--even BLACK BOXES? I guess people ARE like their pets. The metaphor "ferret out" is not used without reason in this country.

And by the way I worked as a "WHITE BOX TESTER" which I was fired for.

Kinda poetic?

Dan S.
www.libertywhistle.us

[Fredda Weinberg]

190. 0+0+0=0

You're mirroring innocent files. You're making a smoking gun out of a technical glitch and mistake an individual for an organization.

But if you're promoting merchandise, it's a great job.

[GoldenOldie]

193. FW=0

As one who has had some limited working experience with computers and understanding how serious this BBV is to our democracy I have read all the postings on this subject to become better educated.

I have always believed that in order to fully understand any problem, you must understand all facets of the problem. I have followed Frieda's postings with the assumption that she must be well qualified to counter-debate this issue. I waited and waited and waited to have something profound posted by Frieda to give an opposing view. I am a slow learner so I googled Freida's resume and discovered that her experience and knowledge in the very basic's of what these outstanding researchers are doing is extremely limited, therefore her views carry no more weight than mine or others with limited computer smarts.

You know what they say, "when you assume...........out of me."

[Fredda Weinberg]

194. And not an item of substance

I've made my technical refutations - sorry, but a file does not prove that an event occurred; that's why we don't accept electronic voting.

The Diebold files yielded nothing; asking for mirrors now is pure hype.

Election systems are government contracts, subject to the same old boy network that I've faced my whole career. It doesn't surprise me - and it shouldn't shock anyone - that the same characters who benefit from crony capitalism should be involved in this industry.

Whether it was manipulating the thickness of ballot paper or pen inks, the process can be corrupted. Exclusive focus on technology ignores the real issue - why are you making a personal attack at DU?

195. Well, a good point

Your points re-frame an important question.

Don't votes belong to the people, and not the government? If the government is not providing the service to the people they claim and are accountable for, the people need to take back what is theirs.

[Fredda Weinberg]

196. I remember what a popular teacher told me

"Students are the only consumers who want less for their money."

Well, not exactly. Voters want less too ... less necessary involvement, less cost and certainly less stress. That's how the Supreme Court got away with resolving 2000 - it was a relief to the average person who can't get a grip around the swirling issues.