BBV: My evening with Kathy Rodgers of the GA SoS office

[Eloriel]

:puke:

Okay, not nice, perhaps.

On a MUCH brighter note. I'm going to adopt newsguyatl. Yes, I'm old enough. He may not know it yet. Shhh.

Okay, back to the yucky stuff.

It was a regular meeting of the county Dem party, so we had to sit through some junk (all of which vividly reminded me why I don't do meetings of that type anymore) before we got to Miz Rodgers' little presentation. She told us about her lengthy background starting as a pollworker, on up to fulltime elections person, then being tapped by Cathy Cox.

A part of her talk which I found interesting was her emphasis on how much trouble paper ballots -- optical scans and other ballots -- really, really are. She described how upset a pollworker would be whose optical scan misfed at which point the machine then tells you "ballot read" or "ballot not read" and you either re-feed or drop the already read ballot into oblivion, from the sound of it. Because the pollworker would get really upset if she mistakenly didn't refeed a ballot that hadn't yet been read. (And I'm thinking, hmmmm, guess how upset she'd be to learn that THOUSANDS of votes had been lost on her new DRE system!!)

And she talked about what it's like sitting on the floor with thousands of ballots around you, trying to get things right when the voters had stray marks or had circled the name along with filling in the circle (or not), and so forth. And she talked about how crestfallen a pollworker can feel when they're looking at their sacks of ballots, and somehow Bag #8 is missing. "It happens."

And here's a direct quote ya'll will LOVE: "Paper leads to vote fraud."

By the time she was finished with all that, I was genuinely sympathetic with the whole notion of getting rid of anything resembling a paper ballot. Except, of course, I know better.

Finally, came the time for audience questions. Regular Dem Party members got to ask all their questions first. The first woman was terrific. She started talking about the SoBig virus and all the security problems with MS and how that worm told MS to quit being so greedy and fix their darned operating systems. She talked about Windows XP and NT and CE and all that jazz, and she just dazzled me because from her age (about my age), I'd never have imagined she would have known all this.

Rodgers' response was a long spiel about how there IS NO INTERNET connection, blah, blah, blah. A friend with me had a video camera, so I hope we'll be able to get a transcript, esp. of this section.

The next question up was "What about that woman who said she could hack the machines?" Rodgers answered, icily and with a bit of a sniff, "She hasn't shown back up." Oooo, I wanted to jump up right there and scream in her face. But I didn't.

A man had a comment about how the fact that these files were on an unprotected site has given us all some concerns.... And Rodgers responded with something to the effect that those weren't our files, or they were old files, or whatever.

Somewhere along the line, according to the few notes I took (between picking my jaw up off the floor) was "We have some of the BEST technical advisors."

Somewhere along the line she launched into her "Every unit was tested 4 times: factory, at the warehouse, at KSU, and finally (with a big flourish, as if it were especially meaningful), an L&A test." And she described this all-important L&A test a bit.

A few more questions, and unfortunately time was running out. I'd been raising my hand toward the end furiously. But the guy who ran the show somehow KNEW I was trouble, and would NOT call on me. There was a man I'd met earlier, as a Dean supporter, who was in line to get a question answered, and when he got called on, he deferred to me.

Another question was about how Republican Diebold is and the CEO's recent comments, and Rodgers really hit hard on how they'd looked at various vendors and that was the best, etc., etc. Very strong on these points. This is probably where she said they have the BEST technical advisors.

I started out saying, "The woman who challenged you is ready to go as soon as she gets immunity from prosecution from Diebold."

Rodgers (icily): "We have no control over Diebold."

Then I went to Rebecca Mercuri's line (which I like a lot): What everyone has to understand about these machines is that "any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result." And then I went on to say that just scratches the surface of what a programmer can do that users will NEVER be aware of. And, I launched into my spiel on proving vote fraud (to paraphrase, since I have no idea what I really said):

There is no way to prove vote fraud if it occurs since (1) a recount on the same machines would likely yield the same results, (2) an audit log is meaningless since they can be changed to hide vote tampering as Bev Harris has demonstrated, (3) there is no voter-verified paper “ballot” which could be legally used for recounts and (4) no one can look at the code itself? In fact, there’s not even any way to do a recount except on the very machines that might have been responsible for fraudulent or erroneous results in the first place. How safe are our votes under these circumstances? How could we ever PROVE vote fraud? In fact, how could we even do an independent recount if the only legal vote is the electronic vote? Who’s crazy idea WAS that?

I said that "I get it" about the inefficiency of paper, etc., but if there was one thing I learned from the 2000 election in FL it's that my vote IS sacred, so "how could you throw that away" by getting rid of the only protection we have, a voter-verified paper ballot.

Sensing time was running out, I figured I'd better quit speechifying and come up with a question.

"So, okay, here's my question. You said earlier that you keep a copy of the code in escrow and that 'we've looked at it.' WHO looked at it."

She started to answer lamely about National Certification and NASED and I repeated about Georgia, and she said Brit Williams, to which I responded that he'd told Bev Harris in an interview in Feb. that he didn't.

Rodgers (pointedly): Bev Harris hung up on Brit Williams.

Me: And as for national certification, how on earth could that code have passed, riddled with the security vulnerabilities...

Rodgers: Avi Rubin owned stock in a competitor... yada yada... served on the board...

Someone from the audience: Did that make him WRONG?

I wanted to correct her about Avi Rubin, but the guy who owned the meeting shut us down. Earlier in the questioning, before it even got heated (which it didn't really til it got to me), he'd said something to the effect that we know all our election folks work really, really hard, yada yada, and Rodgers got a round of applause. To finish it up, he just had to say what a through-and-through Real DEMOCRAT Cathy Cox is and she would never do anything ... yadayada. (And I wanted to scream again.)

Talked to lots of people afterwards. Beforehand we handed out 100 copies of Bev's "Primer." SoS brought some stuff too -- haven't looked at it yet.

Rodgers had said during her part that any time we have any questions, we should just call because they're always happy to answer questions. I've a mind to do just that tomorrow.

Eloriel

[ParanoidPat]

1. Could you post her phone number, e-mail address.....

....snail mail address and any other contact information you have?
I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to make her 'happy'! :evilgrin:

Thanks El, Awesome report!

[Eloriel]

11. I'll try to get them

I think DEMActivist has email, but I'll get all that for you.

Thanks,

Eloriel

[DEMActivist]

13. Here ya go

Kathy Rogers (A)
1104 West Tower
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
[phone] [phone] FAX
Email: [e-mail]

[Eloriel]

16. See? I told you --

DA knows EVERYTHING. And Bev too, of course.

:evilgrin:

Eloriel

[ParanoidPat]

21. Actually it's posted in the Activism / Events Forum....

....in the Black Box Voting "Take Back The Vote" Tool Kit thread! :evilgrin:

I just too got lazy to search back to page 7. :)

[newsguyatl]

17. LOL

well damn, she's just 3 blocks from me!!

if she gives you trouble eloriel, just let me know :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

45. There wasn't a single © in the Diebold code on your HD? I'm shocked. nt

[Wonk]

46. Further, we'll see in time if Rox is legit of just full of it, re: proof

I'm still waiting....

[ParanoidPat]

47. Yep, plenty of them....

....Now show me where I posted any of them! :evilgrin:
Copyright means nothing when it's used to BREAK THE LAW!
I can pull up dozens of instances where YOU on the other hand have illegally posted other peoples copyrighted materials! What's your problem? Do you really think we're all bullshitting about what's in this code and what these machines are capable of? I'm not that stupid. The closest you'll find in any posts I've made are paraphrased references to the programmers comments. I listen to my attorneys! :)

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

50. Your friend Bev did. nt

[ParanoidPat]

52. Check your inbox.

:)

[dmr]

2. AWESOME, Eloriel

They sure have their answers and talking points down to a tee, don't they? Though I'm not a Georgian, I still want to thank you for your strength to bring these questions out in a public meeting! What a way to go with handing out Bev's summary! I bet those 100 people are having a real nerve-wracking eye-opener tonight!

[hedda_foil]

3. Three Cheers for Eloriel!

HIP HIP ELORIEL!
HIP HIP ELORIEL!
HIP HIP ELORIEL!

[newsguyatl]

4. guys and gals

let me tell ya --> eloriel KICKED MAJOR BOOTY tonight at the meeting... folks were just in awe listening to her grill this woman... kathy rodgers was just looking down, face red, and even at one point, started talking to someone else while eloriel was addressing the crowd... we have a long way to go still, but with warriors like eloriel, bev and others, we will get there...

i learned two very important things tonight:

1) i've got to get more schooled on this issue... and fast

2) eloriel rocks the house! :yourock:

[Eloriel]

18. See?

I LOVE this guy.

Eloriel

[never cry wolf]

5. Great job, Eloriel.

You did the best you could under the circumstances and passed out alot of info, even if you weren't allowed to say all you wanted to.

Thanks!!

[Pastiche423]

6. Fabulous job, Eloriel!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for speaking up. The more that is said about BBV, the harder it will be for them to promote it.

I also think it would be a good idea to post tele #'s, e addys and snail mail addresses.

In my state, we vote w/............. paper ballots! I almost feel bad they we do.

Almost. :evilgrin:

[MGKrebs]

7. You did a good job, El.

I liked the part where she said that the machines were not hooked up to anything like a network or the internet, then in the next answer she talked about how the vote results are MODEM'D to the server. Huh??

OK. Well the modem'd results aren't "official" anyway; the official results come from the PCMCIA cards that are delivered to the central office. That makes me feel better. Not.

So comparing the modem'd results (which are generated from the PCMCIA cards while they are still at the precinct) with the totals on the same PCMCIA cards at the central office is the double check? Please. OK. The actual double check is the memory in the voting station itself. Which would be..... identical to the info on the PCMCIA card. Totally misses the point about where the fraud might occur.

Although that exercise had to be gone through, it didn't seem like the right venue or format for getting the real questons answered. There may need to be a high level roundtable type discussion with experts, so the conversation can flow freely, and lines of thought can be pursued in depth. Fat chance of that happening.

Anyway, good job, good to see you again. Keep up the fight. Never give up.

[Eloriel]

12. Yeah, and MGKrebs was there too!! And his lovely wife.

I'm sorry I forgot. (Adrenaline STILL flowing. I couldn't believe how my hands were shaking afterwards.)

You're right about not the right venue, but our hope was to help educate the voters.

But what you suggest is precisely why I'm thinking of calling Rodgers tomorrow -- try to have a more well-rounded conversation. See if a cooperative-sounding approach will work. Probably not, but all it would cost me is my time.

Thanks, MG.

Eloriel

[Pobeka]

20. Way to go Eloriel. And the venue was correct.

Any opportunity to educate voters is the right venue. It is especially important for "regular" voters to see these folks don't have reasonable answers for reasonable questions. You helped the cause for democracy tonight.

[SharonAnn]

23. Yes, and you especially want Democrats to be aware so that

they don't end up supporting Rodgers and Cox and all the DRE bullshit becasue they don't know any better.

Sigh, our appointed election administrator is even more clueless. She can't even use a computer, doesn't do email or Word or Excel or anything, but she's the one who interviews and "selects" programmers for our machines.

[Woodstock]

34. But...

I can write a program that will change itself and do some things and then change itself back. How will they know that didn't happen?

[KittyWampus]

8. Thanks Eloriel

I am trying very hard to learn about BBV so I can write a somewhat intelligent letter to my local paper.
Your account helps alot... especially in recounting what the "other" side will say.

xoxoxo

[gristy]

9. A thousand kudos, Eloriel.

Thanks for the detailed report. I am just now stirring up MN since the "final" State Plan has apparently just been published. And great use of Bev's primer. I'll be making good use of it over the next couple weeks.

[DEMActivist]

10. She's pretty arrogant isn't she?

And I love that "the pollworkers are angry and fed up" routine.

When she pulled it at my meeting, I asked her who trumped who - the angry pollworkers or the angry voters?

She was too stunned at my question to answer.

When I was posing the questions at the meeting I was at, I have 5 Kathy Rogers coming at me. All mad as hell, all just as arrogant, and all trying to answer the same question with 5 different answers, and all shouting.

One thing is certain - they do NOT like being questioned by informed voters, do they?

[Eloriel]

14. No, they do NOT like being questioned

I love what newsguyatl said afterwards. He was most struck by the defensiveness. And it's true. Very defensive.

Like I said, we've got to get ourselves to those other dog and pony shows they've got set up. I am NOT going to miss another one of your great performances!

Eloriel

[GAspnes]

15. You were GREAT!

I only wish I'd been there. Good job.

[Generic Other]

19. They don't like questions because you are better informed than they are

That must have made those folks break into a cold sweat! GOOD FOR YOU!

[stickdog]

22. Damn, these people are scum.

But it's no different that any corporation in which the leadership has made a huge mistake that they can't admit.

The fix is in.

It's all PR.

Nobody gives a damn that they're spewing utter crap and that their arguments don't have any legs to stand on.

[Clete]

24. I just had an epiphany while reading your report.

There is no reason these machines can't work like a cash register. The only difference is the currency are votes instead of cash or credit cards. This means there would be paper, numbered receipts for the voters with a duplicate for the registrar's record, a journal tape and an audit tape, which summarizes the votes. These could be physically "balanced" against each other in each precinct before being forward to the registrar.

In a large corporation like K-Mart, the verified paper work would go through various stages, register, department, store and eventually headquarters and the totals are verified at each stage. (This is not as daunting as it seems.) Maybe the Secretaries of States, where there are questionable returns, should investigate the companies that do supermarket registers. They all use paper and lots of it. Do you think Albertsons or Ralphs would rely on a single entry totals for their receipts?

[Adjoran]

25. The questions had to be asked

and what better forum? Any of these people get defensive when citizens are more knowledgeable than they are about their own full-time jobs!

I do not agree, though, that paper ballots are in any way safer from fraud. The only way "voter-certified" paper ballots can be verified is by hand, and once again it comes down to who does the counting and who makes the judgement calls.

Fraudulent computer code would at least leave a record of itself, if an expert were looking for it. Paper ballots have been "stuffed" without detection for generations.

[juajen]

93. Obviously, they were detected

or we wouldn't know a damned thing about it!

[Gordon25]

26. Wow!

You have my admiration, Eloriel. I go to those kinds of meetings and I know what it must have been like.

"To finish it up, he just had to say what a through-and-through Real DEMOCRAT Cathy Cox is and she would never do anything ... yadayada. (And I wanted to scream again.)"

I know what you mean. Our County Recorder is a Democrat and she was fully briefed and blew it off. Her Director of Elections gave us a good spiel during our committee interviews about how concerned he was with security. It turned out that when the Secretary of State announced her award of the contract to Diebold she singled out that Director of Elections for special recognition for his service on the board that made the contract recomendations. He somehow never got around to letting us know he was serving on that board during our talks.

It really doesn't seem to be an exclusively Republican thing. There is some indication that association with R. Doug Lewis and Election Center is the point of contamination with both Republicans and Democrats coming down with the Diebold appreciation virus.

Thanks for what you did. You're my kind of warrior. When these people are confronted they are forced to lie. The important thing is not that you didn't get a chance to refute all her lies. It is that you educated a lot of people who are very politically active or they wouldn't have been at that meeting.. Now they need a couple of follow up prods and some direction in what to do and they can become effective allies. It isn't ultimately the party leaders we have to convince, it is the party faithful who, when educated, do want to help.

You might check out GA consumer fraud law. You have the Rubin report on the flaws in the DRE software, and the fact the source code and detailed directions to hack it are all over the internet as possible basis for filing a consumer fraud complaint with the GA Attorney General. Hey, you've already got the Governor calling for an investigation. Why not get the Attorney General in on the act?

Gordon25

[Eloriel]

30. Ah, DEMActivist called the Atty General's office early on

They sent her to the SoS, which had already been blowing her off.

I've since heard he's basically a nothing, as is the Lt. Genl (another Dem), who also blew her off.

And I can't tell you how many lawyers we tried. And organizations -- ACLU, Voting Rights Project of the ACLU (HQ'd in Atlanta), PFAW, on and on and on and on. Some were EXTREMELY discouraging. The guy at the Voting Rights Project had the bald-faced nerve to whine, "Do you know how expensive expert witnesses are? It would take too much money."

Sigh. It's just up to us citizens to do this thing. Somehow.

I don't remember if I mentioned this, but I met with a woman (a Dean supporter) Saturday who had worked really hard on the FTC issue and was largely responsible for getting one of the public hearings held in Atlanta, said she estimated it would take 2 million people working on this.

I think we need to get busy!!! Another thing I did tonight was take names and email addresses for an email list, and I got quite a few. I see this as an adjunct to BBV.org discussion forums. The forums are great - esp. good for keeping records of things and having focused, all-in-one-place conversations on discrete topics. But there's something about email arriving in your inbox -- harder to ignore. I know I'm signed up for about 20 different yahoo groups, but NOT to receive email, and so I hardly go read them. The very small handful of email lists I receive directly in my email get looked at. Daily. Not always read, but ALWAYS looked at.

Too, emails are much easier to pass along to others, hopefully to educate / get them involved.

Eloriel

[Zhade]

51. Unfuckingbelievable.

"Do you know how expensive expert witnesses are? It would take too much money."

What price democracy, Mr. Voting "Rights" Project? What price freedom? What price liberty?

If I didn't know better, I'd swear his answer is a clue...

[angka]

27. kick-ass story.

make sure you ask her to reconcile the story of the contractors scrambling to apply emergency patches to your DREs at the last minute with this fiction of 'physical security' and software integrity they seem to fall back on.

you are fighting a very important good fight

[ParanoidPat]

28. To anyone who finds themselves in a public forum....

....facing elected officials over this issue, here's a sure fire way to get their attention. Remember to always point out that you are there as a member of the public and that they're there as a public servant! Ask them what part of that relationship is it that they don't understand! Feel free to remind them that they are there to represent YOU and if they don't represent what the people want THEY WILL BE REPLACED! (You want to see sweat?) Let them know in no uncertain terms that they called the meeting supposedly to get public comment, well damn it, THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN! Now go back and do your job or we'll file suit to have you removed from office BEFORE the next election! :evilgrin:
It doesn't matter what they're excuses are, the fact remains, THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS THERE TO SERVE YOU. NOTHING MORE!

:kick:

[shance]

29. Nice work!!****

Only wish I had been there to see all the action!!

Am with Newsguy on getting more schooled in the semantics of it all.

Would you or Bev please repost the primer? Thats a good place to start.

[shance]

31. Think I just found it***

:)

[JCMach1]

32. Excellent Job Eloriel

:)

[Woodstock]

33. No truer words have been spoken

"Any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result."

[stevedeshazer]

35. What an incredible account!

Outstanding, thanks for standing up for all Americans, this is real patriotism. :thumbsup:

[Eloriel]

36. Email from my partner in crime

(My OTHER Partner in crime):

I spoke to Cathy (was that her name?) after the meeting for a minute. I told her that what will probably be millions of people are going to come together and stop the computer voting process from happening for the 2004 elections. She said something like (and don't quote me because her exact words flew out of my brain) that she is on one side and I'm on another and that she would never change her mind.

Guess that about says it all, in terms of the brick wall they seem to be.

I can be just as implacable.

------

DEMActivist has taught me to really appreciate "implacability."

Eloriel

[ParanoidPat]

37. Declaration of WAR!

Methinks Cathy will regret whatever words she said to that effect! :evilgrin:
It's time to mobilize the computer literate forces! Eloriel, is there any way we might be able to get a copy of the tape of this meeting? This might be just what the Documentary ordered! :)
Let's make her the poster child for the wrong way to represent the will of the people. Cathy, Cathy, Cathy, did you pick the wrong person to screw with! Eloriel has a lot more friends than you could even imagine!
Democrat or not, your days of 'public service' are numbered!

[Andy_Stephenson]

40. I can give you lessons in that as well Eloriel

as I am quite implacable.

[DEMActivist]

53. I think Ms. Rogers just made a grave mistake

Daring this lady to "do something about it" was not a smart thing to do.

What's amazing is their complete lack of skills in dealing with the public. You know, the folks who pay their salaries?

Perhaps your partner in crime can get us ON THE AGENDA at some of the upcoming public meetings, Eloriel? Instead of standing in the audience and trying to make time constrained points, let's prepare and give a PRESENTATION to counter hers.

Time to take center stage WITH them, I think.

[RapidCreek]

92. Ahhhh thank you DEMActivist!

Just what I was thinking!

With some of the fine oraters....Elorial and TahitiNut come immediately to mind...as well as the coders, system engineers and multi-media editors you have access too here at DU, a very powerful pre-packaged professionally produced multi-media presentation could be composed. Being a layman myself as it relates to coding, I think that an understandable demonstration of exactly how the Deibold code can be hacked...would be profound to say the very least. It might be worth while to contact the guys at Johns Hopkins for assistance in such an endeavor. Considering what took place in Florida, I am curious if the folks at the congressional black caucus might be interested in assisting too....have you guys been in contact with them yet?

You might consider creating two presentations....one which could be given when and if one of us is able to get ourselves on the Agenda at public meetings and another which might be sent to media outlets. The version composed for public meetings should be accompanied with instructions on presentation. It seems to me that such presentations could be used on a national scale.

We need to go on the offensive here. To often us Dems come from the defensive corner or we wait to respond to talking points instead of designing those of our own. Frankly I believe that this is why the fascist stink has gotten so heavy as late. Rethugs are master marketers...we need to be better at it than they are...or at least as good.

While the state of South Dakota has not yet proposed no paper voting I am sure it is in the works. The rethugs here are looking for any way possible to get rid of Daschle and Johnson and have demonstrated on countless occasions that that are not above doing anything to get thier way. It would be nice for once to head them off at the pass instead of trying to patch a sinking ship.

I would be happy to try and help with such a project. I am not a coder but I write fairly well when I am inspired and I am proficient at graphics work.

If I can be of any assistance in such a project, or if you would be interested in discussing it further, please send me a personal message.

Great work by the way! I wish I could have witnessed the scene described above in person. Sounds like it would have made my month. Thank you so much, guys and gals, for working to preserve the sanctity of our electoral process.

RC

[WilliamPitt]

38. UROK

That means You Rock.

Period.

[Andy_Stephenson]

39. Sent this off to Ms Rogers

Ms Rogers,

I understand you attended a meeting where the subject of Diebold voting machines were discussed. Apparently in this meeting you stated "Paper leads to vote fraud." Frankly I find a paper ballot comforting. Combined with the supposed security of the system, I would rest well knowing the election was fair and the outcome was as the people intended. However I take issue with the certification piece that came up. I myself have spoken the all the certification people up to and including Mr Doug Lewis. To date I do not have the certification results for the machines that were in use in Nov 2002. Since you seem to be an obvious authority on the subject, I am hoping that you can provide me with certification on the software, machines and patches that were in use in Georgia in Nov 2002.

By the way, could you also provide me with a CV covering your programming experience? I would like to know if you have the expertise in certifying these machines, or if your experience is only in the use thereof.

Sincerely,
Andy

[BevHarris]

60. Good one, Andy:

By the way, could you also provide me with a CV covering your programming experience? I would like to know if you have the expertise in certifying these machines, or if your experience is only in the use thereof.

[WhoDoYouTrust]

42. You go, girl!

You're not ready for that vacation yet! Let me know when!

[oasis]

43. Ya done good. Hang in there and don't let them get lazy.

[Zhade]

48. Can we get a copy of that video?

Because I have a feeling it will be invaluable as evidence later on, and there should be copies out there, just in case.

Awesome job, you ROCK.

[DEMActivist]

54. Get back up there!

kick

[DWright]

56. Woo Hoo Eloriel!!!

Way to go!!! I'm so excited --- what you did took guts. You're an inspiration to all of us (as are Bev and DemActivist)...

If there is indeed videotape of that meeting, I know someone (documentary filmmaker) who'd be very interested in getting a copy. In fact, I think ALL these encounters need to be taped, from here on out. Close-ups of their RED FACES would be great. :-)

Where do they get this "Paper ballots encourage fraud" crap? We need to undermine that one ASAP. It seems to be their new "meme".

Thanks again, Eloriel.

[Eloriel]

58. Actually, if the computerized systems were perfect

(didn't allow fraud on their own, were invulnerable to outside attacks), that would a viable statement.

Or, put another way. It IS a viable statement. It just doesn't recognize that computers allow so much MORE fraud, and even less detectable (at least for my money).

I can see how someone who has spent her career fending off voting problems connected with paper, and having unwarranted, misplaced faith in computers (AND their programmers) would come to this conclusion -- helped, of course, by the industry itself and people like R. Doug Lewis.

You're right, though, that it's a powerful meme that we have to overcome on the part of election officials, who ARE the ones making these decisions.

Eloriel

[never cry wolf]

62. I am by no means a techy

I spent about 3 grand for this laptop in April, brand new machine, very nice quality Toshiba and it still does things that just make me scratch my head. If your normal average everyday Joe won't buy that someone is trying to set up BBV's for election fraud point out at the very least that computers are unreliable. There are faults in every software program. I am sure anyone who has owned a computer has cussed it out at one time or another, do you really want these things deciding elections??

Just a thought, Many may pooh-pooh the fraud idea but there are many other problems inherent with computers that everyone has experienced.

[4dog]

72. We need to think about real paper problems

since we are advocating paper as the solution to black boxes. Obviously stuffing, diverting ballot boxes, etc., have been used for a long time. What would make paper work would be an honest "many eyes" infrastructure ready to count. It does not appear that a serious effort has been made to develop an honest infrastructure in this country.

[Changenow]

55. Why can’t there be hackers that change the results

in an election not to favor one side or another, but to simply show that it can be done? For example, have an entire precinct register twice as many votes as were actually cast but in the exact proportion to the votes legitimately cast? This would benefit no one but prove a profound point. There is a primary coming up so that could be rescheduled if necessary and the issue would be confronted by the general.

Also, the election folks in Georgia are going to stop public speaking if the audience isn’t going to be nice to them. Perhaps Bush could give them some hints on the recruitment of the “friendly” audience.

[loudsue]

95. IIRC, that has already happened....Florida or Texas, I think.

There was a county with something like 4,000 people, who had something like 30,000 votes. I'm not on my normal computer, so I won't have the link handy...but it's already been done....by computers.

:kick:

[ret5hd]

57. a pg.2 kick...(nt)

[ParanoidPat]

59. Kick for the morning crew!

:kick:

[BevHarris]

61. Fantastic job, Eloriel. What I'm seeing, consistently,

is that many officials are unprepared for questions, and become angry and defensive when asked the tough ones. That means, go in and ask ask ask.

That being said, out here in Washington we've got a couple guys who are much smoother. They are used to showing up at meetings where 95% of the crowd is against them. In this case, they say "Yes I'll take a look at that" and "we'll wait and see what California does" and "you make a good point, we'll take that under advisement." Unfortunately, I've been at four meetings in a row with the same guy and apparently they've never changed a thing and they still use the same answers.

This is exactly the kind of thing we need to keep doing. Bravo to Eloriel (and especially for sitting through a long and boring meeting like that!)

Bev

[Eloriel]

63. Shhhh

Don't give 'em any ideas!!!

I thought it particularly telling that when pushed, her responses were personal attacks ("Bev hung up on Brit Williams," -- which DA reminded me is exactly opposite of what happened!! -- and "Avi Rubin owns stock," which isn't even true to start with, he had unused stock options, tho that's bad enough).

Thanks, Bev.

And thanks to everyone else for all your VERY flattering and encouraging posts. I'm frankly a little awed, but also humbled. I did not all that much really. The real heroes are Bev and DA especially along with a good handful of others who did the work.

Now we must keep at it, and expand our efforts exponentially. We can't give up, and we can't back down. We have to face up to those who would do us harm -- by posting personal information on websites and lies on email lists. We have to be brave, and we have to be fighters.

For many months now I've sat at the edge of this, occasionally doing -- or trying to do -- something like find attorneys. I haven't been all that much help because I haven't seen a way for me TO BE much help. Happily, something apparently clicked, and I'm ready to go full tilt on this. Part of that will be at blackboxvoting.org, and part of that will be elsewhere. DA is NEVER going to another meeting in Georgia alone (tho she had the GA Green Party Exec Dir with her last time, but I missed it). And we're going to start mailing lists and come up with feet-on-the-ground ways to press this issue forward. Bev and Rox have given ENORMOUSLY to this project. And thank God/Goddess for them. But they can't do all of it all by themselves.

I've been thinking more about the little talk Rodgers gave about how onerous those damned paper ballots are. It really was quite instructive. We obviously have a great need to educate our election officials -- and that may take from the county level right on up.

Let's go, folks!! Time's running out on democracy. It's time for the rest of us to become heroes too, right in our own communities.

Eloriel

[RedEagle]

67. Potential Allies

Yeah Eloriel!

It is hard to get up and start talking but usually, a lot easier to keep going.

You all might consider asking your LOCAL chapters of League of Women Voters to sponsor talks on this or to even just attend one of their meetings to give information about computer voting. A LOT of the local LWV people are aghast at national's position and none too happy about it. They can't come out as a League person and oppose it, or as a group. But there is nothing to stop them from having debate about it, if you get my drift. That's part of who they are and what they do.

Might have more allies there than you think, if they can format it another way, becaust it's well within the framework of their organization. National has hobbled them from making statements, but that does not impede their ability to conduct forums, etc.

:toast:

[Eloriel]

69. GREAT idea

Thanks.

Eloriel

[Vadem]

77. Eloriel, you give me courage to start going after my own

SOS and election officials! Fantastic job you did. Can't wait for DemActivist's demo, too. Thanks from all of us to you, DA, Bev, Jim March, and all of the others working so hard on this issue!

[Andy_Stephenson]

65. When are these meetings?

I want to go to the next one!

[donsu]

64. thank you Eloriel

nt

[blm]

66. Great constructive effort. *APPLAUSE*

.

[Eloriel]

68. Sooooo, I called Kathy Rodgers

Not very satisfying experience. But before I mention that, I keep remembering the look on her face last night when I asked, in effect (don't remember the exact words), Well, if the certification is so great why didn't they catch what terrible code it was? The LOOK on her face was absolutely defeated. I think that's when she came up with the stocks (Thanks, Avi!).

So this afternoon I told Kathy I was very interested in what she had to say about the paper ballots being such a pain, that that had given me a lot to think about. (She pretended not to know which woman at the end of the session I might have been!)

Then I asked if we couldn't sit down and go over this whole thing at some length because if we don't fix this problem, "one of two bad things is going to happen. Either Cathy Cox's career goes down in flames, or we lose our right to vote tho we will still have the illusion of democracy." In retrospect, might have been too heavy a thing to lay on her.

"We have had a lot of people who want to go over this at greath length .... very busy right now, in fact an election next week, ... yadayada... that's why we've set up these open houses at KSU..."

"Well, what I don't understand is, if there are knowledgeable people who are" trying to get information into your hands, why would you not want to listen? (Something to that effect.)

"I've read all the info, it's got a lot of untruths in it."

"Like what, for example?"

Something about the "software," and then she caught herself and said she didn't have the time and wasn't technical enough anyway to debate "point by point." "Dr. Williams has already debated all that."

At some point I think she put me on speaker phone, which makes me think she called someone else into the room. She also said something about not wanting to discuss it because of "being taped," and I assured her (if she was even listening) that I wasnt' taping this.

Like I said, not very satisfying.

Eloriel

[BevHarris]

71. She's "read all the info" -- wow, she must spend a lot of time reading

How many here have "read all the info?"

Even I haven't read ALL the info.

You see, folks, it is time to hold OUR representatives, who work for US and are spending OUR MONEY on these things, accountable. It is time to ask questions of all public officials and also reporters.

Yes, you may get rebuffed, but think about this: When you have to rebuff someone, doesn't that make you think for awhile afterwards? As in, "gosh, that person really got on my nerves!"

If they choose to take this course of action, steamrolling over our citizenry and refusing to answer or discuss this critical issue, at the very least let's get on their nerves. And while we do that, observers will see their defensive behavior, and we may just convert a few!

Bev

[althecat]

76. Eloriel makes the two Cathies an offer they ought not to refuse..

Eloriel...

It seems to me that you dealt with this meeting absolutely perfectly.

Cox and Rodgers are probably answering party members questions - in the way you report Rodgers did - all over the state. They will be answering questions from Representatives and party officials in the same dismissive fashion. And in the absence of an informed individual to counter their lies, their barbs will hit home.

There is polish to Rodgers spin here.. even if it is a generation behind the discourse in Washington. Every answer is begging the questioner (or perhaps in the context of a party meeting - commanding the questioner) to desist.

So while defeated Rodgers may be in the meme world, in the real world she still feels able to tell lies constantly, and most importantly hide her own-mind from the truth and her growing feelings of unease..

This is not a case of mere defensiveness.. it goes far further than that. Bottom line she thinks she can lie to you, the party, meetings, representatives etc... just as all the others have. Lewis. Williams and Diebold's brace of talking heads etc.

She thinks she can do this because she thinks there are not enough of us. That the media won't listen and that ultimately their iron grip on the party apparatus will shut up all the parties internal critics.

This mentality is perfectly illustrated in the lady who told you her approach to the issue was immutable.

In NZ politics we would call this individual throughly "whipped". The two Cathies said shut her mind. And she has shut it. Importantly this woman will open her mind when told to do so too.

And so the way you put the issue to Cathy Rodgers was perfect in this phone exchange - (See above....) Cox and her haven't got any time left to change direction on this road. One thing is certain though. If they stay on their present course they will get run over....

But just imagine how this issue would start to open up if the two Cathies were working with the crowd instead of against it.

That said. I suspect in reality it is too late for the Cathies. They have well made their bed....

But then, as St Paul's example teaches us, everybody is entitled to repent, change course and seek forgiveness... And perhaps meeting Eloriel has been a bit like an encounter with a blinding light for Rodgers.

Kia Kaha Eloriel

Al

[Eloriel]

87. Here's what I accomplished for sure

I didn't convince anyone of anything and have no idea if I even was successful in planting a seed with Rodgers. Don't know how much of the audience could have been impacted -- just can't know.

But *I* got a much better understanding of what we're up against. And that alone was so worth it.

I wish I could better convey the paper ballot portion of her brief talk, but when the transcript is ready that should help. I really *got it* that election officials (if she wasn't lying about this and I really have no reason to suspect her) are thrilled and actually very relieved to do away with paper. Let's face it, most of the poll workers and election officials in the country are decent, hardworking people. Just like the rest of Americans (in general, there are exceptions, as we all know).

I also "got it" from the two discussions, perhaps esp. more the phone calls, that this isn't JUST an issue of being defensive and protecting their asses, but rather they feel they HAVE the information they need. "I trust the software." They trust their "experts."

They also trust Brit Williams enormously, nevermind what kind of an ass he is. If I saw anyone acting the way he did when DA was asking questions, I would IMMEDIATELY suspect the worst about the man. But then I've studied people in my life, not everyone has. People who get all huffy as a defense against what they perceive to be "threats" are bullies. That's how perps (e.g., child molesters and wife beaters, etc.) act: "How DARE you do this to me and my family!!" (Remember Clarence Thomas with his "high tech lynching" charge? Typical perp going-on-offense-as defense behavior.) So when I encounter that behavior I tend to automatically suspect I'm dealing with a narcissistic-to-sociopathic (somewhere on that continuum scale) person.

But anyway, back to Rodgers (or Rogers -- it was Rodgers on the agenda last night). I honestly believe they BELIEVE what they've been told by these people. For those who aren't techies (me included) the technobabble can sound very convincing. And who are YOU going to trust: the people you've been dealing with, and who have been so very nice, and have made your life so much easier, or these pushy people who say so all those not very nice things about what you've worked so hard on for years now?

The whole experience just shows me what a really, really tough fight we've got on our hands here, and how necessary it's going to be to rally some troops. These poor election officials in various places around the country have been sold a bill of goods that solves what they see as a VERY annoying and even dispiriting problem (keeping track of all that paper!). They also don't WANT to be wrong (who would?). Their "experts" have ALL the answers (never mind no one can understand them and the ones who can know they're all bogus).

My one regret: I really wish I'd have had a chance to leave her with this thought to mull over in our phone conversation: "But what if we're right?"

I'll ask her that next time.

Eloriel

[IkeWarnedUs]

90. excellent analysis

Eloriel, I am so impressed - first by your account of the meeting and now by this analysis of the situation.

I wish more people would stop and think about the perspectives of the people we are trying to alert. Whether the subject is BBV, PNAC or any other issue. The best way to get through to someone is by understanding their argument and motivation.

[Eloriel]

96. Unfortunately, you're right.

That is NOT typically my forte. However, I'm smart enough (barely) to recognize that -- well, what you just said.

Eloriel

[althecat]

70. **** APPLAUSE ****

Well.

Wow.

:)

It really pays to login here everday and look for new BBV threads... They are like spun gold.

[shirlden]

75. I just love

kicking these BBV threads. There is nothing more important at this moment in time than working to save our right to have our vote cast and counted.

Make room on Mount Rushmore for a whole line of Duers.

:party:

[Rex]

73. Neo-patriots, you're awesome Eloriel

When I think of modern day patriots - people that won't back down to the continual encroachment of the BFEE - I think of you and Bev and folks like you.

I am somewhat disheartened by what I just read. Sounds to me like the next election cycle will be "business as usual". :(

[John_H]

74. "as soon as she gets immunity from prosecution ..."

So no hack attempt, in other words. Bummer.

[Vadem]

78. Do you know what really bothers me? R. DOUG LEWIS!

I think he is the nougat at the bottom of the BBV question. WHY can we not find out about his background? How was he made the King of the Election Center and all the State's election procedures (NASED)?

I am willing to put some money into a private investigator to look into these issues. Anybody else with me?

[seemslikeadream]

79. If you find a signature

let me know please.

[RedEagle]

80. Get A Quote Vadem

So we know what the goal would be.

Kick!

[Eloriel]

86. Yeah -- I don't have a lot but I'll pitch in a few bucks

I honestly think this is necessary. I really do.

Eloriel

[dmr]

88. Same here,

don't have a whole hell of a lot, but would be willing to pitch in.

[seemslikeadream]

97. Me too!

And I have a signature that I'd like to compare to a recent one of Lewis's.

[never cry wolf]

102. I'm in too...........n/t

[Pastiche423]

89. If you are serious

set up a PayPal account, once you have a quote, then let everyone know. IMHO, this would be a most excellent investment.

How cool would that be to find out about the mysterious R. Doug Lewis?

[Vadem]

91. Good idea, Pastiche! I'm googling P.I.s in the Houston area

Anybody ever hired a P.I.? Please post any suggestions. Well, it will be a new experience for me. I'll keep you posted as to what I find out.

[Pobeka]

81. We need to start compiling a list of all the horribly broken computer

programs. For those who missed my other openvoting thread, I was going back and forth with a poster who falsely believed that computer programs could be made infallable.

When you get this "certification" BS., then you could just throw that topic right back in their face. And ain't it great that we have Microsoft as the software platform? Microsoft, has thousands of software engineers (i.e. programmers), and look at what they've given us:

The Nimbda virus
CodeRed
SQL Slammer

etc.

These were exploited flaws in MS's programs which were "certified" by MS's marketing department as secure.

Go look at the long, long, long list of bugs that Microsoft has provided "hotfixes" for.

Perhaps these facts, well documented and vetted, thrown in the face of public officials in the present of the hoards of the public affected by Microsoft's virus-of-the-week susceptible software, will turn more heads.

Don't get me wrong, this is not about MS-bashing, but MS is the visible player here. This is really about destroying the "infallable computer program" myth.

[Pobeka]

83. Google search numero uno

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11249

<snip>
THE US Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has urged the US Department of Homeland Security to avoid using Microsoft software.

The Washington based association, which represents members that generate over $200 billion, has issued an open letter to Tom Ridge, Secretary of the department, urging him to review his decision to choose Microsoft for its desktops and servers.
<snip>

MS the PREMIER software supplier, can only deliver software that the CCIA says is not good enough for the government. So, who is fantasizing that a few programmers at DIEBOLD can do any better?

[Pobeka]

84. numero dos

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=14200390

<snip>
Microsoft Issues Five New Security Warnings Sept. 3, 2003
The most serious of the flaws could let an attacker execute code from an open Office application.
<snip>

[althecat]

85. That myth hasn't really got away on us around here :)

[hunter]

101. Microsoft is just one head on this hydra!

Cut that head off, and the Black Box Voting Supporters will simply grow a new one. Just imagine a "new and improved" Diebold with QNX, BSD, or whatever...

If you think of these electronic voting machines as "vote laundering" machines then the software is simply the detergent. Using non-Microsoft code only makes it a little bit harder to cheat.

We don't want to make "No phosphates, no Microsoft!" part of any future BBV advertising campaign.

Even if these BBV machines used open source code it is still possible to cheat if any final audit is not based upon voter verified paper ballots. In the final examination, it will always be easier to tamper with electronic bits then the marks on paper ballots.

[TacticalPeek]

82. Kan't Kick KKKarl without votes that count.

[RedEagle]

94. Help Vadem

Who knows how to find a good PI?

[loudsue]

98. I will contribute for the private investigator fund --

I wish we also had someone setting up high quality documentaries and demos about computerized voting (with real actors/actresses...Susan Sarandon? DemActivist? BevHarris? Eloriel? Will Pitt? TahitiNut?) for massive distribution. I'd contribute to that, as well.

No candidate is going to get any of my money this campaign season, for the simple reason that if his/her name isn't in the computer, they won't win ANYWAY! So why throw money away? The real money needs to go to fight this black slime that is trying to destroy our right to have our votes count.

Once THAT problem is solved, I'll send money to all my fave candidates, hoping it might really help!

Eloriel, I'm sooooo proud of what you did...proud to be associated on this forum with folks who are


:loveya:

PIT BULL PATRIOTS!!!

:loveya:

:yourock::yourock::yourock:

[dmr]

99. LOL

I like that: Pit Bull Patriots

I've called DemA a pit bull quite a few times - but, LOL, she denies it! But once she sinks her teeth into something, she won't let go! I'm proud of her, Bev and all our other tenacious pit bulls. Look out world, you ain't seen nuthin' yet!

[loudsue]

100. Thanks, dmr....we need a whole "pack" of PitBullPatriots

to take on this "mob"....'cause that's exactly what it is...mob-like activity.

:kick::kick: