BBV: I've got questions.

[msmcghee]

I just read through the BBV website postings after linking there from an LBN thread:

Diebold takes down blackboxvoting.org (UK) at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=130540

Q1: If Diebold succeeded in taking it down, why was I able to open it in my browser and read it?

Q2: The important question - why are the dem leadership not screaming bloody murder about this crap? Are they getting paid by Diebold's lobbiests - and are willing to sacrifice their chances at a fair election for the bucks? Doesn't make sense.

Can some of you BBV experts here set me straight?

[LearnedHand]

1. You might have been able to read it because...

...the options in your browser are set such that you simply opened a cached page, not the freshest link. Try deleting your cache and cookies, then reloading the site.

Re: Q2. I didn't know about the site being "taken down." What happened?

[msmcghee]

2. Just checked agin. It's down now.

By "why are the dem leadership not screaming bloody murder about this crap" I meant - why are they not screaming about Diebold and no-auditable voting records? like Bev and other are?

[dweller]

3. think there is a difference

in bbv.org and bbv.com
btw, global free press got the same cease and desist from diebold.
there were several seperate threads here today.

dp

[msmcghee]

4. That's what I get for checking in late.

Usually I'm working in my office here at home. But today I had to run around the Olympic Peninsula and take care of errands.

It's amazing how current one can be just from checking into LBN and GDF every 1/2 hour or so. My news is often more current than "All Things Considered" which comes on at 4:00 around here.

See - I've already missed the first 1/2 hour.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. bbv.com is still up

and reporting. As we didn't have any links on that site, we have yet to hear from Diebold. Reporting is also being done at my poltical site, thoughcrimes.org

Latest news:

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=63

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=64

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/archives/001022.html
http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/archives/001021.html

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[msmcghee]

6. Thanks, David n/t

[BevHarris]

7. Now you know one of the reasons we have two sites

that have different ISPs. http://www.blackboxvoting.com is up, it is owned by publisher Plan Nine, and has a lot of news stories, content, and his entertaining commentary.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org is the activism site. DemActivist programmed it quite brilliantly; it is kind of "self serve" in that activists can post their letters, set up work groups on the forum, go into private work group forums, post a calendar of events, and it has an extensive library for those doing research who need to lay their hands on documents all in the same place.

Blackboxvoting.com has been successfully hacked out at least twice, though the security is pretty strong there. The last time the hackers had to really do an extensive denial of service.

Blackboxvoting.org had one ISP completely cave on us; they booted us out using the excuse that if we send press releases they can get us on the spam regulations. So we moved to a more supportive host, who stood up to one cease & desist, and was deciding what to do about this when they got a call from the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- whatever they said caused them to pull the site. The EFF lawyer is now in my "not necessarily to be trusted" file.

For now, blackboxvoting.com is the place to go. We're working on it -- I've been on the phone with the press quite a bit today. They are very interested in this. Won't say who, because that has, in the past, managed to get them contacted and pressured to delay, change, or not run stories.

[msmcghee]

8. Was that you on NPR today? .

. . at lunchtime here in Seattle (KUOW)? Didn't get the name but that gal sure knew what she was talking about.

B-)

[msmcghee]

9. But still, my main question is . .

. . why aren't the dem's making this a major issue. I hear a little once in a while. But, is there some downside - like letting the pukes label them as whiners?

Seems standing up for fairness and honesty (and audit trails) in the voting process is a non-partisan (should be) win-win issue.

Maybe I just haven't been listening carefully. But this seems very MAJOR ISSUE to me.