READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For December 01, 2005"
(15 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 12/1/2005 @ 9:23 pm PT...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/1/2005 @ 10:44 pm PT...
John, Brad, Winter Patriot, and 6 or 7
Booman Tribune and a coalition of progressive blogs are joining forces for a twelve day protest to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. We welcome any and all activists to visit Booman Tribune/anti-Alito action and help us, and members of other progressive blogs to brainstorm ideas for twelve days of specific, targeted, and creative protests culminating possibly in a live protest in Washington on Jan. 7th.
Although the democrats are showing signs of life recently and have reopened the possibility of a filibuster, we realize that we must continue to press and encourage our representitives in Washington to vigorously oppose Bush's attempt to remake the Supreme Court into a political and fundamental arm of the religious right wing that is bent on taking this country back to a time when civil rights, workers rights, and most importantly, a woman's right to choose, did not exist. We are determined to see to it that that does not happen. But we need your help.
Please join us.
Everyone but Paul that is ;o)
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 1:23 am PT...
If bush was impeached would his SCOTUS nominations be reversed?
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 1:24 am PT...
Read this summary , if your wondering whats going on, it makes things a little clearer (if not more confusing), about Bilderberg and voting
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 8:43 am PT...
If you read this please email me back.
I just talked to Bruce McDannold in Cal SoS department of Voting Systems Specialist.
This guy is an *&%#
But I would like to tell you what he said.
I would really like to talk to you via the phone
I am better at explaining in verbal than written.
Just a reminder, I am the caller, from Peter B. Collins show, in Cypress.
I have to help at my daughter's school from 9:10 till 10:00 am. I will check my email before I go and right when I get back.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 8:52 am PT...
What the hell is next? Voting by telepathy???
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 8:55 am PT...
No they would not.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 9:00 am PT...
I am a government lawyer and I can tell you that some administrator in the state cannot just "waive state law" with impunity. I think any (or all) voters in NC would have standing to file a lawsuit and someone should do it SOON!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 9:09 am PT...
Is EFF or anyone else planning a lawsuit to get an injunction to stop Diebold and the conflict of interest and the illegality?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 9:19 am PT...
There is a blogswarm, started two days ago and has begun to grow significantly, with over 60 web logs that have posted on the subject, in support of HR 550, a bill that requires verified voting on the federal level. The bill is stalled in the House Administration Committee. Congressman Rush Holt has a petition up in support of the bill at his web site. If you want to join the blogswarm, contact me.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 10:46 am PT...
Dredd #9 - Here is EFFs press release that is just released within the hour. EFF is not done on this matter.
North Carolina Illegally Certifies Diebold E-voting System
Board of Elections Ignores Rules to Escrow Code, Identify Programmers
Raleigh, North Carolina - The North Carolina Board of Elections certified Diebold Election Systems to sell electronic voting equipment in the state yesterday, despite Diebold's repeated admission that it could not comply with North Carolina's tough election law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believes that this raises important questions about the Board of Elections' procedures as well as the integrity of Diebold's bid for certification.
In all, three companies were certified for e-voting in North Carolina: Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software. However, Keith Long, an advisor to the Board of Elections who was formerly employed by both Diebold and Sequoia, has said that "none of them" could meet the statutory requirement to place their system code in escrow. Instead of rejecting all applications and issuing a new call for bids as required by law, the Board chose to approve all of the applicants.
"The Board of Elections has simply flouted the law," said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "In August, the state passed tough new rules designed to ensure transparency in the election process, and the Board simply decided to take it upon itself to overrule the legislature. The Board's job is to protect voters, not corporations who want to obtain multi-million dollar contracts with the state."
Last month, Diebold obtained a broad temporary restraining order that allowed it to evade key transparency requirements without criminal or civil liability. The law requires escrow of the source code for all voting systems to be certified in the state and identification of programmers. Diebold claimed that it could not comply because of its reliance on third-party software.
Monday, responding to EFF's arguments, a judge dismissed Diebold's request for broad exemptions to the law and told Diebold that if it wanted to continue in its certification bid, it must follow the law or face liability. Diebold had told the court that it would likely withdraw from the bidding process if it was not granted liability protection. But instead, Diebold went forward with the certification bid.
Diebold's certification now means it is permitted to sell e-voting equipment in North Carolina. But Zimmerman says that any county that buys from Diebold is taking a risk.
"If Diebold's certification is revoked, counties using their equipment could be left holding a very expensive bag," Zimmerman said.
Despite Long's assertion, at least one Diebold competitor --- Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software --- has publicly stated that it is capable of meeting the escrow requirement for the code used it its system.
For more on the judge's decision Monday:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 11:11 am PT...
Thank you. The tone of the release does, as you say, indicate they (EFF) are not done yet.
I think there is a growing stonewalling on many of the neoCon issues. Phase II in the Senate Intelligence Committee has been stopped by the chairman after he promised to move it forward (link here).
These neoCons all act as if they could care less about the law, the public opinion, or much of anything else except war bucks and the wishes of special interest lobbyists who grease their palms.
Gotta keep fighting on every front. One good and fair election and they are toast.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 12:50 pm PT...
Several editors of a computer security newsletter (SANS) commented recently on the Diebold case in North Carolina. They were all suspicious of Diebold's stated reasons for resisting the state's efforts towards insuring fair elections. Below are their commnets from Nov 29, 2005:
Editor's Note (Pescatore): Microsoft has source review licensing available for government bodies, hard to believe that this obstacle couldn't be overcome if that was truly the issue.
Editor's Note (Schultz): Setbacks such as this one will ultimately force makers of eVoting machines to quit resisting measures designed to ensure that the eVoting machines produce fair results.
Editor's Note (Tan): It is common to request for code review, with NDA in place, for systems that may impact national security, and evoting systems should be subjected to such scrutinizing. Using Microsoft code as a reason is not a strong case since Microsoft does has a Government Security Program some years back to allow controlled access to Microsoft Windows source
(Schneier): If Diebold chooses not to sell its machines in North Carolina rather than make its source code available for examination, the best thing the other 49 states could do would be to enact similar legislation.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 1:07 pm PT...
The neoCons are taking hard lines. Even on torture concerns, this admin is telling Europe to back off (link here).
Diebold's recent ignoring of the court decision in Carolina and in California seems to say back off.
The neoCons must be, like Napolean, saying ok courts, you have your opinions and we have our tanks. Now back off.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 12/2/2005 @ 4:13 pm PT...
I typed "Napolean" instead of "Napoleon" in my post #14.