So the vendors and those to whom they sold the bill of goods are screaming that they shouldn't come under scrutiny and offer transparency to the voters. Hmmm, could it be the vendors are shaking in their boots about loosing billions of dollars in future sales and maybe even having to pay back to the counties billions for making false claims.

Or could it be the Elections Officials and their bosses (the Boards of Supervisors) are puckering about the embarassment they will suffer when the public finds out what a boondoggle they bought into. And they won't always be able to claim no one warned them, as election integrity groups throughout the state warned them time and time again - DON'T DO THIS - the machines are garbage - you can't PROVE they are accurate.

And therein lies the reason Registrars of Voters DENY any attempts to see the audit logs, to watch the input screens for error messages, or to even see the central tabulator main screen. The curtain is ALWAYS drawn when it comes to meaningful observations - we are always told - "Pay no attention to that man behind the screen", "move along, nothing to see here", and "TRUST US"!

There are going to be an awful lot of butts on the line when this review is over with. And those who were warned the loudest, will have nowhere to hide.

"• Reliability

"It is the position of the CACEO that all systems should undergo a volume test as a minimum requirement of any review to assess the basic reliability of all equipment and software currently in use. This test should include an analysis of the durability of equipment that must be transported to polling places."

I agree with the above. They should do volume tests and require all of the systems checked to meet the federal standards. The standards are simple and too lenient but I don't think most of the systems presently in use would meet those standards.
*********************
Security testing and paper ballots. What they fail to point out is that security of paper ballots is totally an administrative problem and not a problem from within a voting machines internals.
*************
"The source code review section is vague, seemingly arbitrary, and contains no clear and measurable requirements. Since source code is already reviewed by independent testing authorities under standards developed by the EAC, it is critical to outline how this proposed source code review will differ from the EAC-sponsored review already conducted."

This is pretty much a no-brainer. Ciber reviews the source code? The ITAs only look at what they are asked to look at.
**********************
The "Disability Access Testing" comments clearly are a concern for this group. They admit that not all of the systems are accessible. In fact, the act of admitting that would be important to any attorneys looking into accessibility of voting systems. HAVA gives standards that must be met. DRE systems do not meet those standards.

Most County Officials Have No Credibility in My Opinion
They have evolved into just shills for the software/hardware companies that "sold" them their equipment?

Accountability:

Accountability is the missing conceptual link in the current debate over how best to advance democracy. Democracy affirms the need to justify decisions made by citizens and their representatives: it is a system that connects the values of the individual with the decisions of the collective. The preferences of citizens revealed by fair elections (representation) or organized and definitive discussion (deliberation) are the starting points of democratic legitimacy.
...
A clearly defined accountability system is crucial to any system of representative democracy because citizens, through their vote, legitimize or give authority to leaders to act.

(The Accountability Ladder, emphasis added).

It is that essence of democracy, and that essence only, which is the DNA of true democracy and constitutional government of the american soul.

It is the essence of any government by, of, and for the people because it applies only to government officials.

The neoCons do not even begin to get it, because it is the one essence that puts them in their place ... servants of the people.

The EVM companies have made EVM's in their own image ... and being neoCons ... accountability, which comes in the form "verifiable" for EVMs, is not even considered. I remember The Lone Tester Shawn Whitworth saying it was not relevant to testing the machines ... so they do not consider security.

It is little wonder, then, that CACEO chaffs at the prospect of having to become accountable to the voters, the people.

Since they did not rejoice with us we can conclude that they are not of, by, or for the people.

Accountability also seems to be missing from their list.

Fortunately, accountability appears to be headed their way.

Dan #5 "accountability appears to be headed their way"

A refreshing new experience for them we trust.

And lets hope the same for the war mongers.

It is difficult for the Senate since the majority is barely one vote.

The CACEO's response is like what the Bush White House is on record as saying : ""The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

Well, no, you can't front on that any longer.

"The voting systems in use in California today exceed national certification requirements and have been tested and certified under more rigid technical and security standards as adopted by the State of California. " The CACEO appears to be an ostrich organization with it's head in the sand; can they read? It is now well documented that the ITA process is not only a complete travesty, it's also a vendor driven process, not something that addresses voters needs or desires.
"Speed of Counting and Results Reporting" ; the only entities this matters to are the political parties, mass media and,apparently, the SOS office itself when it issues directives that the preliminary results must be transmitted to the SOS office within a half hour of the polls closing (yes, that is what the SOS office told the Registrars/County Clerks prior to the Nov. 2006 election.)
"Since source code is already reviewed by independent testing authorities under standards developed by the EAC, it is critical to outline how this proposed source code review will differ from the EAC-sponsored review already conducted." - again the argument is 'trust the authorities' when such authorities have already been discreditted.
"Preparing for elections is a year-round process in California." -Really? San Diego can't prepare properly for an election given the Diebold DRE's and the Procedures for Usage created by Diebold and accepted by the SOS office; using just 6 machines out of 10,000+ machines and 80 memory cards out of the 10,000+ memory cards that were to be used. it took the SD ROV 2 weeks to do logic and accuracy testing on 80 precincts. San Diego has about 1700 precincts. Do the math; it works out to over 40 weeks just to do the precribed logic and accuracy testing for all the machines that are used in a County wide election; AND that doesn't count all the other preparations necessassry for holding an election such as the creation of ballot 'styles' etc.
So it's actually more than an a "year round process"; simply stated, the CACEO folks can't properly prepare the machines and provide proof of the logic and accuracy of such machines and still hold an election.
The CACEO needs to have a session where they all repeat one hundred times the prologue to the Brown Act:
"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

how about verifiable or auditable?
can we get those on the list?

The CACEO Demon. need I say more?!

I think it's high time we destroy these people.
It's high time that we educate the public about physics and electronics. About doping at the manufacture level.

Then there's no excuse. If we all want to burn in hell on earth.

Having been in the "fast food" eyeglasses business for most of my life, it's good to see others scurrying around in a frenzy. Especially when it's for the good of honest elections.

They better wake up now and realize nobody's going to want to work with these machines when accountability is the norm.

I guess what the issue to me is, the review outlaws computers. Any computer can be rendered inoperative (denial of service). Does Bradblog in the end wish to outlaw all computers from all vote counting systems? And what's with all the spin? Doesn't the CACEO thing stand by itself without the negative spin? If you think Bowen's criteria is perfect, you haven't read it.

CA-FVP #12

The issue with EVM is the same as any other computer. Sometimes one must have security and system integrity. If you follow the realities then you know that EVM's are not even tested for security. So says the only EVM tester in this country, Shawn Whitman.

We know they are insecure and unsafe because an election official allowed a hack test by H. Hursti, and Hursti hacked the vote in mere moments, never having seen or touched the machine before. See the documentary "Hacking Democracy" for details.

Our mission is to change the nature of elections that use EVM's from faith based systems, which require blind faith in government officials, to science based systems that are auditable like an ATM is.

You want faith ... go to church ... you want reliable EVM's ... go to science.

Thanks Dredd but after reading the draft criteria, it says that "...any tabulation system must incorporate as part if its design, hardware, firmware and software...features that effectively secure the computer...and all electronic media...against untraceable...denial of service attacks."

There's no such thing as a standalone secure computer. As soon as the red team goes in it can put malicious software onto a thumb drive and another trojan into the vote counting computers and thereby the system fails the test. That makes all computers outlawed. The key words are, "...attacks by any person..."

So, since Bradblog supports Sec.Bowen I can only assume that Bradblog supports only handcounting of ballots and no computers at all.

In all the anti-CACEO rhetoric (including Phil's psychopathic babbling), I wonder now, how many clerks were elected, along with Sec. Bowen in the last election? Should they be tarred and feathered too? I also wonder if the CACEO has a position on HAVA II? The public has some questions and it's hard to read through all this political spin to get to the real meaning. And now, back to lurking.