As per my earlier musings...

... about the irony of ACCURATE members being involved in exposing the sheer magnitude of the e-voting disaster inflicted on the public...

... I find the last line from David Wagner's Principal Investigator’s Statement on Protection of Security-Sensitive Information to be a perfect example of the implicit faith in e-voting meme that has led to so much grief for so many.

"We hope that future voting systems, better engineered than today’s systems, will eliminate the need for such trade-offs."

There can be little doubt that David Wagner is indeed a principled investigator

... but he can see no other future but e-voting.

And those who have this implicit faith in e-voting do not seem to understand or want to understand that neither corporations nor even government entities have any inherent interest in building secure systems... and many incentives, economic, practical, and political, to not build secure systems.

And yet... an implicit faith in e-voting remains.

What with Stalin being bandied about recently I'm reminded of the implicit faith in communism that rebounded from the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Communism just hasn't been done right
yet! And while we're sorry about the many millions who died from the last try... we'll be sure get it right next time!"

ACCURATE... thy epitaph for the democratic process in America shall be:

E-Voting or No Voting!
"It's not just a meme... it's corporate adventurism!"

The voting machines in the House are failing at this moment. It could be a hack. It is on CSPAN

The FISA law, already weak, is in danger of being weakened further on demand of preznit blush.

Call 202) 224-3121 and they will switch you to any Senator or Representative. You can call all of them you want to.

Tell them to stand up for America and uphold the 4th Amendment requirement for a warrant before spying on any American under any condition.

S. 559 outlaws election systems that do no publicly disclose the source code to any citizen:

`(9) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS- No voting system used in an election for Federal office shall at any time contain or use any software not certified by the State for use in the election or any software undisclosed to the State in the certification process. The appropriate election official shall disclose, in electronic form, the source code, object code, and executable representation of the voting system software and firmware to the Commission, including ballot programming files, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, executable representation, and ballot programming files available for inspection promptly upon request to any person.

(emphasis added).

The human factor in computerization almost cannot be overstated:

WASHINGTON (AP) - IRS employees ignored security rules and turned over sensitive computer information to a caller posing as a technical support person, according to a government study.
Sixty-one of the 102 people who got the test calls, including managers and a contractor, complied with a request that the employee provide his or her user name and temporarily change his or her password to one the caller suggested, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, an office that does oversight of Internal Revenue Service.

The caller asked for assistance to correct a computer problem.

(PC World). Especially when they system is under the notions of a stalinist in control of the system. That prospect is outlawed in S. 559 too:

`Sec. 319A. ( a ) Prohibition- It shall be unlawful for a chief State election administration official to take an active part in political management or in a political campaign with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority.

`( b ) Chief State Election Administration Official- The term `chief State election administration official' means the highest State official with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections under State law.

`( c ) Active Part in Political Management or in a Political Campaign- The term `active part in political management or in a political campaign' means--

`(1) serving as a member of an authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office;

`(2) the use of official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election for Federal office;

`(3) the solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of a political contribution from any person on behalf of a candidate for Federal office;

`(4) the solicitation or discouragement of the participation in any political activity of any person;

`(5) engaging in partisan political activity on behalf of a candidate for Federal office; and

`(6) any other act prohibited under section 7323(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code (other than any prohibition on running for public office).'.

(S. 559, emphasis added).

Excust the O/T comment, but thought you all would be interested in this email I got from Clint Curtis:

Dear Jen:

Thank you for your contribution to my campaign. Your gift will help us reach our goal of $250,000 by Sept 30th. With that achieved, doors will open to the campaign and support from national organizations received.

Rather than have an empty suit running for Congress , with your continued support, we can have leadership for a change in Congress. We will elect candidates that owe their elections to the people. Candidates who are willing to take a stand, to be a leader, do what is right from the American people. Without that, we end up with the same old lack of progress regardless of the party in power. We must do better. Our country is at stake!

You may not be able to vote for me, but I will be voting for you everyday in Washington.

Thank you,
Clint

PS Be one of the first to receive one of our Victory Circle collector's pin. The first 250 people to give $100 will receive a limited addition Victory Circle Pin to commemorate your commitment to new leadership and bringing us to our goal of $250,000 by Sept 30th.
http://www.actblue.com/page/clintcurtis

If you would rather give $10, $15, $25 or more by the month so we can budget our funds go to www.clintcurtis.com and click on the Victory Circle. Every dollar counts. All contributions are gratefully received. Thank you.

The more I was thinking about it, that would be INSANE if the House e-vote machines were hacked, because it would be found out...right? SOMEONE would check if every House member's published vote actually WAS their vote...and THEN add up ALL the published House votes to check it...WOULDN'T THEY??? WOULD someone do that???

It would entail printing out the published votes on something, then calling every congressman to see if that is, in fact, what they voted for.

Someone IS doing that, aren't they? At least ONCE in a while? To make sure everything's on the "up-and-up"?

Now, WE can't do that with OUR votes, because it's not published anywhere WHO voted for WHAT. But it can be easily done with House votes or Senate votes...someone IS doing that, right?

If I called every House member, and asked them how they voted on a piece of shit...I mean legislation, and then cross-checked it with the published votes on the internet...they would be exact, right? Did someone ever check this?

What if you tried it ONCE...AND IT DIDN'T CROSS-CHECK!!! LOL!!!

...actually, that isn't too funny, is it?

Dredd: THIS would be the vote to test it on, wouldn't it? Are all the House votes published yet: WHO voted "yes" or "no"? Can someone call every House member and verify that it crossfoots, after this is published? I bet no one ever did that!

Did we stumble upon something?

And here's ANOTHER question: If we check the congress's e-vote machines and they are always 100% accurate, then WHY AREN'T OURS????????????????????

just maybe the house will start paying more attention to the voting machine contraversy. since they saw it first hand today.

I did not know that they used machines to vote in the House. Why would they need machines? Can't anyone count to (I plead ignorance) to whatever number it is.It can't be that many. As you say though maybe this will open their eyes...or not.

The original concept was simple and goes back to

"Representative pushes a button for "Yes" or "No" in front of them and "Yes" or "No" lights up by their name in front of everyone."

Of course that simple concept got left behind long ago and our laws are currently voted on PC's that are really DRE-equivalents...

... but...

... the House system actually has an advantage over standard election e-voting in that the House system is supposed to tie the voter to their vote.

But apparently not even that advantage saved them...

Thanks Zapkitty. We are way behind times here. The members(Parliament) name is called and he or she says "yah or nay".
Simple but safe.

Dredd # 2 "The voting machines in the House are failing at this moment. It could be a hack."
This is how I read this at first. I thought Dredd was being sarcastic, calling the Senator's "voting machines" and that maybe Liberman was the Hack.

I just called Sec of State's office 4:45 PDT - no word yet and "still expecting to hear."

I'm not confident the answer will be what I want to hear

I'm here.
I did all my yelling and screaming yesterday, I'll keep my mouth shut today.
Tomorrow's another day.

Which will happen first... the news from CA or the House finding the few-hundred-odd votes that went missing last night?