What's next on Black Box Voting? LOTS:

[BevHarris]

Scoop had so many hits that its very considerable bandwidth shut down the file transfers. (The most important story this week was the release of those files.)

We are talking about ... I dunno ... 40,000 files, 10 gigs of information -- Scoop's file transfer was not shut down by Diebold, but due to massive bandwidth demands.

I have withheld a mainstream press blast on this (though have been fielding calls all week) until a backup source of the complete set of original files is posted by someone else somewhere. It is essential for reporters to be able to verify the information themselves using the actual files. There's more to come.

We have two areas of activism happening today: One for the lay person, one for the computer person -- go here:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID12

to see what they are, both are of critical importance.

Feel free to post your comments here at DU or there at BlackBoxVoting.org (the noncommercial, research and activism arm of Black Box Voting).

Thanks!

Bev Harris

On edit: Some people seem to think they have all the files, but actually have only about 3 percent of them. This confusion came up when a set of files with evidence for the initial story about the multiple sets of books in Access database came up. Only the files that document that particular problem were seeded out into the wild. The complete set is vast, and was available only on Scoop. I have never posted any link to the whole thing, nor do I have them all up, nor do I have the bandwidth to do that.

[gristy]

1. backup source...

"I have withheld a mainstream press blast on this (though have been fielding calls all week) until a backup source of the complete set of original files is posted by someone else somewhere. It is essential for reporters to be able to verify the information themselves using the actual files."

Bev,

So are you asking someone at DU to do this?

Have you had discussions with your team as to why the mainstream media did not pick up on your first "press release" (was that what it was) last week? Would you like to discuss that here?

IMHO, last week's articles were too breathless and too complicated.

Thanks for all you do...

[BevHarris]

3. The ABCs:

A. The main story last week, which is "main" in that is the most important, not the most newsworthy, was release of those files.

B. The mainstream press has picked up on it, and is doing exactly what they should be doing, which is verifying the findings using the files that were released.

C. I really don't care how breathless Scoop's editorializing was -- the point is, they released the files into the wild. For the second time the statement has been made that these files are comparative to the Pentagon Papers -- this one, I have in writing, and this statement is by a V.I.P. who is an acknowledged expert in the field. Believe me or not; I can't release his assessment until he gives permission, as it was distributed in a private e-mail. Why repeat it then? Because it reinforces my own belief that the release of the files is of extraordinary importance.

and D: The intent of last week's volley was not a "press release" to the mainstream press. That has not been done yet, and therefore, one would not expect them to be out there running articles on it; also, in a story of this importance, they must verify independently, using the files themselves. It is a good thing I haven't done a huge press blast yet, because the download site overloaded. It's taken us 20 years to get into this pickle; do not expect it to be undone in six days.

Point repeated: I've been told there are repositories of the full set of files in various places around the world. It is my understanding that people are working on setting up alternate download sites. Until that is done, I'm not pushing the mainstream press blast, which, of course, will be done in an appropriate manner.


Bev

[gristy]

7. I thought you had written those articles...

For example, in "Sludge Report #154 ? Bigger Than Watergate!", there is this sentance in the first person:

"CAVEAT: It is important to note that the research into this subject has not established that the files we have been working on were in fact in situ in County Election Supervisors offices at the last election"

Or was Sludge working on it?

[BevHarris]

8. That article was written by the publisher of Scoop

I insisted that he put in the caveat, and I sent him the wording for the caveat. (I also asked him to tone down the "bigger than Watergate" but he chose not to -- it was his article.)

The article with the screen shots of how to manipulate votes was the one I wrote.

Neither one was a press release.

The article I wrote continues to be picked up and quoted, and is of significant importance. Hopefully will have a follow up to that one soon, taking the investigation further into the bowels of the system, this time going into what happens inside those machines at the precinct level.

I will say this: As many know, I've done work with financial fraud and embezzlement cases. Those guys never use just one method. It has always been my opinion, on the password-bypassing, audit log-rewriting, vote-changing done in the article I wrote, that IF that method is used to rig votes, it is a backup method. It would be an "oh shit, our automatic fix at the precincts wasn't enough" rig, and it would have to be reconciled at some point with precinct reports -- I can think of at least three ways that could be done.

The reason it would be a backup method, not the main one, is primarily that I see the human factors in that rig to be too prone to error. You'd have many entries to make, and you'd have to match your entry to numbers, not names. Of course, what happened in Johnson County Kansas kind of matched that, when 125 votes accidentally showed up in the write-in column, and the precinct totals didn't match the county totals. It would be easy for someone to "miss" and stick the extra votes in the wrong place, and with the rig I suggested, if precinct totals were obtained, they wouldn't match the county totals.

It would be far more elegant to overwrite at the precinct level, or stuff the ballot box at the precinct level (procedure described on BBV site) or to control the machines at the precinct by remote access. I hope to have an article on those mechanisms in the near future; it is by nature a much more complex article, and also more serious in that it would discuss malice, and therefore it needs more eyes on it -- more eyes, which were made feasible, thanks to Scoop.

Bev

[hayu_lol]

2. Bev...enjoyed hearing you on the Guy_James show Saturday.

n/m

[BevHarris]

4. Thanks. Guy James is really skilled...

Whenever I feel that I've given a good interview, it's really a reflection on the skills of the host. Knowing what to ask, when to pause, when to follow up, when to insert own opinions is of critical importance, and Guy James (and Jan Michael) deserve kudos for their skillful handling of political topics.

Bev

[nannah]

5. Diebold issue raised in WA State HAVA hearing 7/10

a woman representing voting rights issues in Vancouver brought up the Diebold Voting machine issues during the hearing in Olympia, WA on the state's plan to implement HAVA the voting legislation from the feds.

The hearing was attended by @45 or so. perhaps 10 spoke. almost all who spoke emphasized the need for paper audit trail unless some other could be proven accurrate. most who spoke expressed distrust and concern about voter machine fraud. the past mayor of olympia made a presentation urging state to provide audit capability in it's plan. under HAVA, the audit may be electronic or paper. paper was clearly the choice of most attending the meeting as applause sounded each time a paper trail was mentioned.

[gristy]

6. HAVA

Glad to hear Washington has some folks keeping the State's eye on the voter-verification ball. I sat in on 2 of the 3 of my state's State Plan meetings and it was quite a whitewash. The Republican Secretary of State assured us in the meetings that the DRE machines (with no promise of a paper trail) would be used only by the disabled. Of course, that's not the whole issue, so I LOL (well, later, anyways...)