------------------------------------------------------------
Black Box Voting : Document Archive: Reports and Studies: Harri Hursti Report II - Diebold touch-screens
------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Bev Harris on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:38 pm:

This is the main report on the most important security defects found
in Emery County, Utah. An addditional supplemental report is also
being prepared, due date May 15, 2006.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVtsxstudy.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------

Use this link to go directly to full article:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?2197/27676

or anything she has to say (it's a LOOOOOONG story...)

I posted this for those who want the truth about the Diebold machines. :)

Love her or hate her, that doesn't change a thing that Harri Hursti, Dr. Herbert Thompson, and Security Innovation found when they examined Bruce Funk's machines in Utah. (Or Ion Sancho's machines in Leon County, Florida, for that matter.)

People here donated to BBV.org for this kind of testing and they deserve to see the results of what they paid for. I'm sorry if it doesn't fall in line with the "Bev took the money and ran" meme or contradicts the "She (BBV.org) has never produced anything" bullshit posted here.

People here can either accept it or reject it, that's up to the individual. As for me, if everyone who ever registered here all said one thing about these machines and Hursti or Thompson said the opposite, I'd take their word over everyone else. They've got the experience and have had the access to the machines. I can't say the same about anyone else here.

you will continue to shill for Bev until she finally self-destructs or until you join the long list of her victims.

Either works for me.

post your own thoughts without bringing Bev into it.

If Bev Harris wants to post here, she should follow the rules and be a part of this community instead of getting misguided supporters to post on her behalf.

What organization produced the report? Who runs that organization?

Rewriting history?

You owe Bev another $25.

Just ask Diebold about the necessity for investing -- they'll tell you!!

If you have a problem with that, then please hit the 'alert' button and take it up with the mods'. :)

Better yet, use the 'ignore' feature. That's what it's there for.

Just in case you do, BUH BYE! :hi:

she was banned TWICE!

Why?

Ms. Harris again used our website to threaten DU with lawsuits, in her postings, in private messages to other members, and in rude alerts she sent to the moderators.

We sent a message to Ms. Harris telling her to stop hassling our moderators and members, and informing her that if she had a legal concern, she needed to contact us directly. We also let her know that her continued participation on this message board was dependent upon her behavior. The legal threats stopped, but we received no response from either Ms. Harris or her lawyers.

this morning Ms. Harris returned to DU and started posting as if nothing had happened, while making liberal use of the alert button to complain to the moderators about our enforcement of the message board rules. At this point our patience finally ran out.

The fact that the disruptions have continued, despite repeated warnings from the administrators, leaves us with no other option but to bar Bev Harris from posting on this website. We no longer believe that it is productive to allow her to use DU as a platform to promote herself while simultaneously trashing us, our moderators, and others who have been previously supportive of her cause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750

But of course, the mods are obviously in the pay of Diebold, or part of some other shadowy conspiracy against her.

She somehow manages to gain new members into her sick cult.....We can smell them form our keyboards.

Even after she screwed Andy, I gave Bev the benefit of the doubt and ruled it as a character flaw. Not any more.

The security vulnerability can be used to shut down Diebold voting machines NOW. What does she do?

She keeps the exploit a secret so Diebold can have enough time to "patch" the problem. That is funny logic. Why give Diebold time to cover their tracks? Is there any legal obligation preventing the examiners or Bev from publicly releasing the hack?

We've hardly kept this a secret! LOL! There are a few realities that you have to deal with. First and foremost is that there is NO WAY that Diebold can "fix" this. NONE! ZERO! ZIP! NADA!

As for the "legal obligation preventing the examiners or "Bev" (A.K.A. BBV.org) from publicly releasing the hack", well yes, there are, depending on your interpretation of the Patriot Act. Even without those possible restrictions, there are ethical concerns about releasing too much detail about a vulnerability that any high school student with a computer science class behind them could exploit. There are elections coming up and there is no guarantee that these machines will not be used at this point.

We've notified the proper authorities and US-CERT. That was the responsible thing to do under the circumstances.

Do you not agree? :)

The thing to do was release the whole hack.

Diebold has no intention of ever admitting it has a problem. The election officals who bought this crap have no intention of admitting they are wrong.

Only when machines start getting hacked will people finally dump these machines.

But this is all about drama and hype and cash.

We're not going to beat Diebold without it. Get in there and start fundraising! Don't give up the money from your poll working -- use it to help the election reform cause.

I took money from ES&S? No, I'll pass on that opportunity.

Like Iraq, this is going to be a long bloody war, fought state by state, since Bev has seen fit to try and scuttle HR-550.

We ARE beating Diebold. We did it here in NC and didn't ask for a single penny. You can do it in your state, it takes organizing people, not raising money. It takes NOT screaming abusively at the press and NOT using people like Randi Rhodes as tools.

Thanks for responding. Does the US Patriot Act prevent full public disclosures when US elections are at risk? I wouldn't be suprised if the Department of Homeland Security does little or nothing about it.



Releasing software exploits publicly under "full disclosure policies" has been done many times by independent programmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure

Usually, vendors are too lazy to fix huge security flaws until the details are in the public domain. In this case, we have an intentional feature built that is not a glitch.

Diebold should not be given any opportunity to run further elections until it is fixed. If they can't fix it, too f'in bad. They should never have programmed a back door into US elections. Our elections will continue to be at risk or compromised until these machines are pulled.

I believe only full disclosure can protect the public interest since election supervisors and vendors would no longer have the luxury of ignoring the security threat.

Diebold has claimed to have "fixed" things many times. The same keep getting found.

We're in total agreement as far as the need to remove these machines from service. :)

Where we disagree is on how best to approach doing this. Releasing every detail of what we now know 'into the wild' would be considered the 'radical' approach. Knowing full well that there are elections slated to use these machines very soon, and there is insufficient time to make alternate voting arrangements possible, we feel that it would be irresponsible to throw those elections into total chaos if there is an alternative solution to solving the problem.

The 'practical' approach recognizes the fact that the machines will be used in the short term no matter what we release. There simply is no alternative to meeting the legal deadlines set for some upcoming primary elections to be held. By releasing the details only to those most closely associated with the operation of the machines during these elections, we can help force tightened security over all aspects of their use, and increase the likelihood of an honest outcome due to the increased oversight.

We can put them on notice and alert the public at the same time without inflicting undue harm on the voting process. Releasing specific details on how best to exploit the machines without detection is, in my opinion, self defeating if it causes chaos that needn't occur.

Lets suppose Harri had Hugh had instead been assessing the security of our military computer network. Also suppose that they discovered a similar flaw that would allow even a moderately talented hacker to design a program that could read and change any file, on any computer in the system, without detection. The flaw is so basic and damaging that it basically can not be mitigated and renders all of our defense computers permanently vulnerable, and therefore currently obsolete.

The public paid billions in tax dollars for those computers and are relying on them for our national security. They have a right to know that the systems that they are relying on are not secure and to demand that they be replaced right away.

Would you still consider releasing the details to the public while you're still depending on that system, or do you just alert the public that there is a problem requiring a complete change, and increase security while you work toward achieving the changeover?

There are 'White Hat' hackers and there are 'Black Hat' hackers. Black Box Voting.org works with the 'white hat' variety. Harri, Hugh, and Security Innovation 'hack' systems in order to mitigate their vulnerabilities, not to encourage others to try their hand at exploiting them by giving them detailed instructions on how to do it.

Both the government and police authorities look upon 'white hat' and 'black hat' hackers differently when it comes to their legitimacy. These guys are 'white hats' and are as legitimate as they come, which is why the authorities can't dispute their findings. Had they irresponsibly aided in the development and release of an exploit into the wild, just to prove that it could be done, then they would destroy their much valued credibility.

:toast:



Did the election supervisor give permission for full public disclosure? If yes, I don't see anything radical about using it as an option. Full disclosure is standard procedure among most software and academic processes.



How long would it take to replace these machines with paper ballots? Unlike government computers that store classified information, these machines are just ballot storage devices and glorified calculators. Touch screens can't be that indispensable.



Agreed, maintaining credibility is important especially when the opponent has been successful in painting the election reform movement as conspiracy theorists. We do not need to give them ammunition to shoot us with.

However, the suggestion of "aiding hackers" with a public exploit is faulty since we are assuming the bad guys don't have this information. The damage most likely has already been done, and not by the participants in this study.

Bev has already confirmed a likely release of the details if their response is not prompt.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002814.htm#12

If true, then it will be done this way. That way, the issue can be milked and Bev remains in the limelight and the bucks keep rolling in.

The trick is see what the vendor does when notified of this big problem.

How Diebold responds will dictate what happens to them next.

If they try to sweep this under the rug, and label all critics or
those reporting as tin foil hatters, then Diebold looks bad. Very bad.

Our usual experience, as you have often pointed out is that Diebold always
does the wrong thing, says the wrong thing, and just
keeps blustering on.

If Diebold were to do the right thing, we ALL would be shocked, wouldn't
we.

My gut feeling was "why not release the details" because it would mean
that folks HAD to deal with this.

Then, I could see the strategic value of allowing Diebold to paint themselves
in a corner AGAIN.

Sometimes this is like playing chess.
It is largely strategy.

BINGO! :toast:

Michael Shamos is rumored to have done just that. It's my understanding that he took this information and confronted Diebold about the legitimacy of the report, and then forced them to put it in writing! :rofl:

They aren't denying it this time. :woohoo:

It would be wrong to think that only Harri Hursti and a handful of computer scientists
know about this security problem.

After all, this is not a new problem, it is only now getting attention.

It affects ALL Diebold touchscreens.

It is due to deliberate design.

So it would be reasonable to assume that many Diebold technicians
and even some temporary employees know all about it.

It may have been passed around in many circles.

Also, anyone who understands the nature of Windows CE may have figured out
that this sort of hack was possible.

So I think the risk is already out there, but if the details were made public, to
everyone, we might see a bunch of flashing smilie faces on the Diebold Touchscreens
this fall.

Maybe that would be a nice change.

That's not really true because the computer scientists only found out about this since Harri Hursti discovered it in Utah.......they've all said these are new problems, not things they knew about before, and they are in shock about it. Haven't you seen the summary here? Nobody knew before the problems are so serious they can't be corrected if the voting machine had already been tampered with.

Someone in Diebold must have known something but maybe just a programmer or anyone they might have uh, helped to use the backdoors.......Diebold has been lying about their security every time they're asked. They do whatever they can so nobody ever gets to look inside. Well too bad for them and thanks to Bruce Funk and BBV and Ion Sancho and Security Innovations now someone has looked inside and the truth is known. We always knew these machines were disasters but now we know its lots worse than anybody thought.

If you know somebody who knew anything about these 3 new problems then why would they keep it to themselves, that would be completely irresponsible and a crime against our nation. Do you truly know somebody who knew about this already??? You should report them if you do.

ARE fixed is to disclose the ENTIRE hole.

Anything less is playing nice nice to Diebold who has done notthing to deserve it.

Now who's protecting Diebold?

Let's see what happens in the next few days.

:smoke:


"We have released the hack to the public. Fewer than 50 words were redacted from a 12 -page report. Quite possibly it would violate the Patriot Act to release the names of the files to the public before CERT, EAC, NIST and the secretaries of state of Florida, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Virginia, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio have the opportunity to pull the machines out of use.

However, if they do NOT act promptly to remove these machines from service, and they have had time to do so, it is quite likely that we will release the filenames needed to hack the system.

Really that's all we redacted. Specific filenames. The road map is in the report, but at this time we did not put gas in the car."

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002814.htm#12

just think - if Diebold had stayed in North Carolina,
in spite of their claims that it was the source code disclosure that stopped them.

They would be in trouble for failing to disclose this gaping security violation

My understanding is that this latest and "worstest" security risk is
also a violation of the voting systems guidelines.

Diebold would have had to tell North Carolina's State Board of Elections -

"Guess what, our machines are super hackable, here is a new risk".

My guess is that they didn't want to have to disclose, and this is the perfect example.

If they were in NC, and didn't notify our SBOE, WE WOULD HAVE, and We would have told
the news papers too, and the CEO of Diebold could have been charged with a felony.

you and Boredtodeath must have been protecting Diebold, since you both claim to have known about this for three years now and said nothing. :grr:

If you've known about this for that long, why on earth didn't you do something with that information? How come you kept it a secret? Why didn't you make it public? Why don't you release the details yourself right now if you feel it's that important? What were you waiting for? What are you waiting for now?

Why do you expect people here to think BBV.org is evil or negligent for not releasing all of the details when, by your own admission, you allowed the 2004 elections to be conducted on these machines despite knowing about this? :wtf:

:sarcasm: :)

The Stalking of Andy Stephenson, by Mark Crispen Miller

What followed was a coordinated effort to block Andy’s medical care or his benefit from the medical care we could secure for him. In specific, the Bush right had its agents make small donations so they could then call Paypal with allegations of fraud that froze Andy’s account. They also called Paypal, misrepresenting themselves as the hospital to “verify” that this effort was a scam.

And it got more vicious from there. Due to the frozen funds and the confusion it caused us all, Andy’s surgery date was cancelled by Johns Hopkins. It was with great difficulty that we were able to persuade the doctor to be put Andy back into the surgical rotation. That cost him two weeks while he suffered from the most aggressive, invasive form of cancer.

The smears and the rumors were seeded all over the internet, to many sites. Ill, on hold waiting for his surgery, Andy and the rest of us cast about trying to answer questions that were more often simply calculated accusations meant to discredit us all, meant to make Andy’s health care as difficult as possible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=383284&mesg_id=383284

Just FWIW, look again: that post was (by all indications) written by Elizabeth Ferrari. It says, "requested by Mark Crispin Miller." (My emphasis.)

This thread is confusing enough as it is....

If my memory is correct, I believe it was a group of freepers behind the stalking that made a website attacking Andy. Was Bev ever implicated?

They registered the site in MY name and used a private number that I give to my authors to contact me. The number is unlisted and only Bev had a connection to Andy and the voting issue. All my other authors are cartoonists with no connection to the issue.

Bev made posts at FR claiming Andy wasn't as sick as he claimed.

Just Google your name and that phone number. :)

but not the particular number used to register the web site.

based on someone using a phone number that pops up on Google. I'm not going to call you paranoid. I don't know if you are paranoid or not, Kelvin. But you allege that Bev is paranoid based on a lot less than this. What if people take the Google link that shows you and your phone number sitting on the web for anyone to find and juxtaposes it with your statement that this search engine obvious phone number could only be known by Bev Harris thus tying her to some other site in what you believe is a conspiracy to discredit you. Suppose this is included in a story called "The Kelvin Mace story for newbies etc. etc." and posted over and over and over every time your name comes up at DU.

Pretty soon people would be thinking, "That Kelvin Mace, he's really paranoid!"

I haven't looked but perhaps you can confirm: Is the phone number that you say "only" your authors and Bev Harris know actually findable on Google? If it is, perhaps you might want to correct the record on this post and the other one where you said "je accuse Bev Harris."

It would demonstrate that you are a more stable and fact-based person if you take a moment to verify that your phone number is findable by anyone with a web connection in less than 12 seconds and then correct the record on the unkind assumption you have made and repeated in public.

Did Bev ever state how much money she raised via Randi Rhodes and DU? That was in late 2004, early 2005, right?

When is Bev going to release how much money she raised and account for what she did with it???

and after a month or two it'll get posted on guidestar or you can write the Board if you don't wanna wait till then. They said they are going to put financial info on their website too but I don't know what the timeframe is for that with all the extra work of the 2 reports coming out now too. The second report wrt Hursti II is coming out on the 15th.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The citizenry owes an immense debt of gratitude to Bruce Funk, the Emery County Clerk for
Emery County, Utah who, upon noticing anomalies in the Diebold TSx machines delivered to
his county, requested an independent evaluation of this voting system.

Appreciation is expressed to Kalle Kaukonen for providing his perspective on this report.
© 2006 Black Box Voting, Inc 12

be lining up to support this study by Black Box Voting.

Bev Harris had this laid out to her 3 years ago by several DUers.

Bev is simply recycling old information to raise funds.

We'll be posting the proof of this later this evening.

I can hardly wait! :)

singing the same tired song.

so I'm waiting to see what your excuse is for not posting it! I guess it'll be something like 'you wouldn't read it anyway'. :)

You seem to have forgotten that I was in on all those old threads here and received the software from Bev myself. I know what we found back then and this ain't it. :rofl:

We may have found a few odd puzzle pieces in the couch cushions back then, but it took Harri and Hugh to really assemble the entire puzzle. We would never have gotten there without having access to the real box the puzzle lives in.

Thanks again to Bruce Funk and Ion Sancho! :hi:

Goodness me no. Wouldn't want Bev's crack team of lawyers suing me for copyright infringement.

I have reported on the story, and will certainly report on the findings of any qualified experts on the matter, which certainly leaves Lady Psycho out of the picture.

I'm glad you are reporting the story by the experts that Black Box Voting is investing its donations in.

Today I can only afford $25. I will watch for your posts very carefully when it is payday so I can inform you of additional donations.

I am glad to see that someone is finally proving that these Diebold touchscreens need to be thrown away.

So far the only evidence we have of how any donations are invested is Bev's word, which given the number of lies she has been caught in, is dubious at best.

except for the four or five sycophants that still worship Bev.

Then you will have search privileges and you can see what has and has not been already posted and by whom.
:hi:

Bev Harris used and abused DUers. She fleeced many. She alienated the only MSM person willing to take the election fraud story on the air, Keith Olbermann.

She fired Andy for alleged misconduct and used her website to slander his good name. She then stated that she didn't believe that he was sick, a bit of bullshit that fed the sharks who wanted to "prove" that Andy was scamming folks here. His surgery was delayed because of those folks - who were egged on by Bev herself.

She's been banned from DU - twice. She's made enemies, lots of them.

Donate to her if you want to. It's your money. She's only going to scam you and leave you in the dust.

There are so many GOOD people who are working hard on this issue (election reform). Bev is not the be-all, end-all of existence. She didn't discover this on her own and, regardless of what she is stating, she is not the savior of the cause.

She will fleece you and throw you away like garbage just like she did David and Andy. If you get in her way, she'll try to slander you, too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As soon as the documents are ready, I'll post them here.

So much concern on this thread to educate all of us newbies. It's heart-warming!

.

If Jones says, "This one is worse than any of the others I've seen," I'm not going to bet against him just because That Woman is involved. But hey, let's see whatcha got.

didn't see this............it's because none of them (David Dill, Avi Rubin, etc.) could evaluate the Windows portions of the software in 2003. They were all Linux folks. They kept telling us "we don't do Windows."

They looked at the C+ code, but none of the operating system stuff.

The scenario I am glimpsing here has to do with boot loaders. Needless to say, one needn't do Windows in order to deal with boot loaders. However, inspecting the C++ code won't help either -- and this is in no way a criticism of the ACCURATE folks. One can speculate about the security risks, but in order to know the facts, one has to be able to 'play with' an actual machine, which is what Hursti got to do. Isn't that pretty much where we are, setting aside all the internecine stuff? Not a rhetorical question. I am actually mostly interested in the voting machines, not the rest.

That's exactly where we are, and it now opens up the entire certification process to scrutiny. It is absolutely reprehensible that these machines were certified considering the depth and breadth of the security flaws that exist in them. If these made it through as bad as they are, what problems were missed in the rest of them?

The current certification system is fatally flawed. These machines should be removed from service immediately, all of them. Any 'presumption of validity' they may have had under the thin veil of the ITA certification program has evaporated. It's time to move in for the kill. :)

that she knew everything about the Windows CE problem three years ago but no one would listen to her isn't even relevant to the main point of the new Hursti Report, which is that the bootloader can self-modify?

I guess that explains why she never posted the "proof" that she knew all this three years ago.

(nevermind) . . . . .says boredtodeath.

that these are new findings. I hope you will explain this too. Perhaps their comments are being taken out of context? And what about Michael Shamos'?

There is certainly a lot of recycling going on and this may be part of it. But for whatever reason, this time it might be getting a bit more attention.

Could it be that a few years of incubation, Bush rule and the rush to comply with HAVA have made the public more aware or receptive? In any case, please post away!

And the list keeps growing. :)

3 States Order More E-Voting Security

By DAN GOODIN - The Associated Press

Wednesday, May 10, 2006; 10:01 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- Officials overseeing elections in three states have directed local authorities to take additional security measures with a popular type of electronic voting machine to prevent election fraud.

California, Iowa and Pennsylvania issued the voting directives in recent weeks after researchers discovered a feature that could allow someone to load unauthorized software on Diebold Election Systems computerized machines.

A hacker theoretically could use the software to rig or sabotage an election or to perform some other unauthorized function, said Michael Shamos, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

"It's worse than a hole," said Shamos, who has been briefed on the vulnerability of the Diebold machines. "It's a deliberate feature that was added by Diebold that we all believe is unwise."

<more>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002276.html?nav=rss_technology

I was just adding context for Shamos' remarks. :)

The part about the bootloader?
The part about the Windows CE?
The part about the selective file replacement?
The part about the case being designed to thwart the memory card seals?

Here is what I got in my email, and anyone can sign up for automatic emails there by going to the notify me link.

- The Oakland Tribune scooped other newspapers yesterday on the story.
- Pennsylvania's Michael Shamos sequestered all Diebold touch-screens.
- California is invoking emergency procedures.
- The state of Iowa is trying to figure out a way to scrub Diebold clean.

Harri Hursti Report II
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVtsxstudy.pdf

A second study with 12 more defects will be released Monday May 15.

WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS?

Back doors were found in three separate levels. They can be used one
at a time or combined for a deep attack that can permanently compromise the
Diebold touch-screens.

Almost nothing will work to ensure that machines that have already been
delivered have not been contaminated -- the very forensic procedures that
MIGHT identify tampering also wipe clean any evidence.

The procedures being used in Pennsylvania, California, and Iowa will not
necessarily work if the system has already been contaminated. Worse, the
very procedure needed to cleanse the system can just as easily re-contaminate
it.

I have a very nice question for you boredtodeath,

If you knew about this, who did you tell?

I hope you kept documentation showing that you informed the proper authorities. As you probably know if you have seen the topics I follow around here, I know my Patriot Act.

It is a violation of 10 years to life to withhold information on something like this. I really really look forward to your proof that you knew all this three years ago!

How come you never told anyone?

I hope you kept documentation showing that you informed the proper authorities. As you probably know if you have seen the topics I follow around here, I know my Patriot Act.

It is a violation of 10 years to life to withhold information on something like this.

After all, Bev set the president for ratting people out.

Ching! Another $25 for the the Royal Whacka-Loon.

"A fool and his money are soon parted." :D

Everything I've read points to actual experts in the field making discoveries. Bev is a professional fundraiser and publicity monger who collates others' ideas, cribs their work and calls it her own. I haven't read a word about her doing anything since 2004 other than alienating important people like KO and Randi Rhodes, threatening DU with lawsuits, cashing qui tam checks and becoming a freeper.

The experts and the activists won't talk to her. She alienated most of them years ago. And the rest of the real experts examining the Diebold machines don't need her help to find the problems either. They have a hell of a lot more expertise in their field than she does. All she ever did was trademark a name and brand a movement as hers. Oh and she treated with hostility anyone who offered real expertise for fear of having someone else milk her cash cow.

I am glad to hear that Diebold has been exposed. I can't wait to see the on-going problems corrected. A bunch of people have worked very hard to ensure our votes count. None of them get half the credit they deserve while Bev constantly tries to grab ten times more credit than she deserves. No one is fooled anymore.

Bev needs to find gainful employment in her area of expertise. I hear there may be an opening as soon as Karl Rove is indicted. She and Andyscam should put in their applications.

One final note here. I should clarify what I wrote in this space last night about Countdown’s interaction with Bev Harris of Black Box Voting. My staff is not certain that any of our messages to Ms. Harris inviting her on the show since the week of November 15 have specifically asked her for permission to play the videotapes of her work trying to audit the Florida vote. We think so, but I’ve got only three people booking all the guests on this program, and they each probably make about 100 calls a day.

Complicating our effort is the fact that even as we hoped to provide a platform to publicize and illuminate her efforts, Ms. Harris had returned none of the messages left on her own voicemail by Countdown staffers since she spoke to our staffers briefly, twice, during the week of November 8. Only today did she even get back in touch with us, and was so belligerent, threatening, and demanding, that we have chosen to withdraw our invitation to her to appear, or to have videotape of her efforts played, on Countdown.

Threats against myself or my staff will not be tolerated. We are not only busting our humps on the voting irregularities beat, but we remain the only mainstream news organization to continue to cover this vital story. These are my people — they are running professional risks I can’t begin to describe — and I will stand up for them, first, last, and always.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6533008/

Anyone have the origional recording of the Randi Rhodes
show where it got crazy?

It seems that they didn't want that interview to ever be heard again, so they scrubbed it from their own web archive! If what Randi said about Bev and BBV.org was true, why the heck would they have done that? What ever happened to that movie the "Bev was making" anyway? :shrug:

I have about a dozen links to sites that used to host it, but now all you get are '404 Not Found' error pages at all of them. It seems someone really, REALLY, wants to forget about that interview! :)

And you will hear the interview.

Randi's lawyers may have had her pull it because freepers could have sued her claiming they had donated to Bev's scam based on her recommendation.

I have no such fears.

before they cut out the really good stuff

they'd get sued for saying or insinuating nasty things about Bev Harris that weren't true. It's against the law to do that, isn't it?

That interview wasn't Randi's finest hour as a broadcaster. Yeah it'll be interesting alright if you post a link to the whole thing, including the remarks by Randi and the callers who came on after Bev was off the air. Randi was way out of line.......but don't take my word for it, go ahead and put up the link to the whole thing if Randi lets you.

If Bev knew they weren't true, she would have sued. Randy has DEEP, DEEP pockets and Bev would have been able to retire and give up scamming concerned citizens.

And I will post it as soon as I can.

if she didn't have something more important to do like investigate the voting machines and the whole Election Industry. The way I see it what she's doing makes sense. Don't you think it's more important to investigate our insecure election system, if you don't have "DEEP DEEP pockets" like Randi Rhodes?

Maybe someday Bev'll get tired of putting up with the libel and do something about it......In the meantime her track record of BBV results is impressive. I haven't seen any organization have multiple successes like this......

Discovering the DIebold code and sharing her find with others
GEMS hack with Dean
GEMS hack with chimpanzee
Optical scan hack with Harri Hursti & IOn Sancho
More optical scan hacks with Harri Hursti & Ion Sancho
Getting into Diebold's dumpster, finding a hoard of financial documents and correspondence, given to the SEC
Finding bags of audit tapes and ballots that were going to be disappeared as trash, lending this to FL activism group so they could take a lawsuit and WIN
Videotaping the Great Trash Bag War
Finding lots of information on the Diebold money trail including undeclared lobbyist expenses (more evidence for the SEC)
Taking a Qui Tam whistleblower case in CA against Diebold for fraud and WINNING, which helped get Diebold decertified
Teaching people how to get evidence for themselves by using videotape, public recordds request and so forth
Helping everyone understand what to look for when theire observing an election
Speaking with groups and individuals who are working in their own community, helping everyone develop their skills
Media interviews and getting the story into the MSM slowly but surely
This new investigation of Diebold TSx with Bruce Funk, Harri Hursti & Security Innovation
Writing reports from all these investigations
Lots and lots and lots of FOIA and PRR requests
Sorting out all the documents they get, scanning them and posting them to the web

This seems way more important than spending time and money on libel cases.

But maybe your right maybe she should start going after folks legally and then put some of the money into more investigations. We still need lots more information this is just the tip of the iceberg you can be sure.

She found time to smear a dying man. She found time to consort with Freepers.

So who are YOU with all this information?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and Security Innovation's investigation into this monstrous new Diebold security flaw?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

promote her scam of a website?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well, other than the fundraising!

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-profile.cgi?action=rate&topic=2197&page=19693&post=19364

We are learning more about the individuals who are spreading disinformation at Kos and Democratic Underground. They are mostly small fry; people who are angry, easily led, broke, political groupies. The bigger story is the administrators of those two sites.

Democratic Underground is run by a former press secretary (i.e. communications person) for a prominent Democratic U.S. House of Representatives member. He managed some unsuccessful campaigns for other democrats. I have not been able to find the name of the congressperson he was press secretary for. That would be informative.

This is all about communications. It's about keeping the message under control, or if it develops legs of its own (as it has) at least steering the message.


I'm going on record now: Black Box Voting is going to be very aggressive about fund raising in 2006.


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:ZIXMXQVLxXcJ:www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi%3Ffile%3D/2197/19693.html+DU+site:bbvforums.org&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=31

It is obvious what's going on. It is disruptive to the election reform movement. Regardless, I think it's a good idea for various people to post information at Kos. I do object to the "need" to "sanitize" information that originates from BBV by failing to mention our name. If mentioning our name begets trolls, so be it. That behavior is becoming more and more transparent, and the involvement of the administrators of both Daily Kos and Democratic Underground are becoming obvious to the public. (The admins of both sites have ties to the Democratic Party and/or candidates or its committees)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x108750

"stay cool" and count to 20 before you post. Don't let this crowd get the best of you. This is an important thread about the election theft machines, and they know it. Keep on pushing !!!;-)

:rofl:

:kick:

Folks have tried to explain to you that Bev Harris is not respected and posting links that support her site is just bad form on DU.

Why do you insist on continuing to mock DU and disrespect posters here?

Thanks for the welcome. Would you please point out where you feel I've been disrespectful of anyone here? It might help me to understand what I'm doing wrong .. :(

It might be even better if you just used the 'alert' button and let the moderators sort it out if you feel I've violated the board rules in any way. :)

The information that we've developed at Black Box Voting.org is of vital national importance. These machines are slated to count millions of votes in upcoming elections across the country this year. In some states, there are primary elections coming up just days from now. There is an opportunity RIGHT NOW to make significant inroads into opening up the certification process for these machines and demanding similar testing of all electronic voting systems. I think this is a valid subject to post in an "election reform" forum.

Wouldn't you agree? :shrug:

Nothing Bev Harris has done has been vital to our nation. BTW, has she or the organization ever filed their required reports regarding the financial status of the organization? Have they paid the taxes they owe?

I wouldn't agree with anything you say, your association with Ber Harris leads me to question your honesty and your intelligence. You know, something about fleas.

I feel that arranging the real world testing of the voting machines by someone other than the industry selected ITA's that somehow missed all these flaws, qualifies as "vital" to our nation. Apparently you don't think it's that important. I'm quite sure that not everyone here would agree with you. Rather than argue your position as to why you think this report is unimportant, you instead choose to launch a personal attack about my honesty and intelligence.

I choose to give you straight answers to your questions devoid of personal attacks. :)

You asked,



I respectfully respond. The first IRS form 990 from Black Box Voting.org is due to be filed, on time, on May 15th. As a registered 501(c)(3) 'non-partisan', 'non-profit' organization, BBV.org is tax exempt and therefore the organization owes no taxes.

Thanks for asking. :hi:

they were supposed to be filed months ago.

Actually they are due on May 15. But if you have a problem with that you should report this to the IRS, who will say:

yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk

You will find that it is harder to rewrite tax law than it is to rewrite history. By the way, quoting from "The Nation" magazine's article is only proof that the reporter was given misinformation. I understand that in that same article, you claimed to have been the one that identified the source code.

Are you aware that a retraction was formally requested from the real person who actually identified the source code? Dan Spillane used to test touchscreens for a living and he is the one who identified the source code.

Are you still claiming it was you, as was misreported in that article? The reporter can hardly be blamed for writing a tall tale about who found the source code when that information comes from you, and you already lied to him claiming you were the one that found the source code.

yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk

Amazing how much you know about the internal workings of Bev's company. It's almost as if...

Dan Spillane "identified" the source code? Now how did he do that, when he didn't see any of it until AFTER Bev and I got it?

The article says that Bev found the source code AFTER some script kiddies discovered it. Bev herself said she had no clue what she was looking at until AFTER I explained it to her.

Those are the facts. I presented the evidence, from Bev's own mouth.

We have the evidence of an established reporter, in an reputable publication, available online for inspection. Then we have your claim, completely unsubstatiated.

But before I publish her response (or not, don't know the rules here that pertain to that) -- please, would you like to state for the record when you got the source code?

You say that Bev called you and said "what am I looking at" (which you insist was not just a more ladylike way of saying "holy fucking shit do you believe what I just found????"). Like the young man in My Cousin Vinny who said "I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?" and they tried to use it in court as a confession and got ridiculed out of the courtroom for it. But, let's take you at face value, let's suppose that there is only ONE interpretation for "what am I looking at" and that is the interpretation that she is so clueless she needs you to explain it...

So you say the statement "incredible stupidity" (and later claim you really said "the keys to the candy store" because apparently you realize now that the statement "incredible stupidity" is itself less than breathtaking in its insightfulness).

But here's my question:

Did you download the 40,000 files yourself?
When? The day you found them or later?
It would seem to be very important if you have a separately downloaded set of files.

Now, I am given to understand that the source code is in a "tarball." What that means is that you can't just read it off of a file on an FTP site, you'd have to download it and extract the files.

Thus my question, did you download the source code?

Because if you did not, apparently you received the source code on a disk in the mail, sent by Bev Harris, as everyone else did except for Dan Spillane, who lives in Seattle, and who, as I understand it, was given the files personally. It appears that Dan Spillane got the files before you did, was able to open them before you received them in the mail, was experienced with touchscreen technology because he worked for a voting machine company.

If Bev Harris says it was Dan Spillane who identified the source code for her, among all those other 40,000 files filling a stack of CDs, well that sounds logical to me.

Did you tell the reporter for The Nation magazine that it was you who identified the source code files? Wasn't it Dan Spillane?

Because apparently the record shows that he got the disks before you and he is the one that found the source code, but he was a protected source, so you took credit for his work.

It's very simple -- and of historic importance.
Did you download the 40,000 files?
When?
Do you have one set of files or two?
When was it that you found the source code among all those files...the first day? Right away or did you have to click through several directories on the FTP site, which would (of course) take time.
Did you tell the reporter from the Nation that it was you that found the source code?
Why?

I have known Bev Harris for more than 30 years. I live in Arizona. I was a practicing attorney for some years, have retired from that profession, and have enjoyed a more fulfilling career since, albeit a career that is not as steady as practicing law.

Bev sought advice from me on her book contract with Kelvin, and I told her that I do not practice law any more but in my opinion as a citizen, the contract is confusing and poorly drawn up contract that was unclear in several sections.

Bev also sought my advice when she found the Diebold files. Yes, Kelvin, I knew about them even before you did. I believe I was the first person she called. And Kelvin, I am one of the small group of people she sent the CDs to, so I have a pristine copy time and date-stamped as to download time.

I could not advise her on the FTP problem, but I did give her my non-legal opinion. In my opinion she handled this incredibly tricky situation with intelligence, responsibility and cleverness.

Bev also sought my advice when the book situation was falling apart on her. In that area I was able to be more helpful. I connected her to experts (she also had access to her own through her own circle).

So you see, for some reason in the 30+ years I have known Bev Harris, she neither burned me nor gave me any reason to believe a thing you say.

I thought it wise at this juncture to give you a little more information on myself. I eagerly await your explanation of why you took credit for Dan Spillane's work in The Nation magazine.

It should have been filed way back when, she just hides behind the accountants and claims that it is her accountants that have insisted she get the extension(s).

If the organization employees workers, the organization is not exempt from employee taxes, is it? Or was that only Andy she screwed and since he is dead, she is not worried?

Bev Harris and her organization do nothing for my nation. They do muddy the waters and her unreliability has caused many election officials to discount the legitimate concerns about Diebold and other electronic voting companies.

and you file within the extension's time frame, you are legally filing on time. You may hold a different opinion as to what 'on time' means, but you can't change that legal fact. :)

Black Box Voting.org is a fairly new entity and this is the first time they are filing a 990, it only makes sense to take your time and learn how to do it right the first time.



I've seen that same unsupported allegation made many times here, but I've yet to see one shred of evidence to support it. If you believe that you have evidence that supports your charges, then by all means I ask that you please file a complaint with the appropriate state or federal agency immediately. Have you contacted the Board of Directors of BBV.org to alert them to what you believe Bev did or didn't do? Have you called the IRS? The FBI? The NLRB? If not, why not?



Whatever. :shrug: You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. In light of todays news about how elections officials across the nation are scrambling to address this situation, it looks to me like their taking Bev and BBV.org very seriously! YMMV ;)

the truth of the post speak for itself and not get drawn into personal attacks on one side or the other.

There's so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it doesn't behoove any of us to speak ill of anybody else.

If legal injury can be shown, that's a different matter of course.

If George Bush simply comes out for paper ballots, folks should give him a break? Overlook all the evil he has done?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

talking points.

Someone CLAIMNG to be Heller "corrected" me. I then pointed out that many people believed in Bev until they learned the hard way.

The facts as reported by AP is that Bev sang like a canary when the police asked about Heller. You keep pretending that didn't happen.

I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

As to NC Beach Girl, ask her yourself.

At the time I offered to donate money, I was told he wasn't accepting money.

Here is the PM I got from feelthebreeze on the issue.



The message was from Peter Soby, a friend of Heller's.

So again, you have called me a liar without proof and been proven wrong.

you object to my calling Bush's actions "evil"?

That's a bit telling, doncha think?

I said this on another thread, but will say it here.

There is no anonymity here on DU.

There are people who view this message board will will
post your personal information on their message board
(which is publicly viewable) and also in the comments section
over at Brad Blog.

I have emailed Brad to make him aware of this and he is.
The names are still there in the comments section on his blog.
I like Brad, but don't like that he allowed this.

If you post on DU, you may see that your name,
your organization if you have one, and maybe
even the city and state that you live in -
posted on some creep's message board.

So just remember that, you have no privacy or anonymity here.

Don't feel like you do.

you have straaaaaange standards.

I said I like Brad - re read.

He knows how I feel about this. Its a difference of opinion on
how I felt about it and his own feelings.

Get some reading glasses.

what you said:



Lookit maybe ya didn't mean Brad = "some creep" but that's the way it came across from how you wrote it.......

I posted above on the legal and ethical issues which pertain to losing any right to privacy. Only when individuals use a screen name to post false information that damages another individual do they lose privacy.

It is unfortunate that use of a screen name releases inhibitions that are more wisely left intact. In case you don't want to read my post above, here is the part that applies:

I can assure you that the body of law and ethics on this very issue is extensive. No right to privacy exists when malicious or defamatory material is publicly posted by an anonymous scribe. The ethical lapse is with the individual who first publishes incorrect material that damages the reputation of another.

Not only is the law quite clear on this, but it is actually against the law to publish defamatory material on the web using a screen name. Surprisingly, that act is not a civil matter, but a criminal one. The body of law that supports this is quite broad. Fundamentally, one has the right to confront one's accuser and when people make accusations under false names, they violate that right by preventing the damaged party from the right to confront.

It goes further than that. The body of law pertaining to publishing malicious information on the internet is closely related to two other areas very well established in case law. Specifically, making false and damaging statements about another on the internet comes under the same classification as telephone harassment. As you probably know, there is no right to privacy for those doing telephone harassment and in fact, it is a crime.

The other well established body of law is that of graffiti. While graffiti is illegal because it defaces property, there is a specific category of graffiti that treads into the area of right to privacy. Willyourvotebecounted, you could be stark naked on the toilet and if you are sitting there scrawling rude and malicious statements on the restroom wall (or even on paper towels which you leave on the floor, to take this out of the domain of defacing property), you lose all right to privacy. In fact, you can be videotaped and marched out of the stall buck naked, if you are using a corporate or public bathroom for purposes of defamation.

I believe the act which removed your right to privacy was your repeated posts that Bev Harris had "outed" Stephen Heller, which is incorrect and damaging to her reputation. While you may have based this on something you read in a newspaper, you had not read the more definitive article written by the law journal in Los Angeles County which contains details from the district attorney.

I'm sure the facts will become more public at some point, but you repeated false statements, and when you continued to do so even after Stephen Heller himself corrected you, that act became (in the eyes of the law) a malicious act depriving you of any right to privacy, and giving the absolute right of the person you were maligning to confront her accuser by name.

repeating what a newspaper says is not a crime.

People over look this definition of elegance. A friend of mine asked me to read this thread and I did.

It occurred to me that we need to remember the most proofs we have of election fraud. Either the laws of science and mathematic stood on their heads on election day 2004 or the election was stolen. I'm betting a lot of time and hard work on the latter.

Here are a couple of links to get around:


Article link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm

The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won In 2004?

Monday, 18 July 2005, 2:53 pm
By DU Poster Autorank
Posted at Democratic Underground
See also... this annotated thread. It’s all in the numbers

According to the vote tabulators, in the 2004 presidential election George W. Bush won a stunning victory that defied all odds, particularly those applied by unbiased statisticians. He won despite trailing in most state and national polls. He won despite an approval rating of less than 50%, usually the death knell for an incumbent presidential candidate. He won despite trailing in the three National Exit Polls three timelines from 4pm to 12:22 am (13047 respondents) by a steady 48%-51%, miraculously winning the final exit poll (with only 613 additional respondents, totaling 13,660). This poll was “weighted” (altered) to meet the reported election result on the assumption that the reported result was accurate -- quite an assumption. The final poll showed a stunning reversal of the Kerry 51%-48% poll margin, which had been measured consistently all day by the same polling group: major news/networks and polling firm Edison-Mitofsky.

The analysis of exit polls and documented fraud in this election began on the Internet. A number of academics posted detailed work showing the near-impossible odds of Bush overcoming deficits in the state exit polls and the National Exit Polls. Much of this analysis comes from “TruthIsAll” (TIA), a poster on DemocraticUnderground.Com. TIA has a background and several degrees in applied mathematics. Using various elements of the national and state exit polls and other data sources, he produces results that are thorough, detailed, sober and compelling. He shows ALL data and calculations, while encouraging others to check his math. Only once did he make a minor math error, after asking DUers to check his calculation of probability that at least 16 states would deviate beyond their exit poll margin of error and go for Bush. The answer turned out to be one in 19 trillion! The debates on DemocraticUnderground’s “2004: Election Results and Discussion” forum are legendary and have attracted observers from all over the Net.

=======================
Articlelink: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00242.htm

Kerry Won!!! Statistical Tools Everyone Can Use

The 2004 Election Controversy will not stop.
Statistical analysis of polls is now more accessible
with free interactive Excel-based election models
available on the Internet. Plus an interview with TruthIsAll.

Special for “Scoop” Independent Media
from Washington DC
Michael Collins (permission to quote extensively granted by the author, me)
Dec. 21, 2005

http://www.truthisall.net/

The Kerry concession speech on November 3, 2004 marked the beginning, not the end of the controversy over the 2004 election. Just hours before the speech, Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards emerged and said that, “John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election every vote would count and every vote will be counted."

Democrats were in a state of shock. 2004 was a banner year for new registrations, party financial support, and activism. Reported new registrations favored Democrats all over the country. Democrats were well ahead of Republicans in new registrations in Ohio. South Florida, the “scene of the crime” in 2000, saw major Democratic efforts and a lackluster Republican response.

Democrats matched and exceeded Republicans in funds raised. For the first time, the internet proved to be a highly potent form of fund raising. The Democrats collected $10 million a month for the Kerry Campaign on the Internet alone. Other groups supporting the Democrats raised substantial funds. MoveOn.Org and New Democratic Network ran parallel campaign commercials and provided other support with the $25 million they raised during the election cycle.

Activism was at an all time high. People who had never worked in elections volunteered in large numbers and local Democratic parties throughout the country saw a surge in citizen participation.

<snip>

*************

The miracle of timing that made the full set of national exit polls available to the world and the election fraud movement.

11/02/04

11:00 p.m. EM Server goes down. Exit Polls available on the Internet.

12:25 a.m. Final National Exit Poll captured by Jonathan Simon.
3047 Respondents: Kerry 51% - Bush 48%

11/03/04

1:33 a.m. Edison Mitofsky Servers come back online effectively ending
Internet access to the National Exit Polls.

2:30*a.m. Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards addresses the crowd and
and nation promising to “fight for every vote.” (time approximate)

1:25 p.m. National Exit Poll revised by EM to take final election results into
account 13,660 respondents: Kerry 48% - Bush 51%

2:14 p.m. Kerry concedes the election to Bush.

This remarkable sequence of events was not the beginning of the end but rather the end of the beginning. The remarkable intensity of research, analysis, and debate that energizes the modern day election fraud movement was born crying “foul!”

END

Thread has degenerated into a flame war.

mvd
DU Moderator