(CA) 1/13 - BEWARE THE TING BILL AB 1...

Author Message   Bev Harris Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 11755 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 5 (A keeper?) Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 4:41 pm:        California Assemblyman Phil Ting has proposed AB 19, a bill to require the California Secretary of State to implement an Internet voting pilot project. They tell us Internet voting is secure. It's not. It's not secure, and can't be made secure, but that's not even the point. The point is it's not transparent. The whole premise in our Constitution is that we self-govern. To do that, the public must be able to see and authenticate essential processes, like who actually voted and the vote count, and that is not possible with Internet voting. Internet voting transfers all control to whoever runs the server. (The server is just a computer that sits in a room -- and one Internet voting company, Scytl, has its server physically sitting in Spain.) Internet voting gives the administrator complete control over the front end (who put the votes into the system) and the back end (the counting of the votes). Internet voting is trying to come on with a vengeance, and not just in California. It is now imminent. Unless we are vigilant, many of us will be forced to vote online in 2014 and 2016. Lobbyists are at work to persuade your legislators to install Internet voting. Political support has been secured from officials in several states. The governor of Hawaii has announced he wants Internet voting. Secretaries of State from Connecticut, West Virginia, Washington, and Oregon are already pushing online voting, and soon you'll hear about it near you. Federal bills promise cash to states that "expedite" their voting systems, with vague language as to what that means. Because Americans are skeptical about Internet voting, politicians and reporters describe it as "smart phone voting" and "iPad voting." They also call it "convenience voting" but what they don't tell us is that, in exchange for convenience, we will lose the ability to self-govern. HOW DID TING GET INTO THIS THING? The California effort traces first to Assemblyman Phil Ting, but the real question is who persuaded him to do this? I'm interested in any tips you citizens can provide on this. Right now, I'm paying close attention to Rose & Kindel, a lobbying firm that promoted Diebold earlier. Rose & Kindel is the assigned firm for the Technology Association of America (Tech America), which is the new umbrella for the Information Technology Assocation of America (ITAA), a group hired by Diebold, ES&S and a consortium of other voting machine vendors a few years back for the purpose of damage control. Here is a recent lobbying filing for ITAA/Rose & Kindel: Technology Association of America Rose & Kindel filing.pdf (14.8 k) I took a glance at online-voting-bill-sponsor Ting's campaign finance documents. Saw Oracle and Cisco among the computer firms, which is only worth a slight mental tick-mark. It is unusual to see quid pro quo in obvious places (campaign finance reports), but if you are in an inquisitive frame of mind, you'll find the complete list of donors to Phil Ting here: http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/#assembly It can also be informative to peruse the lobbyist filings to find out who is lobbying for election-related issues and who is lobbying for technology issues. Lobbyist filings can be found here: http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/ WHAT'S NEXT FOR CALIFORNIA'S ONLINE VOTING BILL? ("NO INFO AVAILABLE"): Regardless of who's behind this latest incarnation towards removal of public rights in elections, I hope to see California citizens kill this bill if it gets that far. Currently, it is in a state of "no information available." If you are a Californian living in Phil Ting's district, let him know that you don't appreciate his effort to trample your rights, and ask him exactly how any Internet voting system can ever be transparent. You can watch for bills introduced and bill status here, for all states: http://www.statescape.com/search/QuickFinder.aspx If Ting's thing moves at all, it's time to alert the media. Reporters get into a pointless back-and-forth about security, quoting first one expert and then the other, but what no reporter will be able to get an answer to is this: Is Internet voting transparent? Be watching for any attempt of the bill to lurch out into the open again, and start contacting reporters if it does. You own the government. You pay for it. You have a right to see how your representatives are chosen. With online voting, public transparency is impossible. PERMISSION TO REPRINT OR EXCERPT GRANTED, WITH LINK TO http://www.blackboxvoting.org The public must be able to see and authenticate these four essential steps for an election to be public, democratic, and valid: (1) Who can vote (voter list); (2) Who did vote (3) The original count; (4) Chain of custody.   Bob Fleischer Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Rjf7r Post Number: 255 Registered: 9-2005 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 12:50 pm:        Although I agree that the actual main threat is a lack of transparency, you might find it easier to gather opposition by including the security problem. We live in an era in which government agencies, with the assistance of private corporations, consider it within their lawful power to intercept ALL communications. That would include voting, if voting is done using any electronic medium.   Nels Christianson Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ncinoly Post Number: 4 Registered: 1-2005 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 1:04 pm:        One (sarcastic) point to make: When it is sooo easy to vote via the internet, the people could just as well vote upon all matters that currently come before Congress. Who needs representatives and senators to vote for us when we can easily vote for ourselves? With internet voting, Congress becomes irrelevant.   Kurt Bellman Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Realkurtb Post Number: 263 Registered: 6-2011 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Friday, January 25, 2013 - 5:49 am:        Talk about a fundamental paradigm shift! In virtually all legislatures, secret voting is constitutionally prohibited. In public elections, it's required. I like a world in which policy makers cannot hide. Yes, they'll still lie, but at least the vigilant can ascertain the truth.   Bev Harris Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 11757 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Friday, January 25, 2013 - 12:17 pm:        Hi Nels, Thanks for your comment! What you are describing is Direct Democracy, which is supported by many who have become disenchanted with representative democracy. It would skip the middleman and let us all vote directly on everything. Direct Democracy has some interesting potentials, and pitfalls, but it does require Internet voting. The problem is, then it becomes Sham Democracy -- a funnel, a cattle chute. While lots of people pour their decisions into the wide top of the funnel, the accounting for who voted and what those votes actually were is done by just one, or a small handful of administrators, out of public view. It is the ultimate centralization of power. Quite a magic trick this is. While everyone focuses on the wide end of the funnel, no one can see what happens when the funnel narrows, just before the result is reported. Actual control of that result takes place not at the wide end, but at the narrowest point. Please note that this is not an argument against Direct Democracy per se. It is an argument that the mechanism used to implement Direct Democracy renders it into Sham Democracy, and not at all what its supporters intended! The public must be able to see and authenticate these four essential steps for an election to be public, democratic, and valid: (1) Who can vote (voter list); (2) Who did vote (3) The original count; (4) Chain of custody.   Rainbow Sally Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Rainbowsally Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2012 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Sunday, February 3, 2013 - 6:49 pm:        Kurt, picking up an old thread. Even if they send out information about where your polling place is, that paper is generally not recycled. The point was that the notion that reducing the paperwork is justification for electronic voting is absurd. And yes, my state sends out info, pros and cons, on the issues. It's about 30 pages. I'm in CA. It's pretty good, actually. Several perspectives are offered. But as it's becoming more and more clear that the vote counting is being "caged" by unaccountable forces, this is such a minor point I hardly even want to waste the pixels to clarify this. Now, if we were to look for a common denominator in what is now turning out to be an international conspiracy (what else could you call it?), what is the nature of (if not the identity of) these forces that are so hell bent on our votes being turned into an smoke screen behind which they hide their own agenda?   Rainbow Sally Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Rainbowsally Post Number: 10 Registered: 6-2012 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Sunday, February 3, 2013 - 8:39 pm:        Sorry, admin. One more (I'm kinda steamed up right now). I have an idea that could increase voter turn out. How about: 1. Give us meaningful choices. 2. Get rid of the lack-luster crumb throwers. 3. Present some innovative ideas... truth would be a refreshing starting point. 4. Stop restricting access to the public airwaves to those with no clear idea of what's going on (or worse -- hoping we don't either). 5. Talk about reality. Why do the policy makers and politicians need to try to increase voter turnout through technology. Is it because nobody wants to vote for them anymore? .

The public must be able to see and authenticate these four essential steps for an election to be public, democratic, and valid: (1) Who can vote (voter list); (2) Who did vote (3) The original count; (4) Chain of custody.