Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| Looking to put this reporter in persp... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3117
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 6:54 am: | 
|
'Pacific Research Institute' employs this writer. Who are they? Who funds them? What else are they involved in?
I'm interested in where articles like this really come from -- from Bev Harris
TechNewsWorld - Jan 6 2006
Don't Strangle E-Voting With Paper
By Sonia Arrison
Just because open-source software is out in the open doesn't mean it is secure, and just because proprietary software doesn't openly spill its code doesn't mean it is flawed. Both types of software should compete, and government tests of proprietary code before use make a lot of sense. The assertion that voters don't trust e-voting machines is also wrong.
New White Paper: Business Search vs. Consumer Search: Five Differences Your Company Can't Afford to Ignore. A guide to finding the right search engine for your enterprise: Specialized Search Requirements for Business, A Business Search and Consumer Search Bake-off -- Two Stories, Benefits of Business Search.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's State of the State address this week reminded California voters that in ten months they'll be casting ballots again, many using electronic voting devices. While popular, e-voting is at risk of being stymied by nervous Nellies and the anti-property lobby.
One frequently cited concern with e-voting machines, otherwise known as direct recording electronic (DRE) devices, is reliability. The question of stability and backups becomes an issue every time an industry is on the verge of switching from paper to electronics.
Improving the System
Computers are known to crash and data sometimes gets lost, but more often than not, computers function properly and data is backed up electronically. Data can also be retrieved, even after it has been purposely deleted, much to the chagrin of some criminals. Concerns about making computers reliable are valid, but deploying that fear to block the use of e-voting machines, as some activists have attempted to do, is wrong. An MIT study by political scientist Charles Stewart showcased the proper way to frame the issue.
The study, which examined the use of e-voting machines in Georgia, asked whether the machines performed better than the collection of older voting technologies the state used before. The answer was yes, because the machines decreased the number of "lost" votes and increased the power of democracy. By looking to see whether e-voting machines were better than old technology, not whether they were perfect, Professor Stewart's research helps those truly wishing to improve the nation's electoral system -- but not everyone sees it that way.
In California and other states, the march to make e-voting machines perfect using legislative dictates is in vogue. For instance, even after California passed a law to force all e-voting machines to have a voter-verified paper audit trail, state Senator Debra Bowen introduced yet more legislation for paper. At this rate, one might expect to find a paper-covered computer in the voting booth.
Outdated Methods
Bowen's legislation increased the state's commitment to slow, old and inefficient paper voting methods by specifying that "manual recounts of votes" requires that "the paper record copies or the voter verified paper audit trail of the electronically recorded vote are counted manually." In a press release on this issue, she echoed worn out anti-property rhetoric that will ring strange to freedom-loving Californians considering her run for Secretary of State.
Bowen argues that California shouldn't rely on proprietary software to count ballots. "If we want to ensure we have voting systems that are reliable and secure -- and that voters have confidence in -- we need to be moving toward an open source software structure," she says. This argument is a red herring, probably designed to distance her from current Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.
Matters of Trust
Just because open-source software is out in the open doesn't mean it is secure, and just because proprietary software doesn't openly spill its code doesn't mean it is flawed. Both types of software should compete, and government tests of proprietary code before use make a lot of sense. The assertion that voters don't trust e-voting machines is also wrong.
According to a 2004 Winston Group survey, voters using e-voting machines are just as likely to trust their voting technology as voters using lever machines and optical scanners. The survey further revealed that seven out of ten voters were not concerned with the security of e-voting equipment, and that an overwhelming majority of voters who have used e-voting systems agreed that DRE devices are helpful in reducing electoral maladies, such as accidental over- or under-voting. In short, e-voting is pretty popular, but sure to touch off discussion as the next election day draws near.
The question is not whether e-voting systems are perfect but whether they are better than old methods that all too often ended with bags of ballots floating in rivers and oceans. For democracy to prosper, voters should heed the voices of reason and reject the nervous Nellies, Luddites and anti-property activists.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48152.html |
Christopher Hooten
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bigfoot
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
I looked in the San Diego white pages.
Pacific Research Institute
858-450-9340
There is also a "Pacific Research Network" with two different addresses, but the same phone number.
Pacific Research Network
501 Washington (I assume "San Diego") 619-294-4302
3003 4th Ave (San Diego, again) 619-294-4302
And lastly, there is a Pacific Research Laboratories
Pacific Research Laboratories
1951 Willow Glen Drive (El Cajon, CA)619-441-5840
Not sure if these are all related, but the names were close enough for me to include them here, just in case...
Hope this helps,
Bigfoot of San Diego |
Christopher Hooten
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bigfoot
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Before you ask, there was no address for "Pacific Research Institute."
Bigfoot of San Diego
(Message edited by bigfoot on January 06, 2006) |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2056
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:11 pm: |
|
These guys perhaps?
http://www.pacificresearch.org/
The article is featured on their front page down below under "In The News"
Contact Information
San Francisco Headquarters
755 Sansome Street, Suite 450
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel 415-989-0833 / Fax 415-989-2411
Sacramento Office
1414 K Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel 916-448-1926 / Fax 916-448-3856
Contact a Specific PRI Department
Development Inquiries
Day Fogarty
Director of Development
Tel 415-955-6118
Fax 415-989-2411
> dfogarty@pacificresearch.org
Media and Event Inquiries
Susan Martin
Marketing Manager
Tel 415-955-6120
Fax 415-989-2411
> smartin@pacificresearch.org
Policy & Research Inquiries
Lisa Mac Lellan
Vice President of Public Policy
Tel 415-955-6105
Fax 415-989-2411
> lmaclellan@pacificresearch.org
Whois lookup for website
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
755 Sansome Street #450
San Francisco, CA 94111
US
Domain Name: PACIFICRESEARCH.ORG
Administrative Contact :
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
kchreston@pacificresearch.org
755 Sansome Street #450
San Francisco, CA 94111
US
Phone: +1-415-989-0833
Technical Contact :
Langtech
hostmaster@LANGTECH.COM
832 SANSOME ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-1508
US
Phone: 415-928-6064
Fax: 415-928-6094
Record expires on 05-Jun-2006
Record created on 01-Oct-2002
Database last updated on 09-May-2005
Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS
NS1.LANGTECH.COM 64.147.162.210
NS2.LANGTECH.COM 209.79.150.194
Show underlying registry data for this record
IP Address: 198.161.90.17 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: CA(CANADA)-ALBERTA-RED DEER
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ 8 listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Web Site Title: Welcome to Pacific Research Institute
Meta Description: Pacific Research Institute is a public policy think tank promoting free markets.
Meta Keywords: PRI, pri, Pacific Research Institute, public policy, think tank, Business Policy, Economic Policy, Education Policy, Environmental Policy, Health Care Policy, Technology Policy, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, California business policy, Cal
Secure: No
E-commerce: Yes
Traffic Ranking: Not available
Data as of: 21-Oct-2005 |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
A bit more.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute
Pacific Research Institute
From SourceWatch
The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) or officially the 'Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy', is a think tank founded in 1979 whose stated vision is the promotion of "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The Institute believes these principles are best encouraged through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government." The Pacific Research Institute has associated with other think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute.
Table of contents
1 PRI and Big Tobacco
2 Staff
3 Board of Directors
4 Former Board Members
5 Funding
6 Corporations
7 Foundations
8 Case studies
9 Other SourceWatch resources
10 Contact details
11 External links
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2058
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Lovely bunch these guys!
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=61
FACTSHEET: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, PRI
DETAILS
755 Sansome Street, Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94131
Phone: 415-989-0833
Fax: 415-989-2411
The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) is a free market think tank based in San Francisco, California. Until 1984 it was known as the Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research.
According to its website: "The mission of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) is to champion freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions." (3/18/04) PRI has ties to the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. PRI was started by IEA's founder, Antony Fisher, and businessman James North. Research fellow Mark Pollot received some notoreity during the fleeting "county supremacy" movement in many parts of the rural west. Pollot also founded the Stewards of the Range Constitutional Law Center to undertake many of the failed legal battles that arose from the supremacy theory. PRI has received grants from the John M. Olin Foundation, the Jacquelin Hume Foundation, the Jacobs Family Foundation,.Montgomery Street Foundation, Lilly Endowment, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, William H. Donner Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
KEY QUOTES
4 February, 2001
"This winter's big chill has given global warming enthusiasts some explaining to do. Whether global warming, if it occurs at all, would be a good or bad thing, is another debate entirely."
Source: "Global Warming Suffers a Chilling Effect," SF Examiner, 2/4/01
20 November, 1998
"The Kyoto Protocol is wrong on all accounts. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that global warming exists or that, if it does, human activity is a contributing factor. But in the event warming is occurring and is stoppable, the Protocol will not even come close to achieving its stated goal. The world's largest emitters will get a free ride, leaving the United States to bear the burden."
Source: Pacific Research Institute website
KEY DEEDS
7 June, 2002
Senior Fellow Steven Hayward signed a letter to President Bush, asking him to withdraw the "Climate Action Report 2002" and demand that it be rewritten based on "sound science". The letter also recommends that Bush "dismiss or re-assign all administration employees who are not pursuing your agenda, just as you have done in several similar instances."
Source: Joint Letter To President Bush On The EPA's Climate Action Report 6/7/02
<more>
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=61 |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
755 Sansome Street #450
San Francisco, CA 94111
US
[the following is from their website]
“This Institute has done so much to further the
idea of a law-governed liberty.”
— Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
“PRI is one of the most innovative and effective
think tanks in the world.”
— Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman
About PRI
Now more than ever, it is vital that our policy responses are guided by the principles that best preserve the essence of America – its entrepreneurial spirit, belief in the dignity of individuals, and vigilant defense of liberty.
The mission of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) is to champion freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions.
Since its founding in 1979, PRI has remained steadfast to the vision of a free and civil society where individuals can achieve their full potential.
Put simply, public policy is too important to be left just to the experts. Individuals are the real decision makers when it comes to their schools, health care, and environment.
PRI reinforces this ideal by providing you with the information, inspiration, and opportunity to make decisions about the daily issues that matter most to you.
The Institute’s activities include publications, events, media commentary, legislative testimony, and community outreach.
In 2003, PRI reached a circulation of more than 100 million readers, with its commentary published in more than 1,000 newspapers, magazines, and online outlets. PRI was featured by more than half of the nation's top 100 print media, and was covered in all 50 states. PRI reached an audience of more than 23 million through radio and television nationwide.
PRI’s current program advances policy reform to achieve these goals:
* Education – to provide all students with access to a quality education
* Entrepreneurship – to strike down barriers to economic growth and innovation
* Health Care – to provide better quality and access to health-care while lowering costs
* Technology – to identify and limit harmful government regulation in the technology sector
* Environment – to sustain the trend toward a cleaner environment
Worthy policy goals with such broad impact are not easily attained, and they require sustained effort and struggle. Together with its alliance of dedicated supporters, PRI is committed to leading the way toward a more free and prosperous future for all.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/about/index.html |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
[Very curious mixture of people & affiliations]
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman, Lisa Guillermin Gable
President & CEO, Sally C. Pipes
Pacific Research Institute
Vice Chairman, F. Christian Wignall
Capstan, LLC
Secretary/Treasurer, Thomas C. Magowan
Club Minibar, Inc.
Katherine H. Alden
Owner
Woodside Hotels & Resorts
Clark S. Judge
White House Writers Group
Katherine E. Boyd
Interior Designer
Ian Mausner
CEO, Founder and Sr. Portfolio Mgr.
JS Oliver Capital Management
Michael Carpenter
President
CarpenterHawkins, LLC
Daniel Oliver
Chairman Emeritus
Robert J. Ernst
Attorney at Law
Peter Thiel
President
Clarium Capital Management
James T. Farrell
Managing Director
The Fremont Group
Richard A. Wallace
Freedom Communications, Inc.
Peter C. Farrell, Ph.D., AM
President and CEO
ResMed
Jean R. Wente
Wente Vineyards
Christine Hughes
Emeritus Board Members
Frank Baxter
Samuel H. Husbands, Jr.
David H. Keyston
Francis A. O’Connell} |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Here's more. Looks like a 'preemptive attack' on open source software.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=274
RECIPIENT PROFILE
www.pacificresearch.org
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
San Francisco, CA 94111
A conservative think tank that challenges environmental regulations, and was former Governor Pete Wilson's favored source of information regarding privatization and water rights.
divider
Tim Lambert
June 23, 2004
When Think Tanks Attack
Think tanks vs Open Source
The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute’s attack on Linux is just the latest in a series of attacks on Open Source by think tanks:
Sonia Arrison of PRI: Is the Penguin Contaminated?
After all, in scanning the online petition, one can’t help but be struck by the many comments such as “get your hands of my linux you damn, dirty, corpo-apes!!” and worse. These words suggest we can expect defiance, not cooperation, on serious issues like intellectual property from the open-source community, at least in the near future.
Also see:
CSE, Aug 27, 2003, Wayne T. Brough: New Protectionism: Mandates for Open Source Software
Read the full report >
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=274 |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
FUNDING
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $275,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1998
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
20K general support, 30K project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report
2002
$45,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
20K General Support, 25K index of leading indicators project
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2003
$45,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change and Environmental Quality Research
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
[The above from:]
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=61 |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Goals related to voting interests:
* Entrepreneurship – to strike down barriers to economic growth and innovation
* Technology – to identify and limit harmful government regulation in the technology sector
Key conclusions I draw from this info so far:
--Conservative, free-trade business-oriented
--Close links to White House (assumed by --Board--particularly "White House Writers Group")
--Funded by Exxon (oil interests; anti-global-warming etc.)
--Links to London--i.e., there are international interests involved; driven by a "higher" level than national-scale politics though closely linked to national government and economic centers of power (esp. oil industry) |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I'd say that about sums it up!
Thanks Catherine!
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
This is about global economic interests.
A closer look at their Education & Health Care policies will probably reveal a similar pattern of major international corporate vested interests.
How revealing that electronic voting machines are apparently perceived by this group to be a threat to the international corporate/economic interests they wish to support.
Does anyone remember my long tin-foil "essay" a number of months ago, about my guesses for what is behind all the corruption and dealing in the voting machine food chain? (Kathleen--remember that one? I was really sticking my neck out by articulating this publicly.) The PSI's remit seems to offer some validation of the views I expressed, assuming the article at the top of this thread was written by a PSI staff member or someone they hired. |
Christopher Hooten
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bigfoot
Post Number: 23
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:05 pm: |
|
The local number I stated earlier seems to go through a few switchboards, then promptly hangs up on you. Maybe it was a local San diego number for the San Francisco location. I tried to call to ask where they were located.
Sheesh, everyone sure can dig up info quickly. Cool.
Bigfoot of San Diego
P.S. I wish I could go to the town hall meeting in San Diego Tomorrow, but I have to work. Arrgh.
I hate being underemployed. |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2061
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:08 pm: |
|
If you look who wrote the original article, Don't Strangle E-Voting With Paper By Sonia Arrison, and then look at the mediatransparency.org profile, it lists Sonia Arrison of PRI as the author of the 'Is the Penguin Contaminated?' open source hit peice.
It appears that Sonia Arrison is their 'go to' person for elections.
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3129
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
In other words, this is a group interested in privatization and proprietary secrets, and without disclosing their agenda, they write pseudo-articles for vested interests that look like media.
Next question: who owns the media that printed this? It poses as journalism but isn't. How much of vested interest is the publication, and what's it connected to?
Very interesting. You folks are wonderful, and put the article in context very quickly. Thank you so much!
Bev Harris |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:17 pm: |
|
It would no doubt be revealing to find out the connections for some of the Board members who listed no other affiliation. And for the woman who is an "Interior Designer."
Chairman, Lisa Guillermin Gable
President & CEO, Sally C. Pipes
Katherine E. Boyd, Interior Designer
Daniel Oliver, Chairman Emeritus
Christine Hughes
Frank Baxter
Samuel H. Husbands, Jr.
David H. Keyston
Francis A. O’Connell
I bet Freedom Communications does some interesting things. I bet the whole list of Board members could yield a book's worth of intriguing political and economic connections.
And this group wants electronic voting. Passionately. I wonder what the full scope of their activities is. What are the overt and covert things they do to promote their goals? I bet for every overt PR piece there are other activities that are less visible.
Democracy isn't listed as one of their policy goals. Naturally. That would be a hindrance to free trade and entrepreneurship. |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3130
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Freedom Communications -- might be a PR firm, or a publisher, or a PR firm pretending it's a publisher.
Bev |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
http://www.freedom.com/
Freedom Communications, Inc.
"Freedom Communications, Inc., headquartered in Irvine, California is a diversified media company of newspapers, television broadcast stations and Internet-based businesses."
[They own 70+ news publications, total circ. above 1 million. Flagship is the Orange County Register. Libertarian focus. Also own 8 broadcast stations (TV). And it has internet-based businesses as well. See a slightly out-of-date listing of their media holdings here: http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/freedom.asp] |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Some real media too!
Here's her Bio from the PRI site,
Sonia Arrison
Director, Technology Studies
Sonia Arrison is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute (PRI) where she researches and writes on the intersection of new technologies and public policy. Specific areas of interest include privacy policy, e-government, intellectual property, nanotechnology, evolutionary theory, and telecommunications.
She is a regular columnist for Tech Central Station and Tech News World. Her work has appeared in many publications including CBS MarketWatch, CNN, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, The National Post, Washington Times, and Consumer Research Magazine. A frequent media guest and National Press Club First Amendment Scholar, Ms. Arrison has appeared on National Public Radio’s Forum, Tech TV, CBC's The National, and CNN's Headline News. She was also recently the host of a radio show called "digital dialogue" on the Voice America network.
Arrison is author of several major PRI studies including Canning Spam: An Economic Solution to Unwanted Email, Being Served: Broadband Competition in the Small and Medium Sized Business Market, and Consumer Privacy: A Free Choice Approach. She is co-author of Punishing Innovation: A Report on California Legislators’ Anti-Tech Voting, Internet Taxes: What California Legislators Should Know, and editor of Telecrisis: How Regulation Stifles High Speed Internet Access.
Often asked for advice on technology issues, Arrison has given testimony and served as an expert witness for various government committees such as the Congressional Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce and the California Commission on Internet Political Practices.She is also on the technology advisory board for the Institute for the Study of Accelerating Change.
Prior to joining PRI, Arrison focused on Canadian-U.S. regulatory and political issues at the Donner Canadian Foundation. She also worked at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, B.C., where she specialized in regulatory policy and privatization. She received her BA from the University of Calgary and an MA from the University of British Columbia.
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
RICHARD A. WALLACE
Freedom's Vice President of Corporate Affairs since 1992. He was general manager of the Register from 1974-1992, publisher of the Anaheim Bulletin from 1968-1974 and has been a member of Freedom's Board of Directors since 1968. Wallace is married to Patricia Hoiles Wallace, a daughter of the late Clarence H. Hoiles, a son of Freedom's founder, R.C. Hoiles.
[He is also on the Board of PSI]
http://www.freedom.com/company/ann00/directors.htm |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
PRI Press Release, June 27, 2005
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/rel/2005/pr05-06-27.html
E-voting is a Reliable, Accurate Solution to Election Day Voting Woes
Internet-fed rumors of conspiracy theories, widespread fraud, and rigged elections are unwarranted asserts new study on e-voting
SAN FRANCISCO – "E-voting" machines are a reliable voting method and represent one of the more promising solutions to Election Day voting errors, according to a new report released today by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a non-partisan think tank based in California. Upgrading America's Ballot Box: The Rise of E-voting, highlights current evidence that finds e-voting is more secure and effective than traditional ballots and offers recommendations to resolve concerns about hardware reliability, faulty software, and voter fraud.
Following the 2000 election debacle in Florida , Congress passed new legislation to overhaul America's electoral system. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was signed into law on October 2002 and allocated $3.75 billion in federal grants to be used to replace antiquated voting systems with high-tech solutions such as optical scanners and direct recording electronic devices or DREs. To date, nearly 700 counties have procured e-voting machines.
"Despite the advances made through e-voting machines such as DREs, prominent computer scientists and partisan advocates have expressed concerns about the reliability and security of electronic voting," said Sonia Arrison, director of technology studies at PRI. "But when you look at the evidence, all this fear and anxiety over e-voting is overblown."
DRE devices in particular, wrote Ms. Arrison, provide two new innovations to public elections: a visual verification of votes cast and remote vote storage. "The pre-DRE voting machines required a high level of trust and responsibility upon election officials. Officials, on occasion, due to innocent mistakes or malicious behavior, failed to completely secure paper ballot integrity. DRE devices have one of the lowest 'residual vote rates' of any voting system because they help to reduce voter error," observed Ms. Arrison.
<more>
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/rel/2005/pr05-06-27.html |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
I missed this one somehow,
http://pasco.tbo.com/pasco/MGB0N3REYAE.html
Study Affirms Elections Chief: He Told Us So
TOM JACKSON
Published: Jul 10, 2005
Kurt Browning wasn't looking for anything special on the day marking his 30th anniversary with the Pasco County elections office, but surprises are often the spice of life, even within a bureaucracy.
Thus did Browning, Pasco's elections supervisor for the past 24 1/2 of those 30 years, gladly received a welcome alternative to the usual cake and bouquet of balloons: affirmation of what he has been saying since before Florida's pregnant chad crisis of 2000.
Direct recording electronic devices - DREs, or, more commonly, touch-screen voting machines - are, indeed, safe, accurate, reliable, simple, accessible and eminently hacker-proof.
This conclusion, embraced for years by Browning, recently was reached by the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco-based, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to ideals of freedom, opportunity and individual responsibility through free-market policies.
In 'Upgrading America's Ballot Box: The Rise of E-Voting,' authors Sonia Arrison and Vince Vasquez dismiss as unfounded Internet-fired rumors of conspiracy, fraud and rigged elections tied to touch-screen voting. Like Browning, Arrison and Vasquez lament the hysteria of partisan critics who latched onto misinformation and half-truths as proof that DREs had been programmed to produce a desired result.
``There is no serious research that shows e-voting rigged the results of the [2004] election,'' they wrote. ``Claims by groups such as blackboxvoting.org gloss over the complexities in elections. ... They also ignore the reality that complaints with e-voting machines were negligible.''
<more>
http://pasco.tbo.com/pasco/MGB0N3REYAE.html
Pat A. Vesely |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 202
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Pat,
I see that lots of folks jumped in with the info but didn't we go down the road with that name and PRI about a year or so ago? (in Paranoid days?) This is VERY deja-vu-ish.
Gotta' check them old files 'round here somewhere.
HG |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 203
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Sonia Arrison is director of the Center for Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute, and writes for TechCentralStation.com.
http://capmag.com/author.asp?name=238
That name TechCentralStation is setting off clanging alarm bells in my head just now.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/about.aspx
TCSDaily.com is published by Tech Central Station, a division of DCI Group, L.L.C.
I have to step away from the keyboard for a while, and check some facts. This road looks w-a-a-a-a-a-y too familiar for my comfort....
 |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2068
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
John, Yeah, just like old times! Ain't this FUN? LOL
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
Christopher Hooten
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bigfoot
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Love the fedora smiley
Bigfoot of San Diego |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Maybe it's time to retreat to the private area and discuss a strategy for a targeted offensive 'Truth' campaign.
I'm in the middle of a hosting a birthday party for a friend here at the moment but I have a few ideas we can kick around later on this evening.
This could be really fun!
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 204
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Sounds good! although I'll have to check-in in the morning - past my bedtime. (yawning-smiley if-there-was-one)
HG |
Robert Munyer
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Munyer
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 9:58 pm: |
|
I am not an expert at tracking down links between corporate malefactors, but I can tell you that Ms. Arrison's rhetoric in her anti-ballot hatchet job article reminded me of the astroturf in the "Dead People Rise From Grave, Attempt to Influence Attorneys General" scandal from 2001.
Look for connections between the new anti-ballot propaganda campaign, and these people and companies which were involved in that little escapade (from <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134332634_microlob23.html>):
quote:two of the nation's top political-advocacy groups: Boston-based Dewey Square Group, co-founded by Al Gore campaigner Michael Whouley, and Phoenix-based DCI/New Media, led by Republican strategist Tom Synhorst. DCI has worked for both the tobacco industry and the National Rifle Association.
I did a quick search and found an interesting connection (Arrison is a regular columnist for Tech Central Station, which is published by DCI) but I'll leave it to you experts to look for more connections.
A description of Tech Central Station, from <http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html>:
quote:James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It's an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. Lobbying firms that once specialized in gaining person-to-person access to key decision-makers have branched out. The new game is to dominate the entire intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions, which means funding everything from think tanks to issue ads to phony grassroots pressure groups.
After writing the above I re-loaded the thread, and I see that you guys are already looking into DCI. I'm posting this message anyway because you might find the links useful. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 2:45 am: |
|
Thanks for that, Robert.
yes, PR firms/lobbying firms are involved in all those things ("funding everything from think tanks to issue ads to phony grassroots pressure groups"). Also things like letter-writing campaigns to newspapers. (E.g., in which PR company staff sit around a table and handwrite letters sent in to editors, to make it appear that they are coming from members of the public.)
Surely such firms would also use internet tactics such as the cyber-smear campaigns documented here on another thread.
And sending paid people to be publicly disruptive at a meeting, and for them to then claim to be representing a certain activist group (whose reputation they wish to tarnish). |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3132
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 4:09 am: |
|
Robert: Very informative link. For those who haven't clicked over to it, here are some of the highlights. This is the "publishing" (read: lobbying) group that published the propaganda piece urging strangling of the paper trail:
Meet the Press
How James Glassman reinvented journalism--as lobbying.
...the real secret of his success is that the market Glassman writes about is very different from the one in which he thrives: the burgeoning world of Washington influence-peddling. As a writer and public figure, Glassman has, over time, aligned his views with those of the business interests that dominate K Street and support the Republican Party; he has also increasingly taken aggressive positions on one side or another of intra-industry debates, rather like a corporate lobbyist. Nowhere is this more apparent than on TCS, where Glassman and his colleagues have weighed in on everything from which telecommunications technologies should be the most heavily regulated to whether Microsoft is a threat to other software companies.
But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI's clients are also "sponsors" of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors' banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms' policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere.
James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It's an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. Lobbying firms that once specialized in gaining person-to-person access to key decision-makers have branched out. The new game is to dominate the entire intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions, which means funding everything from think tanks to issue ads to phony grassroots pressure groups. But the institution that most affects the intellectual atmosphere in Washington, the media, has also proven the hardest for K Street to influence--until now.
...As he became more successful, the onetime student radical and McGovernik also moved right. In 1995, by then a business columnist for The Washington Post, Glassman began moonlighting for the op-ed page; there, during the height of Gingrichism, he assailed federal student loans, defended high C.E.O. pay, and agitated for the flat tax. Articulate and irreverent, Glassman was also a hit on Washington chat shows. In the fall of 1996, he was named a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a leading conservative think tank and a kind of government-in-exile for Republican officials from the first Bush administration. But though he had become increasingly conservative, Glassman was more Jack Kemp than Robert Bork; as a pundit, he usually favored the shiv over the cudgel.
...Glassman was extraordinarily prolific--and increasingly influential.
...
The New New Journalism
With his longtime friend Charles Francis, a prominent Republican lobbyist and public relations maestro, Glassman began approaching funders with a new pitch. Taking a nod from "TechnoPolitics," he envisioned an entity that would cover "the nexus between science and technology on the one hand and public policy on the other," as he later described it to me, with assorted "sponsors" and himself as the site's "host." Tech Central Station was launched in early 2000, with a smattering of content and one sponsor, AT&T. But Glassman had bigger plans.... "I think in a sense we kind of invented a new sort of institution."
But what sort of institution, exactly? At first glance, TCS does resemble a think tank-cum-opinion magazine--indeed, a successful one. Each day, the site publishes a new batch of brisk, topical articles. In style and substance, TCS's content is an intellectual descendent of the rapid-response policy briefs pioneered by conservative think tanks during the 1980s, and as influential: The site's articles and contributors have been cited hundreds of times in the mainstream media and reprinted on op-ed pages across the country. TCS brings all of this off with a relatively small staff, drawing on the brainpower of established think tanks rather than housing and paying its own fellows and scholars, and publishing their arguments in its own "magazine" rather than hawking sound-bites to print reporters and columnists. "We can get the word out much more quickly [than a traditional think tank]," says Glassman, "and it's a lot less expensive not having a lot of bricks and mortar."
If TCS combines all the strengths of a modern advocacy think tank with the reach and accessibility of a successful political magazine, it has succeeded largely by rejecting the conventions that traditionally govern journalism and policy scholarship. Most think tanks are organized under the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code and must disclose many details of how they are financed, being--at least in theory--expected to justify their non-profit status with work in the public interest. Even think tanks of an acknowledged ideological bent seek to insulate the work of their scholars and fellows from the specific policy priorities of the businesses or foundations that provide their funding. Likewise, traditional newspapers and magazines, whether for-profit or not, keep a wall between their editorial and business sides; even at magazines of opinion, the political views of writers are presumed to be offered in good faith, uninfluenced by advertisers.
Unlike traditional think tanks, Tech Central Station is organized as a limited liability corporation--that is, a for-profit business. As an LLC, there is little Tech Central Station must publicly disclose about itself save for the names and addresses of its owners, and there is no presumption, legal or otherwise, that it exists to serve the public interest. Likewise, rather than advertisers per se, TCS has what it calls "sponsors," which are thanked prominently in a section one click away from the front page of the site. (AT&T, ExxonMobil, and Microsoft were early supporters; General Motors, Intel, McDonalds, NASDAQ, National Semiconductor, and Qualcomm, as well as the drug industry trade association, PhRMA, joined during the past year.) Each firm pays a sponsorship fee--although neither Glassman nor any of the sponsors would disclose how much--and gets banner advertisements on the site. When I contacted a few of the sponsors, each described their relationship to TCS in a slightly different way. An Intel spokeswoman said that TCS was "a consultant" to the computer-chip maker. AT&T's representative said her firm was "a funder." A Microsoft representative explained that the company "is constantly looking for ways to educate on some of the critical and important issues in the technology sector."
On closer inspection, Tech Central Station looks less like a think-tank-cum-magazine than a kind of lobbying practice. Which makes sense: Four of the five co-owners of TCS are also the co-owners of the DCI Group, the Washington public affairs firm founded by Republican operative Thomas J. Synhorst. TCS's fifth owner is Charles Francis, who is also a senior lobbyist at DCI and is listed on TCS's phone directory. And as it happens, three of TCS's sponsors--AT&T, General Motors, and PhRMA--have also retained DCI for their lobbying needs. (Both DCI's spokeswoman and TCS's chief executive officer declined to be interviewed for this article. However, after I requested comment, the Web site was changed. Where it formerly stated that "Tech Central Station is published by Tech Central Station, L.L.C.," it now reads "Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C.")
Like its publishing arm, DCI's business is to influence elite opinion in Washington. But instead of publishing articles, DCI specializes in what's known as "corporate-financed grass-roots organizing," such as setting up front groups to agitate for a client's position, placing letters to the editor with key newspapers, and using phone banks to generate calls to politicians. TCS, for its part, includes a disclaimer on its site noting that "the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily those of any corporation or other organization." But it is startling how often the opinions of TCS's writers and sponsors converge.
Last July, for instance, PhRMA retained DCI to lobby against House legislation that would permit the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The same month, TCS put out a press release announcing that it planned to cover an upcoming bus trip taken by Canadian patients to "access prescription drugs and medical treatment" in the U.S. (The trip was sponsored in part by the Canadian subsidiaries of many of the same pharmaceutical companies that belong to PhRMA.) A few days after the press release was issued, TCS columnist Duane Freese published an article touting the bus trip and attacking the legislation; other contributors also wrote columns for the site attacking reimportation.
The articles on Tech Central Station address a broad range of issues, some of concern to its sponsors, many not. And most of the site's authors are no doubt merely voicing opinions they have already reached. But time and time again, TCS's coverage of particular issues has had the appearance of a well-aimed P.R. blitz. After ExxonMobil became a sponsor, for instance, the site published a flurry of content attacking both the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gasses and the science of global warming--which happen to be among Exxon-Mobil's chief policy concerns in Washington.
TCS's articles have also complemented work being done by DCI. During 2000, Microsoft contracted with DCI to perform various services, among them generating "grassroots" letters opposing a breakup of Microsoft and launching Americans for Technology Leadership, an anti-breakup group funded in part by Microsoft and run out of DCI's office. Meanwhile, down the hall, Tech Central Station went on the offensive, inaugurating an "anti-trust" section that over the coming months would publish little except defenses of Microsoft and attacks on the software maker's corporate and governmental antagonists, with occasional detours into the subject of lawsuit reform. (Microsoft smartly plugged some of the articles on its own Web site.)
...in at least one area--telecommunications--the only discernable consistency to Glassman's opinions is the degree to which they track those of AT&T, the original sponsor of TCS. During 2001, in a string of columns and in an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Glassman criticized legislation that would have relaxed the requirement that regional Bells rent their phone lines to other companies, including AT&T, seeking to offer local services to the Bells' customers. Identifying himself as a journalist, think tank fellow, and host of TCS--but not disclosing the Web site's sponsorship by AT&T--Glassman told Congress that the bill, known as Tauzin-Dingell, would "kill" the Bells' competitors. Though this was perhaps the only area of policy in which he favored more government regulation, and though his position was similar to that of congressional Democrats and liberal public interest groups, Glassman argued his was actually the true expression of free market principles. "I have devoted much of my professional career to advocating deregulatory, free-market solutions to economic and social problems," he insisted. "I know deregulation when I see it, and the Tauzin-Dingell bill is not deregulation."
As it happens, however, AT&T was not merely an aspiring provider of local phone services. At the time, it was the largest owner of cable systems in the United States. During 1999, America Online, the Internet service provider, lobbied aggressively for legislation to force cable companies like AT&T to offer its services on their cable systems at government-mandated rates. But when Glassman later wrote about this issue, he took a very different view of government's requiring companies to open up their expensive hardware to competitors--although he again presented his position as a defense of high principle. "Common sense tells you that government has no business dictating the terms under which you rent your property to other people," he wrote on TCS. "But somehow, thanks to an aggressive lobbying campaign…many reporters took seriously the idea that cable companies could be forced to rent out their property at prices set by government." The real principle, it would appear, is that government has no business forcing companies to share their wires with competitors--unless the competitor happens to sponsor a web site one hosts.
During my brief phone interview with Glassman--he declined a follow-up--I asked him whether or not TCS published opinions that contradicted the policy views, of, say, AT&T. "Frankly, we think that other points of view are well represented everywhere else," he responded cheerfully. "To have one point of view on an issue like telecom is something that we don't have a problem with." He added, "We're an advocacy group. There's no doubt about that. I don't think we ever had pretenses of being an academic think tank."
The Rise of Idea Laundering
Government decision-makers are subject to a cacophony of opinions--from paid lobbyists, think-tank scholars, academics, newspaper editorials, consumer groups, and letters from ordinary citizens. And in the past decade, corporate lobbying has evolved to influence--and, where possible, control--the arguments emanating from each of these sources. It's why corporations have put so much money into think tanks, issue advertisements, and consulting arrangements with economists and other academics. It's how firms like DCI have flourished by orchestrating pseudo-grassroots movements to simulate or amplify constituent opinion on behalf of corporate clients.
After all, it's only human nature to put more trust in the arguments of seemingly independent observers than those of paid agents of an interested party. And that's why a journalist willing to launder the arguments of corporations and trade groups would be so valuable. A given argument, coming from such a journalist, would have more impact than precisely the same case articulated by a corporate lobbyist.
Glassman certainly has impact. Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission considered whether regional Bell companies should continue to fully share their wires with competitors like AT&T--the position Democrats favored. The tiebreaking vote was cast by a conservative Bush appointee, Kevin Martin. Martin sided with his Democratic colleagues, a surprising position, but one made easier, say observers, by the fact that a few prominent conservative pundits, chief among them Glassman, had taken AT&T's side in the argument. "Glassman's clueless," opines an economist who specializes in telecom and supports relaxed regulations on both cable and phone systems. "But he gives good cover."
As he has so many times in his career, James Glassman has recognized a new and largely untapped opportunity for his journalistic talents. If his past is any guide, two things are likely to happen. Other journalists and pundits will follow suit, touching off a growth market in Washington journo-lobbying--and then that market will crash.
From Bev: Many words to describe one word: Propaganda |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3133
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 4:47 am: |
|
TCS opinion piece favoring paper ballots (nov 2002)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/110502A.html |
|
|
