Re: Urgent Call for Comments

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Mon Nov 12 2007 - 17:28:49 CST

Dear Nancy,

You responded below that Ron Rivest is "the solitary member of that
committee who does not present as hubris-filled." Therefore, I assume
that you are accusing David Wagner of being a "hubris-filled"
technologist. Since you referred to "technologists" (plural), perhaps
you could give us the names of the other hubris-filled technologists on
the TGDC. I am asking, because not everyone on the TGDC can be
considered to be a technologist, even using the term loosely.

Just to be clear, I am not defending the TGDC or all of the
technologists on the TGDC. I have problems with some of the members of
the TGDC. But I am also aware of the really good work being done by
technologists such as Ron Rivest and David Wagner.

As far as your use of caps goes, I wasn't suggesting that you switch to
bold or italics. Rather, I was suggesting that you "speak" in a calm
tone and focus on facts, rather than YELLING. I agree, however, that
your use of caps, while annoying, is a relatively minor issue,
especially compared to your attack on David Wagner.

I thought this list was supposed to discuss various OVC technologies and
options. As such, I would have expected people to address issues with a
reasonable amount of rigor, instead of making vague unsubstantiated
accusations.

Regards,
Barbara

Nancy Tobi wrote:
> Barbara,
>
> I do not need advice from you on whether or not to use CAPS for
> emphasis. You may find this shocking, but I, too, have been "using
> email for years" and I use ALL CAPS for emphasis because I am aware
> that using formatting such as bold or italics does not work for those
> on the list accepting plain text only in their email.
>
> The names of the hubris-filled technologists may be found at the EAC
> website link to the TGDC, where they are all listed. Feel free to
> peruse at your leisure. It will be easier for me to name the solitary
> member of that committee who does not present as hubris-filled, and
> that would be Dr. Ron Rivest, someone who appears to have a genuine
> interest in asking the questions about whether or not any given
> techno-solution meets the requirements for democratic elections.
>
> Frankly, I think it would help your own arguments if you could stay
> focused on the merits rather than tend, as you do, to lecture on what
> you believe is the appropriate manner for others to formulate and
> express their own opinions.
>
> Best,
>
> Nancy
>
> On Nov 11, 2007 7:16 PM, Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org
> <mailto:simons@acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi, Nancy. What are the names of the "hubris-filled technologists
> sitting on guidelines development committee" and what have they done
> that makes you use such rhetoric when referring to them? Please be
> specific about who they are and what they have done.
>
> Also, what basis do you have for saying:
> > they are sitting in a wonderland of their own making, oblivious to
> > election realities or the requirements of democratic elections,
> most
> > specifically, those being CITIZEN OVERSIGHT and OBSERVABLE VOTE
> > COUNTING. You might think they are just airily spinning off their
> > piles of gold under the magic spell of some hidden and unbidden
> > Rumpelstiltskin.
>
>
> Furthermore, it would be a helpful if you could avoid vague
> generalities
> and RESPONDING IN CAPITAL LETTERS. You may feel that the use of
> caps is
> not yelling, but for many of us who have been using email for
> years and
> years, the use of capitals is in fact equivalent to yelling.
> Frankly, I
> think it would help your arguments if you would simply use a standard
> font for your email and allow your arguments to speak for themselves.
> If your arguments are sound, you won't need to use caps or italic or
> bold fonts.
>
> I look forward to your response.
>
> Barbara
>
> Nancy Tobi wrote:
> > Actually, it is not clear to what extent the EAC has listened to
> the
> > vendors on these guidelines. The guidelines represent software and
> > hardware specifications for equipment that will be immensely complex
> > and expensive to develop and then to market.
> >
> > Given that their target market is publicly funded municipalities, a
> > market without deep pockets, and given that there is plenty in these
> > requirements that will be next to impossible to produce in any
> kind of
> > marketable reality, it is actually a mystery to me what and who is
> > really driving this new round of specifications.
> >
> > Watching the hubris-filled technologists sitting on the guidelines
> > development committee, you kind of think they are sitting in a
> > wonderland of their own making, oblivious to election realities
> or the
> > requirements of democratic elections, most specifically, those being
> > CITIZEN OVERSIGHT and OBSERVABLE VOTE COUNTING. You might think they
> > are just airily spinning off their piles of gold under the magic
> spell
> > of some hidden and unbidden Rumpelstiltskin.
> >
> > The vendor reps that I met at these guidelines committee meetings
> > seemed to resemble shell shocked deer gazing into the blinding
> > headlights of an oncoming and inevitable collision. Slightly
> spooked
> > by what they were seeing and hearing, and openly remarking on the
> > impossibility of it all.
> >
> > Whoever is behind this boondoggle, the goal is clear: complexify
> > elections to the point where there will be no citizen oversight
> > whatsoever and nobody will understand what is going on with the
> > elections other than a handful of "qualified" people (as Congressman
> > Holt liked to call the elite few who would be granted access to the
> > keys to the kingdom).
> >
> > And whoever is behind handing off the verbiage directly from the EAC
> > guidelines to Congressional staffers like Michelle Mulder in Rush
> > Holt's office, seems to be determined to make this complexified
> > technoelection paradigm the law of the land.
> >
> > The anonymous, unseen hand behind all this is way ahead of all
> of us.
> > I suppose, in general terms you can try to trace the breadcrumbs to
> > the source. In this case, we know that the EAC reports directly
> to the
> > Oval Office.
> >
> > Ultimately, the only solution to rescue our democracy from this
> > nightmare is to abolish the EAC, innoculate against its deadly virus
> > by killing its little cottage industry of federalized voting system
> > design, and to swiftly and with finality eradicate its
> technoelection
> > kingdom from the land.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Nancy
> >
> > On Nov 11, 2007 4:54 PM, Richard C. Johnson < dick@iwwco.com
> <mailto:dick@iwwco.com>
> > <mailto:dick@iwwco.com <mailto:dick@iwwco.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Now is the time for a concerned activists of whatever
> persuasion
> > to engage in public comment about the EAC's proposed Voluntary
> > Voting System Guidelines. These guidelines are not truly
> > voluntary; the states may adopt them and require them by law;
> > California, for example, incorporates these guidelines into its
> > requirements for voting systems.
> >
> > The EAC has listened to Diebold/Premier, ES&S, Sequoia and other
> > vendors in formulating these guidelines. If you trust the
> > vendors, fine. In not, please register your comments via the
> > online tool provided at:
> >
> > http://www.eac.gov/vvsg
> >
> > The Glossary is the worst section, defining terms (Paper Trails
> > are equivalent to Paper Ballots: see CVR in the Glossary) in
> > strange and unusual ways to set the default for any
> arguments and
> > confuse the public. Truly, this is WAR=PEACE time.
> >
> > Note: when you comment, cite the target subject of your comment
> > in the text, since they lump all comments under gross
> categories
> > (like, all Glossary comments are gathered under "g".
> >
> > We may not all have money, we may not have relatives who are in
> > Congress, but all of us who are aware enough and have access to
> > the internet can comment. It is a lot of work, but just
> look at
> > the Test section and see if you think a White Box Test is
> just a
> > spec with Black box modules. Some of us don't think you can do
> > much White Box testing without Open Source; the EAC would
> have you
> > believe that White Box testing has a great deal of Black in it,
> > but they still want to call it White rather than Grey. What
> it is
> > not is transparent!
> >
> > IMHO.
> >
> > -- Dick
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC-discuss mailing list
> > OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> > By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to
> > release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the
> > exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use,
> > including publicly archiving at
> > http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC-discuss mailing list
> > OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> > By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to
> release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the
> exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use,
> including publicly archiving at
> http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to
> release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the
> exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use,
> including publicly archiving at
> http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST