Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] I LOVE technology, but WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI

Sheila Parks sheilaruthparks at comcast.net
Fri Apr 8 13:22:36 PDT 2011


I have just come in and merely glanced at all emails, except this 
last one, that I am reading now. I will read the others later

Assuming you have seen and are following what is going on in WI about 
the Supreme Court election and its RIGGING,

To call it an "administrative issue" is simply just plain wrong, not 
only in WI now, but everywhere

Furthermore, to make such a statement without offering what you mean 
by it is an insult to all of us or should we just take your word for it?

Had the election been a secure (meaning ballot custody before during 
and after) hand-counted ballots one in all jurisdictions, this could 
not have been happening

I am interested in what those of you who like e-voting machines 
and/or see no danger in them think about what is going on in WI now 
with the election I mentioned above

You are aware, I trust that they "ran out of ballots" and many voters 
had to vote on DRE's, with no paper trail,

Sheila





At 02:13 PM 4/8/2011, David Jandura wrote:
>While we should make every effort to measure the impact of 
>introducing new technology into any process, I think there is a 
>tendency to overstate its effect in any direction.  Technology is a 
>tool, not an independent actor.  In most situations, technology 
>amplifies intent; both deficiencies and capabilities will become 
>more apparent. Election fraud is fundamentally an administrative issue.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu 
>[mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of M. Fioretti
>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 12:25 PM
>To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>Cc: Marco Fioretti
>Subject: Re: [liberationtech] I LOVE technology, but
>
>I have a deadline really close so I haven't time to answer in detail,
>but frankly, statements like this really sound bad/weak to me:
>
>On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 08:34:52 AM -0700, Peter Lindener
>(lindener.peter at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > redundant, independently run cross checking computer systems can be
> > made more dependable as well as trust worthy than any marginally
> > configured, not fully documented group of human beings...
>
>on one level, it sounds like a nuclear power plant sales rep trying to
>sell a plant to somebody who only needs a small water-powered
>generator. Sure, with enough effort everything can be made etc etc. I
>don't (really) need to be convinced about that. The problem is if it's
>really worth it.
>
>At another level, any argument like that still forgets/ignores the
>basic, original thing that makes me and others dislike the very idea.
>
>"groups of human beings" that do hand counts are self-checking and can
>be checked by EVERYBODY ELSE. Just add a 20 USD webcam in front of
>them during the whole hand count and they will behave themselves and
>get it straight for sure the first time. No need to recount.
>
>Whereas almost every average human being must take every form of
>"independently run cross checking computer systems can be made more
>dependable as well as trust worthy..." as an article of faith.
>
>"Hand count" is "I can see by myself that it's being done correctly
>and contribute to it, without needing to trust anybody"
>
>"electronic voting and counting" is "software is black magic to me,
>but that nice gentleman says I can trust it, so it's OK"
>
>         Marco
>--
>Online Course for Digital Citizens, because your rights depend on
>how software is used *around* you:  http://mfioretti.com/node/129
>_______________________________________________
>liberationtech mailing list
>liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>
>Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
>
>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
>If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you 
>click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in 
>a daily digest?"
>
>You will need the user name and password you receive from the list 
>moderator in monthly reminders.
>
>Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
>
>Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
>
>This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
>the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
>may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
>privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
>applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.
>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and
>(i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
>immediately if this is an electronic communication.
>
>Thank you.
>_______________________________________________
>liberationtech mailing list
>liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>
>Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
>
>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
>If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you 
>click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in 
>a daily digest?"
>
>You will need the user name and password you receive from the list 
>moderator in monthly reminders.
>
>Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
>
>Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech

Sheila Parks, Ed.D.
Founder
Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots
Belmont, MA 02478
617-932-1424
DEMOCRACY IN OUR HANDS
www.handcountedpaperballots.org
sheila at handcountedpaperballots.org




More information about the liberationtech mailing list