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
Sat Apr 9 14:06:36 PDT 2011


Dear David,

I am so sorry for my delay in answering you

I was out all morning at a meeting and tied up with WI the rest of the day

I will answer you, I promise. I have a few more calls to make and 
then I am going out again

Sheila

At 03:21 PM 4/9/2011, David Jandura wrote:
>Thank you Peter,
>
>Shelia, I'm not sure why you were offended by my statement that 
>clearly was not written in a way to insult anybody.   Calling 
>something an administrative issue is not ignoring the role of 
>technology (be it computers or paper), but noting that how people 
>use it is the most important factor.  How is running out of ballot 
>paper - whether intentional or not - not the result of poor election 
>administration? Elections have been conducted both poorly and well, 
>for a long time in a large variety of environments.  I'm merely 
>saying that using one type of technology as the sole independent 
>variable for explaining this variation is overlooking a lot of other factors.
>
>
>David
>________________________________________
>From: Peter Lindener [lindener.peter at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 4:46 PM
>To: Sheila Parks
>Cc: David Jandura; liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>Subject: Re: [liberationtech] I LOVE technology, but WI WI WI WI WI 
>WI WI WI WI WI WI
>
>Sheila -
>
>    I think Dave is spot on,   Digital systems tend to further 
> extend the what one is already doing in some sense...so if the 
> system is broken putting its Information Process into a Computer 
> would leave it that way......   I do think this is a mater of clear 
> cut, orderly administration.... the Advantage with using a computer 
> to do it, is that once one manages to fully secure the 
> systems....it ends to stay that way......   I.e one does not need 
> to worry that next time it will somehow be different......  Once 
> programmed into the systems It is very cheap to do full very though 
> auditing, that one needs to only program once.......
>
>    -Peter
>
>On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Sheila Parks 
><sheilaruthparks at comcast.net<mailto:sheilaruthparks at comcast.net>> wrote:
>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
>
>
>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.

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