EAC Caught Switching Final Voting System Guidelines

[Wilms]

Why Did the EAC Replace the Final Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) With Another Document?

By VoteTrustUSA

April 28, 2006

VoteTrustUSA joined a coalition of organizations in signing the following letter asking the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to explain why the final version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines was replaced on their website with another version with substantial differences from the original.

Dear Commissioners,

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, are writing to object to the replacement of the final version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines posted on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) web site on January 12, 2006, with another version of that document. We believe that the revised document fails to accurately reflect the views expressed by many members of the public on the draft voting standards.

There are significant changes to section “7 Security Requirements” first outlined in the original final Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. The current version of the document posted on the agency's web site brings into question the integrity of the Election Assistance Commission, and the efficacy of the document currently posted as the final version. The agency acknowledges in its announcement in the release of the final document that, “During the 90-day public comment period, EAC received more than 6,000 comments on the proposed guidelines. Each comment was reviewed and considered by EAC in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the development of the final version.”

snip

The final guidance provided to states in their effort to comply with the Help America Vote Act administration requirements should not be a moving target. States and vendors are not the only ones who are interested in the details of the recommendations set forth. The 6,000 organizations, individuals, elected officials, technologists, students, election reform activists, and election administrators all have an interest in the guidance provided by the agency on the adoption of new voting systems.

snip

The changes identified in the current version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines bring into question the entire process.

snip

Sincerely,

Computing Professional for Social Responsibility
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
National Committee for Voting Integrity
Voters Unite
Vote Trust USA
True Vote MD
Vote Rescue

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1235&Itemid=26

-on edit-

on this EAC page...

http://www.eac.gov/vvsg_intro.htm

there's a pdf link fpr a paper titled:

Summary of Changes between Public Comment Version and Adopted Version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

http://www.eac.gov/Summary%20of%20Changes%20to%20VVSG.pdf

[nicknameless]

1. .

:grr:

[Mnemosyne]

2. Needs a

:kick:

[liam_laddie]

3. K & R !

Underlines emphatically the duplicious nature of EVERYTHING
this fucking administraion touches. This, plus the possibility that
the "State Secrets Act" will be rolled out to hide the telecom giants'
cooperation in illegal spying on us, and *'s political enemies.
I feel that blood will be in US streets before '08, maybe earlier. Hey,
NSA snoops! When is your moral, ethical compass gonna activate?
:kick:

[neoblues]

4. Apparently the Ministry of Truth

slipped up, they failed to successfully find and alter every printed and electronic copy of the original document; thus allowing the people to prove that changes had been made to suit the current interests of Big Brother. Failure to erase the past is a serious offense. ;)


Not to worry, though, because those responsible will disappear for a few months or years, have their own personal encounter with room 101, then reappear in society with new important sounding jobs that don't actually involve doing anything (sinecures), spend their remaining time drinking and cheering our great leader and finally, after some unspecified time once again simply disappear. No one will notice and besides, all evidence of their existence will have been erased.

Nothing was changed and nobody changed it. We assure you that nobody who might have changed anything even exists (anymore). If no one who might have changed anything exists, nothing could have been changed. It's simple logic. Trust us, it didn't happen; there wasn't even an "it". Everything is exactly as it always was and always will be; the past doesn't even exist. Though, here's some free advice: to ensure your future happiness, you should be more careful what you imagine to be true. There's just no future in some ways of thinking. Besides, carelessly promoting imaginary conspiracies harms our government and aids our enemies. It's just not wise to help those terrorists for how could we know whether or not you're involved with them or, almost as bad, misguidedly assisting them? So, what were we talking about (before you admitted your paranoid fantasies)? I'm sure it was more interesting and useful.

What document? What do you mean someone changed it? Changed it from what? To what? Why would anyone do such a thing? What purpose could it possibly have? What a silly idea. Rest assured we have checked and there is no evidence anything is wrong. In fact, given that all the documents are right, if there was a change--the documents must've been in error. Still, since nothing changed and nothing could have been changed, there's no need to speculate. It doesn't matter anyway, everything is as it should be. Everthing is okay, no need for concern. What's important is that we're keeping you safe. We are all safe. All is well, you were just imagining things. Big Brother is in control, you can go back to sleep now.

Big Brother's advice in this matter: everyone will accept the truth; move along people there's nothing to see here... Support your leaders... Obey...

Never forget:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Always remember:

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

Appendix:

According to the Party: "Who controls the past, controls the future: Who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It is quite simple. All that is needed is an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they call it... and in Newspeak its called: 'doublethink'.

Other probable axioms? "UP IS DOWN" "LEFT IS RIGHT" "HOT IS COLD" "WHITE IS BLACK" "LIGHT IS DARK" (symmetry applies (if A is B, then B is A; or if up is down, then down is up)); note: in such a universe, Bush is Good (is likely to be true--remember, however, that if translated to our universe, the opposite is true).

This post involves :sarcasm:
or something similar...

[BeFree]

5. Well said, neoblues

And deserving of a well articulated response. Even a greatest thread recommendation. But this is all I can give you. <grin>
-----------------

[bear425]

6. From another South Floridian...

Cheers! This is a good post and deserves to be on its own. We're all proles, now.

[Amaryllis]

7. proles?

[bear425]

10. A prole is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian

The proletariat (from Latin proles, offspring) is a term used to identify a lower social class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their sons; the term was initially used in a derogatory sense ("those people only good for breeding"), until Karl Marx used it as a sociological term to refer to the working class.

-snip-

In George Orwell's famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, those not directly associated with The Party (either the "Inner Party" of rulers or the "Outer Party" of bureaucrats) were referred to as "the proles".

[Amaryllis]

11. I know proletariat of course, but read 1984 forty years ago, so...

a little rusty on some of the finer details!

[bear425]

13. Oh yeah, me too! I just appreciated neoblues reminding me

of 1984. I re-read it recently and it's hauntingly prescient, scarily so.

[Amaryllis]

14. I remember enough to know it;s hauntingly prescient....

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. that PDF isn't on topic, is it?

Not a rhetorical question -- I am just scratching my head. The PDF you added on edit appears to describe changes made in December (and then posted on January 12).

I haven't figured out yet what was changed after January 12, and I don't know whether the EAC has offered any rationale.

[Wilms]

9. Thanks for clarifying that the added link may not be related.

I'm hoping VTUSA will follow-up on this. I'd like to see the specific changes.

[Chi]

12. The Amazing Carnac holds the envelope to his temple and says..

'major changes to the testing of proprietary software'