blogs
"Rob Georgia" Version 2008?
On the eve of the Georgia runoff election for U.S. Senate, Velvet Revolution has circulated the following national press release (appearing on the Wall Street Journal's "Market Watch" website, among other prominent placements) exposing the circumstances of the 2002 Georgia midterm election of Saxby Chambliss to the U.S. Senate -- possibly the single most blatant voting machine election rig in U.S. history.
VR has also placed a full-page advertisement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper, reminding Georgia's voters of the stolen election of 2002 that Diebold's DRE voting machines "won" for Chambliss, effecting an overnight 12% reversal of the pre-election tracking polls that showed Chambliss trailing the popular Democratic incumbent Max Cleland by 5 points.
In that same election, the disparity between polls and the machine count was even more extreme in the governor's race, in which Republican candidate Sonny Perdue miraculously gained 16 points to defeat Democratic incumbent Roy Barnes.
Unfortunately, Georgia's voters in tomorrow's election are still held hostage by the same all-paperless DRE voting machines that took over the state in 2002 when the state of Georgia handed total control of its elections to Diebold Election Systems, Inc. Only the name has been changed (to Premier Election Systems) to deflect attention from the guilty.
Source: Velvet Revolution and PR Newswire
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Diebold-Vote-Company-Whistleblower...
Diebold Vote Company Whistleblower and GOP Cyber Security Expert:
2002 Chambliss Senate Race Was Rigged
Last update: 9:44 a.m. EST Dec. 1, 2008
WASHINGTON, Dec 01, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ --
On the eve of the Georgia runoff election for U.S. Senate, Velvet Revolution has circulated the following national press release (appearing on the Wall Street Journal's "Market Watch" website, among other prominent placements) exposing the circumstances of the 2002 Georgia midterm election of Saxby Chambliss to the U.S. Senate -- possibly the single most blatant voting machine election rig in U.S. history.
VR has also placed a full-page advertisement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper, reminding Georgia's voters of the stolen election of 2002 that Diebold's DRE voting machines "won" for Chambliss, effecting an overnight 12% reversal of the pre-election tracking polls that showed Chambliss trailing the popular Democratic incumbent Max Cleland by 5 points.
In that same election, the disparity between polls and the machine count was even more extreme in the governor's race, in which Republican candidate Sonny Perdue miraculously gained 16 points to defeat Democratic incumbent Roy Barnes.
Unfortunately, Georgia's voters in tomorrow's election are still held hostage by the same all-paperless DRE voting machines that took over the state in 2002 when the state of Georgia handed total control of its elections to Diebold Election Systems, Inc. Only the name has been changed (to Premier Election Systems) to deflect attention from the guilty.
Source: Velvet Revolution and PR Newswire
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Diebold-Vote-Company-Whistleblower...
Diebold Vote Company Whistleblower and GOP Cyber Security Expert:
2002 Chambliss Senate Race Was Rigged
Last update: 9:44 a.m. EST Dec. 1, 2008
WASHINGTON, Dec 01, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ --
Judge Rules Michigan Voter Purge Program Violates Federal Law
Source: The Advancement Project
UNITED STATES STUDENT ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION v. LAND
Judge Rules Michigan Voter Purge Program Violates Federal Law
October 14, 2008
In a major victory for voting rights, a judge yesterday ruled that Michigan's voter removal program violates federal law and ordered the state to stop illegally purging voters from the rolls. The decision comes in a lawsuit filed last month by Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, and the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP.
"We are gratified that the judge ordered the state of Michigan to halt its unlawful purge program," said Bradley Heard, senior attorney with Advancement Project. "This decision protects thousands of Michigan residents' voting rights from being infringed upon during this important and historic presidential election, and beyond. It is now up to the state of Michigan to afford these voters the protections that federal law requires."
Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that one of Michigan's voter removal programs violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). In question was a Michigan state law requiring local clerks to nullify the registrations of newly-registered voters whenever their original voter identification cards are returned by the post office as undeliverable. Detroit elections officials report that nearly 30,000 voters per year in that city alone are removed from the rolls as a result of this state election law. The NVRA permits voters to remain on the voter rolls for at least two federal elections after voter registration cards are returned.
TERRI LYNN LAND, Michigan Secretary of State;
Source: The Advancement Project
UNITED STATES STUDENT ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION v. LAND
Judge Rules Michigan Voter Purge Program Violates Federal Law
October 14, 2008
In a major victory for voting rights, a judge yesterday ruled that Michigan's voter removal program violates federal law and ordered the state to stop illegally purging voters from the rolls. The decision comes in a lawsuit filed last month by Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, and the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP.
"We are gratified that the judge ordered the state of Michigan to halt its unlawful purge program," said Bradley Heard, senior attorney with Advancement Project. "This decision protects thousands of Michigan residents' voting rights from being infringed upon during this important and historic presidential election, and beyond. It is now up to the state of Michigan to afford these voters the protections that federal law requires."
Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that one of Michigan's voter removal programs violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). In question was a Michigan state law requiring local clerks to nullify the registrations of newly-registered voters whenever their original voter identification cards are returned by the post office as undeliverable. Detroit elections officials report that nearly 30,000 voters per year in that city alone are removed from the rolls as a result of this state election law. The NVRA permits voters to remain on the voter rolls for at least two federal elections after voter registration cards are returned.
TERRI LYNN LAND, Michigan Secretary of State;
Machine Flipped Your Vote? Sounds Like a "User Problem"
'Sharon Rowe was not able to check the ballot images
because she was forbidden from doing so
by the office of the Texas Secretary of State.'
By Tom Manaugh
EDA Investigations Working Group
In Texas, a so-called audit step involves randomly selecting some computer-generated ballot images and manually determining whether the vote totals are accurate. They always are, according to elections administrators.
But are the ballot images themselves a valid reflection of the voting selections of voters?
Apparently not. In November of 2006 in Collin County, Texas, Marilyn Blankenship noticed that her vote selections were not being accurately shown on a Diebold touchscreen. In several instances, she would touch one name, but another selection was indicated on the screen. In each case, she corrected the selection and proceeded with voting.
After making all her selections, she was presented with the summary screen. It was wrong. Several of the selections shown on the summary screen were different from what she had originally chosen.
Ms. Blankenship made corrections to the summary screen and submitted her ballot. She complained to the precinct election judge about what had happened and then left the polling pace with no confidence that her votes had been accurately recorded.
Ms. Blankenship then contacted Sharon Rowe, the elections administrator for Collin County to report that the election equipment was faulty. She also complained to the office of the Texas Secretary of State.
By Tom Manaugh In Texas, a so-called audit step involves randomly selecting some computer-generated ballot images and manually determining whether the vote totals are accurate. They always are, according to elections administrators. But are the ballot images themselves a valid reflection of the voting selections of voters? Apparently not. In November of 2006 in Collin County, Texas, Marilyn Blankenship noticed that her vote selections were not being accurately shown on a Diebold touchscreen. In several instances, she would touch one name, but another selection was indicated on the screen. In each case, she corrected the selection and proceeded with voting. After making all her selections, she was presented with the summary screen. It was wrong. Several of the selections shown on the summary screen were different from what she had originally chosen. Ms. Blankenship made corrections to the summary screen and submitted her ballot. She complained to the precinct election judge about what had happened and then left the polling pace with no confidence that her votes had been accurately recorded. Ms. Blankenship then contacted Sharon Rowe, the elections administrator for Collin County to report that the election equipment was faulty. She also complained to the office of the Texas Secretary of State.
because she was forbidden from doing so
by the office of the Texas Secretary of State.'
EDA Investigations Working Group
Reverse Mississippi's Deliberate Ballot Design Manipulation
Action of the Day 091708 -- [prepared by the Care2 Petition Site: http://www.care2.com ]
EDA editor's note: We are reproducing the text of the Care2 Alert verbatim.
The facts speak for themselves. Republican officials in Mississippi in charge of the state's election procedures have deliberately chosen to alter ballot design in violation of state law and common sense, with the predictable result that voters will be disoriented and many will probably error when voting on the U.S. Senate race.
Denouncing the perpetrators of partisan election manipulations like this one is NOT a partisan act on our part.
Election fraud, manipulation, and dirty tricks are wrong no matter who the perpetrators are -- and it is a multipartisan civic duty to put a stop to it.
Republican officials in Mississippi must be desperate. They're pulling out the stops in election shenanigans in an attempt to confuse voters, hoping to push a close Senate contest to the Republican candidate.
Tell the Mississippi governor: The purposefully confusing ballot is illegal!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA
The Republican Secretary of State decided to bury the Senate race below all local contests on the ballot.
The race, between interim Senator Roger Wicker -- a Republican temporarily appointed to replace Trent Lott -- and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, is expected to be close, making it one of the most important in the state.
Not only does burying this Senate race below all the local ones confuse voters, it's a direct violation of state election law, which clearly states that federal races must be on the top of the ballot!
Tell Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- who approved the ballot -- to reverse his decision in order to maintain the integrity of America's electoral process!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA
Action of the Day 091708 -- [prepared by the Care2 Petition Site: http://www.care2.com ]
EDA editor's note: We are reproducing the text of the Care2 Alert verbatim.
The facts speak for themselves. Republican officials in Mississippi in charge of the state's election procedures have deliberately chosen to alter ballot design in violation of state law and common sense, with the predictable result that voters will be disoriented and many will probably error when voting on the U.S. Senate race.
Denouncing the perpetrators of partisan election manipulations like this one is NOT a partisan act on our part.
Election fraud, manipulation, and dirty tricks are wrong no matter who the perpetrators are -- and it is a multipartisan civic duty to put a stop to it.
Republican officials in Mississippi must be desperate. They're pulling out the stops in election shenanigans in an attempt to confuse voters, hoping to push a close Senate contest to the Republican candidate.
Tell the Mississippi governor: The purposefully confusing ballot is illegal!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA
The Republican Secretary of State decided to bury the Senate race below all local contests on the ballot.
The race, between interim Senator Roger Wicker -- a Republican temporarily appointed to replace Trent Lott -- and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, is expected to be close, making it one of the most important in the state.
Not only does burying this Senate race below all the local ones confuse voters, it's a direct violation of state election law, which clearly states that federal races must be on the top of the ballot!
Tell Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- who approved the ballot -- to reverse his decision in order to maintain the integrity of America's electoral process!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA
John Brakey Arrested While Officially Observing Count
While monitoring a handcount of ballots from the September 3rd Arizona primary, in his capacity as an official election observer for the Democratic and Libertarian parties, EDA Investigations Co-Coordinator John Brakey was arrested and ejected from the Pima County election headquarters on orders of Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson.
Brakey had noticed that several of the incoming bags containing ballots from the precincts had unsecured or missing seals. The seal failures appeared to be the result of pollworkers not knowing how to properly lock them.
Brakey then wondered whether the serial numbers on the bag seals matched the serial numbers recorded by the precinct pollworkers when they sealed the ballots. One question led to another, and Brakey ended up in handcuffs.
http://fatallyflawedthemovie.com/pages/brakeyarrested.html
Seal serial numbers are supposed to be recorded on yellow report sheets, called "End of Day Certification Reports." The certification sheets are supposed to be signed by all precinct pollworkers and included with the ballots inside the delivery bags. The bags are supposed to remain sealed until opened for counting at county election headquarters.
In one bag, instead of the signed official certification sheets, there was instead a slip of white paper with what Brakey said were "two illegible, scrawled signatures." Brakey watched Election Manager Brad Nelson read the slip, say he recognized who the two pollworkers were, and approve acceptance of that bag of ballots for counting.
Brakey found it rather remarkable that Nelson would be so familiar with the county's 3000 pollworkers that he could identify two of them by illegible scrawls on a slip of paper.
Brakey then began checking other incoming ballot bags. In the first 7 successive ballot bags he checked, the required yellow certification reports were missing. This included bags with open seals, as well as bags with seals intact.
While monitoring a handcount of ballots from the September 3rd Arizona primary, in his capacity as an official election observer for the Democratic and Libertarian parties, EDA Investigations Co-Coordinator John Brakey was arrested and ejected from the Pima County election headquarters on orders of Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson.
Brakey had noticed that several of the incoming bags containing ballots from the precincts had unsecured or missing seals. The seal failures appeared to be the result of pollworkers not knowing how to properly lock them.
Brakey then wondered whether the serial numbers on the bag seals matched the serial numbers recorded by the precinct pollworkers when they sealed the ballots. One question led to another, and Brakey ended up in handcuffs.
http://fatallyflawedthemovie.com/pages/brakeyarrested.html
Seal serial numbers are supposed to be recorded on yellow report sheets, called "End of Day Certification Reports." The certification sheets are supposed to be signed by all precinct pollworkers and included with the ballots inside the delivery bags. The bags are supposed to remain sealed until opened for counting at county election headquarters.
In one bag, instead of the signed official certification sheets, there was instead a slip of white paper with what Brakey said were "two illegible, scrawled signatures." Brakey watched Election Manager Brad Nelson read the slip, say he recognized who the two pollworkers were, and approve acceptance of that bag of ballots for counting.
Brakey found it rather remarkable that Nelson would be so familiar with the county's 3000 pollworkers that he could identify two of them by illegible scrawls on a slip of paper.
Brakey then began checking other incoming ballot bags. In the first 7 successive ballot bags he checked, the required yellow certification reports were missing. This included bags with open seals, as well as bags with seals intact.
Scientific American Assesses E-voting Risks and Costs
Sopurce: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=electronic-election-day#comments
August 18, 2008 in Scientific American
Planning to E-Vote? Read This First
With less than three months before the presidential election, the hotly contested state, Ohio, along with others, continue to have problems with E-voting technology
By Larry Greenemeier
ELECTRONIC VOTING: Most states have invested in some type of E-voting technology. Are they confident enough to use it on election day?
In their rush to avoid a repeat of the controversy that plagued the 2000 presidential election, and to meet the requirements of Congress's hastily mandated2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states and counties flocked to electronic voting systems they hoped would eliminate hanging chads and other flaws inherent in paper-based systems. Six years later, with another presidential election less than three months away, many e-voting systems are fraught with security glitches, and the technology has yet to prove itself as the solution voters were looking for.
Such systems could allow voters and poll workers to place multiple votes, crash the systems by loading viruses, and fake vote tallies, according to studies commissioned by the states of California and Ohio within the past year. Makers of these systems have countered that the test settings were unrealistic. But that is not helping election officials sleep better at night.
Sopurce: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=electronic-election-day#comments
August 18, 2008 in Scientific American
Planning to E-Vote? Read This First
With less than three months before the presidential election, the hotly contested state, Ohio, along with others, continue to have problems with E-voting technology
By Larry Greenemeier
ELECTRONIC VOTING: Most states have invested in some type of E-voting technology. Are they confident enough to use it on election day?
In their rush to avoid a repeat of the controversy that plagued the 2000 presidential election, and to meet the requirements of Congress's hastily mandated2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states and counties flocked to electronic voting systems they hoped would eliminate hanging chads and other flaws inherent in paper-based systems. Six years later, with another presidential election less than three months away, many e-voting systems are fraught with security glitches, and the technology has yet to prove itself as the solution voters were looking for.
Such systems could allow voters and poll workers to place multiple votes, crash the systems by loading viruses, and fake vote tallies, according to studies commissioned by the states of California and Ohio within the past year. Makers of these systems have countered that the test settings were unrealistic. But that is not helping election officials sleep better at night.
Suit Filed to Enforce Ballot Security for November Election
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/08/state/n14333...
"The suit also requests a formal finding that a failure to account for all ballots issued at any polling place constitutes evidence of potential fraud."
Group Seeks Tighter Ballot Security in San Diego
By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
(08-08) 14:33 PDT San Diego, CA (AP) --
A voting-rights group has asked a judge to order tougher enforcement of anti-fraud measures in San Diego County for November's presidential elections, saying officials failed to investigate lapses in ballot security during February's primary.
"We goofed!" was the explanation a poll worker offered for why the total number of ballots cast at one precinct did not match the number of signatures in the voter log book, according to documents in the lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court.
Election workers at county headquarters accepted unsealed and unsigned boxes of ballots for processing, according to statements from volunteers who observed the February tally. A troubleshooting log indicated dispatchers told poll workers not to worry about missing seals after the county ran out of the red locking tabs.
"We don't know how the anomalies in the process affected the results," said lawyer Ken Karan, who filed the lawsuit July 31 on behalf of a member of the San Diego-based group Psephos. "But we do have an important election coming up and we want to insure that the results are as accurate as possible."
Karan said his group had presented its concerns in meetings with Deborah Seiler, San Diego's top election official, after the election but said he was not aware of any investigation or review by the registrar's office of potential tampering.
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/08/state/n14333...
"The suit also requests a formal finding that a failure to account for all ballots issued at any polling place constitutes evidence of potential fraud."
Group Seeks Tighter Ballot Security in San Diego
By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
(08-08) 14:33 PDT San Diego, CA (AP) --
A voting-rights group has asked a judge to order tougher enforcement of anti-fraud measures in San Diego County for November's presidential elections, saying officials failed to investigate lapses in ballot security during February's primary.
"We goofed!" was the explanation a poll worker offered for why the total number of ballots cast at one precinct did not match the number of signatures in the voter log book, according to documents in the lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court.
Election workers at county headquarters accepted unsealed and unsigned boxes of ballots for processing, according to statements from volunteers who observed the February tally. A troubleshooting log indicated dispatchers told poll workers not to worry about missing seals after the county ran out of the red locking tabs.
"We don't know how the anomalies in the process affected the results," said lawyer Ken Karan, who filed the lawsuit July 31 on behalf of a member of the San Diego-based group Psephos. "But we do have an important election coming up and we want to insure that the results are as accurate as possible."
Karan said his group had presented its concerns in meetings with Deborah Seiler, San Diego's top election official, after the election but said he was not aware of any investigation or review by the registrar's office of potential tampering.
Insist on Voting Rights, Go to Jail
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&fo...
Show Me, Missouri: Voter Arrested for Upholding the Law
"Look, you are breaking their rules. If you don't get out of here, we are going to arrest you!"
The question I had in response was, "Their rules? What rules? Those are employees of the Election Board, they are under the mandate of the Election Board, and then the SoS. Aren't you more concerned about the breaking of state laws?" As it turns out, apparently they were not.
I will try to be as brief as possible with the description of my day as I can manage. But, since there are some sticky points, I will also try to be clear and complete. If anyone finds questions still hanging after reading this entry, and the comments already made above in response to Proud2Blib's post, I will gladly answer.
I, Galloglas, went to vote today and encountered difficuly. And, it is important to point out that this was not the first time I've run onto problems this year.
When I voted in Missouri's Presidential primary in February, 2008, I took the proper identification to my precinct and attempted to cast my ballot. The identification requirements are spelled out graphically on our Secretary of State's Web Site which can be found at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid /.
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&fo... I will try to be as brief as possible with the description of my day as I can manage. But, since there are some sticky points, I will also try to be clear and complete. If anyone finds questions still hanging after reading this entry, and the comments already made above in response to Proud2Blib's post, I will gladly answer. I, Galloglas, went to vote today and encountered difficuly. And, it is important to point out that this was not the first time I've run onto problems this year. When I voted in Missouri's Presidential primary in February, 2008, I took the proper identification to my precinct and attempted to cast my ballot. The identification requirements are spelled out graphically on our Secretary of State's Web Site which can be found at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid /.
Show Me, Missouri: Voter Arrested for Upholding the Law
"Look, you are breaking their rules. If you don't get out of here, we are going to arrest you!"
The question I had in response was, "Their rules? What rules? Those are employees of the Election Board, they are under the mandate of the Election Board, and then the SoS. Aren't you more concerned about the breaking of state laws?" As it turns out, apparently they were not.
Brunner Issues Statewide Ohio Voting Security Directives
The Office of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
July 23, 2008
For Immediate Release
SECRETARY BRUNNER ISSUES HISTORIC STATEWIDE VOTING SECURITY BEST PRACTICES
COLUMBUS, OH – Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has implemented the first in a series of voting security directives that have been crafted in partnership with a bipartisan workgroup of local elections officials.
The voting security directives are part of the secretary of state's focus on preparing "best practices," in partnership with local elections officials, for a successful Nov. 4, 2008 general election.
The secretary of state's office provided draft recommendations to county boards of elections and solicited their ideas and concerns before issuing these directives.
"Preparing for a successful election for our state depends on consistent standards no matter where someone votes. Every county will be developing security plans based on "best practices" developed in cooperation with local elections officials. This is designed to guarantee a uniformity of rights for all of Ohio's voters," Secretary Brunner said.
"Many of these security recommendations have been characterized as common-sense and are already in use across Ohio. Others will require training and new procedures by boards of elections. We believe these security procedures will help us meet our goal is to ensure voter confidence and to be prepared for any scenario, including a record turnout," she said.
The directives issued this week are:
* Directive 2008-57 provides security and risk-mitigation guidelines for ballots and election data media such as voting machine memory cards.
July 23, 2008
For Immediate Release
SECRETARY BRUNNER ISSUES HISTORIC STATEWIDE VOTING SECURITY BEST PRACTICES
COLUMBUS, OH – Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has implemented the first in a series of voting security directives that have been crafted in partnership with a bipartisan workgroup of local elections officials.
The voting security directives are part of the secretary of state's focus on preparing "best practices," in partnership with local elections officials, for a successful Nov. 4, 2008 general election.
The secretary of state's office provided draft recommendations to county boards of elections and solicited their ideas and concerns before issuing these directives.
"Preparing for a successful election for our state depends on consistent standards no matter where someone votes. Every county will be developing security plans based on "best practices" developed in cooperation with local elections officials. This is designed to guarantee a uniformity of rights for all of Ohio's voters," Secretary Brunner said.
"Many of these security recommendations have been characterized as common-sense and are already in use across Ohio. Others will require training and new procedures by boards of elections. We believe these security procedures will help us meet our goal is to ensure voter confidence and to be prepared for any scenario, including a record turnout," she said.
The directives issued this week are:
* Directive 2008-57 provides security and risk-mitigation guidelines for ballots and election data media such as voting machine memory cards.
FISA Amendment Just In Time To Steal Election
Originally published at:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1677
Senate votes Tuesday, 7/8
FISA Amendment Just In Time To Steal Election
By Elliot D. Cohen
Senate Democrats and Republicans alike are now poised to pass H.R. 6304, known as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a bill touted by both House and Senate leaders to be a compromise proposal to prior Senate Bill 2248. Unfortunately, H.R. 6304 may give the Bush administration, in its last months, the ammunition it needs to hijack the 2008 presidential election.
It has been known for some time that, since 2001, the Bush administration has conducted mass surveillance of the email and telephone calls made by American citizens. All electronic messages passing through switches in the US, regardless of whether they were international or domestic communications, have been systematically intercepted and screened by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Technologies, which were installed at major hubs of telecommunication companies throughout the nation copy and deposit all electronic messages into a giant NSA computer network. The NSA then uses complex algorithms to parse through these messages using matching criteria such as key words, phone numbers, and dates, and linking these data to further data--anything from credit card and bank records to movie rentals.
H.R. 6304 does not, on the face of it, require that these complex algorithms that are used to parse through our electronic messages be examined and approved by a FISA Court. The role of the FISA Court seems to be limited to approving the general design of the software used in conducting acquisitions of information.
Originally published at:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1677
Senate votes Tuesday, 7/8
FISA Amendment Just In Time To Steal Election
By Elliot D. Cohen
Senate Democrats and Republicans alike are now poised to pass H.R. 6304, known as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a bill touted by both House and Senate leaders to be a compromise proposal to prior Senate Bill 2248. Unfortunately, H.R. 6304 may give the Bush administration, in its last months, the ammunition it needs to hijack the 2008 presidential election.
It has been known for some time that, since 2001, the Bush administration has conducted mass surveillance of the email and telephone calls made by American citizens. All electronic messages passing through switches in the US, regardless of whether they were international or domestic communications, have been systematically intercepted and screened by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Technologies, which were installed at major hubs of telecommunication companies throughout the nation copy and deposit all electronic messages into a giant NSA computer network. The NSA then uses complex algorithms to parse through these messages using matching criteria such as key words, phone numbers, and dates, and linking these data to further data--anything from credit card and bank records to movie rentals.
H.R. 6304 does not, on the face of it, require that these complex algorithms that are used to parse through our electronic messages be examined and approved by a FISA Court. The role of the FISA Court seems to be limited to approving the general design of the software used in conducting acquisitions of information.
10,000 Election Simulation proves effectiveness of UBS ballot count validation system. 
