Skip to main content

View Diary: Diebold settles CA lawsuit Bev began for $2.6 million [Update] (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, god, she made a fool of herself again... (3.00)
    ...i'm getting VERY worried here guys.

    The picture clearly shows the "connection" is via diskette ("sneakernet", if you will,) showing there is no direct connection between the machines.

    •  What? (none)
      Did you read the article?  Besides, what about the clearly pictured connection to "web server" (where she has drawn a red arrow), her description of the written materials, and her interviews reported in the article?

      I don't know computer technology, so apparently you see something I can't see (and that she didn't see).  But even if she was wrong as you suggest, she dug into the problem and dug up evidence of a problem (bad evidence, in your opinion), and she got it out there. People like you who know more about the tech aspects might just have found that to be useful information.  I don't see how she has "made a fool of herself" by digging up that information and publishing it in a little-known publication or web page for others to scrutinize and critique.

      "Now watch this drive."

      by tompaine2004 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:38:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look immediately to the left of the Web server (none)
        ... and you see an icon representing a diskette. That means the data is transferred from the voting machine to a disk, and the disk can then be used in a Web server to display the results online, without a connection directly to the voting machine.

        People she quotes in the article say as much, but she doesn't seem to understand what they're saying. She hears the word "modem" and takes that as proof of an Internet connection, even when the person she's quoting is saying just the opposite.

        The reason it's problematic is that if there was real fraud, we're not going to get anyone to take real evidence seriously if what is seen as "our side" has a history of wildly inaccurate accusations.

        •  Yes, this is very bad. (none)
          I no longer have any faith in Bev Harris. Her accusations that i've seen are terrible, as she has no idea what she's talking about (and why should she?), but she has done a good job of unfishing some things.

          I mean, my god, if she were to find proof, they would pull out this document and say "look at what a loon this lady is! You can't take her seriously!"

          I'm really sorry I placed my faith in her, no offense to anyone. I know she is doing her best, working very hard, and doing what she thinks is right - but she's come off as a nutjob (and perhaps is becoming one, although I don't blame her,) and is using very bad methodology, and is just making people laugh at the whole thing, essentially ruining the case. At least come clean and say "I screwed this up" for gods sake.

          Has anyone informed her of the blatant errors in her article?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site