Slashdot Mirror
Feds to Open BlackBoxVoting User Logs?
Doc Ruby writes "Investigating a crack of eVoting company VoteHere, the FBI is said to be issuing a subpoena for the traffic logs of journalist Beverly Harris' BlackBoxVoting website. The FBI is pursuing Harris on the theory that her site is the connection between incriminating memos leaked from (VoteHere competitor) Diebold and the intrusion into VoteHere's servers. Are you on the list?"
Unfortately, it's hard to run a web fourm without logging at least something... and they keep a registered user list.
Bev Harris Speaks on Secret Service Issue
The people given a warrant are not always suspected of doing something wrong. They're just thought to have evidence or clues that might help prove that somebody did something criminal.
You misunderstand the purpose of these "reciepts". They stay at the ballot box, and are availiable for recounts and audits. The voter does not take them home, and thus cannot prove how he voted. Futhermore, they do not identify who the voter is. They may have an ID that corresponds to the vote in the electronic database, but this is also not linked to the voter. A piece of paper printed by a machine and checked by the voter is just as good as on filled in by hand.
You are right that taking hardcopies home would be a stupid idea, but I have honestly not heard a single person suggest that. Unfortunately, someone started calling them reciepts, and it caught on and now everyone is all confused because they think these hardcopies are used the same way as a normal reciept. Damn it, I knew this was going to happen the first time I saw that word in a major article.
Why? Shooting the messenger is just so much easier. And rewarding. Especially when the messenger has so much less political capital than those who are the subject of the message.
Except that stuff isn't in the logs, it's in the actual content of the website. This is BlackBoxVoting we're talking about. All their evidence against Diebold is out in the open. They aren't exactly hiding that light under a bushel. If that's what they're looking for, the Feds have no need of a subpoena to find it.
Unlike discovery in a trial, "fishing" warrants are perfectly legit, assuming you've got a sufficently friendly judge.
With the number of U.S. slashdotters out there, we can certainly bump this in the thousands, go sign the petition:
h tml
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BlackBoxVoting.org.
Go and show that it's not just a dozen paranoid freaks out there that think the system is broken.
Um, no. First of all, the jury selection process has become the jury tampering process. A jury of peers should be a randomly-selected group of eligible people, but it's more or less handpicked nowadays. The verdict is often decided by which lawyer is craftiest in "disqualifying" potential jurors. Jurors in the pool should not be asked any questions aside from:
Do you personally know the plaintiff or defendant?
Do you have any hearsay knowledge of this case?
Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been the victim of a similar crime?
Anything else is jury tampering, and jurors should refuse to answer!
Second, there is the question of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors seldom inform juries of their right and responsibility to return a "not guilty" verdict if they feel that the law does not reflect the values of the community or has not been applied appropriately. Jury nullification is the final check against the legislative and executive functions of government, and it has a long and established history. However, citizens have been harassed and even charged with contempt of court for exercising this sacred right.
Lazy, paranoid and helpfull.
wget -m http://www.blackboxvoting.org ; chmod -R a+rx *
At your service. As we speak. Univeristy-class hosting.
You might notice a slight glitch, but I'll have that corrected.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Grand Juries aren't about doing whatever the Prosecutor wants. Usually, they're about doing whatever the citizens want - the Prosecutor can ask them to investigate something, but there is no requirement that they do so. The Prosecutor can present all sorts of evidence that a crime has occurred, and the Grand Jury can vote not to indict (we did, in one case), and the Prosecutor can tell the Grand Jury not to indict someone, and have them indicted anyway (we did that too).
The reason Grand Juries are secret is that there are no Fifth Amendment protections when facing a Grand Jury. Yes, a Grand Jury can require you to answer a question you'd rather not (like, "Did you kill your wife?"). That said, testifying before a Grand Jury grants immunity to prosecution for any crimes discussed in your testimony. So, we had to be VERY careful about who we "invited" to talk to us. Wouldn't do at all to accidently invite the murderer to testify, thinking he was just a material witness....
It should further be noted that the Grand Jury concept came about to protect people from abuses by the government. No matter what the government says, the Grand Jury can indict or not at its whim - and if it refuses to indict, the Prosecutor/DA is just SOL, no matter how bad he wants a trial.
And finally, even if this person whose logs are being subpoena'd is considered "one of the good guys", and even if Diebold and the Republicans are "bad guys", stealing things is still illegal, so the Grand Jury investigation may be warranted.
And even more finally, why are you people whinging about this? The lady is a journalist, which means she can invoke Source Protection laws, if applicable, and refuse to turn over any information....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yesterday, a judge threw out the case against Greenpeace. Still, it shows just what a corrupt, authoritarian bunch of crooks are in charge in the administration.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!