Did that BBV thread just get expunged???

What happened? Why?

Perhaps the "full name" thing. Drat.

why the censorship here?

If I was to do it again (no patience for that, though) I'd simplify it and take it up a notch, away from the DU players and put it all firmly in the laps of the businesses and law firms.

Got a lot of very good insights, though.

The reason it was so stream of consciousness is that I just wanted to spit out the chronology and the facts; when you cut it down to size it forces you to edit, which forces you to decide what's important, which forces you to slant it a certain way.

I guess I just wanted to see what others thought, seeing the whole strange chain of events. I think I got a lot of perspectives that were helpful.

EDIT: Never mind, just saw the reply :P

?

The players:

ISPs
Registrar
Domain name reseller
Lawyers
Other lawyers

That's what I'd boil it down to.

I sent a note tonight to a very good friend in Washington who has been in the hot seat (to put it mildly) over investigative reporting. He has seven books in print (and has been a NYT bestseller). He's a bigwig in several of the organizations that protect writers. I asked him for ideas on getting some legal help. He's another bulldog and simply can't be intimidated. Many people in power fear him. I'll pass on whatever he says, and if he wants to be put in touch with you directly, I'll let you know.


In the meantime, I wonder if you have thought about getting in touch with Larry Flynt? Does he know about Diebold?

that reminds me, I'm supposed to return a phone call.

They've been on this story since FEBRUARY!

.....get the other chapters finished! :spank: :evilgrin:
We got work to do girl! :)
Thanks! :toast:

Over and out.

Love ya, Pat.

Make things much clearer to me....

:)

What really happened to BlackBoxVoting.org

Edited on Sun Oct-19-03 01:35 AM by BevHarris
Here is your weird bedtime story of the weekend. It's a mystery story. Maybe you guys can figure this out. For the life of me, I can't.

1) BlackBoxVoting.org is a site domain that I own. I felt it was important to have my own site, rather than being dependent at all times on a site owned by my publisher. As it turns out, thank goodness we both have had sites!

2) DemActivist volunteered to set it up. I had no idea this requires programming (shows how old-school I am with HTML, and also why my web pages are so ugly and hard to update). She did a brilliant job.

3) In mid-September, the ISP Tiger Tech shut my site down with no advance notice, right before the close of business day on a Friday. The reason was that they said I sent a press release which violates their spam policy. I've been in the PR business for a decade or more, and all PR firms send press releases, and we use a pricey opt-in list that requires a subscription of around $2500 a year. Such a policy is unheard of, since the press gets their material from press releases and they request being on the lists. The only time you get a complaint is if you send a press release about, say, baking cookies, to an automotive editor. Then they just tell you to pick the right editor next time.

No matter. Shut down, and I had to move. I was working on moving the site to Bookzone, which does a wonderful job, but Demactivist found a reseller named Gator Graphics, run by Bev Conover, who in turn leases from AIT Inc. Conover, bless her heart, was willing to help us get the site up over the weekend. Apparently the configuration was troublesome, because DemActivist had to work quite hard to get it changed over, and I appreciated that, and told her so.

4) Around the third week of September, I posted the same article Alastair (Scoop Media) did, about the Ken Clark memo, which included the memo. We got a cease and desist from Diebold. James Baker, the attorney for AIT Inc, the ISP who was served, stood firm and told them to go back to the drawing boards and write a better complaint. By the time they did, we took the page down and just put a link to it. To this day, the page is still up at Alastair's Scoop Media. Thus, when the new cease & desist arrived, it was pointless.

5) During the last week of September, a participant at our forum posted a link to a page with links to memos. There was a lively discussion at DU about the memos, and bpilgrim created the handiest tool ever for research with them, a search engine. Both bpilgrim's site and BlackBoxVoting.org got cease & desists. bpilgrim's site took the search engine down. Here's where it got strange.

Tuesday morning: Cease & Desist. Site still up. AIT (the ISP) attorney James Baker says he's trying to look up the law to know whether he has to comply with a DMCA pulldown on a link to a link.

Tuesday morning: Demactivist talks to Cindy Cohn at EFF.
Tuesday afternoon: James Baker still hasn't decided what to do. He's told to wait for a call from Cindy Cohn at EFF, who has the expertise to advise him.

Tuesday afternoon: Cindy Cohn from EFF calls James Baker. The content of the discussion is currently in some dispute. I have gotten two stories from Cindy Cohn about this, and they do not match. (This is not "trashing her" -- I'm just reporting my conversations. And as you know, I take pretty good notes.)

Tuesday afternoon: Within an hour after James Baker talked to Cindy Cohn of EFF, our site was taken down. Instead of just taking down the page, all 300 pages were down, a clear case of overreaching.

Tuesday afternoon: I called EFF. I spoke with Cindy Cohn. She told me she was sorry that she had to inform James Baker they had liability if they keep the site up. I asked if they had to take the whole thing down. She said they are within their rights to do so. I asked if EFF could help me or Black Box Voting. She said the EFF has no time to help me or Black Box Voting. She said that a case she is working on with Dr. David Dill and Avi Rubin is taking a tremendous amount of time.

Tuesday evening I read on DU that there was a message about a dispute with Diebold on BBV.org, so I went to look at the message on my site. I could only see a page for Gator Graphics. I called Demactivist, who told me that she and Bev Conover could go there, but my ISP address had been blocked from visiting my site. I thought this was strange. First, why block my ISP from visiting my own take-down page. Next, why are they telling DemActivist about it, not me? Third, if they are communicating with her because she's the webmaster, why not block her access from it if they are blocking mine? And fourth, I wasn't even at my normal computer or on my normal service. I was using someone else's AOL account. How did they know to block that?

Tuesday evening Cindy Cohn sent me an email strongly recommending I switch to an ISP run by Marc Perkel, who is associated with fud and Bartcop. I didn't reply.

Tuesday evening Demactivist told what I had to do: keep the link up and fight them legally. I told her I'm so broke I can't pay my mortgage, much less a lawyer. She hung up on me.

Next call: I asked who got at the page to publish the statement about Diebold. She said Bev Conover. I asked if I could upload something. Demactivist said no, she could but I was prohibited from access. I asked if she would upload something for me. She said no, that would get Bev Conover in trouble.

By this time it was 10 p.m. east coast, nothing could be done until morning anyway. I said I didn't see the point of making a decision until morning. Exploring options, I said it would be kind of funny to take the link down and put the cease and desist letter in its place, since the letter had the link in it four times. She became angry and said no, you CAN'T take the link down.

She hung up on me and emailed her resignation as webmaster. I found that a bit baffling; why not discuss options? At any rate, since the lawsuit would be filed against me personally, never Demactivist, and EFF had said they would not represent me, I wanted the night to think it over. I wasn't sure it was worth shutting the whole site down over a link that could be found elsewhere.

Wednesday morning Eloriel called to tell me that Demactivist wanted to let me know they'd have to distance themselves from me, and that she sounded really upbeat, really excited about something. I asked what was up, why would someone "need to distance themselves?" I got no explanation whatsoever -- haven't to this day, and I must tell you that this has been very, very painful. I have racked my brain for this terrible thing I must have done to make people have to "distance themselves." Anyone who has seen the book chapters can see the quality of my work. Anyone who's worked directly with me knows I have integrity. Why the sudden leprosy?

Wednesday My DU email kept getting new messages, but told me I was forbidden to have access whenever I tried to get it. I couldn't get to it for several days. Figured it was a glitch.

Wednesday I got two more emails from EFF urging me to switch BlackBoxVoting.org to Marc Perkel. I got one from Marc Perkel. I said thanks but no thanks. All in all, over the next few days, I got no less than EIGHT increasingly urgent requests to switch to Marc Perkel as a new ISP. I was supposed to switch, but EFF still would not help me. WTF?

Wednesday Bev Conover called and said access to the FTP site was taken away for some reason, and she couldn't get an answer about what was going on with the site. 48 hours later, she said she still couldn't get any answers. I tried calling James Baker. No return call.

Friday morning I decided something had to be done. I sent a press release about the confiscation of our FTP files -- DemActivist emailed David Allen to say they weren't confiscated (how did she know?) and that I'd put people in danger by sending that release. All I can say is WTF?

Friday afternoon Thanks to a former DUer who found a lawyer to help me, I had a great conversation with an attorney from the Samuelson Center at UC Berkeley. She requested copies of everything and called me back, said they'd decided to help BBV. A couple hours later, she called back to tell me she'd discovered a conflict of interest. I asked her what conflict it could be, and why she didn't know of it that morning. She said that her firm does work with Cindy Cohn of EFF, and that Cindy had a case that this would conflict with. "There are other cases afoot," she said. What? Can someone fill me in?

I became upset at this point. I explained to her the importance of what we are doing, and asked if she could do just one more thing: pick up the phone, recommend to a colleague somewhere -- anywhere -- that I needed help, and let me try to find someone else. She said "sorry, can't help." She said Cindy Cohn had an ISP she recommended that I switch to...

Friday My publisher, David Allen, called and schmoozed tech to tech with the ISP, AIT Inc. The techs there told him that the password had been changed, but they decided to let him get the FTP files, so they gave him access. He spent Friday night downloading files (This is much appreciated, but also a bit strange. He does not own the site, I do. They let someone else get the files, but not me???)

Friday David posted to DU that he'd gotten hold of the files. He then received an e-mail from Demactivist telling him he'd better not use those files, that she owned the program, it was licensed to her, she owned the programming. So this was our first roadblock to moving the site.

I called Angka from DU, who looked up the pricing on the license. Not too bad. I figured, I can just buy the license. But apparently the programming is so specialized I have to find a programmer to help me move the site.

Saturday I was by myself, in an "undisclosed location," wondering where the hell my friends were and why David and I had just been cut from the herd. Cooties? A special surprise party? What the hell? He and I were so tired of being called names, and having our motives questioned, that he said "let's just give the book away." God bless him. He is an amazing, amazing man of great character. I agreed immediately and we announced it in an interview I did with Buzzflash Sunday morning.

We said we'd have the first chapters out Wednesday; they were up Tuesday. We've proceeded apace, and set up the BBVReport.org site as well, and have now gotten 425 new activists signed up.

October 3 I tried to move my BlackBoxVoting.org domain to a new ISP, the one that's stood up to the BFEE on the AWOL documents. The tech there tried to move the domain, and called me back.

"There's a flag on your domain name from the registrar. Says it can't be moved."

I contacted Tucows, the registrar, who said it can't be moved until Oct 9 (coincidentally, the day after the California recall). I asked them to send me something in writing as to whose authority did this, and what the reason was. They said I had to go back to the original reseller, Tiger Tech.

"If I do that, and Tiger Tech says it can be moved, then we can move it, right?"

"No."

Geez. I went to Tiger Tech, who told me there is a flag on the domain name and I can't move it. I asked for this in writing. They sent an email that said that no .org site registered with tucows could be moved for about a week, due to "maintenance." WTF?

I contacted another tech, who checked to see if he could move his .org registered with tucows. There was nothing that said he couldn't.

Okay, forget this mess, skip forward to yesterday, when I was asked to be on the radio with EFF as they proudly announced they were helping IndyMedia fight Diebold. They told me, on the air, that I was doing important work and was a great patriot. "Then why won't you help me?" I asked. He had no answer.

I called Cindy Cohn back, and said good, now that you're helping IndyMedia (who was told to pull down a link) could you revisit the idea of helping me, because not only was the link pulled, the whole 300-page site was pulled, we were denied access to our FTP, and denied the ability to move the domain. She said no, they have to choose who they can help.

Then she said "and you never switched to the ISP we told you to." I said, "If I had done that, would you have helped?"

Of course. "No."

She had another ISP to refer me to, but they still wouldn't help. She said the reason they couldn't help is because when she offered to help with AIT, they didn't want help. (that's funny, that day she apologized to me for telling me, and James Baker, she could not help).

She said she has another ISP for me to switch to. "Will you help then?"

"No."

Cindy Cohn told me I could write the safe harbor letter and get reinstated in 10 days; actually, I've had that letter for awhile, Jim March helped me write it, but it requires that I provide a physical location for my whereabouts, so I need to wait until the book is out the gate.

I asked her what someone does when there are safety issues. I'm only a two-hour drive from the programmers in Vancouver, and don't feel secure handing out physical location. She said she couldn't help with that, but I should send the letter.

I asked if it was overreaching to shut down all 300 pages of the whole site over a link. She said Yes. (But earlier she told me that was within their rights).

I asked if it was overreaching to block my access to my FTP. She said yes.

I asked if it was overreaching to block me from moving my domain. She said yes.

We then had a conversation about the ownership of the site. She was surprised that Demactivist (Roxanne) wasn't the owner. I asked if Roxanne can own the programming after volunteering to help me set up the site, preventing me from reinstating it. She said maybe. I asked if Roxanne has the right to keep files on her computer, especially things like RedEagle's legislative letter templates and Paranoid Pat's "Take Back the Vote Tool Kit" -- wouldn't those belong to BlackBoxVoting.org or to RedEagle and ParanoidPat? She said she didn't think those would belong to Roxanne.

Oct 17: I interviewed Rob (rob-georgia.) Rob is a straight arrow. I trust his word. He said that Roxanne asked him to go to an attorney named James Penland to give a videotaped deposition. Penland asked Rob to give him his emails from Diebold; he refused. He did provide his notes from a session with Diebold's Greg Loe. Penland then asked to interview another of my sources, James Rellinger (that interview has been up on BBV since February).

I wrote to Roxanne (Dem) and to Eloriel and said if there was any reason it would be a problem to break the news that a lawsuit was afoot, to contact me immediately. I did not want to mess up any legitimate pursuit. I received this in return:

"I have no knowledge of any lawsuit being filed, contemplating being filed, discussed being filed or anticipated being filed. Public statements being made alleging so, will be dealt with swiftly."

XXXXXEDITNAMEXXXXX

If you can make sense of all this, you are doing better than me.

I have work to do, and am focused on two things: getting Chapter 10 to David by tonight, Chapter 11 tomorrow, 12-13-14 the following day.

Then, launching the activism planning sessions with the 425 activists who signed up.

That's what I'm focusing on.

- The shutdown of BlackBoxVoting.org removed a critical communication forum for activists nationwide, and many of them lost their work when it became inaccessible.

- The library, in particular, was quite a loss. I had archived most of the articles for the footnotes in the book there, and had to re-find every article for the book. A DUer named Phoebe spent dozens of hours archiving everything into it. She is very saddened by its loss. A New York Times reporter emailed me, said "when will it be back up? We need it!"

- The private forums were highly valued by many activists, and if we have to completely reprogram to get them back up, we will. This will be an effort, and next time, I'll make sure the programming can't walk away with a volunteer, shutting down our ability to use our own forums.

- The actual work living on the BBV.org site, which included template letters to legislators, talking points, a "Take Back the Vote Toolkit" created by ParanoidPat, and others, may not be recoverable very easily if we have to reprogram the whole thing.

I have to wait until the book is done to tackle that. I appreciate all of you who have volunteered to help. If you have been advised to "distance yourselves" please do me, or at least David Allen, the courtesy of explaining why.

Whatever is afoot, it would have been compassionate to let us know how we can help, or at least, not get in the way.

Weird story, huh?

Not going in the book or anywhere else.

Bev Harris
Black Box Voting

I don't have search capabilities, so I went into the archives to see if I could learn a few things, and I did - date Tuesday September 26, 2003. There are descrepancies reflected in this thread regarding your statements made this morning and reposted here by bearfartinthewoods.

On that eventful Tuesday evening you posted that you had a first amendment attorney to represent you, which may be why there is an EFF situtation. You said it took a day or two to find one, and according to your post, you did.

Quote: "And I have a First Amendment lawyer onboard. This is the ideal way to make an example of an unfair law."

and "In the mean time, the case to reinstate the files is being handled by a First Amendment firm that specializes in DMCA (not EFF; it was immediately after contact with EFF that the lawyer for AIT instructed them to overreach)."

Someone then responded to you that that particular post may jeopardize your position.

I'm not going to go tit for tat here, but will highlight another descrepancy, only because I think you spoke unfairly about DEMActivist. She did not resign as webmaster that Tuesday evening, but in fact resigned 3 days earlier (post 74).

Anyway, I don't like alarmist and victim posts, and I don't like the idea of needing a villan, other than the likes of Diebold, to jusify those kinds of posts. It hurts the cause too much. To imply any activist is betraying our democracy for money is absurd. I don't believe it. I have seen nothing anywhere to suggest this, except by you, which is jeopardizing everything all activists around the country have work hard toward, including the many who have been working on this long before you started.

Read the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=410311

go visit one.

I'm not going to go tit for tat here, but will highlight another descrepancy, only because I think you spoke unfairly about DEMActivist. She did not resign as webmaster that Tuesday evening, but in fact resigned 3 days earlier (post 74).

According to post 74:
"I can only say that I severed my relationship with blackboxvoting.org on the evening of September 23, 2003 so I cannot speak to this situation.

September 23, 2003 IS a Tuesday, so it appears Bev's account on this point is accurate.

I stand corrected - guess I shouldn't stay up all night.

I am furious..'nuff said..

On the website is a file named "libdump" which is not only a copy of the entire library, it contains the SQL commands to re-activiate (create and insert) the contents.

Once again, unfounded allegations made that have no basis in fact.

Thank you for telling us where it is.

n/t

which was hosted on the AIT computers.

Where I installed it for you after we were forced to move from Tigertech.

tell me quick so i can edit?

i don't want to do harm??????

If not this whole thread...

and was saddened by what is going on. This is still a public forum, and it could still benefit the bbv manufacturers to air certain details. I wish their was a more private forum, and hope all parties can make a conference call very soon. I can't hold my breath that long, but really hope it happens.

that much with the Diebold code?).

Ah the memos.

Proof of wrongdoing.

the latest, of course:

"Well people might be rewriting the memos."

LOL. As Alastair from Scoop News said,

"The stuff in the memos is too good. You can't make that kind of stuff up."

Me too.

Refer to my post above. The important thing to find out is what exactly went on with the

ISP
Registrar
Domain name reseller
lawyers
other lawyers

I'm sorry, but that is not something to be "saddened" by or something we should hush up. There was misbehavior here, people are starting to point at each other, it did real, material damage, and frankly, if I have to watch EFF pat themselves on the back one more time I will print the roster of their flat-out refusal to help Black Box Voting, along with all the rest of it, everywhere they act like they are heroes.

Look, if something wonderful is up, and it's above board, there is NO REASON to shut down a site, screw with all the other activists, waste my time, and, in some cases, trash my work.

And I'm sorry that you don't understand that.

If there is something I need to know, tell me. But don't give me a little "let's just have a group hug" because that doesn't address:

1) the web site is STILL DOWN
2) EFF is trotting around patting itself on the back when they flat out refused to help BBV and impeded me from getting help elsewhere

No. I've had it. It's been a month. We've got work to do.

You see things that just aren't here. I spoke clearly and said exactly what I meant - and I never suggested anything remotely close to "let's just have a group hug". IMO, you are allowing your feelings to cloud your judgment Bev. Again, there is a severe breakdown of effective communication between you and fellow activists that needs be fixed if any of the core issues are to be resolved successfully - and this forum is not the place.

I appreciate all you do, and I'll continue to do what I can to support your work and our common cause, but I can't do this thread any longer. G'night, Bev.

And your suggestion about bed will be taken by me at least. You folk across the Pacific are definitely burning the midnight!!!

On the group hug suggestion. You did suggest in the deleted thread that a conference call be organised - that is probably what sparked Bev's retort. This has gone a bit beyond that at this stage unfortunately.

What would help would be for DemActivist and Eloriel to explain what happened from their perspective.

lies.

I'm dying to hear their perspective...

a "book about the book I gave away" in there sumwherez. In the meanwhile, why couldn't Bev sell an audio CD of her PERFORMANCE reading her free book? Especially with a bunch of other BBV data on there, I'd buy it!!!

We've done that now, as you may or may not have noticed.

There are some wild, totally baseless, utterly wrongheaded charges being made. They are coming from one direction, and are draining time and energy -- something Bev always said she was very much against.

It saddens me that you think DEMActivist and I have ANYthing we should have to explain. It saddens me that you support bringing this nonsense to a public forum in the first place.

OTOH, perhaps some good will come of it. I haven't seen it yet.

Eloriel

side, I contributed to a thread speculating about what the legal issues were. I painted a picture that I thought was very helpful to BBV...it was about copyright law, and whether the memos fit within fair use exception. One of the people who was most hostile to my interpretation was YOU.

I thought it was odd that someone working with Bev was so adamant about interpreting the law in a way that was not helpful to BBV. I just assumed that you didn't like me personally because of some other debate about Dean.

I was just wondering, in retrospect, if you remember the exchange and if you care to explain why you were so interested in discrediting an argument that fair use applied.

Any thoughts.

This behavior is part of the problem that has saddened a whole group of people today. Instead of being helpful, you have been and are continuing to be hurtful to not only people but the issue.

Any thoughts?

Rather than fanning the flames, I feel like this is clearing the air.

and if you don't, then you should.

You have a question that implies lack of honesty of conviction like that, then it's best to ask it privately.

From this thread, it looks like you've had quite a day of playing lawyer whose role is dubious at best. Stop it for everyone's sake.

for this purpose.

SaddenedDem joined. S/he has been here since almost day 1 of DU. Just doesn't post all that much. :)

???

S/he reads DU all the time; just doesn't post that much.

Sorry. All DUers aren't all that active.

First, let's clear something up right now:

"Eloriel, I have a question for you. Back when you appeared to be on Bev's"
side...

I have never been NOT on Bev's side. Even now, I hope she is wildly successful, for all our sake. I just don't personally want to have anything more to do with her. (I now have her on ignore, for example.) Your polarizing this, as she has, is unnecessary and destructive. It's also, for about the 50th time today, insulting.

I contributed to a thread speculating about what the legal issues were. I painted a picture that I thought was very helpful to BBV...it was about copyright law, and whether the memos fit within fair use exception. One of the people who was most hostile to my interpretation was YOU.

I thought it was odd that someone working with Bev was so adamant about interpreting the law in a way that was not helpful to BBV. I just assumed that you didn't like me personally because of some other debate about Dean.

While some of the details escape me, I do remember disagreeing with you. I also remember asking if you were an attorney and I don't believe you ever answered.

Here's the deal: While I know NOTHING about DMCA, I happen to know a ittle more about copyright law than most lay people. The reason for that is that once upon a time I took it upon myself to study up a bit. It's an issue I care about, since I have at times worked as a writer myself and also because so many people know so damned little about it and make assumptions that simply aren't true (such as, for one example: "if it's on the internet, it's in the public domain").

I don't happen to "interpet" things like this based on who or what I support, or how I want things to be, but based on what the facts are. I consider that intellectual honesty, and any OTHER approach intellectual DIShonesty.

In that particular instance, I believed then and still do that your reading of the fair use doctrine in copyright law was flawed. (Weren't you arguing you could use ALL of something and call it fair use -- like those Diebold memos? I just don't think that's true. I could be wrong, but you weren't able to persuade me otherwise.)

It had absolutely nothing to do with who I support or why. It had to do with my lay understanding of the law. Further, I think it would do no good to "help" someone by giving them a viewpoint based on how we hope something is, especially on a legal matter. Fortunately, as I've said before, I am not an attorney, and made that clear during that discussion as well, so there should have been no confusion that what I was saying was valid. At the same time, YOU wouldn't even answer the direct question: are YOU an attorney?

ANd yes, you are continuing to fan the flames. You are continuing to polarize, mischaracterize, and basically insinaate that people are liars -- and now that they are trying to give bad advice because they were only "appearing" to support someone -- when you don't know the facts or truth and in fact are purposely clouding them. Shame on you.

And NOW, I'm out of this thread. Don't bother to address me further.

Eloriel

and you have always been 3 steps ahead of my analysis, which is why I hate to post too much. I never said you should "hush up", but I just openly hoped that some of it could be worked out privately between fellow activists. I'll try not to do that again. Feel free to check out my thread in LBN on this new headline:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3529556&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

EFF should help you immediately if they have the time to help Indymedia. We are all fighting the BFEE. My congresscritters are starting to get to know me too well these days as well. The evidence is now out there, they need to start representing us.

on edit: link to UC Santa Cruz public forum

http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/10-20/voting.html

This is not the beginning of this problem. Just possibly its cathartic moment.

For my part I am pleased I got to read the thread before it was expunged as it certainly made a lot of stuff a lot clearer for me.

Bev can now hopefully get back to her book having got some stuff off her chest... and meantime us lucky people who read it before it disappeared are clued in. The thread is gone so no great damage can be done to the interests of the mission (melinda your concerns are well understood on that count)... and perhaps we can now all wait and see if we get any explanations from the other players in this mystery.

And I think an explanation is definitely in order. If not here than perhaps somewhere else.

al

....not sure what I missed but Oh well! :evilgrin:
Talk to you tomorrow Bev! Things are looking up! :)

Holy disappearing BBV threads! Curiouser and curiouser.

It was really hard to follow your train of thought in that other thread. As you say, you are confused, and you sound like you are. I don't like when someone comes and bad-mouths people in the middle of the night when they are not here to defend themselves, especially when these people have put their life on hold, made extreme sacrifices and are still fighting the battles without the need for recognition. You say you are confused about the circumstances surrounding bbv.org, but then you turn the tables and make it about other people. The problem is I don't think any activist has turned into a mole; I don't think any activist has betrayed the issues; and I think it is unfair to suggest that someone has. If they choose to not work with you, that is their perogative, and perhaps instead of publically complaining, a self-examination may be in order for all of you. There are always more than one side of a story. Some choose to air, some choose not to air.

Regarding EFF, I remember reading a post yesterday (Friday) that explained some of this, which was posted by eloriel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=546669#549963

"First, let me say I'm stunned and really sorry you're having these appalling problems, and I hope you get to the bottom of them and fast. It IS intolerable. Totally. And real bad for the activist effort too.

What I'm confused about is you and EFF. When BBV.org was first pulled because of the DMCA garbage, you refused to work with EFF. I don't blame you for not wanting to move BBV.org to Bartcop (bleccch), but you could've signed up with OPG as an alternative (tho not the commercial BBV site). IIRC you had problems with their rather ordinary and standard TOS: http://onlinepolicy.org/policy/tos.shtml

Further, you bashed EFF rather soundly right here at DU, and not just once. You accused them, among other things, of "working for the other side" (or similar language). I have to say that had I been someone representing EFF I'd have told you we were "too busy" to be able to help you too -- especially since it seemed you went out of your way to go crosswise to everything they needed you to do in ORDER to help you.

Even now you harbor misgivings about the organization and its agenda, apparently, and are quite vocal about those misgivings here in public. It's possible your misgivings are warranted -- but from my perspective, it's more probable they're not. I believe, and have always believed (and am now sorry I didn't speak up at the time) that you misinterpreted EFF at the time in some major ways.

It does seems a little over the top for you to continue to try to bash them, even while you're in the process of asking for their help. You seem to want to dictate terms to THEM in the process. I mean, they don't exactly OWE you the help you seek, ya know? If you go out of your way to malign them in public, ignore and complain and (IMO) misrepresent their suggestions, insist upon doing things your way and insist on THEM doing things your way, I wouldn't be surprised they haven't fallen all over themselves to help you.

My suggestion to you, and you're more than free to ignore it, would be to back up a little and start afresh with EFF. I really do think you've got them pegged wrong. An apology wouldn't be out of order, either.

Of course, I suppose it's possible they really are the malefic organization you think they are.

Eloriel"

You should be able to dictate the terms. And if they're going to work for you, they need to be totally candid.

And it's bizarre for a laweyer to imply that a condition of service is that you enter into a contractual relationship with a third party, especially if they're not willing to disclose why that's so important.

There are probably some ethical issues involved when a lawyer tries to get some benefit for a third party which isn't disclosed. The typical situation is that the lawyer gets a referal fee for bringing the business to the, e.g., ISP and doesn't disclose it to or share it with the client. But that's obviously not the implication here. It's still odd.

Add one more tidbit to this: The third party they were so insistent about me switching to had been aggressively trying to get hold of the FTP files and other documents since February 2003.

And remember: They wanted me to switch but STILL WOULDN'T REPRESENT ME even if I did.

And if you reread the Uberpost you will see that it was in order to set the record straight on points like this.

"What I'm confused about is you and EFF. When BBV.org was first pulled because of the DMCA garbage, you refused to work with EFF."

That the thread was posted. As Bev tells the story EFF refused to help not the other way around. Plus they prevented another lawyer from helping Bev too...

......is going on here? :shrug:
Good-bye DU. If anyone wants to contact me I'll be at Blackboxvoting.com or some variation thereof! This is too important to let all of the recent bullshit I've been seeing on this site get in the way. :hi:
Let these people eat each other alive! I've got work to do. x(

Weirdness is a weirdness does. And I too will big you all adieu.

Bev, it may also be time for you to bail out of this. Basically until/unless DA and Eloriel turn up to contribute this debate is really like chaff in the wind.

You have now put the facts into the record. The mystery has been stated. Lets wait and see how the cards fall and if we can find any answers on the morrow...

As our good lord says...

Be still and know that I am here. And as always... be not afraid.

Al

What is written before is bogus. Never happened that way.

I simply listed the facts, in chronological order, without framing them into a conclusion as to what happened. Bashing requires someone to form a conclusion. And editing it into the tight writing style I normally use requires one to inject a spin, by selecting which facts to include.

Frankly, you have no idea about putting lives on hold and making extreme sacrifices. None. I'll be glad when I can make a car payment again, or see my family. I'll see any one of the activists and raise them a dollar on that.

When BBV.org was first pulled because of the DMCA garbage, you refused to work with EFF.

An out and out lie. Read my post (it's reposted above). I immediately called an asked for help and was told point blank they did not have time for me and would not help. Nothing I did or said would change that. Since they told me they would not help about 30 seconds after I first made contact, none of the above holds water.

Didn't the EFF say they were working on a case involving Avi Rubin?

Wasn't he the guy who revealed the conflict of interest after the Johns Hopkins report?

Also, he used to work for Bellcore, which became Telcordia and is owned by SAIC.

http://www.panix.com/~dfs/bellcore/index.html

(EDIT: misspelled Telcordia)

machine to get used, but not Diebold's, so they want to make sure that the argument isn't so broad that people discredit ALL electronic voting machines in the process.

And maybe some people are getting suckered into falling in line with that strategy without being told the truth about the strategy being pursued. Ie, activists are having the beejeezus scared out of them with lies about criminal liability to get them to work with certain camps, when that camp just wants to make sure that the interest it represents (a voting machine company other than Diebold) doesn't have someone plough through the runway they're trying to build.

.....we've got work to do and I'm not going to let this go down without a fight! 501, 501(c), 501(c)(3) whatever it takes! Times a wastin'. :wtf:
Sometimes I wonder if this is more trouble than it's worth. Then I remember my children and the fact we live HERE! Good bye DU, Have fun bashing each others candidates! (Where's that middle finger smillie when you need it?)

That's about all I can contribute to this thread.

I am beyond lost.

No, it wasn't a lie, and I thoroughly resent being called a liar. What I posted was my take on things at the time -- bolstered by your unnecessary and unwarranted bashing of EFF, which bashing I believed then and still believe was based on some miscommunications and misunderstanding. Good on you for presenting things from YOUR perspective. Bad on you for drawing me and DA into it in this way.

You know, I read your outrageous, insulting, manipulative, blackmailing email to me to a family member the other day, and he said, "Well, when you live with paranoia, that's what you get -- more paranoia." There is plenty of valid reason for the various activists to be paranoid, but you're barking up the wrong tree on this relative to DA and me, Bev. And it's not only insulting to us, it's embarrassing for you.

There IS no fucking conspiracy, Bev. No lawsuit at all, let alone a qui tam lawsuit. DA and I are not in cahoots to work against you or the issue or against anyone/anything else. The truth is, I'd rather like to get on with the work at hand instead of being drawn into these totally unnecessary little dramas. We ARE working together, DA and I, but believe me, YOU haven't even been on our list of concerns -- and I'd have happily let you stay off the list were it not for middle of the night shenanigans like this.

Let me make this good and public, something I've been thinking about for a few days (since that insulting email) anyway, and in fact what my intuitive husband warned me to do last night since he had a sense that you were going to be causing trouble: While DA's break with you was HER thing, and I tried to stay neutral and uninvolved (as I've already told you), you have persisted in imagining that a break between the two of you meant a break with me. I told you by email that I had a few of my own issues with you, having to do with how you treated me on two occasions by phone, but that only affected how much interaction *I* wanted to have with you personally. It didn't magically make me some co-conspirator with DA. It's entirely possible for people who work together to have different associates. It's possible for me to support DA's decision while not making that decision my own. And how insulting to ME that you kept imagining I was taking sides in the issue as if I were joined at the hip with DA or something. But now you have succeeded in completely alienating me, as you've apparently been trying so hard to do all this time. So here it is:

I want absolutely nothing to do with you from here on out. No phone calls, no emails (not that I ever got so many of either), no mentions of me in DU threads or elsewhere, and by all means please take me off your "activist" list. And stop with the bleepin' passive-aggressive pot shots, snide remarks and innuendo. At least with the nonsense in THIS thread you've laid some of it on the table, out in the open. I'll repeat: there IS no lawsuit, qui tam or otherwise. Qui tam is NOT something either DA or I would even contemplate doing. It's just not in our make-up. You can let that issue go.

DA has had you on ignore for all this time, and perhaps that will be necessary for me too. OTOH, I sure would hate to miss future opportunities to try to correct the record from MY point of view at DU, should that continue to be necessary.

Bev, it's bad enough to lose friends and supporters. It's totally unnecessary to actively work to make them into enemies. You have made yourself an enemy to me -- and it was never, ever necessary. Let me hasten to add: That doesn't mean I will do anything to work against you in any way, unlike what you're doing here, so don't go all paranoid about that either. It just means that I can no longer regard you in a nuetral way, and I want absolutely nothing to do with you.

Eloriel

Wow, I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll begin by saying I shouldn't be surprised. If you watched the BBV story develop at DU you'll find that what we've seen here today is a pattern for Bev.

So, let's start the bbv.org story where it begins. Bev wanted an activism site. I volunteered to help her create it. I registered the domain names she requested, in her name, with full ownership to her. I registered and ordered hosting at Tigertech.net where I had nothing but good experiences with several of my own sites, and the sites of clients and friends. Besides, it was cheap. I paid for all the expenses associated with this web site for many months (averaging $30.00/month because of excessive bandwidth). I'll happily produce copies of my credit card statements for all who ask to see them.

The "mystery" with the domain name is simple. There isn't a mystery. If you agree to host your web site at Tiger Tech for one year, they pay for domain name registration. There's no mystery here, Bev didn't live up to her obligations of one year and she has to pay for the domain or Tiger Tech owns it.

As for Bev's behavior, I can only say I'm not surprised. It's a pattern. When I tried to register a new customer at Tigertech on October 3, 2003, this is the response I got from the owner:

Frankly, this message did not please me. You're welcome to tell people what you want, of course, but I have no qualms about how we handled the incident with blackboxvoting.org, and I don't need the business of spammers who jeopardize the stability and reputation of my company. I would gladly defend our actions and policies in public, but would rather not have to do so: I have better things to do with my time.

In addition to that, Ms. Harris accused me of shutting down her site for political reasons (which is ludicrous; I am an extremely liberal ACLU member who strongly opposes paperless voting) and more seriously, threatened to sue me. This also did not go down well. The simple fact of the matter was that several exchanges I had with Ms. Harris (of which you, of course, were not necessarily aware) convinced me she was an irresponsible spammer who had knowingly violated her contract with us and intended to do so again, which is the sole reason her site was terminated.

You may feel I'm being unfair to hold you responsible for the actions of Ms. Harris. While I understand that you were not directly involved in much of this, you did work on behalf of Ms. Harris during the blackboxvoting.org incident, and you indicated that you found our policies unreasonable.

This all came after another spam complaint had been received on August 5, 2003:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Spam Complaint
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:55:16 -0700
From: Tiger Technologies <support@tigertech.net>
To: (redacted)

A spam complaint which Bev didn't even reply to for DAYS, despite my pleading for her to do so. A spam complaint which Bev had great difficulty explaining.

Of course, Bev neglects to mention all the additional monies and work I expended on her behalf with numerous other domains and hosting. She has a pattern of forgetting inconvenient facts. Always has, always will.

Now to the situation with EFF. Once again, the elimination of convenient facts tends to be the largest part of the story here. Immediately on the shut down of bbv.org, when we couldn't reach Bev, Eloriel and I tried to get help. We called EFF. We spoke with Cindy Cohn. She explained to us that there were specific things we needed to do to get their help:

1. We had to get a host who would stand up to the cease and desist letters. Without a host who would stand at the gate, there was no fight to be had. Cindy Cohn suggested 2 hosting companies Marc Perkel's and Onlinepolicy.org. We immediately dismissed Marc Perkel because of our (Eloriel and mine) distaste for Bartcop's misogyny. We indicated we would investigatge onlinepolicy.org further.

2. We had to be sure we were in full compliance with the rules and regs of the hosting company so there was no dispute in their support of our cause.

That's all there was. That's all that was necessary. We relayed this to Bev, at which time she called EFF. What happened in that call, I have no idea. I wasn't party to it. But I know Bev. Know her quite well, in fact. $1200.00 worth of long distance calls in 3 months well. She didn't hear what she wanted to hear so she twisted it into some convoluted, distorted tale that worked for Bev. Whatever.

The truth of the matter is simple. We followed Cindy Cohn's advice and started an activism web site under onlinepolicy.org's umbrella. The folks there are wonderfully supportive and helpful. And, believe it or not, it's FREE. Wow! What a concept. Activism as we live and breath. True activism.

As for Jim Penland, I can only say I am, once again, appalled by Bev's behavior. Accusations, allegations, distortions posted publicly because someone dared to do something that didn't directly assist the sale of her book.

Jim Penland is an attorney. He's also an activist. Jim Penland is working with the Georgia activists in the capacity of an activist. Not an attorney. Way to go, Bev, turn off some more people who are trying to make this issue front and center.

Back in March, Bev, myself and DWright tried to get Rob's statement on videotape. DWright and I made all the arrangements and were ready to take his statement, but Bev didn't reply to our repeated emails, phone calls, attempts to complete the process.

I mentioned this to Jim when he asked me about Rob (a Georgian). Jim said "well, hell, let's get this guy sworn. Let's protect his testimony AND him." He did. Jim invested his time and money ($700.00 for a court reporter and certified videographer). Rob gave his statement on one condition - that it could not be used for profit in any way or manner.

Rob's statement will be released on video very soon. Released into the wild to help all who battle this cause with FACTS. We just don't have it from the court reporter yet.

Thanks to Bev, we may lose his agreement now. Isn't that helpful?

We HAD 2 more witnesses who had agreed to give sworn statements. We may lose them now, because of this. I hope not, but if you were a witness to this, would you come forward after Bev's post last night? Would you put your life and livlihood on the line after witnessing Bev's behavior?

As to Bev's "questions" about a lawsuit, let me show you her email.

Subject: The news of your lawsuit is going to break in two hours.
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:54:13 -0700
From: "bev" <bev@blackboxvoting.com>
To: (redacted Eloriel's email address)
CC: (redacted my email address)

If there is a problem with this, call me and give me straight answers.

(number redacted)
Bev

Request? I don't know, sounds like attempted blackmail to me.

I don't agree with Bev Harris' methods. I have watched from behind the scenes as she demonized the very people who were working to stop these machines. If you dare to disagree with her, you are the enemy.

(1) It seems to me that it isn't the lawyers place to say, first, you have to house the name on this particular site so that we can have a particular situation. The relationship between a web site owner and host is a contractual relationship, and Bev is entitled ot have that relationship with whatever party she choses.

Furthermore she already had a bunch of legal problems which had nothing to do with who her host would be in the future. It's weird that a lawyer wouldn't be inclined to discuss those things, placing preeminence on the issue of where the stuff located in the future.

(2) How do feel about you moving around the site and dealing with it although you weren't the registered owner. In your posts you keep noting how much money and time you invested in this, but that doesn't make you the owner of the site. Even if you couldn't get in touch with Bev, doesn't mean you can be the default owner.

Bev's put a lot of her own time and effort and money into building up awareness of BBV, and its her trademark. If she wants to destroy it, it's hers to destroy, not yours.

Sorry, I simply don't understand what you are saying in #1. I'll try to answer what I THINK you are saying....

Bev Conover couldn't stand against Diebold because she had other clients who's site she was hosting there. Fighting the cease and desist would put them in jeporady to shut down. That's the problem you deal with on a "public" hosting service. You are not the only client, your needs have to be interspersed with the other clients. This is what Cindy Cohn tried to make clear to Eloriel and I, and can only presume to Bev (I wasn't a party to that call.)

In response to #2, all I can say is that is a typical responsibility of a webmaster. If your customer chooses to change hosting companies, you do what they ask. Backing up and maintaining the files is also a standard responsibility. It's a part of what a webmaster does.

In addition, I ask all my customers to keep a backup of their site at all times. I instruct them in how to get the software to do so, how to install and setup the software to do so, and ensure that they have a complete and timely backup. As a good webmaster, it is a practice I should (and do) encourage and insist upon. Bev had every opportunity to maintain her own files and website. My departure should not have effected that at all. I cannot be responsible for the fact that she CHOSE not to exercise due diligence. I have customers who are DUers. Perhaps one or two of them will set up and attest to the procedures I follow for continuity of their websites.

And, frankly, Bev's put a lot of other people's time and money into this project. She has invested little of her own.

is that it isn't the lawyer who should tell you where to put the site.

They can advise you what to do. But telling her where to put the site is strange.

Even from a legal precedent sense, people are going to have these problems wherever the site is located.



You know that Bev was extremely busy, and wasn't a sophisticated web person, and would require extra care. It still doesn't justify you behaving as if you were the owner the site.

What you just described is what the diligent owner would do. That it doesn't happen has nothing to do with whether you can behave as if you own the site. Your primary obigation is to do what the owner wants.

I'm afraid not.

All I did was walk away. All I did was go back to working on the Georgia situation.

I put Bev Harris and David Allen on ignore at DU. I've had no interaction with them at all.

I asked that Bev stop sending threatening emails.

I didn't post bullshit about Bev or BBV. Let's see, who started this disaster in the middle of the night? Nope! Twern't me.....

and you claim you were trying to give them back?

That doesn't make much sense.

I made numerous attempts to deliver the files to her and her publisher. What I got in return were blackmail threats, lost business, and slanderous lies told about me in public.

Somehow, I don't think many people would continue to attempt communication at that juncture.

the relationship. Burn CDs, send everything back, help Bev transfer the name to another host, and you're done.

You make it sound like Bev was inflicting this stuff on you. You weren't powerless to remedy the situation.

None of them wanted the shit. What more would you have me do?

Shall I start walking it to Washington state?

Look the story you tell is that you tried everything to contact her AND you put her on your pay-no-mind list. Which is it?

Then you contradict yourself by saying you aren't sufficiently technologically sophisticated to burn a CD after you tell us how, in your business, you tell all your customers to back up their data, which implies that you're engaged in a business requiring some technological sophistication. This is 2003! If you haven't purchase a computer in the last 2 years with a CD burner, your next door neighbor has!

I want the entire library that Phoebe worked her toosh off for.
I want every one of the private forums.
I want the hit counters.
I want every one of the articles.
I want every document that was on that server.
I want the full blog.
I want all the graphics.
I want every letter and activist tool on that site.

Burn it to a CD. Send it to this address, which you could easiy find on my Talion web site:

330 SW 43rd St
PMB K547
Renton WA 98055

Send it overnight. We want to use this site for this week's upcoming activism planning work. I have already arranged to move the site.

To the extent that you did "extensive customized programming" which you say you did, provide instructions so we can recover the files.

Tiger Tech sent me a letter that does not match your description of why the domain can't be moved, but I will copy your post here and present it to them and if they want a year's payment, we'll do that immediately. Please make sure that you have released any hold they may perceive you to have on that name.

And as for an agreement to buy the license -- I didn't even know the NAME of the software, and called Angka, who was extremely gracious and helpful, looked it up, gave me the pricing, told me what to do. That is no problem, we'll get it.

ParanoidPat, Phoebe, RedEagle, and about 400 activists WANT THAT SITE BACK so let's just make this easy.

Thank you very much.

Bev Harris

and send it to Bev?

Maybe some DU'er neighbor of yours with a CD burner can volunteer to help burn the CD?

Maybe bpilgrim, or someone with a big email account and a CD burner, whom Bev trusts, will take these by email?

(Maybe Bev's new host will take the email?)

she explains what she wants.

Take her off ignore for a moment, read the post, and do what she says.

But I don't think you have her on ignore because you commented on her original post, and you commented that you noticed she wasn't posting here.

Suggestion to you both:

Bev, get an FTP program.

DA, FTP Bev's files to one of your sites and give Bev access so that she can ftp in and d/l to her HD.

End of story, problem fixed.

And my last input here.

Thanks, Melinda.

And I can't believe that access to a CD burner is the problem here.

I don't think that is unbelievable? Up until recently, I didn't have a working one either.

on one of my machines for DEMA to transfer the files (via ftp or sftp). I can esily make a few CDs or a DVD with the files and mail them to Bev. If needed. If that is the only issue left, I don't see a big problem here... -C

I deleted them all from my computer. I had no further use or rights to them.

And, let's see Tigertech's email. I posted the ones I have, why don't you?

I have no hold on your domain name. None. Never did, never will.

As for the name of the software, you saw it ever single day you accessed that forum. We all did. No one tried to hide that from you.

Post the Tigertech letter. I dare you. Offer some proof for your allegations, Bev.

Wow.

When and where did you hear that he had everything?

Was this before or after you tried to contact Bev dozens of times to return them by email?

hearing second hand on a listserve that someone who is not the owner has them (I believe he said he was in the process of getting them) -- well, anyway.

We need the files. The appropriate place to send them is to me, the owner of the web site. I am nearly always here, in my current location it is the most boring situation in the world and I go nowhere, and Dem has my phone number to route me to the files.

I need them.

Bev

What exactly did TigerTech say to you? If it's not the domain name then what is the problem? I had a domain issue with them once, it worked out in my favor. What did they tell you? What is the perceived hold? This doesn't make sense. Post their email so we can figure it out, so we can get this show on the road.

The bottom to me seems to be to get those files and put them up on a new site.

ok?

that fills up so I forward what I want to keep. As many know, Blackboxvoting.com was shut down Friday; we have it back up but our e-mail is still inaccessible.

As best I can remember, tucows blamed it on Tiger Tech and Tiger Tech blamed it on tucows, and when I insisted on a written answer, Tiger Tech said that all .org sites would be unavailable for moving until after October 9. The reason given by Tiger Tech was that tucows locked them down for maintenance.

I kid you not. I would love to post the email. I asked Tiger Tech if that meant just Tiger Tech .org sites couldn't be moved, or all the .org sites in the world -- she said "all the .org sites." That sounded so preposterous that I confess, I told her I found it hard to believe and asked for it in writing, and they did send that to me. It is possible it only affected all tucows .org sites; if so, the tech I called who got a .org site at tucows said he had no similar flag on his.

If I get my bev@blackboxvoting.com email back soon, I will send the message. It was different. I don't know, maybe registrars do shut down the ability to move all their .org sites for a week for "maintenance?" I've never heard of that before.

Bev

I can prove what I say and Bev Harris can't. Why is that?

when it's up -- wait a minute. Duh. It's in the saved mail, not on the server. I'll go get it. Going, going...

Subject: blackboxvoting.org management
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:59:35 -0700
From: Tiger Technologies <support@tigertech.net>

Currently, the .org registry is making substantive changes to the
operation of the registry. .Org currently operates under the "thin"
registry model. As of the end of 2003, .org will operate under the
"thick" registry model and utilize the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP). The RRP-EPP Proxy will be decommissioned near the end of 2003.

Our domain name supplier (TuCows), is currently working on converting the .org records to use EPP.

"Registrants and Resellers will be unable to update .org contact and DNS information for periods as long as five days. Tucows will be adding messaging to the public manage interface which will advise .org registrants that contact changes will not be available during Phases 3 & 5.

Once this phase is complete (TuCows is currently estimated that this will be done by October 9, 2003), you will be able to log into your domain management and make the necessary changes.

================

However, in the weeks before I also was told I could not move the site. I didn't insist on getting it in writing then. Since then, I haven't had the stamina to try.

As you can see, this letter talks about maintenance or something, and has nothing to do with payment issues. I then called another tech who does a lot of web sites (my brother in law) and he could not find a similar notice pertaining to .org sites he had registered at tucows. That doesn't prove anything, other than: I could not move the site.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Your accusations that Diebold had done something untoward are, yet again, proven lies."

You now defend Diebold, Rox?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have several accounts with tigertech (8 of them I think), and in the contract, they do not charge a domain fee if you use their web hosting. If you move to another hosting site, you are charged (prorated) for the domain name.

I have been in the process of moving out of TIger Tech because of the bbv.org issue, but then I'd have to pay them, as well as the future hosting web fees. It has not been economical to do so, especially with the holidays approaching.

Like I said elsewhere here, the bbv.org name would cost less than twenty dollars.

EDIT - typing error

It actually hadn't occurred to me because the phone conversation she said it was because all the .org sites were shut down. And sent that letter.

And I agree -- but if it's payment, why not just tell me? Duh. And also, they told me when I inquired about fees that it was $25 a month, which seems a bit steep. Are you saying it's only $20 a year? Hmmm.

Are there any cancellation charges?
There is no charge to cancel your Web hosting service, and you can do so at any time — you aren't locked into a fixed-term contract.

Keep in mind that if you switch to another Web hosting company and you want to keep using the free domain name we registered or renewed for you, we'll switch your account to our "domain name only" plan and charge you a prorated amount for the remainder of the year.

For example, if you canceled a .com domain after nine months of Web hosting, and you wanted to keep the domain name for use with another Web hosting company, we would charge you $5.00 (one-quarter of the $20.00 annual "domain name only" fee) to cover your use of the domain name until it expires in three months' time.

The charge only applies if you want to keep the domain name. If you decide you want to stop using the domain name completely, there is no fee at all (unless you cancel three or more separate Web hosting accounts after using them for less than 60 days, in which case we reserve the right to charge the "domain name only" registration fees mentioned above to cover the unusual costs involved).

http://tigertech.net/hostinginfo.shtml#cancellationfees

They aren't in on Sunday but I'll take care of that first thing tomorrow. Assuming that's the problem. It sounds plausible, though the email they sent is strange.

Hey, maybe tucows really did lock down every .org site in the world for a week. Except that I think that would have merited at least a tiny mention to other webmasters.

Subject: Administrative and financial changes
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:06:07 -0400
From: (my email redacted)
To: support@tigertech.net, talion@ix.netcom.com

Please be advised that at the next billing cycle, I will not authorize payment on my credit card for the following domains hosted at Tigertech.net:

blackboxvoting.org
question-w.com
question-w.net
question-w.org
protalion.com
protalion.net
protaion.org
answerw.com
answerw.net
answerw.org

These domains should be transferred wholly and completely to Bev Harris with adminstrative and technical contacts changed to her as well.

Thanks for your help in the matter.

Roxanne

Subject: Re: Administrative and financial changes
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:28:59 -0400
From: (my email redacted)
To: Tiger Technologies <support@tigertech.net>

Tiger Technologies wrote:
> Roxanne,
>
> Thanks for the note. As per your request, we will remove your name and
> billing information from the following accounts:
>
> blackboxvoting.org - hosting
> blackboxvoting.net - domain only alias to blackboxvoting.org
> question-w.com - hosting
> protalion.com - domain name only alias to question-w.com
> answerw.com - hosting
> answerw.net - domain name only alias to answerw.com
> answerw.org - domain name only alias to answerw.com
>
> The following domains were not registered through Tiger Technologies (it
> doesn't appear that they have been registered at all):
>
> question-w.net
> question-w.org
> protalion.net
> protaion.org
>
> Have you provided Bev Harris with the password for these accounts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nami Teramoto, Tiger Technologies http://www.tigertech.net/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Bev has all the passwords. Thanks.

Roxanne

perceived hold on bbv.org. So the issue is to find out why TigerTech won't release the name. Maybe all you need is for someone to purchase it from them. It's gotta be less than twenty dollars.

You need someone to purchase webhosting, purchase the domain name, purchase the DC Script software, get the files from althecat, and then find someone to set it up for you. There are plenty of people here that can help.

I really don't understand why DEMA has been given the bum's rush and then the third degree here. She's doing her thing now, and Bev needs to get on to do hers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

See original post. I said same.

I have a secure private server....I have a CD burner a DAT scsi recorder and DVD burner. FTP the files to my server and I will be more than happy to put them on most any type media then mail them, certified mail, to Bev.....on my penny.

By the way....what is the name of this custom software package written by DA? Where can I see it in action and or download it?

If this libdump is what I think it is, it is nothing more than a compendium of library files, which can, unless encrypted, be viewed with any number of utilities. Nothing terribly hocus pocus about it at all.

Bev, feel free to send me a personal message, if my offer is of interest. Frankly, I would just like to see all you folks tone it down some....None of you on either side is doing your cause any good from an outsiders point of view. As I know none of you personally, but respect the work all have done...and would like to see it continue...I shall be more than happy to operate as a personally disinterested third party.

If you are interested in my political leaning simply do a search on my name.

RC

You practically beat me up on it! It was one of the very first things you taught me about website ownership. You are a clinical web master - no nonsense. Do it right or not at all.

BACK IT UP! DO IT OFTEN! You walked me through the whole process from beginning to end, and have ALWAYS been there to help me when I don't understand something, which is frequent - you have ALWAYS been there - but only if I do my part - you insist on that.

I'm looking forward to it! Thanks. -C

"Rob's statement will be released on video very soon. Released into the wild to help all who battle this cause with FACTS. We just don't have it from the court reporter yet."

Subject: IMPORTANT license notice
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:59:35 -0400
From: (my email redacted)
To: David Allen <david@plan9.org>

First, had I been asked, I would have been more than happy to provide the files I had backed up to anyone who asked. I would STILL be happy to provide those files. Bev Harris AND Bev Conover were aware I had backed up the files immediately upon the letter from AIT. I was on the phone with Bev Conover when I started the backup. I have ALL the current files. I will be happy to zip the text and html files from the posts on the message boards so you can recover them in the new software if you wish. If anyone bothered to return my calls or earlier emails you might have known this.

Yes, I paid for the license. I use this forum on my own site (liberalisnotadirtyword.com) which I shut down to put it on bbv.org.

Bev promised to buy a license to the program when we started. She never did so. I won't allow anyone to violate a license agreement I signed. As a software developer, it is a line in the sand I will not cross.

If Bev buys her own license, she still need you to help her decipher the work you did to make the program work. Are you willing to share that information with her. Buying the license for herself still doesn't give her access to what you created.

I installed a program. All anyone has to do is read the instructions.

with the program without any further assistance from you?

anyone who is a webmaster would be able to set up this forum.

?

So, no, I have not.

I offered repeatedly and got no reply.

If you have a mailing address, you should send it to her. You don't need her permission to send it to her.

And, once you're sure she received it, you shouldn't retain any copies of stuff that isn't publicly available.

Don't you think that makes sense?

I have about 45 email addresses, none of which stay current for more than about 24 hours.

You don't have to email it. You said you have everything on CDs.

Where did I say I have anything on CD?

Sorry, never said any such thing. Don't have a CD burner that's working at the moment. Couldn't put it on CD if I wanted to.

And, yes, I do have to email it. And Plan9's email server rejects the attachment as too large.

Putting shit on a CD and sending it to the owner is probably the easiest thing to do, relative to all the other shit you're describing here.

For transferring the files from MY computer to someone else's CD burner without a CD burner?

You are really becoming illogical.

do, like you have some big operation, and there's a way you do business that Bev didn't live up to, and you're telling me you can't find a friend with a CD burner on their lap top, and you can't connect it to your computer, or email the stuff to that person, and burn a CD?

On the one hand, you're arguing about how sophisticated your computer knowledge is (and Bev's isnt'), and now you're arguing that you're so technologically unsophisticated that you cant' figure out a way to burn a few CDs and give Bev back her data and files?

Which is it?

Because it's not quite as simple as you are trying to make it.

First, understand that David already has all the files. By his and Bev's own admission, they were able to back up all the files from the gatorgraphics web server. Perhaps you missed that little inconvenient fact, huh?

Second, hooking up someone's laptop to my computer is not an easy task. First you need a network connection (which I don't have on this machine) and second you need someone with a laptop (which I also don't have).

Third, I understand your desire to protect Bev from the truth these posts are revealing, but there's just no way for her to recover from what she started.

Those of us who disagree with Bev's behavior tried to walk away and center on the task at hand. Bev was/is incapable of accepting that situation. It is she who wanted to play these nasty games and we simply accepted her challenge to tell the truth.

The truth is what harms Bev Harris. The truth of her behavior and attitude. I could tell more truths, harmful ones, but I won't bother. I have other things to accomplish - like stopping these machines.

why are you keeping them? They aren't yours.

Even if you THINK they have what they need, you KNOW what you have, and there's no way of knowing whether it's the same exact stuff. Part of disentagling yourself as a volunteer, I believe, is giving everything back that doesn't belong to you.

As for the technological stuff, I'm starting to wonder if you're in the right business.

Mail the files to yourself. Log on to your email on a computer with a CD burner, and get the files and burn them on to a CD. Duh.

Perhaps Bev is the devil and I'm playing Devil's advocate. But, you know, I'm just asking a lot of obvious questions which I think you're handling in a way that isn't making much sense.

It's so bizarre that you're making personality the center piece of this campaign. Nobody is asking Bev to be their friend. But I think everyone appreciates that, without her, BBV wouldn' even be on the radar. It's so strange that you want to punish her and the entire project just because you had a personality conflict.

You're obstructing this work just because you don't like her. Rise above it.

I ask again....who was it who started this shit? You will note her absence from this thread. That's because SHE can't dispute these facts.

And, excuse me, but I have ALWAYS been above Bev Harris particularly when it comes to ethical behavior.

Oh, and just so you know....I have NOTHING that doesn't belong to me.

I'd like to note that, above, in all caps, you say you didn't create anything.

Whether she's participating or not, the questions I'm asking are the ones that arrise from your own statements.

And the fact that you imagine that the issue here is "who's more ethical, me or Bev" is probably the biggest problem here.

You never had a partnership with her, you weren't co-directors. You were a volunteer who got yourself into a position in which you could control the direction of HER project, and when you disagreed with the direction, it looks like you went out of your way to make things hard for her.

If you were her partner, that would be fine.

That you were her volunteer makes it look like you think its more than just your ethics which were above Bev Harris.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You never had a partnership with her, you weren't co-directors. You were a volunteer who got yourself into a position in which you could control the direction of HER project, and when you disagreed with the direction, it looks like you went out of your way to make things hard for her.


You've started being an advocate, now, with your questioning. Just so you understand.

As for "never had a partnership with her," technically I'm sure that's true. It's also true that Bev wouldn't know nearly as much as she knows about Diebold's software were it not for DA. I think calling here a mere "volunteer" is damned insulting. Legally partners? No. Partners in the work that had been done up to just recently, yes.

And you're also thoroughly mischaracterizing DEMActivist's actions -- she did NOT (Fredda-like) insinuate herself into Bev's life and website existence so she could "control the direction of HER project," and it steams me no end for you to put it that way.

NOR did DA do ANYthing, ever, to make life more difficult for Bev or anyone.

You also have no idea what caused the breakup, so be careful what you say about that, or the innuendos you toss around.

Eloriel

you or Dema wouldn't have stated it rather than INSINUATING that there's something bigger here.

As for me "insinuating", I'm just stating what appears to me to be a fact. When Bev accepts a volunteer's help with the webste, it doesn't give that volunteer partnership status in the ownership of the website or the direction of the project.

It may be the case that the volunteer felt that she had made a ton of help and is crucial to the project, but this all came down to the web site. I don't see how any of that gives the web master a right to take over the direction of the project.

After all "BBV" is a TM that realy does belong to Bev and her publisher, and not to anyone else.

I think that whatever makes you think these legal relationships sound "damned insulting" is the same thing that prevents you from understanding the legal nature of the relationships.

We're not talking about giving people pats on the back. We're talking about who owns this property and who controls it.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here wasn't under the impression that DemA. and you deserved a ton of kudos for your activism (and Bev was very discreet about not explaining the true nature of what was going on until it couldn't be avoided that something was going terribly wrong with the site, which was reflecting terribly on the TM she had build up. CA was a wasted opportunity, thanks to this BS.

Quit reading stuff into what's being said.

"I can't believe that if anything incriminating caused the brake-up
Posted by AP you or Dema wouldn't have stated it rather than INSINUATING that there's something bigger here."

I haven't insinuated anything other than the FACT that you don't know what the break-up was about and therefore that you shouldn't go drawing conclusions about it. And you also shouldn't infer that either of us would be running here to DU to air dirty laundry, whether whatever it was was "incriminating" or not.

I think that whatever makes you think these legal relationships sound "damned insulting" is the same thing that prevents you from understanding the legal nature of the relationships.

I took some pains to point out that yes, there was no LEGAL "partnership" but that DEMActivist's contribution to the effort made her something more than a mere volunteer, and that I found the term volunteer without the recognition of her contributions insulting.

It may be the case that the volunteer felt that she had made a ton of help and is crucial to the project, but this all came down to the web site. I don't see how any of that gives the web master a right to take over the direction of the project.


Well, first of all YOU'RE the one who is saying that she took over the direction of the project. From where I sit it's patently false. Not even Bev is saying that, unless I missed it. Further, if Bev was at any time unhappy with DA's involvement, she most certainly had the ability in fact the obligation to fire her ass.

I for one am grateful on Bev's behalf that DA discouraged a donation mechanism. Good God. Naysayers here at DU were insisting that Bev was doing ALL this out of greed as it was -- "Oh, this is just a grand publicity stunt for your book, that's all." A donation mechanism would have been a gigantic PR gaffe, IMO, and fueled those and other fires.

Anyway, I don't think anyone here wasn't under the impression that DemA. and you deserved a ton of kudos for your activism (and Bev was very discreet about not explaining the true nature of what was going on until it couldn't be avoided that something was going terribly wrong with the site, which was reflecting terribly on the TM she had build up. CA was a wasted opportunity, thanks to this BS.

BS indeed. These allegations that DA had ANYthing to do with her site going down -- now or any of the times in the past -- are beyond insulting, they're downright libelous. And shame on you, who apparently fancies him/herself something of an attorney, for taking up that line.

The TRUE NATURE of what is going on, and I'm really sorry to have to be blunt about it at this point but you're forcing the issue, are all in Bev's head. She is conflating two things that happened at roughly the same time with cause-and-effect when there IS no relationship between them.

Now, you're entitled to your own opinions, but NOT your own facts.

Eloriel

"Second, hooking up someone's laptop to my computer is not an easy task. First you need a network connection (which I don't have on this machine) and second you need someone with a laptop (which I also don't have)."

No, all you need is a two-way USB connection and some transfer software. I bought just such a package three years ago for $20. You don't need a network connection, you just need a USB port in each box, and there ya go.

Now, if you don't have a laptop, or know anyone who does, I can understand that. I don't have one either. But it's also not difficult - at all - to hook two towers together using the USB method above. Hell, you could even go PNA if you really had no other option. And installing a network connection on any computer is child's play.

You see I don't have a USB connection. My computers are more than 5 years old before USB was a part of the standard computer. So, USB can't be used.

And, if you can figure out how to put a recognizable NIC card in an AOPEN computer, I'd be forever in your debt. I have tried and tried to do so on this computer to hook it to my DSL connection for the kids. No go. In fact, if you'll search the AOPEN newsgroups you'll find me begging for assistance to do so 2 years ago. There was no solution. You can't put a NIC in this computer.

See, I'm very confused by all of this Roxanne. Why even discuss the how to of transfering these files if you deleted them? And why didn't you say so from the beginning?

When I started working on the new activism site, I had no choice. I have less than 1 MG of disk space on my hard drive.

Why discuss it? Because people aren't paying attention....I'm just trying to respond to the questions.

the files.

Nice.

And I thought you said you tried repeatedly to give her the files. There's no timeline on that, but something just stinks to high heaven about this.

You just want to beat up on me, don't you?

Look, here's the deal. David emailed me and told me he had the files. I destroyed my copies of them. I offered him any help he needed in terms of my knowledge on how to set the site back up. I never heard from him again.

I don't know what else you expect of me. I did nothing but put Bev and David on ignore on DU. I set up a filter to delete emails from Bev upon receipt to avoid this kind of confrontation. I begged David Allen to stop Bev from contacting me. I disconnected my phones. I did everything in my power to avoid this bullshit.

You can't possibly expect me to stand back while this woman berates me and my work with provable lies.

If you do, you have some things to learn.

Actually, I'm going to ask you to think about this: Suppose David and I were not getting along. Or, suppose that after the fact, he drank some of that bio-warfare water that's going around and became a flaming asshole.

At that point, what you would have done, is destroy MY files based on some completely separate party with no ownership in it telling you he had the files.

Actually, I'm glad he may have gotten them, but I must say it raised my eyebrows a bit that an ISP would give someone who is not the owner, or even part of the webmaster thing, access to someone else's FTP. I never gave my permission for that.

That's why I am so adamant about getting those FTP logs. Seems a little slipshod to me, both from the ISP and the webmaster.

Bottom line: I need the files.

You have all the other emails. Do you have the email where David told you he had the files?

Why did you only claim to have destroyed the files after I said that that's what you should do AFTER you're sure they have them?

in current possession. If I had realized you'd deleted them, I would not have sounded in with a suggestion... and the entire exchange between you and AP regarding the "how to transfer the files" now makes NO sense at all.

:shrug:

in the first place.

This is the third or fourth time you've contradicted yourself, Dema.

Am I understanding this correctly:

The only place the original repository of files can be found is on the FTP site at AIT?

Possibly David Allen also has them all, though he said it was taking a long time to download and I don't know if he got them all.

So, to get the site back up, all I need is AIT's permission to access the FTP site and Tiger Tech's (or tucows) permission to move the domain.

Two last questions: Is there, or is there not, specialized programming that will have to be redone? (If so, I need to line someone up for that). To the extent that it may be your own, Roxanne, or something nonstandard that you programmed, will you be available to tell the new programmer what he needs to know?

And, what date and time was it, specifically, that you last accessed the FTP site? We can be absolutely sure nothing was changed at all from the time of shutdown, unless by some entity you know nothing about?

Bev

My last contact with you or your site was documented per this email:

Subject: All references have been removed
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:38:33 -0400
From: (my email redacted)
To: Bev Conover (email redacted), Bev Harris (email redacted)

Per Bev Harris' instructions I have removed all references to the alleged copyright infringement.

Effective immediately, I will have nothing further to do with the Blackboxvoting.org website or the project.

I have deleted the password and information in regard to (domain name redacted) and any FTP or other access to the website.

Roxanne

---

As for helping anyone, absolutely. My standard consulting fee is $125.00/hr. and will apply. Have someone contact me to schedule some time.

as long as we have the files it shouldn't be a big deal.
and besides we can always use another product if there are any licensing issues.

peace

Bev, there are lots of us techies here who can also provide advice on technical issues for free - I think if you post general technical questions DU will permit it, or use PM

if you have the files, that's enough

hints to non-techies - check with your "webmaster" before you team up with them, standard knowledge/equipment for good techies are stuff like plenty of disk space, a CD burner (mandatory), knowledge about domain registration free and clear of site hosting (can be done for under $10 per domain), providing periodical backups to the client, use of opensource software when possible (free), setting up a mailing list server with unsubscribe links, setting up Pay Pal, etc.

There are many ways to get this info to Bev. Why not upload the files to one of your other servers (or a public FTP server) then go to Kinkos and burn it to a CD there?

Yabb makes a PHP version of thier script, it's free and better, overall, in my opinion. I'd be interested to see of the dbase is transferable from dcforum to YabbPHP. I sure it is...I just wonder how much dinking around would be required.

RC

can be found here. I don't believe that DA is the author of this software....though I may be wrong. I think what she is saying...is that she holds the license for the software being used on Bev's site. dbase files created by that software are not part and parcel to the software itself, anymore than Photoshopped photos are elements of Photoshop software. In other words....the forum script is not necessary for which DA holds the license, only the dbase files it created are...custom graphics, buttons and a list of board hacks implemented by the discussion board administrator would be handy to have, but not vital...if one wants to maintain the same board appearance and functionality in future iterations....that is, of course, if it has been customized in any way.



RC

I did no customization to the forum software. Zero, Zilch, nada. There's nothing anyone needs from me. All the posts and member data were left on the server untouched. All the .pl files were left on the server untouched. The only request I made was that they purchase a license if they planned to continue use of it.

There was no customization of the forum past the standard color settings, etc. all of which are accomplished within the software.

Of course, if anyone had bothered to ask, I would have been happy to let them know and help them through the transition. In fact, I emailed that offer twice. I never heard back.

And now....since I have been demonized, lied about, and made into a villian with fangs and all, they can go straight to hell. Pretty pathetically sad, frankly.

What do you think Bev could have said that would lead someone to conclude they'd be an irresponsible spammer in the future?

I mean, how did you feel about that statement? Did you know that there had been spamming in the past? Did this make sense to you.

Even though Bev promised payment. The plan she later revealed to me was to take donations on the site and pay us BOTH a salary from the donations. I refused to put up a donation page.

Frankly, Bev's "explanations" about her list were very cloudy. She got some list from some guy, and it MUST have a mole on it.

The only problem was that the "mole" was the owner of a very liberal anti-Bush website. That was the complainer. He wanted off her list.

I was suspicious.

her webmaster, why wouldn't you just do what she asked? You sort of make it impossible for her to pay you when you don't follow instructions.

I don't understand what's suspicious.

You're saying the guy didn't ask to get off the list.

Are you saying nobody complained about spamming, or you saying someone did, but Bev thinks it's someone it wasn't. Bev says nobody will tell her who complained.

Subject: Re: Spam Complaint
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:20:12 -0700
From: Tiger Technologies <support@tigertech.net>
To: (my email redacted)

Hi, we haven't heard anything from Ms. Harris yet -- we just wanted to make sure that she was going to send us the details of the company that sent the mailing and so forth.

For what it's worth, we've also been talking to the person who complained a little more, and I don't think he's some kind of political opponent with an axe to grind. He actually has his own anti-George Bush site and is in full agreement with your political point of view; he just honestly doesn't know why he received the message or how to unsubscribe -- he really does think it's spam that he didn't sign up for, because the message doesn't mention anything about why he got it or how to unsubscribe.

It doesn't seem like it's your position to not do what the site owner asks you to do.

And, quite frankly, I had set up the site so that Bev could add any pages to the site she wanted to. In fact, if you will search back, you'll find posts of Bev's saying so.

I was not willing to be party to allegations which had already surfaced about this being all about money. Bev was aware of my feelings about it.

If you expect someone to put all the time and effort that's required to do something like this effectively, there better be SOME form of payoff for the person doing it. Nobody would ever do this if there weren't some payoff at the end, even if that payoff is merely getting enough money to tread water.

I see no problem with a donation system for this. If there's no accountability, people will donate less. If it all is above board and accounted for, people will donate. It's not really your decision to make. And if you disagree, what you do is stop participating, you give back everything that belongs to bev, and you make it as easy as possible for that person to proceed with someone who will be helpful.

It's odd that, in your defense, you remind everyone of how much money you spent on this, but then your argument here is that you didn't want this to be about money. (How do feel about Bev gving away her book to get the word out?)

Given that the book is out for FREE, I don't see how any arguments that Bev Harris or David Allen are writing/publishing the book for money can be taken seriously! I'm just applying logic here, I'm interested in the issue and I don't really care about factions/internal fights. -C

it's the volunteer webmaster's place to veto that.

I think that speaks volumes about the nature of this relationship.

I had, exercised and insisted upon no veto power on this site.

I would not be a party to a donation page, but at every juncture, Bev Harris had the ability and knowledge to create one. I even created the account at creativepress.com for her. I asked the graphics designers to prepare some graphics for the products at creativepress.com. I did everything I was asked to do and more.

How that relates to "veto power" is beyond me.

And I have a hard time seeing the difference between doing everything for Bev except putting it up, and simply taking the extra second to put it up.

... if I weent bitching to the ISP of each sender, I'd have no time to eat, much less work. A call BULLSHIT.

... I had no idea these unfortunate rifts were developing.

But one thing I want to understand... this host shut down bbv.org for "spamming"? Really? Bulk unsolicited emailing? Really? Really? Was someone selling viagra? This story does not sound right to me.

over 4,000 emails are sent. Look back on her posts here and you will see her say that numerous times.

Is that spam? I guess that depends on what you define as spam. The host, a full month before the site was shut down, warned her that sending unsolicited press releases with no instructions on how to remove oneself from the process was considered spam by his hosting company.

When he received the 2nd spam complaint, he shut down the site. He warned her he would do so.

receiving the emails. It seems like it's practically a tortious interference with her relations with third parties to take out her website becasue 1 person in 4000 complained about receiving mail from someone IN THE BUSINESS of sending out 4000 emails at a time, and who makes an effort to get lists of 4000 people who aren't going to complain about spamming.

because I never signed up for one. Yet, I have had many interactions with her both on the board and by PMs. If you sign up for these notices then you will get them. I think there is an infiltrator and disruptor at work to undermine the work she is doing and I think that person is working very close to her to gain her trust and then access. She needs to look closely at everyone in her orbit.

After reading all the posts on this thread, and then some, I would almost bet the farm that there is a disrupter at work.

is the host's issue.

Thus the question is whether or not this is true (whether the recipients of the 4000 can unsubscribe; or can figure out how to unsubscribe) - would have to be found in viewing on the of the emailed press releases.

If this is the case, it is too bad that it was not understood (what the key issue was), as it could have been easily addressed (one would think.)

But it sounds like the issue is both the spam claim - and a financial one?

(Just trying to get to the point of understanding the conflict with the host organization).

as long as you have a easy way for folks to unsubscribe from the list you should be fine.

I use a program that includes an unsubscribe link in every mailing. all you do is click-it and your unsubscribed, very painless.

if you are interested bev i would set the system up for you when you find a new home.

peace

It's very easy to set up/use and works for mailing lists of this size and greater.

i sent out a date change notification about a seminar to people who had inquired about it. i had not established an opt in and didn't include an opt out in the message. my ISP received a complaint and i received my ONLY warning. one more and they dump me. that's standard policy among reputable ISPs.

all the spam you get is from either throwaway accounts, spoofed return addressses or ISP's who don't give a shit because spammers are their only customers and they're making money.

and on August 5, 2003 Tigertech informed her of that situation.

Sending mailing list messages without the confirmed permission of each recipient would violate sections 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e of our Terms of Service, which are available at:

http://www.tigertech.net/domainagreement.shtml

In addition, running a mailing list without our prior permission, and sending messages that do not include valid unsubscribe instructions, would violate section 6g. You agreed to these terms when you created your account with us.

They gave her more than a month to rectify it. When they received the 2nd complaint, they cancelled her account.

In addition, I implore Bev Harris to show us where she EVER paid Tigertech a dime. I suspect they never got paid after I took away my credit card.

spam campaign. Two doesn't either. Sorry but this is lame, in my opinion. It is indicative of a hosting company with less than honorable motivations. Was there any text to the intital hosting contract which indicated their definition of a spam campaign could be met with the reception of two unsolicited email complaints? Or is this something which was elaborated upon after the fact?

RC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I never did see the one that got expunged. It saddens me that so many skilled and productive activists are spending so much energy fighting amongst themselves. You all don't have to work together - and a distributed organization is probably best even. But you don't need to fight each other either. Hopefully what is happening is just a byproduct of separation anxiety, and will soon go away.

I think that is clearly the point here.
Until today, I have been unable to get a straight answer as to where the blockage was.

The great news is that we will have blackboxvoting.org back up as soon as I get the CD from DemActivist with our files on it, and since it has been a month and we have important planning meetings this week, I expect to have it in hand no later than Tuesday.

As soon as post #97 is handled we will have this cleared up.

Thank you.

Did anyone think actually think this would bring about some kind of resolution?

Flamebait from beginning to end, this thread and the "eating of our own" does it for me.

No one on this discussion board can possible understand the "truth" and dynamics surrounding these issues - it's become a comedy of errors now -- a full fledged online farcical soap opera which will only descend into more and more horseshit as it steams along.

And I resent it with all that I am - my contributions toward spreading the message and work of BBV meant something too. I hope those that relish this kind of crap are happy now.

Feh.

That is what was needed. Before this, nothing worked; it's been a month, we have important meetings coming up next week, we need the site.

I think that is entirely reasonable. I will await the files on CD and everything needed to get it up and running again.

If there's more to this than is described, DEMActivisit is doing a horrendous job of explaining. Basically, she's described a personality conflict in which she seems to be totally contradicting herseflf over whether she's obstructing or assisting in a quick resolution.

No one on this discussion board can possible understand the "truth" and dynamics surrounding these issues

Do you except yourself from this generalization? If so, I bow to your superiority. All joking aside, I suggest that you please assist in toning down the acrimony. If you feel an urge to raise it, please resist the urge, log off, go for a walk, do some activist work away from DU, then come back. You'll feel much better, and so will we.

How do you extrapolate "Do you except yourself from this generalization?" from "No one on this discussion board can possible understand the "truth" and dynamics surrounding these issues".?

The only "ones" who know the "truth" are the principles themselves, and I am most assuredly not a principle here. Generalization? Froggy leap, indeed.

I don't have any background on what is and has happened amongst the players. Quite frankly, I DON'T CARE. It's not important in the big picture. Do you think that maybe Diebold or one of their allies might be sitting back watching this whole thread and rubbing their palms together in glee? Some people have become divided; that's readily apparent. How does that look to someone who is just trying to get involved? Ooo! Ooo! I can answer that; pretty bad.

I'm not going to send people to a corner to take a 'time-out' though I can see the need. And, I'm not trivializing the issue. The players have to find a way to get it together again. Remember someone out there said "A house divided.......," and all that shit. Well?

Same thing was happening months ago (look at DU threads in the archive)... It comes and goes, not a biggie, in my opinion... People get frustrated for various reasons, some bad chemistry, commo breaks down, pressure accumulates, then at some point it bursts... Let's just get the site rolling again... -C

What needs to happen then is that there needs to be some organization. I know that one activist wrote emails to volunteer an ISP to host bbv.com/org. He put his reputation on the line to help out. The help wasn't accepted. That's fine, it wasn't needed apparently.

It seems to me that some one needs to be in charge of the internet part of the group, someone needs to be in charge of getting volunteers active, someone needs to be in charge of research, someone needs to be in charge of communications, etc. This is a big undertaking with what, 450 activists signed up to help?

When, and if, there is some type of organization we will become a group that can meet it's goal. In the mean time, I will continue helping RedEagle here in Wa. state and do whatever anyone asks me to help out with; but it's going to be hard to fight the fight.

I couldn't extract either the domain name or the files, so moving it anywhere made no sense.

I thought quite hard about what to do next -- I really plan to move it to a site that I've been with for six years, who's already stood the test of fire (when we posted photocopies of George Bush military record right before election 2000). But until I have files and ability to do domain relocation, that part is moot. I may be able to move the domain now, so all I need is the files.

Bev

but I will keep it to myself since I have been in a similar situation before but without all the BS here that has taken place in this topic.

Very simple solution to this whole ordeal, but it will require something of the parties involved. Thats all I will say.

Ceasar said it first and it works everytime. Methinks that the same Caesar and his staff have a hand in this that are dividing the whole Democratic Party, screwing up California, Texas and Florida and our nation at large.

Sowing the seeds of dissent is why we have war instead of a National Health Care plan and other programs as well.

From the other thread, which someone was smart enough to save to their hard drive and kind enough to forward to me:

AP wrote:
You think people are trying to attach themselves to different litigation..
strategies, as plaintiffs, or something like that?

Is it about getting the perfect case? Or getting the case that asks the quesitons they want to ask?


To which Bev responded:
That would be great -- but why not just say this
psst, Bev, we're doing something. Lay low on legal stuff, it's cool.

Why shut down a web site? That crosses the line. Let's look at what that really did:

1) It shut down research on the SAIC report just when it came out
2) It bollixed up preparation for California activism with the election
3) It used up a week of my time -- heck, if it was some cool strategy, just tell me, I wouldn't even need to know the details.

And, if it's on the up and up, when I email and say "is there any reason I shouldn't cover this" why not just say "yeah, keep quiet for now."

And what is the deal with EFF?

DEMActivist didn't shut down any website. To make that charge is ... I'm sorry, it's delusional. It's also probably libelous.

I also find it interesting that the super-insulting, blackmailing email sent to me and DEMActivist is now characterized in a way that makes it sound like some breezy, light bit of patter. It was not. It was bullying thuggery. Here it is again:

Subject: The news of your lawsuit is going to break in two hours

Body: If there is a problem with this, call me and give me straight answers.

(phone number)

Bev

Given that there IS no lawsuit, it's ludicrous. But even if there were, that tone doesn't exactly come from the How to Win Friends and Influence People school of investigative reporting or activism. Hell, I'm insulted just knowing she thought tht kind of bullying manipulation would work on me. Nuh huh. Never. IOW: even if I'd have had information, I'd not have divulged it under those circumstances.

And speaking of EFF and the Win Friends/Influence People school of hum interaction, what is this continued bashing (in the innuendo of wrongdoing on their part) of the very people that are also fully expected to help? (Sense of entitlement, anyone?) Makes no sense whatsoever to me. My advice would be to get the problems with EFF figured out and/or ironed out with them before continuing any further, including bashing them on a public discussion forum.

Eloriel

"that tone doesn't exactly come from the How to Win Friends and Influence People school of investigative reporting or activism"

Why do you all worry so much about being friends? Why don't you put the personal shit aside, shove ego to the side, and just do what you need to do to get the site up somewhere?

And I'm not at all worried about "being friends." I'm sick of being at the butt-end of attacks, lies and innuendo. You can call that ego if you want -- I think it's entirely appropriate for people to stand up for themselves when lies are being spread about them.

Eloriel

"Roxanne asked me to talk to a lawyer. His name is James Penland. That's like 'pen - land.' So I went there and they videotaped my statement."

Harris: "What was it for?"

Behler: "They said they were doing a lawsuit about these Diebold machines."

===========================

So, it seemed to me that there might be a good reason not to mention that there was a lawsuit pending -- there could be legitimate lawsuits that are not qui tam. But clearly, at least he was under the impression that he was giving a deposition for a lawsuit.

If there was a good reason not to mention it, I needed to know, because Chapter 9 was going up in about two hours. I would have acceded to a courteous request to hold off.

In a qui tam, the client is instructed to deny there is a suit. Here I have Rob saying he thought he was there to give a videotaped statement for a lawsuit, which Roxanne asked him to do. Next I have Roxanne saying there is no lawsuit, nothing planned, never, not aware of anything.

Now I hear it was for some sort of a public demonstration and not a lawsuit? Same with James Rellinger? That's why an attorney asked him to come in and give a deposition? If it's for a public demonstration and not a lawsuit, why do it under oath in a lawyer's office saying it's for a lawsuit.

I really do believe Rob. He's been dead-on accurate so far, and provably so. But I'll take your word for it, misunderstanding, though an understandable one.

Now, I really do have a book to get to.

And I really do think they must put something in the water to make people act like this.

Now, I was told two stories about access to our FTP site (and could not get any answer at all for 48 hours): (1) that AIT changed the password and (2) That one of "our people" changed the password. Of "our people" the only ones it could be would be Roxanne and the owner of Gator Graphics. Only one of the above two answers can be correct, and I need to know which it is.

The only people who can put this to rest are AIT, and they have ignored my requests to put an explanation in writing, which is why I have to go to the ridiculous step of having a lawyer send them a letter to ask who shut off access to the FTP site, and while I'm at it, I will get the access logs.

That is for later. For now, I need to get the site back up.

employment details?

I'll say it again: I know of NO LAWSUIT, qui tam or otherwise. I have no interest in (and not enough knowledge for in any case) a qui tam suit. Unlike AP, I'm simply not money-motivated. Period. Besides that, if we trusted the DoJ, we'd have been seeing some FBI and/or Federal Prosecutors a long time ago.

I know DA pretty darned well after all this time, and SHE is not interested nor involved in a qui tam suit (or any other law suit). It would be counterproductive to what needs to be done, is basically our attitude about it and she's not money motivated either.

Do we talk ABOUT lawsuits? Oh, heavens yes. All the damned time. Sometimes even to attorneys, if you can believe that. Has it gotten us anywhere? Not yet. Do we expect it to? I'm frankly giving up hope, but I'm not quite there yet. Little dramas like this don't help.

If there was a good reason not to mention it, I needed to know, because Chapter 9 was going up in about two hours. I would have acceded to a courteous request to hold off.

The good reason was given to you: THERE IS NONE. As for courtesy, I'm not in the habit of responding to people who treat me badly in a particularly courteous way. You've gotten way more of my patience than I'm usually capable of.

Edited to add: Here's what I don't understand. If you were under the impression a lawsuit was in the works, wouldn't it be counterproductive to release that news? I mean, aren't lawsuits usually kept under wraps until the right time, so the other party doesn't get wind of them, thus getting advance notice and more time to prepare or foil them or something? It just seems to me that your threat -- to "break" a story (even if there was one) -- would have been working against the very issue you've dedicated your life to for so many months. It doesn't make sense to me.

NOW, goodbye.

Eloriel

obvioulsy somethign like BBV activism is only going to get all the professional attention it needs if the people pursuing it can afford to pay lawyers, get good ISP help, and get enough money so they don't have to give it up to eat.

This much is obvious. Do you think MLK could have done what he did without somebody providing money?

you have to eat, there are only 24 hours in a day, but as soon as the dollar sign enters the equation you are branded a shill.

meanwhile the right is flush with war money provided under much shadier circumstances, one 'interest group' or 'think tank' to another.

and we lose...

Is gonna need the scratch.

Actually, they all need the scratch, and they all require the assistance of people with mouths to feed.

disruption seems to be a pattern with a paticular participant.

thats for sure though i agree we need to work together with tird parties more.

peace

I just sent my 74 year old mother all of the BBV threads since her computer floated to the top of the tank. Ma runs the precinct voting in our area every election. She's involved with Americans United for seperation of church and state. She's been sharing BBV concerns with fellow precinct workers statewide, and has written to many a congress critter, secretary of state, et. al....

This is one thread I WILL NOT PASS ALONG TO HER.

I have no clue as to why this cutthroat infighting has occurred, but I will suggest that next time...

You all don't hang your dirty underwear out here in public.

Democracy, and our right to vote, is INFINITELY more important than all the petulant schoolyard BULLSHIT that is being displayed here and now!!!

SHAME ON YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

... it was bad enough with Frodo chiming in constantly with nonsense tho thankfully brief bs, but now I see a bunch of people who I deeply respect acting childish.

One lesson here is incredibly clear, and should have been obvious from the start. If you "have" a website, you need to get a mirror copy of the files every few days at least. You never know when someone is going to let you down, justified or not.

Register your own domain, don't let the host do it. There is no upside to letting the host do it.

And one more thing. Use separate ISPs to host your site and handle your email. That way, nobody can pull the "I've been spammed" bullcrap and get your site taken down. Get your important mail from a web account, and if you must send releases to 4,000 people, either use a "throwaway" ISP account, or a true opt-in listserver. The listserver may not be feasible, since many/most of your current recipients would not bother to sign up.