[CAVO] Fwd: [VVSG-interoperability] [VVSG-election] Single Point of Failure - the Scan Head - RE: By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines

[Brent Turner]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [VVSG-interoperability] [VVSG-election] Single Point of
Failure - the Scan Head - RE: By November, Russian hackers could target
voting machines
To: Gregory Miller <gmiller at osetfoundation.org>
Cc: Tim Mayer <timbmayer at gmail.com>, Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com>,
Brigette Hunley <brigette.hunley at gmail.com>, Alec Bash <alec.bash at gmail.com>,
Brian Fox <bfox at opuslogica.com>, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>


Greg-    I will try and address your main points here-

I want my stress reduced, reduce or eliminate this negative energy

No negative energy from this side.. just some history and fact -- Doing
patriotic duty is positive energy-- imo

Accurate history should chronicle them all.  So why not here too?  We all
earn our places in history with lesser or greater remembrance by our
actions, not our claims.  Perhaps none of us will be mentioned anywhere

We note your  board is heavy on  search engine optimization folks..  and
you have never reached out to the open source community. You came into the
space with " sound-alike " names and licenses..  never giving credit.. what
did you think the response would be from those that dedicated their lives..
while you attempted to take over the space.  This was exacerbated with your
failed internet demo..  trashing the brand of election reform..

We acknowledge that CAVO and prior to that OVC have led some very early
efforts to bring OSS alternatives to the election technology world, dating
back to well before our formation.

Please do more

We have *not* and will not make any negative statements about any other
effort including CAVO.

Great Greg--  there is nothing that COULD be said in the negative about our
work..   or it would be a lie.  We work for free toward GPL open source /  COTS
systems..  and election system security.

CAVO President Tim Mayer is on this list-- You know Tim from the SFVSTF--
 Speak directly to him at your leisure-

BT


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Gregory Miller <gmiller at osetfoundation.org>
wrote:

> I suggested my last response was my last, but realize that *this* message
> is better served as my *final response*, because you raise some points
> that can give me one last chance for at least those copied here to read our
> position(s).
>
> No, really, what is below are my *final* written words on any of this or
> anything Brent wishes to write or claim.  I want my stress reduced, reduce
> or eliminate this negative energy, and to get on with my work.  So this
> will be it.  Let's get to it...
>
>
>> You posture as a pioneer in the movement, and you are not. The heavy lift
>> for open source voting was long before you got involved.
>>
>
> None of us have ever postured ourselves as "pioneers."  That said, there
> can be several pioneers in a movement.  John Sutter, Patrick Breen, George
> Donner and James Reed were not the *only* pioneers of the westward
> migration.  So were Lewis and Clark during the westward rush of the 1840s.
> And Sir Francis Drake predated all of them 260 years earlier.  Who is
> really the pioneer of California?  Does it matter?  We're not all of them
> pioneers?  Was Xerox PARC the pioneer of a mouse and bitmapped display or
> was it Apple?  Or were they both for different reasons?  Is Elon Musk the
> pioneer of the electric car or several before him?  Were they not all
> pioneers in their own right?  Again, who cares?
>
> Accurate history should chronicle them all.  So why not here too?  We all
> earn our places in history with lesser or greater remembrance by our
> actions, not our claims.  Perhaps none of us will be mentioned anywhere.
> But whether we are or not, it certainly will not be due to some white
> papers, some source code, or blog posts.  It will be due to hard work of
> actually developing solutions that foster adoption and bring about an
> update and upgrade of democracy infrastructure.
>
> I was in a meeting at the Atlantic Council in D.C. this past Spring where
> I observed there are probably at least 6 different OSS efforts underway,
> and out of intellectual honesty, I *included* CAVO in my list.  This is
> in writing here: the OSET Institute (Foundation) and its projects does
> *not* purport to be the "first" or any sort of "pioneer;" we're simply
> another effort, and our solution architecture does present some
> breakthrough aspects (according to others, not us).   I wonder, Brent, do
> you acknowledge OSET's presence in the effort, or simply discount it,
> criticize or diminish its existence?
>
> Regardless, history will make the final judgment, not any claim of you or
> I.  I think you realize that Brent.  You must.  Actions speak volumes; not
> the bandwidth we're chewing up here.
>
>>
>> I've seen this many times since I joined the effort: instead of joining,
>> some have tried to take over the movement. You are one of many in this
>> category.
>>
>
> Again, I'll go on record here that we have *no interest* in "taking over"
> any "movement."  There is no single authority or interest or leader.  There
> is only a free market of ideas.  We're just one of several.  A rising tide
> should raise all ships.
>
> Kiniry seems competent, too, but so are a lot of others. And I never heard
>> anything of Kiniry before about 2012 -- a real newcomer who wants to
>> posture as the authority on the subject. Why you or he would attack me as
>> the messenger is simply bizarre.
>
>
> I take your point that you may not have heard of Joe prior to his return
> to the US from overseas teaching stints, but that does not make him a
> newcomer.  If you do some research on Dr. Kiniry, you will discover that as
> a CalTech Ph.D he became a tenured professor and expert called upon by
> several governments around the world and was teaching at two different
> universities in Europe during that time.  So, no, you may well have not
> heard of him in the U.S. prior to 2010 or so.
>
> But for those involved in critical infrastructure initiatives and members
> of international organizations like ACE Knowledge Network and International
> IDEA, or working in National Security, Dr. Kiniry was and remains known,
> and those domains include democracy preservation among their investigative
> points.  His software research, writing, development, and teaching all
> established his credentials.
>
> Similarly, our CTO has been working on critical infrastructure issues
> going back to 1999 (And those issues also included investigations into
> election integrity)... that was a recruiting point when he joined the
> formation of our effort in November 2006... he and I were giving separate
> interviews to the media at the time about machine issues in Cuyahoga County
> OH.
>
> I actually began looking at election issues during my time at Netscape
> while based in Europe 1997-1999 (it was an interest intersection between
> computer science and law).  Netscape had an opportunity to bring technology
> into the UK and EU governments for purposes of elector registration back in
> 1998; that was my first brush with election technology (to be sure, I was
> primarily responsible for strategic marketing in the worldwide property and
> casualty insurance and legal technology markets when I was introduced to an
> elections policy barrister in the House of Lords.)  I then drifted away
> from any efforts as my work responsibilities took me in a different
> direction for the next 7 years until the midterms of 2006.
>
> So, you may not have heard of Kiniry prior to 2012 (pr myself or John
> Sebes prior to 2007), I take your point, but in the global arena Joe Kiniry
> was there in election integrity and hardly a newcomer, Brent.   And
> similarly, without asking you really have no way of knowing what I or other
> colleagues have done or are doing in the space.  Thus, you may think that
> none of us were doing anything in this space because you hadn't heard of us
> prior to 2007.  OK, but that doesn't mean we were not engaged in one
> capacity or another.  And that certainly does not disqualify us from being
> engaged today.
>
> Following the loss of my parents, given their journey and my promise to my
> late mother to (back then) not follow my brother into the military, I
> realized on the 20th anniversary in 2006 of the loss of my Father, this
> would be a great way for me to give something back to a country that gave
> my parents sanctuary.
>
> For whatever reason you are against our efforts, my desire to give
> something back in honor of my parents is a point that cannot be denied or
> diminished and is my only agenda.  You would also find, looking into our
> CTO's life that his father was a Hungarian refuge from WW II as well and
> this effort is part of his pride of legacy too.
>
>>
>> Of course, The real scientists and OS community members don't like all
>> the obstructions. They'd  rather have people join us rather than throw
>> marbles under our feet. I have extended many opportunities to you and
>> Kapor.. but have only been met with showboating and resistance.
>>
>
> Prior to your attacks in person, online, and in public, we considered
> several times how we might work with your organization.  I regret that
> there was simply a legal technical barrier regarding a c3 and c6
> cooperating back when you asked.
>
> Now it is irrelevant; the waters are so toxic that I see no reason to
> interact any further whatsoever.  And I only respond here out of a desire
> to be on the written record for those you've chosen to copy, and for our
> own defense as well should at some point this record prove useful.
>
> I remember your story about discarding  new Mercedes cars at airports and
>> I am not impressed with your wealth or supposed power.
>>
>
> You see, Brent it is this kind of stuff that is so *delusional*.  Its
> worse than Trump-ish.  Its just out of nowhere.   I am not sure who or what
> you are referring to, but none of that has anything to do with me.  That is
> fantasy stuff.  For one thing, I think I stated in a prior message that my
> parents were holocaust survivors.  My heritage has a very strong
> disinterest in Mercedes given that suffrage, oppression, and ethnic
> cleansing.  I have never owned, driven, and have only been in one Mercedes
> one time in my life when I had no choice as it was the only cab in a storm
> in Munich.  This cr*p about Mercedes and airports is the kind of stuff that
> perhaps someone like Travis Kalanick might tell.  But it has nothing to do
> with myself.  And besides, we have never conversed for more than 2-minutes
> at SF Hearings -- at a Task Force meeting 6 years ago, and last November.
> And we sure as hell didn't talk about cars.
>
>>
>> Still, we'd prefer that you support our efforts rather than undermine the
>> efforts of the real pioneers in this movement.
>>
>> As I wrote, you have made the waters too toxic for any kind of
> collaboration or relationship.  You've gone too personal; completely made
> up stuff (see above); invented facts of your own; and made repeated charges
> that simply have no basis in reality and are perplexing at best as to your
> motive.  Re-read the foregoing and read this carefully.
>
> I am on record above and repeat here a "baker's dozen" things that we've
> maintained all along:
>
>    1. We (OSET) do *not* claim to be pioneers.
>    2. We (OSET) are *not* attempting to claim ownership, leadership or
>    anything.
>    3. We're simply another of several causes all with a common objective.
>    4. We acknowledge that CAVO and prior to that OVC have led some very
>    early efforts to bring OSS alternatives to the election technology world,
>    dating back to well before our formation.
>    5. We vigorously will defend that all of our work has been 100%
>    independent creation and development and that we have not in any way
>    stepped on your efforts to further our own.
>    6. Our mission is clear: increase confidence in elections and their
>    outcomes in order to preserve our democracy.
>    7. To deliver on that mission. we're developing publicly available,
>    federally certified voting systems software that is higher integrity, lower
>    cost, and easier to use.
>    8. We have *no* intention of undermining the efforts of anyone,
>    including CAVO.
>    9. We're focused on what we're doing and intend to continue doing so.
>    10. We have *not* and will not make any negative statements about any
>    other effort including CAVO.
>    11. We acknowledge that there are several OSS projects besides OSET.
>    12. We will of course, defend our work and its potential as a viable
>    alternative to the current commercial alternatives.
>    13. We do believe there is a need for a viable commercial market to
>    deliver finished systems based on OSS work, using MOTS (modified commodity
>    off the shelf) hardware.  So, our work is intended to catalyze the
>    rejuvenation of a more open competitive market to do so.
>
> I'm sure the work of CAVO has similar intents and purposes.  That all
> observed, we intend to avoid and ignore you and CAVO, and hope that out of
> some modicum of respect you will do the same with OSET.  You go your way.
> We are going ours.
>
> My late father instructed that if one cannot find something good to say
> about someone, one should say nothing at all. Therefore, *I warrant that*
> I do *not and will not* discuss you or CAVO with anyone.  I will
> acknowledge CAVO's existence and effort; to do otherwise would be dishonest
> and unprofessional. However, I will offer no opinions, claims, or charges
> beyond that.  I will recommend to anyone who asks me about CAVo or you that
> they should contact CAVO directly, as we have no competent knowledge or
> opinion to offer about CAVO except to say that CAVO is working toward a
> common goal of increased transparency in elections.  I have no further
> talking points.  I warrant that such is and will continue to be the case.
>
> *It would be considerate of you to offer the same toward us*.
>
> *Here is the thing*: as you saw from Mary's eMail today admonishing
> further misuse of the VVSG forums for this discussion:  it has riled many
> election officials who are considering dropping their participation because
> the simply do not have the bandwidth to deal with any of this.  Continued
> rants about us and/or required responses on our part are actually *hurting
> the greater collective cause*, Brent.  And I have to believe that you
> (like us) certainly do *not* want to ironically hurt support of a cause
> for OSS in elections.  So, we need to *stop* this.  And for our part I
> assure you we are disengaging for that reason, if no other.
>
> Thus, I am *finished* here or anywhere with this discussion and eMail
> exchanges about anything to do with you, CAVO or us.  Please understand
> that henceforth I have nothing further to exchange with you, Brent.
>
> If you have a legitimate legal claim of some sort, bring it if you must.
> We're fully prepared to address it, but know that doing so (dragging out
> some crazy battle over these OSS efforts) will only serve to probably ruin
> all the good effort that all of us (not just some of us) are trying to do.
> And that would be really sad.  So, I ask that you go about your efforts and
> we will go about ours.
>
> The greater the quantity of efforts, in fact, the more likely the cause
> will take widespread hold.
>
> However, continued infighting over petty issues and claims will only serve
> to implode the greater effort by many.  The commercial vendors (we all are
> dealing with in different ways) will win because the election officials who
> decide what to adopt will run in the other direction over this
> divisiveness.  That's the unintentional sabotage that can result in suicide
> of a cause that I was referring to earlier.
>
> You see, it would do OSET no good to attack or diminish CAVO efforts --
> that only makes us look bad and pollutes the greater cause of many.
>
> But your continued attacks and/or bizarre and crazy stories about myself,
> OSET or anyone involved (and even those no longer involved) looks like sour
> grapes because another organization with slightly different views than
> yours, but fighting for the same cause, entered the space wherein you claim
> to be the sole pioneer.
>
> Continue if you wish, but I would encourage you (or perhaps better, your
> colleagues to encourage you) to drop this and move on with our respective
> efforts.
>
> So I am done here. Carry on if you wish.  Our efforts and record will
> speak for itself.  And we invite anyone who wants to join our momentum to
> do so; there's lots of work to be done... here and with CAVO, and several
> other projects underway or starting around the country.
>
> Anyone else who wants to have an intellectually honest, cogent, and
> collegial discussion about anything we're working on at the TrustTheVote
> Project is welcome to reach out to us.  And why not?  We've nothing to
> hide, and a strong desire to deliver on our mission for the sakes of our
> supporters including the Knight Foundation, Democracy Fund, Arnold
> Foundation, and several private donors.  But for us, that conversation will
> no longer occur with you, Brent, involved.
>
> I can only hope (pray) that someone on your cc distribution will actually
> read what I've written here and understand it.
>
> With that, *I am out*.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160801/127b59a0/attachment.html>