Friday, April 6, 2007

Does Mr. Bennett Even Perceive What ELECTION SECURITY IS, or Want To?

Outlined just in the two posts directly below are many examples of Mr. Bennett's:
  • cover-ups and obfuscations instead of sound management and identifying and solving problems
  • and his attacking "his opponents" who want fair, accurate elections, and in fact anyone who negatively impacts his public face of power
Here are some videos that show that:
  • since February, 2004's board decision to buy 5,000 + Diebold touchscreen machines, in ways the public had little way of discovering, and while Bennett was an old friend of O'Dell, still then a Diebold head
  • and despite the fact that interested citizens had brought mounds of factual support about the many Diebold equipment operational and security attack vectors, he allowed the purchase order to be signed on 11/11/05 with a non-publicly made decision -
Mr. Bennett STILL has no idea about critical factors of electronic election security that he was to be ultimately managing, nor did he ever care to.
1. Watch what we found before that 11/7/06 meeting even started, during the normal 20 - 60 minute wait - this one a 40 minute wait for the board to appear.
(What WERE they doing all those times? Having illegal non-public sessions?)

2. Now watch what Bennett and the board had to say about that huge security danger when asked about it on 3/21/06. Just a "housekeeping item"?

3. And what the head of CCBOE election security had to say on 3/21/07 about just a few of the potential risks and huge electronic security problems, months-long, citizen-warned before the 11/7/06 mid-term election, but under Bennett's "management" he was permitted to not fix until after the election, in January.

Click here to download a copy of the Cuyahoga Security Plan
(as usual for a CCBOE document, undated, but I saw in late September, and commented upon, as did others, at the 10/2 meeting after overnight input was requested.) This is what it was, until quickly actually added to, on 11/5/06, with bits of public input that many had sent to the Monitor, and were submitted on that date, the first BOE opportunity.
I still have not seen that version, because according Mr. Vu on 11/5, "it was a security document", inferring again the public's nefariousness, but I think it was because it was "a mess". In any case, the massive changes needed, could not have been made and implemented for an election 2 days hence.

For those familiar with computer security, and familiar with the reality of conditions at the CCBOE, the document becomes overwhelmingly incomplete, inaccurate, and even for those who don't know the above, highly confusing.

Mr. Bennett, however, has bragged about the excellence of the plan, very apparently without even reading it.
See this 3/19 post dealing with that 11/5 meeting for more details about his concerted lack of understanding and care about election law, rather than political patronage; and about election security.
(The first video there repeats the first one in this post.)

No comments: