Many of you read my posts on the use of the Albert Sensors here:

Then some of you filed an election integrity violation report with the Secretary of State.

Then some of you probably received this blanket, boilerplate statement they sent to everyone who complained.

If you remember, we explained that using Albert Sensors could compromise our elections. We also addressed the SOS that adding our signatures to the outside of the ballot envelopes, where bad actors could steal our identities.

They never addressed the signature violation.


See my response to them here:

They never responded.

So back to the Albert Sensor. One just needs to look to Washington State, where the county commissioners in three counties all removed or refused to use Albert Sensors. Why?

They said it didn’t protect them, they were hacked, CIS didn’t share any data or information with the county, and Albert Sensors had access to their entire county computer networks. They had no idea what CIS did with their data. Since it doesn’t work as advertised, and they have no access to the “black box” and what it does, they pulled them or didn’t install them.

Source: Clark County Today

Of course, the national press attacked them as right-wing nuts…

One just simply needs to look at my previous posts for reasons any rational public servant would refuse to use them. But here are a few more reasons if those on the fence are still undecided on why they should be removed.

My letter to our “servants”

Subject: Urgent Demand for Removal of Albert Sensor from Washoe County Election System

I am writing to formally demand the immediate removal of the Albert Sensor from the Washoe County election infrastructure. I have potentially identified several legal and security concerns related to the use of this device. The continued use of the Albert Sensor may violate specific, but not all inclusive NRS and NAC provisions and poses significant risks to the integrity and security of our election system.

  1. Violation of NAC 293B.090
    NAC 293B.090 requires stringent security measures for mechanical voting systems. The Albert Sensor, which transmits data packets and creates potential cyber pathways, undermines the security of our election management system (EMS). The inclusion of this device, which is acknowledged to be hackable, directly contravenes the intent of this regulation.
  2. Violation of NRS 293.2696, NRS 293B & NAC 293B
    NRS 293.2696 and others mandate that voting machines and related equipment must be protected from tampering. The contract for the Albert Sensor explicitly states its vulnerability to hacking, which constitutes a failure to protect the voting process from external interference. This clearly violates the statutory requirements for election security.
  3. General Security and Integrity Concerns
    The Albert Sensor introduces a significant security risk by potentially allowing unauthorized access to the EMS. If the sensor transmits data back and forth with the EMS, it creates an avenue for cyber intrusions, contrary to the requirement for a secure system inferred from NRS 293.250 ad 293.671. Most importantly, the system, in official state documentation and contracts, outlines the hat the Albert system has the ability to reach every component within the election environment.
  4. Conflict with Voter Bill of Rights
    The presence of the Albert Sensor may also infringe on the rights outlined in the Nevada Constitution Article 2 Section 1A. The Voter Bill of Rights guarantees voters the right to a secure and accurate voting process. A device that compromises the EMS integrity violates the voters’ constitutional rights to have their preferences accurately recorded and counted.
  5. Federal Considerations – Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
    Under HAVA, states must implement security measures to protect the voting process. Using a device known to be hackable does not align with the federal requirements for election security and could lead to non-compliance with HAVA, further jeopardizing the integrity of our election system.
  6. PRE LAT Violation: NRS 293B.150 and 293B.165 has been violated as the County failed to follow the law in its PRE LAT testing. No ACB was present, no ROV was present, no locked box was used, USBs were concealed upon entry and exit, always to be done prior to voting yet early voting had already started. All has been documented. This is unacceptable.

Albert sensor terms of service:


Washington State:

Albert Sensors have access to the entire Washoe County systems: “They also weren’t comfortable with a black box system having access to ALL data on our computer networks, rather than just election-related systems”

Additional comments made by the County

“Lincoln County became the victim of a ransomware attack, but CIS never alerted the county to the ransomware hack from a known ransomware site.”

“Since the Albert sensor didn’t prevent the attack or alert the county about the attack, Lincoln County ended their contract and uninstalled the Albert sensors from its network.”

“If the system isn’t working as advertised, why continue using it?”

The County Appears To Have Lied

The County states there is no Albert Sensor in the tabulation room, yet during our walkthrough, a device that appears to be identical to an Albert Sensor was installed in the EMS rack. Additionally, an IP address for the EMS system was taped near it. This is horribly insecure for endless reasons.

USB Flash Drive Use

The County has admitted to using flash drives twice a day in the tabulation room. This means the entire EMS and every device in the County is now infected or could be infected with malware, spyware, viruses, etc. and now by using a flash drive twice a day, there are no longer any adequate safeguards in place. Every time the County adds the tabulator or EMS data or voter data to the USB and transmits it offsite, then receives data to the USB, and then uses it again in the EMS or tabulation room, the entire system and network is compromised. Additionally, the vote data can be manipulated and no one is the wiser. This is reckless and violates the law.

County’s Own Words Conflict:

Pre-LAT (Logic and Accuracy Testing) – NRS 293B.150 & NRS 293B.155

Certification that testing was completed and produced expected results. This testing is witnessed and approved by a bipartisan Accuracy Certification Board (ACB).

This was done on 5/27-28 and not done in accordance to the law as they state above.

Demand for Immediate Action

In light of these substantial concerns and violations, I demand the immediate removal of the Albert Sensor from the Washoe County election system. Additionally the immediate stoppage of all USB usage or related activities to any part of the election system as the ROV stated in our recorded meeting. Failure to act upon this notice and to address these legal and security issues may result in personal liability for those involved in permitting the continued use of this device.

By continuing to use the Albert Sensor after being made aware of these issues, you may be held personally liable for any resultant breaches or tampering incidents. Ensuring the integrity and security of our election process is paramount, and adherence to the statutory requirements is not optional but mandatory.

Please confirm the receipt of this letter and provide a detailed response outlining the actions you will take to address these concerns by Friday 6/7/24.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter.

End Response

Now if that isn’t enough, what happens when you look into the left-wing nonprofit with ties to Soros and pals, Albert Sensors, and the CIS (Center for Internet Security) tech stack? What tech are they basically using and by whom?

According to Crunchbase, on the CIS technology tab, it states:

Did you catch that?

Russia, Ukraine, and other places…

What are they doing with our data?

Where are they sending it? Who has access to it?

WTH, right?

So, for just these reasons alone, there is no reason Albert Sensors should be used. I don’t care how much money DHS and the Fed give Washoe County, the Secretary of State, or CIS, we need our elections safe, secure and handled in-county.

There are just too many concerning issues. If Washington counties pulled Albert or chose not to use them, so can we!

So my question to our SOS is, why are you so set on using something that has so many concerns and additionally states they’re not liable for any issues if they arise?

What the hell is wrong with our SOS?

Feel free to copy and paste some of this post and send it to him easily here:

Our precious voices, through our votes, are the only way we can effect peaceful change in our community. It’s time our public servants respected that fact and safeguarded our elections.

Enough is enough!


These thoughts, statements, and opinions are my own, not of any club, committee, organization, etc.

Follow us on:

Share This Content