Slashdot Mirror

Because it makes fraud a lot harder!

Here is a report (big PDF) on threat models against elections, from the Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security (includes Bruce Schneier).

They look at what it takes to alter enough votes to swing a statewide election, and rank the difficulty by the number of people who would have to be "in on" the conspiracy.

If you have a machine with no paper trail, or if the paper trail you have is not audited, then only one person is needed to swing the election - to plant a Trojan in the voting machine software.

If you have a paper trail that's randomly audited, and any centralized storage of the voted ballots is secure enough, you need a pretty big conspiracy to swing a statewide election (you'd need at least one person at a whole bunch of precincts).

They go on to describe countermeasures that can be used to thwart or mitigate suck attacks - interesting read. I'm proud to say that my county has most of them implemented.

"The issue revolves around some states whose Do Not Call laws are more strict than Federal law and which prohibit telemarketers from calling anyone on a Do Not Call, regardless of an existing business relationship."

Then there's nothing to worry about. It'll never happen with the GOP in control of both the White House and both houses of Congress, as they've always been friends to states' rights!

"The federal constitution supercedes state constitutions."

Only insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned as well as Congress' duty to maintain a republican form of government in each state. There is nothing in the United States Constitution that requires capital punishment, which means that it is left to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Remember we are talking about a federal constution, not a centrallized one.

"However, cases in the federal government's jurisdiction are, by definition, not tried under state (or protectorate) law but under federal law."

But the feds still expect the states to do the executions for them. IIRC Ashcroft recently put New Hampshire (a full-fledged state) in a similar situation.

"See separation of powers..."

Hypocrite. If this were truly about "separation of powers" then the feds wouldn't be able to force states to do something, because those powers would be separated.

Read me.

"So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats."

So you're going not by what he says, but what you think he means? It sounds like you're using some of the same tactics that those "activist judges" you complain about are using.

"Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench."

Democrats, Republicans... about the only people the Supreme Court is working to empower are themselves. And as for that "strict constructionist" viewpoint, politicians only use that line when it suits them.

"As for oil, what else CAN we do."

Kick the habit? Encourage a movement away from oil by putting obnoxious tariffs on imported stuff? Throw money at alternative fuel sources? Build more nuke plants to produce more hydrogen? Hell, shifting to cars powered by pulverized coal would be an improvement over the status quo, at least as far as American independence and not throwing money at terrorists is concerned.

now ray-ramano-skipping technology - that I could really get behind...

seriously, though, i agree that it makes a lot of sense for advertisers to be troubled by DVR. it does, after all, allow you to watch a show without the commercials they pay a truckload to make and therefore expect some return from. on the other hand the invention of the remote control wrested their hold on your attention away, anyways.

i see two potential solutions for them to maintain the same revenue:
1)come up with new and interesting paradigms for advertising. note the innovative techniques that soccer (really called football every place it is commonly on tv) broadcasters have found: banners across the top, drop down ads, sponsored commercial-free time, etc.
2)utilize partnerships with the up and coming media megoliths (ClearChannel, Comcast/ATT, etc.) to force companies like ReplayTV to drop these technologies and support the status quo.

Especially since elected politicians have a vested interest in the continuation of television commercials as well, i suspect the latter will come to pass. even when we all have (crippled) dvr's on every tv in the house i have to disagree with the idea that "fewer people will watch ads." the networks and the advertisers are just going to find ways to make sure we are watching.

• Amoco
• Johnson Controls
• CitySoft
• Nuedge Systems
• Expediore
• Hanson, Dodge & Sutter
• Resource Marketing
• CNA Insurance
• and on, and on

So it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please research before you knock.

Oh and will you give me a list of your clients?