Hardly Anyone Cares About Computer Voting Problems

Avidwriter writes "It's a sad thought that Roblimo explores in a NewsForge article about computer voting fraud and how you'd think all honest politicians would be working to make sure computerized voting systems are open source, and why open source wouldn't hurt well-run voting machine companies' profits. Not that most people care, since they don't even bother to vote, right?"

Comments

Thus say...

[inertia187]

Not that most people care, since they don't even bother to vote, right?

I don't know off hand, so let's put it to a vote!

Re:Thus say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its sad that the same people who scream for open source voting and open source this and that are the same people who bemoan the cheaters once quake 1 and quake 2 source was made public (though not open source) .

You would think that voting machines you would want simple and private code with high encription.

Re:Thus say...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Quake and similar games are inherently impossible to proof against cheats. Too much is done at the client side, so there's too many ways that the cheaters can cheat -- and no way to protect against them all. At what point is the line between incredibly good reflexes, and cheating? And how can you tell, unless you're physically there, at the client, watching them play?

Voting, on the other hand, is a much simpler problem, and the problems with fraud are much better documented and understood. Those that control the rules can control the voting -- but that's a problem with paper ballots as well as electronic. In this case, the risks of opening the code are outweighed by the risks of not opening the code.

Re:Thus say...

[texaport]

"What with voting turnout at an all-time
low, not voting makes me more American."

--
Hank Hill, King of the Hill

Re:Thus say...

[Feztaa]

I strongly reccommend that you read The Case of the Quake Cheats. It's a very good read :)

in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[dreadnougat]

even if you vote "abstain", or you get a small fine (unless you CAN'T be there, ie are hospitalized)

At least it would stop the whining about voter turnout :)

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Mjec]

[In Australia there is compulsary voting,] even if you vote "abstain", or you get a small fine (unless you CAN'T be there, ie are hospitalized)

Yes, voting is compulsary, but thanks to protection of privacy there is no way for them to know whether you actually voted or no. You just have to turn up, and place a ballot paper - it can theoretically be blank, and for some people often is. But everyone turns out, and it is a much better system. We actually get a reasonable representation of the opinion of the people.


But with response to the article:
Yes! There is a need in the US for a better voter turnout, and if machines are in use it needs to be difficult to be forge or modify votes. Go me, master of the blindingly obvious!

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Anonymous Coward]

To be completely accurate, in Australia we have mandatory attendance at a place of voting. All that you have to do to avoid the fine is appear at the polling booth, get your name crossed off, and leave. There is nothing forcing you to cast a vote as such.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[diersing]

Many countries do this, of course those same countries usually declare a national holiday and most business are closed allowing the population the time to carefully weigh all the candidates and dutifully select the nominee they want. Yes I'm lobbying for a day off

I got burned by this when my cruise ship pulled into harbor in Belize, only to find everything was closed until the polls closed at 6pm. Imagine my distain when I found out our ship pulled anchor at 5pm, the bastards!!!

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Slurpee]

The duty of the government is to protect the rights and well-being of it's citizens.

Where do you pull this from? The people of Australia should decide the "duties" of their government. Not you.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[canning]

Yeah, the duty of the government is to protect the rights and well being of its citizens but it's also up to the citizens to protect each other.
Being required to vote is in the best interest of everyone in the country and it's a small price to pay. You can't tell me that you're life is so significant and hectic that you cannot accommodate casting your vote? Give me a break.
I truly believe that if you don't vote (or in an Australian citizen's case cast a blank ballot) you have no place to criticize politics or the actions of politicians until you do so.

Just my $0.02.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[gantrep]

Whether or not individuals have a duty to protect others is a religious/ethical issue and it certainly should not be mandated by the state. If you want to talk about requiring things of your subjects for the common good of all, then you're talking about communism. If they can require you to go to the polls on a certain day, then they can require you to spend a couple days cleaning up a floodzone, or maybe a couple months of filing papers for Big Brother...

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[cranos]

" If you want to talk about requiring things of your subjects for the common good of all, then you're talking about communism"

So a criminal justice system is commie plot now is it?

Seriously as members of a community we are expected to contribute to that community as well as take away, other wise the community collapses. Voting is your way of saying this is the person/group I want leading the community. If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Bush Pig]

The best way to tell is by assessing how much property they own - the more property, the better the qualification. In fact, people who own a _lot_ of stuff should probably be given more votes than poor people. Maybe there should be a minimum amount of property you can own before you even get a vote at all.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[MikeFM]

I think people that show up to vote should get a tax break. That way if you had a voucher proving you voted (even if abstaining) you could write it off come tax time. Even if they only gave you $15 to cover your gas and time I think it'd still help motivate people.

Or to improve the college student turnout maybe they should offer coupons for a free pizza, drink, or whatever to each person that turned out? I'm sure you could get companies to sponsor the elections.

Of course I move every six months or so.. making it hard to get many chances to vote. I think maybe that's why I was refused voter registration during the last Presidential election (though the refusal had no reason writen on it).

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[An Onerous Coward]

I think you're being unrealistic. Instead, I side with Scott Adams' comment on the importance of your vote: The value of your vote is actually negative if its influence on the outcome is outweighed by the time and effort spent casting it.

Throw in the fact that you can be a conscientious citizen, get yourself well informed on all the candidates and issues, and have your vote negated by some ninety-five year old lady who is voting for Al Gore because he wore the best tie... can you blame us for getting cynical?

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[canning]

The point is that they're still giving you a choice. You still have the option of casting a blank ballot. No one reads it and no one is holding gun to your head.
I would agree with you if you didn't have this option or if you were handed a ballot with three choices and all contained the same name.
Are you seriously comparing the Australian Government to a communist one? Seriously, you're being unrealistic.

Go outside, the world misses you.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[cranos]

Then stop making gross generalisations. You did not qualify your statement in any way shape or form. If you want to stop people from thinking that you are some sort of libertarian nut job then a little more thought into your posts might be a good idea.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[gantrep]

Though I support taxation, my take on it is almost backwards, in a sense, to yours. Taxation is not a duty of the people. The people have no "duty" to their government. The government has a duty to them.

The people, by their own consent, choose to create an entity for their own protection from threats foreign and domestic, etc. You see, the payment of taxes is by their own consent. No one can claim by his own authority, a right to the property of others.

This raises the issue then, how can taxes be imposed then on the minority of people who do not support them?

My answer is that participation in society should be voluntary, however for all practical purposes it is quite difficult to try to find somewhere to live under no governmental rule.

There is no society that is structured according to my ideals.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Slurpee]

gantrep obviously hasn't thought this through. Paying taxes to pay for roads and education is also a commie plot (according to his view). As is 911. Stupid government attempting to help people help others.

If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.

I'm not so sure about this one. I use to think this, but have now modified my view somewhat. While holding that view, I couldn't see how I could complain about a government who I helped vote to power. IE, only those who did not vote for the ruling party can complain (or vice versa). Also, people I know in politics would also tell me that "I can't complain if I don't directly do something about it". IE Unless I'm attending peace marches, writing letters to papers, signing surveys, or even stand for government I shouldn't be complaining about it. Locally, it makes more sense. If I care about the dog droppings in my local park (I do), then why aren't I picking them up myself, or writing letters telling the pollies to do something, or even attempting to be voted in on a "no dogs" policy.

My modified view is something like "Everyone can complain, but the more someone does about something, the more they care about it". IE, listen to complaints of people who make a lot of effort regarding fixing the problem (Voting is an effort). If they can't even be bothered to vote, then I may not think their complaint is worth listening too.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[femto]

If the old lady wants to vote for Al Gore's tie, who are you to tell her she cannot? Surely that is her prerogative?

On a practical point, if the 'old ladies' vote randomly, their influence should average out to zero. If they don't vote randomly, doesn't that mean they have a voice which should be heard?

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[cyril3]

Some people have moral objections to voting you know.

Tough shit. I have a moral objection to people not voting. It's one of the responsibilities associated with the benefits of a democracy.

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Steeltoe]

Just because your vote is just one in millions, a drop in the ocean, you fail to recognize this: Without the drops, there can be no ocean!

And the flavour of all the drops, is what makes the ocean. Now, the politicians ARE representing you. This is what leaders you get when you're cynical, care-free, repress your feelings and do nothing. Do you want it to get better or worse, it's your choice. At least, you COULD have said that you've done the best you could, but now you can't say that!

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[rowdent]

That's why a two-party first-past-the-post system sucks ass! Most pick the lesser of two evils, but it doesn't even matter; they tow the same line when it comes to things that count and show their "partisanship" by arguing about lesser legislation that hides their collusion.

An ideal democracy would be where everyone's voice is represented, like in Germany where proportional representation allows representatives to be selected based on their party's percentage of the popular vote. That's the way it should be (and hopefully soon will be in Canada, or at least Ontario, down with Ernie)

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[aziraphale]

> The only canidate that made any sence was the Green Party canidate. As the Green Party is still treated like the lunitic fring by the media, the chance of one of their canidates rising above statistical noise is almost zero.

So you didn't vote for them, because it would have been a wasted vote - but then you wasted your vote anyway?

In the 1992 UK general election, there was a poll conducted by a national newspaper that revealed that 60% of the population would have seriously considered voting for the Liberal Democrats (the third party in the UK, typically gets 10-20% of the vote) if they thought they had a chance of winning.

If even people who think the green party candidate 'makes sense' refuse to vote for them because they won't win, there's little chance they'll ever be perceived as anything but a lunatic fringe...

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[ratamacue]

If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.

What happens when I only get 2 parties to choose from, and both of those are determined to expand the scope of government, when I am strongly opposed to just about any possible expansion of government? If I don't choose between apples and apples, in effect ENDORSING the 2-party system, then I have no right to speak my opinion? Get real.

I suppose you also believe in the old line, "if you don't have anything to hide then you'll be just fine with the police state".

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[DarenN]

Jesus, that's not funny at all, what was the moderator smoking!

The post above this is exactly right, and I'll explain, using the US as an example. In the US there are 3 "branches of government" as set down in the constitution. There's the Executive Branch (President), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the Judicial Branch. They each have duties, and the existance of the three brings balance (none of them can go overboard, because it's almost impossible to control all 3).

Now, the US constitution implies a fourth branch - the people. As a citizen of the US, you have a responsibility to ensure that the system is working, that the balance is preserved. The simplest method of discharging that responsibility is voting. If the citizen doesn't vote, then they are not discharging their responsibility, and thus the system starts to get unbalanced, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment.

This idea is at the root of the idea of "Democracy"

Incidentally, IANACOTUS (I Am Not A Citizen Of The US)

Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting

[Sloppy]

Throw in the fact that you can be a conscientious citizen, get yourself well informed on all the candidates and issues, and have your vote negated by some ninety-five year old lady who is voting for Al Gore because he wore the best tie... can you blame us for getting cynical?

Be cynical all you want, but the cynicism shouldn't have any influence on whether or not you vote.

Yes, an idiot will negate your vote. But look at it another way: you get to negate an idiot's vote.

It has to be said...

[kzinti]

...you'd think all honest politicians would be working to make sure computerized voting systems are open source...

That assumes you could find an honest politician.

You're asking for too much.

[psoriac]

Not that most people care, since they don't even bother to vote, right?

Most people don't even bother to click the link to read the article; you think they'd actually get up, leave the house, drive to the voting center, and push some buttons to vote? That's way too much effort involved.

Re:You're asking for too much.

[denisdekat]

Sad but true. This last election here in SF they changed my location for voting, I seem to have missed the notice and I just about missed my chance to vote. I was sure they had done it on purpose, I sometimes feel as an american that the corporate machine has declared an all out war where not stone is left un-turned. Anways... I was sure they changed they location to where it would discourage voting. Then my friend reminded me of a grea maxim, goes something like "never atribute to malice what so boviously belongs to incompetence"... I am mis-quoting for sure, but it has the idea...
www.photoplankton.com

Re:You're asking for too much.

[zenyu]

At least links give some response.. when's the last time voting had any effect whatsoever? Press link #1 for corrupt democrat.. Press link #2 for corrupt republican.. maybe even a rare extra option to Press link #3 for insane third-party canidate.

There are some elections that are competitive. I read an economist article where they asserted that in a couple of midwestern states and one tiny east coast state (RI?/DE?) your vote actually counts. The midwestern states had a non-partisan committee (or rather dual-party) to draw the district boundaries. The boundaries are normally drawn to benefit the current state party, witness Texas. To add insult to injury the state houses usually have even more biased districting that doesn't even take population into account. The small eastern state just happened to have one representative and a population evenly divided between the major parties.

It's not that the fixed nature of US elections is a new problem. Thomas Gilpin wrote about it in 1844, well off Pennsylvania paper maker. Senator Charles Buckalew described the major problems in such timeless words that when I first read them I thought they were written in the 1990's not the 1870's. And then there were better systems, such as the proportional representation during NYC's 20th century golden decades. In NYC the democratic machine defeated PR by appealing to the fear of communism, there were a couple communists elected, along with a dozen other minor party seats, but the Democrats real objection was with having only 2/3 of the seats, so opponents, especially Republicans could embarass them when they engaged in corruption. About 10 other cities adopted PR around the turn of the century and corruption dropped by 90% to 99% depending on who you listen to and how bad things were before. Cincinatti went from the most corrupt city in America to winning an award for being least corrupt in just a few years. There PR was defeated by appealing to whites fears of blacks getting representatives on the city council.

Proportional Representation was an English and French idea expounded by some of the same people that first understood how capitalism worked and wanted to apply those lessons to government. It's distinct from Parlimentary government. We could get PR state by state in at least the larger states, there are some federal laws to discourage it but I don't think they outlaw it. A state like California or New York has enough representatives that they could do it. Probably the system that would appeal most to Americans is one where anyone that won an outright victory would get their seat but seats where no one won outright would be split up between the parties in proportion to their tally in the overall vote minus the seats won outright.

In CA lets say they have 53 seats and the Democrats got 45% of the vote and 15 seats outright, Republicans got 44% of the vote and 5 seats outright, while the Greens got 5% and the Libertarians 4% and others 2%. Here's how it would go:

OS PRS Total
D 45% 15 9 24
R 44% 5 19 24
G 5% 0 3 3
L 4% 0 2 2
O 2% 0 0 0 - none qualify for seats

It's not as fair as pure democracy due to both rounding error as you can see with the Green vs. Liberterian party in this example. And, people not affiliated with a strong enough party get no seats. This also ignores the new dynamics that would emerge, I for one would stop voting for the Republicrats, but I would split my vote between the Green and Liberterian Ticket. Right now it would be Green locally and Liberterian nationally, but then again we probably wouldn't be in the current mess if we had PR. And this would change depending issues on the slate. I might vote for a single issue party on the state level if the others were ignoring the issue, say the education reform party, and then abandon them once the reforms were adopted. If I were a Brooklynite I would probably looking for a fusion Judgeship reform party so that legal winners would no longer be picked based o

I vote in Slashdot polls...

[flicken]

Does that count? Heck, i'm usually even honest in those polls. (-;

Open Source vs. Closed Source voting

[Dancin_Santa]

Security through Obscurity works as a temporary stopgap. It doesn't last long, but it does keep a system secure for a short time until someone discovers the security hole.

Voting takes place once every two years in the US (different for other countries). And it only takes place on one day. Security through obscurity can hold that long.

On the other hand, divulging the source code to the system beforehand (otherwise, what's the point to having the system being Open Source) makes it that much easier for evil-doers to find the holes in the system. Keep in mind that these fraudsters aren't going to fix the hole and "turn it back over to the community". They will have plenty of time to find the exploits and they will exploit it on election day.

Yes, in general Security through Obscurity is a bad idea, but in one-off systems like electronic voting, it is the best method of keeping the system secure short of armed guards and video cameras.

Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting

[Qzukk]

it does keep a system secure for a short time until someone discovers the security hole.

You're assuming that someone hasn't already bought the "hole". You're assuming that the ballot system developers are impartial. You're assuming that if the government won't abuse any knowledge that the public has no access to.

You're assuming too much.

Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting

[Mjec]

Keep in mind that these fraudsters aren't going to fix the hole and "turn it back over to the community". They will have plenty of time to find the exploits and they will exploit it on election day.

Yes, but so does everyone else, and most people will fix the problems. Especially international people reviewing it. So while there is a chance that some clever guy will spot a hole that no-one else can see and this guy uses it to further his own ends, I consider that less likely than some guy putting in a hole because he's the programmer and no-one will ever get to see the source.

My $0.02

Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting

[KoalaBear33]

What do security experts say about systems? They say that open, heavily scrutinized systems are more secure. For instance, any decent encryption is open. Keeping them open actually improves the encryption's strength. Same thing with open voting systems...

The number of people who find and fix flaws will far outweight those with malicious intents. As a matter of fact, non-profit organizations and academic institutions can study the code for loop-holes/bugs/etc. Academia is good at coming up with theoretical solutions to problems and would be perfect here. They will be able to analyze the software for flaws far better than any private company can (except possibly large ones like IBM, Microsoft, etc). They will be able to do it from the specifications even (how do you know the specs are correct? )

KoalaBear33

The even sadder fact is

[Sir Haxalot]

Polticians even believe the voting system is totally secure, and even if it wasn't, it's not up to them to sort it out, it's up to those 'computer people'.

non-electronic voting controls

[dreadnougat]

In the Quebec seperation referendum (sp?), which failed only barely, had quite a few spoiled ballots, most of them on the "no" side, and most of them questionable. So I guess it depends more on how much supervision by all parties the system gets.

Of course they don't care

[KiahZero]

I remember seeing a study mentioned on the news about problems with computer voting, but I don't see it mentioned in this story.

Potential for fraud is a good thing in the eyes of sufficiently corrupt politicians. If it were completely impregnable, then those with the inclination wouldn't be able to fix elections. As much as I love throwing technology at a problem to try and solve it, I really don't think that eliminating a paper trail is *really* a good idea when we talk about electing such powerful people.

How about instead of changing the way we cast our ballot, let's focus on changing the ballot? Plurality voting is about the worst voting system there is. Of course, if we went with Condorcet, third-party politicians might actually get elected.

Executables from Open Src still has to be loaded..

[ivi]

Open Source can't hurt, but
you'd -still- have to be sure
that -all- the executables
were made from the final source,
that everybody has access to,
for the eVoting Boxes.

Then, you have to insure that
no changes are made just before
the machines are used... etc.

Say it's not true!!!

[weeboo0104]

My faith in the accuracy of /. polls has been shattered!

Does this mean the Cowboy Neil option didn't really count?

heh

[mcpkaaos]

...and how you'd think all honest politicians would be working to make sure computerized voting systems are open source...

I'm sure they are doing just that. But just like with any team that has exactly zero memebers, progress is a little slow.

This guy cares

[offby1]

David Dill is rasing the alarm about voter verification. Granted he's not part of the gummint, but he's asking the right questions.

Open Source won't work!

[Big Sean O]

For example, if we use Slashcode then Cowboy Neal would be president.

Oh the horror!

no kidding

[croddy]

the student government at my college switched to computer voting a couple of years ago. every semester it's the same story; some terrible problem with the system means we have to do it all over again, usually twice.

I've written to the voting committee, written editorials, but no one cares. they claim that it's better than paper voting because machines don't make mistakes.

once I voted 12 times. but that was because they were relying on cookies. that was fixed in the revote. once they used checkboxes instead of radio buttons, and I voted for everyone. but that was fixed in the next one.

people are lazy, and even if it's got problems, they prefer clicking on some web form to actually going and voting in person. I say if you're too lazy to get up and vote, then you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

but nobody cares, machines don't make mistakes... yeah? well, I've got a 20 page study of georgia voting technology that disagrees.

it's high time we had an election server h4x0red to make people think twice about it.

Is it worse than analog vote fraud?

[Ars-Fartsica]

What could be worse than counting hanging chads for two weeks? Manual election systems prompted the Supreme Court to decide the last election. What could be worse?

A few folks care ...

[MacRonin]

An excerpt from Monday's Privacy Digest which point to iRights who quoted and linked to verifiedvoting.org

"iRights" - Voting Machine Analysed, Found Wanting.

From the linked site:

The authors have done a security analysis of Diebold code that was downloaded from an open FTP site earlier this year. While the paper is technical, significant portions of it can be read easily by a non-computer scientist.

From the conclusion of the paper, Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, emphasis mine:

Using publicly available source code, we performed an analysis of a voting machine. This code was apparently developed by a company that sells to states and other municipalities that use them in real elections. We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and even janitors, is even greater. Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process....

The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate....

And finally, the text of the Voter-Verifiable newsletter I received regarding this issue, which should appear on this page sometime (July 24, 2003):

For those who haven't heard of Condorcet

[Magic Thread]

The Condorcet method of voting requires that each voter rank the candidates from best to worst. It's generally a good system, but has been criticised for being hard to understand (maybe not for those of us on /., but for the stupid voters). Another interesting voting method is range voting, which assigns a number value to each candidate based on that candidate's desirability.

Rated voting, which is a special case of range voting, was generally the best method (i.e., it maximised voter happiness) in a test of various voting systems. Also see ElectionMethods.org.

An improved voting system would certainly make lots of things better (though due to Arrow's paradox, a perfect system is impossible). I think we also need to improve the voters. The most heard criticism of Condorcet's method is that it's hard to understand, and it's really not all that complex at all.

physical proof from electronic voting?

[MikeFM]

I would think it'd be a good idea to have these electronic machines stamp out physical ballots that would need to be submitted and could be visually verified by voters as accurate. That way you could have the benefits of electronic voting (instant results, ease of use, and voting from more remote locations) and would still have a physical object to verify the results against should a recount be asked for. I'd go as far as barcoding each ballot so you could verify them against their digital version quickly.. to verify the machines are working properly in case of a recount.

Hardly anyone cares?

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

Most people find it hard to care about a "theoretical" problem until it happens in reality.

Re:Why Should It Be Open Source??

[zcat_NZ]

My point exactly.

Give each person a randomly unique number when they turn up to vote. Have them enter the number with their votes, check that it's valid, and record both.

After the election, make all the votes available. Everyone can check the totals, and anyone who made a note of their number can check that their vote was recorded correctly. If there's any vote tampering going on, everyone who's vote got tamperd with will KNOW, not just suspect, that the election was rigged.

My full rant on the topic is at href="http://zcat.wired.net.nz/evote/

waking up to the real america

[vnv]

...you'd think all honest politicians would be working to make sure computerized voting systems are open source...

For a long time, "honest politician" has been an oxymoron, a laugh amongst the working class. Heavens, we all know there is no such thing. It was Simon Cameron in the 19th century who gave us the modern American definition of an "honest politician" --
"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."

The real truth is that most people don't vote because they know their vote doesn't matter. No matter who you vote for, unless you write them a big check, they aren't going to listen to you anyway. No matter how many emails you send in, how many phone calls, how many pickets, it doesn't matter. Unless you have money, you are just a noise that the politician tunes out.

Did the US people want the Patriot Act? A war against Iraq? How about a real 911 investigation? What about the banks selling all your personal data in California? The list is endless. The laws that are passed are not there "for the people".

An awake mind sees that the people get what the politicians give them. Which for well over a hundred years in America has been what the special interests, corporations, and other powers tell the politicians to do.

The big step forward for a better America would be to actively choose not to participate in the biggest lie of all -- that our country is a democracy run by the people and that voting matters.

Think what would happen --
PULLING THE LEGITIMACY PLUG
PULLING THE LEGITIMACY PLUG II

As Thomas Jefferson said long ago, "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom".

Isn't it time that we, the people, started being honest with ourselves about the current state of our so-called "democracy"?

Re:waking up to the real america

[PhxBlue]

Did the US people want the Patriot Act? A war against Iraq?

So far as I remember: Yes, and yes. Of course, people only wanted the Patriot Act until they began to realize how brutally they'd been fisted. I think the same will happen with Iraq--but at the time we launched the attack, around 65% of the US population wanted to do it.

The only thing not voting really accomplishes, in the end, is to give more power to the people who do vote. Whether or not that's a good thing, you can decide for yourself. I'd rather not, to be honest, because I trust my vote more than I trust anyone else's. I know my vote is an educated decision, and I know that I can vote for the candidate best-qualified to represent my views.

What does someone who chooses not to vote get? Maybe you can walk away with an overinflated opinion of your own superiority for "not contributing to a corrupt system." But you can't fix it if you don't contribute, either; and in the meantime you become responsible for the actions of whomever is elected, whether you would have voted for him or not.

Winston Churchill once said, Democracy is the worst system of government, except for everything else. You're choosing to throw away a right that people in Liberia, Iraq, Iran, China, and a lot of other countries would kill and die for. What does that say about your willingness to make a system that you think will work? Would you walk out on that, too, once it started behaving in a way with which you disagreed?

Re:Yes, That is true

[sbszine]

You either

1. Go to jail for short stay or
2. Pay a fine

In practice you don't even have to pay the fine. Almost any excuse is enough to get you out of the fine. In fact, I know people who have tried to 'do the right thing' and pay the fine, and been refused!

The fine notice may simply be a way of checking that you're alive, at the same address etc. Gets people's attention better than a survey.

Lefty and proud of it

[flicken]

Are you left eyed?

Of course i am. Why do you ask? (-;

...oh...righ^H^H^H^Hleft. (-; (-; (-;

I am left-handed, -footed, -eared, -toed, -kneed, -minded and -(*censored*)ed. And, like most /.ers, i often feel left out.

Re:Perhaps it's because fewer care about politics?

[s20451]

No, it's because people don't give a rat's ass about problems in the abstract. Yes, computer voting systems have problems, but so were butterfly ballots, and nobody had even heard of those until 2000.

Only in the 2024 elections, when Wil Wheaton defeats Britney Spears amidst questionable computer voting, will you get anyone to care.

Minor bit of reality check here boys...

[ComputerSlicer23]

I've done contract work for ES&S (actually most of the work I did for them was when they we're know as AIS). I've seen what they get to do for verification. Trust me, somebody reads every single line of code there is. They have specific rules, and very rigorus tests the machines get put thru. I worked for the guy who did most of the original coding for the E100. I helped to start the port for the E500, which turned into the E600 model. Actually I started to finish the port. It was originally in Z80 assembly, they completely ported it to C, and they lost the machine, and all the backups from about 6 weeks before it finished. I was the first guy to start finishing the port.

The company I worked for did all of the original design assembly of the PCB boards.

Everything is done on paper (on those models, I hear they have other electronic only models). So it is completely auditable via a recount. The Federal Election Commision certifies the software and the hardware as fit for use. Once certified, no changes can take place without a re-certification, and justification for all changes made.

They use QNX as their base operating system, and use essentially fax based technology inside the system. They scan it using the fax scanner, using timing bars to tell where the bubbles are. They then read the black/white values using an A/D converter (at some point, they switched to infrared technology instead of fax technology). Each machine gets fed test sets of thousands of ballots ( I want to say over 100,000 ballots go thru the system during the final testing phase). Which the exception of a mis-feed, or jam (which has to be detected), there can't be any mistakes.

They are pretty serious about it. At one point I knew every guy who did the day to day coding on the systems. They are plenty trustworthy. Maybe not coding gods, but naferious evil plots just won't happen. Sorry, take your conspiracy theories and go home.

Oh, and no one in their right mind would want to read the code. For a variety of reasons. First it's boring as hell. Second, the rules make it nearly impossible to write interesting code. All function can have on and only one return. No function can be over 200 lines long. No matter how clear the function is, it can't be longer then 200 lines. Why 200, got me, but it's the rule. There are rules against using macros, and rules about function pointers, and rules about recursion, rules about how data structures have to be stored. Rules about lots of different things. Rules about election layouts. Rules about ballot layouts. All kinds of mind numbing rules.

Open sourcing them, or making them available under NDA for a third party audit, sure seems like a good idea. However, there are plenty of safety measures in place to assure that the right things go on.

Christ the machines run while being hit by a giant as static electricity gun. (Vandigraph generator, I believe it was called).

Kirby

Re:Minor bit of reality check here boys...

[ComputerSlicer23]

You don't have to take my word on it. Go lookup the FEC standards. The standard are not verified by me, or any member of the ES&S company (okay they are, but the FEC re-verifies it independently). The FEC has a very specific set of standards thru with all software must pass to be used in a Federal Election. The first being to run a set of known ballots thru the system, and to do an complete audit of the software to ensure it meets the coding guidelines.

The black box testing is pretty complete, and very good. You set the time and date to the time and date of the vote. You bring in a set of ballots that is larger then any single machine will be expected to process. You run the complete ballot set. At that point, the machines are in all ways, exactly as they will be when shipped out. You read the code from start to finish.

What else do you want? You've got a known regression test, in the precise conditions that will be shipped. At that point, it's merely user error that can happen (or procedure wasn't followed). What can you do to ensure end to end integrity at that point? Sure you can verify that a particular machine is correct, no problem. They send out 1500 machines to different voting centers. How do you plan on using the source code to verify that all 1500 machines have the proper configuration, that they have the proper software, and the hardware is properly configured. Yes you can verify that a single sample you saw at a given moment in time was configured as per the specification, however, open sourcing it, won't allow you to verify the machines at the time they are used. If you don't trust it, count the ballots. The ballots are right there, there is nothing more to subvert them that couldn't happen in a stardard paper vote.

The standards exist, and they are transparent. If you'd like to check them, go pick up a machine from the ES&S, and test it. If believe that the FEC's guidelines are insufficient, lobby to have them changed.

If you want to do the check, lobby to be there when the FEC does the test ballot sets. Examine the test sets, and verify the results of the test. Bring your own set of test ballots and request to test them against a sample machine. It's not like you need the source to do any of it. Buy a machine, set the time on the machine to the day of the vote, then run them. Then re-run them over a period of days while the machine is left on, or turned off to simulate the situation you desire.

Run the precisely as they would be on the election day. Simulate the tests with known results (I don't believe the all test sets are known by ES&S). Submit random tests to which you have the answer. Submit a test deck that has ever known pattern filled in for the upcoming election.

Then aquire a cryptocryphic checksum of your choice, that you believe at a later date you will be able to verify while voting. How you do that, without actually running the ballot voting machine, I don't know. At some point, the people who are running the voting machines must be trusted. If you can't trust them, you can't have a legitimate vote. It's the same reason why FPS will have always have cheats. It's inherint in the system, that an uncontrolled quatity exists, and can subvert the system because it has too much access, and information to make it look like everything is as it normally would be.

You can't have trust at any level. Anything that you didn't personally do, isn't trustable. As soon as a voting machine leaves your sight, it's absolutely not trustworthy any more. You can't watch anyone do the work (I've seen too many people who are good a slight of hand). You have to absolutely verify so many things, that it isn't trust worthy. Actually, as I recall, they wrap, and lock the machines, so there can't be any tampering.

Do you trust Linux? How do you think it has no bugs in it? I've hit known bugs in it. How do you know that the version of Linux you use, is the version that Linus ships? How do you know that the Re

nice theory but

[Nf1nk]

Concerns about the NWO and a belief that your vote just ges into a box to ignored at the politions leasure is only a factor in a small number of peoples not voting.
The fact is, most folks are fat dumb and relitivly happy. They can't be bothered with who is running for what office (or even what mst of these offices are supposed to do) and if they knew it is very hard to tell what major canidate is most likley to vote the way you would like them. As long as the wolf is not at their door and they can still spend money they don't care who is in office. To be fair at this point in the game the politions are so crooked and the parties so close in what they say (and more so in what they do) that it may really not matter.
So I throw my vote away on third party canidates in protest, but I do show up.

Re:Is open source best solution...?

[wasabii]

If I told my mom that it was secure, she would believe me. Most of my co-workers too. If *some company* tells my mom that it is secure, she will not believe them. I think this is pretty obvious.

Are paper ballots any more secure?

[release7]

JFK might have never got into office if accurate vote counting was ever a priority.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I vote, there's these little senile old ladies who ask what my name and address is and don't ask for any ID. Give me some cheap sunglasses and a fake beard and I could cast several votes for me and my neighbors next election.

in Chile there IS mandatory voting

[SoTuA]

In Chile we have *somewhat* mandatory voting. It works like this:

1.- You _register to vote_ if you want to vote, and you are 18 or older.

2.- Now that you are registered, you MUST vote on EVERY ellection there is. If you don't like it, don't register. The only excuses is being hospitalized or more than 300 Km from your voting home (you register on a given district, and must vote there).

3.- When you go vote, you must provide the national ID card, and you are tallied against a list of voters for that particular place. After you vote, you must sign the register. (that's how they know you didn't vote and get fined)

4.- ???

5.- Profit! :)

But seriously, I say *somewhat* because you can always not register and mind your own biz. I am 26 at the moment and I'm not registered, although I'm getting enough interest to register. The drag is that you *must* vote on *every* election, and there's the slim chance that you get drafted to man the voting tables :o (now that's a crappy job)

Ever Tried To Explain "Source" To A Politician?

[istartedi]

Have you ever tried to explain "source" to a politician? I have. Let me tell you. Just getting them over that hurdle is tough enough. Most of them are lawyers, and for some reason lawyers tend not to care much about tech. Sure there are exceptions, but I can't help but get the impression that most lawyers would still be using quills and ink if they could get away with it.

So. When you go to policitians with this issue and say "The system should be Open Source so someone can perform a security audit" what they hear is "Our special interest group has an opinion about how the system should work". Really. I don't see any way around this problem either. We could sit around and wait for the public school system run by these politicians to produce lawyers who aren't computer and science illiterate, except of course that by now most of the politicians are products of that very same system!

I see a positive feedback loop here, which like all positive feedback loops tends to create instability. Now... how many politicians have the background to understand that analogy?

Re:Ever Tried To Explain "Source" To A Politician?

[zenyu]

Have you ever tried to explain "source" to a politician? I have. Let me tell you. Just getting them over that hurdle is tough enough.

If you ever have the opportunity again, try explaining it in terms of law. That Closed Source is like passing laws that are secret and enforced by secret courts. They can be understood by seeing who gets arrested and disappear, this is like reverse engineering software code. Published Source is like publishing the laws and sometimes perhaps debating them before they are passed. The laws aren't understood by the general populace but we can hire lawyers and/or hire lobbyists to change them and/or become experts in the laws that most directly affect us. This is like the general populace can hire programmers to audit the software and/or improvement and/or learn to modify it themselves.

I think they will understand that Closed Source may have merit in some extraordinary circumstances, but should not be used for most things. If you have to explain Open Source you can explain this in terms of law too, but probably only to an IP lawyer who hopefully already understands the concept. It might be easier to explain it colloquially in terms of kindergarten principles, and only go into the economic principles if they are actually interested since you really have to go into John Smith and the like which is the type of thing that is widely misunderstood and you really have to be well grounded to explain it to someone who hasn't read the source material and is just asking clarifying questions.

Good reliable voting solutions

[einhverfr]

Here are the guidelines I came up for a fraud-resistant electronic voting system:

1: The traffic with the database server should be properly secured (ipsec, ssl w/client certs, etc.)

2: The data should be stored in an accountable way. For example, if the data is altered, there should be a way to determine this.

3: The system should allow manual verification of results.

So here was the system I designed:

1: Database server communicates with clients using ESP/IPSec protected communications.

2: Voting machines use touch-screens. At the end, the voting machine displays a list of candidates you voted for and asks you to confirm. Then when you do, it submits your data to the database and prints a ballot. The database also stores information relating to the ballot regarding which voting station you were at. You deposite the ballot in the ballot box.

The ballot contains: 1: An easy-to-scan bar code
2: A human readable ballot listing for manual verification. 3: The ballot serial number.

This gives you almost everything you get with the paper system as well as everything you get with the electronic system.

Re:Good reliable voting solutions

[plalonde2]

The missing element here is counting the ballots *at the polling station*

Paper ballots provide an audit trail, but the ballot boxes themselves can (and have) been tampered with.

The only useful purpose served by an electronic system is a "quick tally", and possibly less chance of a spoiled ballot, although butterfly-ballot like errors can be set up on a touchscreen as easily as on paper.

Providing a count at the polling place, by a multi-partisan local group (each candidate should be able to produce someone to go to each polling place) reduces the chance of fraud dramatically. Make the hand count the official tally, and the electronic count used only for quick totals.

For a little more accountability, apply modern cryptography to tie paper ballots to their electronic counterparts for cross-checking if required. Make a recount and cross-check mandatory for narrow spreads or manual/electronic dissagreements.

Demand voter-verified, locally counted paper ballots.

Re:Good reliable voting solutions

[cyril3]

The ballot serial number

Numbered Ballot Papers. I wonder why they didn't think of that before.

Oh, I remember. The greatest advance in democracy since, well democracy really ,SECRET BALLOTS.

I have enough nightmares about electronic voting already. You go into the polling station at 08.30am and they tick your name off against the roll. At 8.32am a vote is cast for Candidate X (as certified by the audit trail in the system.) Guess who voted for whom.

Re:Good reliable voting solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...ballot papers already have serial numbers.

Re:Good reliable voting solutions

[RobinH]

Voting machines use touch-screens.

Have you ever setup touch screens? I do it quite frequently... they have to be calibrated before use, and periodically thereafter.

Now, if I were an unscrupulous voting machine operator, then no matter how good the software was, I could EASILY fool the calibration routines into thinking that real screen position X1,Y1 (vote for liberal) gets mapped to X2,Y2 (vote for conservative, nazi, etc.). The same could apply to the confirmation screen.

The fact is, the data you're entering (who to vote for) is transformed so many times during an electronic voting process (screen co-ordinates to memory locations to object references to PCI bus to telephone or network to ODBC to file, that there are far too many points for tampering. When I vote on paper, there's only myself, a piece of paper, and a pen involved. Maybe a ballot box. The only real place for tampering is the ballot box, and if you can't keep a friggin' box tamper proof, how do you expect to do the same with a computer?

It gets said here often, but

[PotatoHead]

if you are just reading and bitch'n, you are part of the problem.

It only takes a few minutes to express your views, or cut 'n paste someone else's you agree with. Noise works wonders to help bring an issue before a legislator. On average, very few people actually write any kind of response. Those responses they do get carry some weight.

This means we have a chance to punch well above our weight if we actually do *something*

So, do something. Do it each week. These stories are here on /. for a reason. Why waste the effort?

Join the EFF. If you *really* can't part with the $25 or so to do that, at least use their EFFector mailing list. They provide very timely call to action letters that make providing your input easy.

Put your legislators address in your address book. When you have a thought, just send it to them. Does not have to be fancy, it just needs to be honest and somewhat timely.

I recently worked to help push the Oregon Open Source bill through the house. (HB2892) We failed because a well known AeA lobbyist (Jim Craven --I think.) had the ear of the house speaker. We did make this decision hard for Karen Minnis though. She heard a *lot* about Open Source. Maybe next session she will hear more.

This experience showed me that change requires ongoing dialog with our representitives. It is the only way to counter the lobbyists. Lobbyists offer deals and dollars. The only check on these is public opinion. --Votes.

I met and spoke with many legislators. They are people just like us, who are interested in the issues. Most of them want to know what you think and are willing to take the time to learn it.

Approach them as you would any other person you know. --Just start a dialog. Sure you will get form letters, but after a few of those, you will get actual reply mail. This is valuable.

Tell them you vote. Tell them your stand on the issue. Let them know about interesting news items. A good example for those living in Oregon would be the current Wyden bill.

--This is a great bill. Its risky for him. He needs to hear thanks and support. I wrote him today expressing exactly that while asking if there is anything I can do at the same time.

Do something if you want to see things change.

Vote --- Write your legislature --- Talk to your friends.

--It matters.

No one is going to believe it until it's proven.

[Kenneth]

Face it's true. If you say that there could be mass voter fraud, no one will believe it, unless it's shown to them in a horribly embarassing way. Therefore, what needs to happen is this:

In some small voting district (preferably one of the smallest in the nation) that has electronic voting, some third party candidate, or even better a write in candidate needs to get AT LEAST twice the total world population voting for him. Someone would for sure get arrested for the unforgivable and henious crime, not of election fraud, but of making the powers that be look bad. At least done this way, the obvious defense would be that harm could already be done, this person just made sure it was known since no one would listen. Not that I think that would help much.

However if some lunatic fringe candidate were to get 900% or 1000% of the total possible vote, and all of that were to come from the same district or even pricinct, there would be some attention given to it.

11 out of 5 does not care

[Openadvocate]

According to the latest polls, 11 out of 5 does not care about errors in the voting system.

voting schmoting

[imipak]

Short anecdote. In my teenage years I got very interested in party politics; kept records of opinion polls, got up early on Sundays to hear the pbig political interview on TV, helped out with canvassing for my preferred party (this is in the UK. Do you have canvassing in the US? going door to door with a stack of literature & saying 'Please vote for Foobly Franknfurter on Thursday?') Hell I even screwed up my A levels in 1987 cos I was too busy helping out to revise.

A couple of years later I'd almost completely lost interest except in the soap-opera aspect of the political game. Organised party politics is a waste of time, designed to keep the middle-aged, early retirees and people on long-term invalidity benefit occupied. The others are power-crazed over ambitious types just like you find in any other occupation. (It's not the money, not in the UK anyway, where cabinet ministers only get about 70K sterling IIRC.)

The last year or so have made it clearer than ever that real power is in corporate boardrooms and the country clubs of the US, and proved the truism of the old adage "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal". I'm more and more cleaving to the Chomsky-esque view that the organised political scene is just a distraction, a meaningless soap-opera designed to keep us asking the more profound questions.

The ludicrous US turnout rates - what is it, 35% in /Presidential/ elections? - is only a few decades ahead of Europe IMHO. These people can't claim any sort of popular mandate. Basically what I'm trying to say is: it all sucks.

People don't vote because nobody represents them

[Moderation abuser]

The major political parties policies exist to serve "the majority" they couldn't get into power without aiming squarely at "the majority" and therefore their policies are all very similar.

If your views fall slightly outside views of "the majority" you simply don't get any representation. You also have to remember that "the majority" has an *average* I.Q. of 100.

None of the major political parties views or policies represent my own, so should I be forced to vote for someone who doesn't represent me?

The top down architected democracies which we have at the moment basically don't work as forms of representation. They don't represent the people they are supposed to. Representation really needs to come from the bottom up where local views and issues can be expressed, which means democracy and therefore taxation have to be turned upside down.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Rogerborg]

You didn't vote? Then you don't care.

You voted using this system? Then you don't care.

The US electoral system is an obsolete farce. I care passionately, and that's why I won't support it by participating.

Re:Executables from Open Src still has to be loade

[aziraphale]

> you'd -still- have to be sure
that -all- the executables
were made from the final source,

using a compiler that's known not to contain any code that can generate unexpected code from the supplied input... okay, so we need an open source compiler...

but how do we know that the compiler was compiled using a compiler that doesn't inject malicious code that would mean that the compiler compromised the ballot software?

You might want to check out this classic ACM paper

So you look at the disassembled binary code, and verify that it does what the sourcecode says, right? But then you have to trust that the chips do what the manufacturer tells you they do. Maybe you should dismantle the chips and get them under an electron microscope, verify that the gates and pathways all work according to spec... but what if the electron microscope is rigged to misrepresent certain images?

The thing is, you can't be certain that the intentions of sourcecode will be executed faithfully, without returning to first principles (basically the laws of physics), unless you start trusting some of the layers. And once you start trusting layers - say, the hardware layer, the compiler - why not extend that trust further up the stack? So, why is sourcecode access so crucial to trust?

What's important is that there be some external, verifiable proof that the machine results reflect the intentions of the voters. That means a system where the machine prints off a physical ballot paper, the voter checks it accurately reflects their vote, and deposits it in a secure ballot box. That way an audit trail exists that means that you can physically count the votes and ensure that the results are what the computer said they were. Source access isn't necessary to ensure this, just as access to electron microscopy of the chip surface isn't required.

Re:People don't vote because nobody represents the

[GReaToaK_2000]

Then contact your local representatives and congresspersons. Is that too much to ask? No.

The biggest problems with the US political scene today is APATHY likes yours and laziness.

Did you know that in MOST states there is a "no vote" option. Go in. Select NONE of the switches (for those with decent voting booths, FL is OBVIOUSLY excluded from this category) and move the handle. You just voted for no one, BUT you increased the number of voters to hit that booth. This is recorded and denotes a no vote.

Personally if more people that whine about "no one represents my views" got off their asses and got involved there would be people to represent them. If more people like you did a NO VOTE then it would make things happen as well.

Who ever increased your mod falls into your category as well.

Get active in. The fact that there are SO MANY people like you in this country is how a childish, idiot like Bush made it into office. Americans dropped the ball on that one.

turnout, bah humbug

[cascadingstylesheet]

I'm not even going to address the computerized aspect here ...

But in a happy, free country, turnout should be low.

We don't, collectively, have to worry about politics that much, and that is a grand thing!

I vote, but frankly I'm pretty happy that no matter who wins, odds are pretty good that taxes and regulations will stay tolerable, death squads won't be roaming the streets, etc.

Turnout was 100% in good old Iraq, if that's what you want to emulate.

Re:turnout, bah humbug

[cascadingstylesheet]

No, before Iraq was liberated, Hussein held an "election", where turnout was supposedly 100%, and of course, he "won".

That was my point, high or low turnout by itself doesn't mean bad or good.

Apathy is why we don't vote

[eclectic4]

It's very simple and has been studied to death. It's APATHY, indifference.

It's not that we are too busy, it's not that we don't trust voting booths, it's not that we don't think our one little vote is going to make a difference... it's that we don't CARE who gets voted in.

Clown on the right or clown on the left, he's still a clown. "Who gives a rats ass. It's just powerful people doing shit for other powerful people. I work 50 hours a week, come home, eat dinner, let the dog out, watch corporate sponsored news, and go to bed, and it's what I'll do for the next four years too."

Is it sad? Hell yes, but it's not the "people's" fault. If they have a reason to vote, they will. They just don't see a good reason. They've literally given up.

We saw an election literally "stolen" in the last presidential election. We also saw a president get into office even though most in the country voted for the "other guy" (if you remember, Gore had the popular vote, but not the electoral vote). You wanna talk about an apathy spreader, that was it.

We (Americans) simply don't care, as we haven't been shown any reason to. Left or right, we still see a power hungry corporate lackey

Maybe Bush really DID steal the election

[kindbud]

Black Box Voting

The source code for the software used in one voting machine was discovered on the Internet, on an unprotected FTP site belonging to Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems Inc. The software, when compiled and run in tests, showed that it appears to be the code used in the company's AccuVote-TS touch-screen terminals.

This software has been analyzed in detail at Truthout.org: How to Rig an Election in the United States. I think your stomach will start turning just a couple paragraphs in. No, let me start it turning for you: the backend database for this state-of-the-art touch-screen votiong machine is Microsoft Access. But that's only part of the story. Wait until you read about the hidden tables. More details here: How We Discovered The Backdoor. The actual code from the FTP site is here: Original Data.

I don't know about you, but I became a little nauseous reading this.... It's quite the yee-opener.

Some more on "problematic" election results:
Florida Ballots Project

Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

NY TImes: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say

The most stomach churning thing of all, I think, is the Christian Right connection to Deibold and ES&S.

If you find this stuff credible, spread the word around.

Re: ... until a 'toon gets elected

[Jack Schitt]

It won't be an issue until Bugs Bunny gets elected Governor of California.

Yeah, anybody's better than Gray Davis.

Re: Universal Rights

[gantrep]

Yes, there is a difference between basic rights and derived rights. Whether or not I have the right to freely make copies of a piece of software and distribute them to friends is a derived from property rights. With the right to property comes the right to engage in business, licensing and contracts. One of the government's jobs is to protect property rights by protecting people from fraud and theft.

Maybe I have some special rights as a shareholder of a company, or as an employee, but these again are just derived from property rights, which are protected by the government.

Government can only take away or protect our rights; they cannot give us anymore.

The right to drive a car is not a basic right, but it is a derived one. It is derived from the rights to liberty and property, and should not be taken away unless one's use of a car violate the rights of others.

The government does not really give you the right to drive a car. You already have that right. If there were no government, there would be nothing to stop you from driving a car, save individuals and corporations. Government protects your right to drive a car from those individuals and corporations that could try to prevent it with force.

Besides the phrasing, I don't see what is American-Centric about my definition of basic human rights, especially considering that the ideas originally came from chiefly European philosophers, and considering the incredible prevalence of violations of those rights by the US government, and how much the American people are willing to disregard them. Even about eighty years after our government was founded, we still practiced slavery, possibly the worst kind of violation of human rights there is.

I would be interested in hearing what you see as the basic rights of mankind.