Slashdot Mirror
Swarthmore Students Keep Diebold Memos Online
An anonymous reader submits "Two student groups based out of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania announced today that they are rejecting Diebold Elections Systems' cease-and-desist orders and are initiating an electronic civil disobedience campaign that will ensure permanent public access to the controversial leaked memos. You can read the memos, search the memos, or download the memos."
Also, it could possibly be discriminating if you shutdown stuff like indymedia and let people like Rush Limbaugh and that general who equated Islam with Satan spout their gibberish. Maybe if both sides are free to spout their gibberish, they will cancel each other out?
Seriously, print up pamphlets and distribute them, citing the e-mails and memos, with a "dumbed down" non technical explaination of just what the problems are with Diebold machines. You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on copies, just print out 10-50 pamphlets.
Then hand them out to anyone and everyone you see on the street. If you can manage to do it outside of polling locations, all the better.
There's only about 5 million people online, and talking about it amongst ourselves is not going to make any difference, especially since the mainstream news has been ignoring the issue. We are, in essense, the minority. The majority are those who need to be informed. The guys without computers, the guys without internet service.
And maybe, just MAYBE, the more people in the general public that are made aware, then perhaps enough people will start asking questions that NOBODY can ignore the issue any further.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
If you think an auditable paper record is important, contact your representatives and voice your support for the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003.
Is this the same Indymedia which consists of "stories" posted by raving lunatics that try to pass their most rabid conspiracy theories as legitimate news items?
Sounds kind of like Slashdot.
If that's independent news media, give me my biased greedy coporate controlled news anyday.
1) The open newswire you blast is handled differently on different IMCs. Some sites have an iron-fisted editorial policy, while others are practically free-for-alls. Since the newswire clerks tend to be activists familiar with being ignored and shouted down, the topic of censorship and editorial control is always sensitive. I've argued for a looser editorial policy in some cases, and I've argued for a harder line on crap in others. Read the mailing lists sometime--a lot of people who spend time working on an IMC or two share similar concerns about the unsourced, unsubstantiated crap that some people post as news. Unfortunately, it's hard to argue that such stuff should be immediately hidden when corporate and state media sources post similarly unsourced or half-cocked news with a hardline editorial policy.
2) One person's wacko conspiracy theory is another person's reality. Mind you, this does not excuse some of the greater excesses of the tinfoil hat crowd (the whole "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" crap is so blatantly factless I have to wonder if it's someone's idea of a joke, or a lame COINTELPRO plant, for one example). However, the term "conspiracy theory" seems to be aimed at practically any argument that challenges conventional wisdom, instead of being reserved for the truly raving shit. I actually feel better letting those we view as nutters present their case, so it can be judged on the merits (or lack thereof), instead of having someone else decide for me before the info/crap can even reach my eyes.
3) Some reactionaries like to refer to Indymedia as "Nazimedia" because some of the morons from the neo-Nazi crowd think they've found a place where they can post freely and get away with it. Going back to my first point, many (ok, practically all) IMCs have editorial policies that explicitly ban racism, sexism, or other forms of hatred based upon intrinsic, immutable characteristics. We hate the Nazi fuckers just as much as you do--even more, perhaps. The Jewish-world-conspiracy morons get the same reaction from real progressive and radical activists that I imagine many of you would have upon reading the crap, and if it can't be hidden due to an extremely loose editorial policy, the imbeciles can at least get slapped down in comments.
Finally...
4) The open newswires found on most sites are a fluke of history. The original newswire, on the Seattle IMC, dates from the 1999 "Battle of Seattle". It was intended solely as an experiment in relatively unfiltered, frontline reporting from any observer who could get to a computer. It's rather amazing that many IMCs haven't cracked down and just rid themselves of the often-criticized and -abused open wires, but perhaps it speaks to the committment of most volunteers to ideals of freedom of information and debate.
"You are your own journalist."--English tagline of Indymedia Israel.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
mitch
If you don't like the newswires (and they can be pretty noisy) each local site has edited features, which should make note of the better articles in the newswire. Of course, it's all entirely volunteer, so results may vary.
Latin American Indymedia sites have been very active, while mainstream media ignores events there almost entirely. Bolivia and Argentina have been very active covering recent events.
all of them. its the only way to be sure.
I'm not joking by the way.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Before we condemn these students about a civil disobedience stance against electronic voting, keep in mind these folks are at a Quaker-based college and are acting in those traditions. A few of the posts modded up have been somewhat critical of the motives and methods.
l y- 02-18-2002.shtml
The Society of Friends -- Quakers -- have a long history of questioning that which is conventionally accepted. Thus, they were among the first to question slavery:
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/02/dai
Quaker-based organizations -- The American Friends Service Committee and British Friends Service Council -- won the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize for their material aid efforts in postwar Europe, particularly in Germany which was then an international paraih:
http://www.afsc.org/about/nobel.htm
And they were in Cambodia when nobody else would go.
Pick a topic -- civil rights, underground railroad, women's rights, GLBT, tolerance of different religions among them -- and Quakers have been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) questioning convention and willing to stand by their decisions, even when confronted with prison and punishment.
Check http://www.quaker.org if you want to read about how these people have stood in the face of convention and often ended up ahead of their times. Hint: William Penn Hat Trial.
And no, they DO NOT dress like the 17th century guy on the oats box. That's more of an Amish style.
I used to worry about all the lame-brained, right-wing-liberal, hippie-conservative, crazy assed shit that I've said over the years, and whether having my various posts where I've been all over the political spectrum, all over the spectrum of sanity and insanity, and everywhere from reasonable and educational to bloodthirsty pirate and troll.... I've worried that this legacy would take some explaining, maybe someday, if I were being recruited by the NSA or something, or any other job interview.
But I WOULD NOT trade for anyone named on any of these Diebold memos.
If these discussions are really true, if they are really from developers and QA people, they had better count their lucky stars if the interviewer at their next job isn't political.
You could probably get away with a batch file that prints "system test passed" for all I know.
--Ken Clark
I may have said some crazy-assed crap in my time, but that's because I tend to be a clown. But I don't think I'd want to go on record with something like this. I actually might be more inclined to blow the whistle on this operation. Which is obviously what someone did do.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Okay. That's a good thing.
So you admit your bias. But you must realize that a majority of americans feel differently, and as a democracy public policy in America is not necessarily going to reflect your values, okay?
How is it anti-American to expose flaws in voting machines which could threaten the very heart of our society; the fair democratic election of our leaders?
Its not a matter of the particular instance of voting machines. Its a simple matter of copyright. Now if there were exceptions in copyright that said that "if you think its really important" breaking copyrights would be okay, there would be no more incentive to produce intellectual property. Diebold has as much of a right to the copyright on internally produced documents as anyone else, regardless of what they pertain to, and anyone who gains unauthorized access to said documents, and then distributes them without permission, is in violation of copyright law, every bit as much as pirating Windows XP is a violation of copyright law.
We should accept lawbreaking when the laws being broken. Did you ever learn about the Boston Tea Party? Ever hear of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus? Civil disobedience has a long, proud history in America.
Well, there is a long, proud tradition of murder in the USA also, if the only prerequisite for a long proud tradition is that it has happened consistently throughout history. That doesn't make it morally acceptable. In fact the two cases you mention are completely different. In the case of the Boston Tea Party, it was a legitimate protest against a law that was instituted by an authority (the British) in which the colonists had no representation, and so said institution could be said to not have any binding authority over them. The second was a clear violation of the law, and probably set the cause of civil rights back more than anything, by associating black activists with willful violations of the law. They would have been much better served by working for reform within the legal process at the state level, where according to the constitution such laws should be made, rather than agitating for unconstitutional federal intervention and the undermining of the tenth ammendment and commiting crimes in order to short-circuit democracy.
If you like conservatism and patriotism, and you dislike civil disobedience, then move to Communist China. They are very conservative, very patriotic, and don't tolerate civil disobedience. Your kind of people...
It might entertain you to know that in most communist countries there were no copyright laws, so what these loony-leftists were doing would be perfectly legal. In fact, copyright is absolutely essential to a free society, and undermining copyright is a sure way to undermine freedom and free markets. In fact, unlike breaking laws, copyright is directly enshrined in the constitution. As for banning subversive activities, there is a well-established constitutional authority to override certain privileges when the national interest is at stake; considering the tradition of treason within the liberal movement, I don't think my suggestions are at all in conflict with this principle.
In short, I am for the use of state power to protect freedom, and you are for the use of state power to suppress freedom. You are far closer to the views of Communist China.
paper ballots are just as easily altered as electronic... who would know if a box of ballots disappeared? or if a box of ballots just showed up... in Chicago people used to vote more than once in the same election, hence the phrase "vote early and often"...
I'm not saying i agree with diebold, reading these memos makes me sick to my stomach... i am a software developer (g, surprise) and i can't believe what i just read. I think that they should be sued out of business for the little bit that i just read that was reposted on slashdot, and i think they should face criminal charges... i am writing my congressmen and senator immediately to try and make sure that they understand the gravity of what these memos reveal.
I believe there is an argument that it is neither. It should be seen as protected speech under the protections of the first amendment of the US Constitution.
In the US supreme court's landmark Sullivan decision, it was firmly established that speech criticizing public officials was more or less immune to ordinary charges of libel.
The court adopted Madison's view that the people are the ultimate owners of the country.
As Justice Brennan wrote in the majority opinion, Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, casutic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials... and as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for constitutional protection."
While Dieblod is "not" a government official, its involvement in the election of public officials should be close enough to invoke the free speech protections which the US Supreme Court has provided.
The ability to critize our public officials AND THEY WAY THEY ARE ELECTED is a fundamental American right.
Use it before the traitors who stole the last US election take it away.
also, copy of diebold voting software! http://suprnova.sptorrents.org/torrents/452/GEMSI
if copyright protects fraud like this, fuck copyright!
As an English IT consultant (and a member of the Society of Friends) with many relatives and business contacts in the USA, I have been growing more and more concerned by the vast budgets available to American politicians for elections and the consequent possibilities for electoral fraud based on unverifiable electronic systems.
The attempt by Diebold to conceal the extent to which these concerns may be justified seems to me to be profoundly anti-democratic. It is deeply worrying that a private company should effectively have control of the outcome of the electoral process without proper oversight. Central to allaying concerns over the fairness of elections is that the process should be fully transparent. If part of that process is proprietary and cannot be independently audited, transparency is lost and the opportunity is open for fraud. As any experienced analyst knows, the use of test routines cannot be a guarantee of any kind of completeness, and only full access to the source code by qualified programmers and analysts can rule out the possibility of backdoor access, data modification or data loss.
I am delighted to see that Swarthmore students are following in the great Quaker tradition of speaking truth to power. If in some ways they may have been less than well ordered, I hope that Swarthmore will be able to help them into a right understanding. But if they have genuinely uncovered an abuse I hope it will be able to stand firmly behind them.
Yours in friendship,