Slashdot Mirror
Diebold Chases Links To Leaked Memos
bllfrnch writes "Mary Hodder, over at The Berkeley School of Journalism's bIPlog, reports that electronic voting bigwig Diebold has begun sending cease-and-desist letters to universities whose students are linking to hijacked internal company memos that elucidate the company's level of respect for citizens' right to vote. Particularly shocking is the line: "If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.""
The DMCA is quite clear in its provisions for allowing questionable material to stay up. BlackBoxVoting had no need to roll over in the first place. The simply needed to submit a DMCA counter notice.
Simply send a counter notice stating that the documents do not breach copyright, and put the website back up. This moves the obligation to Diebold to bring suit!
paradoxically it seems to be the case that in places where voting COULD change things it IS illegal, and vice versa.
Be careful to not overanalyze that "illegal-votine" quote. It appears where a sig normally does (sans the '--'). It could just be cynacism... after all, if I took the quotes at the bottom of the /. main page this seriously I would probably stop reading the page! Good journalism is in part good history and anthropology.
Sam
Particularly shocking is the line: "If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."
.sig, why is this shocking ?
This line belongs to a
This is taken out of context.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
http://saveie6.com/
Particularly shocking is the line: "If voting could really change things, it would be illegal."
It's so annoying how people blow these things out of proportion - dude works for a voting machine company and has a sarcastic signature about voting - it's a joke - lighten up - it's like people are looking for things to whine about and then jumping on anything remotely sensational - [grumbles and moves back under bridge]
-P
Why have ONE conviction when you can have TWO?
By DMCAing people who host or link to these documents, they're implicity confirming their validity. I almost wonder if a "deny everything" policy might've worked better for them:
"Nope, never seen those before. Guess somebody thinks it's funny to try to discredit a reliable, trustworthy company like us."
Insead, they've chosen "arrgggh, give those back! You can't show people those - they're secret!". Hmm...
Oh wait, that's called communism, socialism...that's what we want right?
You should go back to school. Communism is concerned with collective ownership of land and property, Socialism looks towards equality via state control of the economy. Neither precludes the use of democracy within a society.
You're thinking of a dictatorship which could be of a left (think USSR) or right (eg Chile under Pinochet) persuasion.
----
This sig is inoffensive.
Whilst I'm posting, my take on this whole thing: I still cannot understand why on earth the US moved away from the pencil-and-paper, put-an-X-in-the-box system used (AFAIK) by the rest of the world (certainly that's how it works here in the UK.) Simple, cheap, robust, reliable, transparent... why complicate a system that's already a model of simplicity and correctness? Can someone explain to me what the problem is that 'voting machines' (of any sort, including the mechanical punched-card type) are trying to solve, exactly?
I actually worked as a volunteer in a General Election back in 1987 - this included sitting outside the polling station politely asking voters how they voted as they were leaving, aka 'exit polls' done to give the parties an idea of how things are going. Of course people don't have to answer and many didn't. At the count, all the candidates and their agents, pluys local party workers, official observers etc can all stand around watching the ballot boxes coming in, being emptied out, counted & sorted. If there's a close result, the losing candidate has the right (which is often exercised) to call for a recount. Because the bits of paper are all still there it's easy to do this. Organised, mass tampering with ballots is for all practical purposes impossible in this system - there's too much oversight, checks & balances & transparency. Of course, the first-past-the-post electoral system itself sucks, and we should have proportional representation :), but the simple question of how many votes each candidate got is pretty much a solved problem. It's just, y'know, counting, really...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Quote the Parent: "Oh wait, that's called communism, socialism...that's what we want right?"
No, thats called a totalitarian dictatorship Einstein.
Socialism, Fascism and Communism are merely political ideologies, intolerable ideologies yes, but thats all they are.
Socialism doesn't tell people to stop thinking and to starve your population, people that supported it did(Monsters) but the original texts encourages the people to think of freedom and how to make society work better for the majority.
Fascism didn't tell people to kill millions of Jew, Homosexuals, Gypsies and Disabled People, just to think of how to work together, the people that supported Fascism did commit some of the most horrific crimes humanity has ever encountered but what they preeched originally was togetherness what they did was disgusting.
I hate the Nazis as a rule and the Soviets only slightly less, but I also hate ignorant wankers from any nation that seem to think that sticking a label like "Fascist" or "Socialist" on anything they don't like and claiming a moral high ground by beating to death a strawman sent from the un-edited nightmares of Anne Coulter is pathetic.
The exception to this is Rick from The Young Ones.
Read Errant Story.
Civil Disobedience is a great example of how democracy should work.
A law made by "the people" is made to represent the best interest of "the people" in general. It should be fair and in proportion, and that should be the basis for obedience to that law. Making theft illegal is in everone's best interests, because it should protect your posessions.
When a law is out of proportion, unjust, or in any other case plain wrong, it is no longer in the best interest of the people in general, and thus should be void. "The people" ignore (break) the law, because they in general do not agree with it.
The ability for the public to act this way should prevent government agents from making laws for their own benefit (corruption). The public has a means of protecting their public interest.
If the voting system is corrupted, it's in the publics best interest to expose this. I'm not aware of who leaked the memos in the first place, but linking to material available on the web should not be punished IMHO.
I think it's utterly wrong to place responsibility of the counting of votes in the hands of a commercial enterprise, not if they don't give full and in-depth insight in the process, and allow auditing at every level at any time. Not because I'm an open source zealot or "liberal", but because I trust a commercial enterprise as far as I can throw them, and that's not very far...
It's what we use here in the UK.
You go into a little booth with a ballot paper, where you will find a pencil. Mark an X in the box next to the candidate you want, fold up the paper and post it in the ballot box.
It's more auditable and even if the paper, pencils and boxes are manufactured by a company who make no secret of their support for one particular political party, it's difficult to see how it could make any difference.
I'm not trolling - if someone could explain, please do.
This is actually pretty amazing.
.sig file, even if it does become kind of creepy in this context. Don't be distracted, Diebold is strangling democracy in a bathtub while we stand by and watch.
If Diebold is claiming copyright infringement, they are admitting that the memos are real!
I hope people don't focus so much on the
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I tend to agree, but what if you had a doctor who's signature block said "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" or a politician who's signature block said "Ask yourself what you can do for ME"...the fact is that sarcasm in certain forms, and certain places is innapropriate and it doesn't take a great deal of thought to tell when it is no longer apropriate.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
So, can you define 'a while'...what period of time is this? Are you saying basically, that if you wait out, and welsh on an agreement long enough...everything just transforms to 'ok nevermind, we didn't really mean it'...and you don't have to do it. By that logic, we shouldn't have given the peaceful inspector method as long as we did.
Saddam surrendered Gulf War 1. He agreed to terms. He got a chance to abide by them....and basically did everything he could not to. After awhile, as you say, you get fed up with this, and come down on him. Otherwise, there is no deterrent to other rogue nations. Sometimes, all that is understood is swift, blinding violence and force. Grant it, you want it to be a last resort, but, your words of peace have no teeth if you aren't willing to back them up.
This is not a utopian world, will never be one as long as there are humans. There are by default, some bad seeds out there, and on occasion, you have to show one what the consequences are for bad behavior, otherwise they will run rampant.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........