Diebold Folds In DMCA E-Voting Lawsuit

DMCA - how can i abuse thee, let me count the ways by putaro · 2003-11-26 22:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Talk about a poorly crafted piece of legislation. There are so many ways to abuse this ridiculous thing. It really needs to be amended to get rid of all of these legal like mechanisms that do not involve the courts. You should have to get a judge to issue an injunction to take material offline, not just say "You have to do it".

Diebold's defense that the plantiffs "did not suffer irreparable harm" because Diebold didn't actually sue them is outrageous. The threat to sue, especially by a party with deep pockets vs a small party definitely causes a chilling effect on free speech. If Diebold had not intention to sue, why did they ask for the material to be removed?

Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by divide+overflow · 2003-11-26 22:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now it's time for the substantive discussion of how best to tally the votes and ensure it is done accurately and impartially. This needs to be done in open public discussions by people who really know how to design and peer review such systems.

Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by Snowdrake · 2003-11-26 22:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately I have my doubts as to whether Diebold or any of the other voting-machine manufacturers would be particularly willing to go forward with such a process. As much as many of us (myself at times included) might like to believe that this is fueled by a massive right-wing conspiracy, the real fact is that it's just not their usual MO.

Prior to entry into the voting-machine market, Diebold's primary presence in computing has been in manufacturing ATMs. A brief consideration (disclaimer: I didn't research this and won't be held responsible if it turns out to be dead wrong) suggests that these are, by design, pretty much turnkey systems in which a large amount of the security is provided by an extremely limited user interface. There aren't a lot of branches in the ATM flowchart, and the necessary local configuration is probably minimal.

Now compare this to the requirements of a voting system. Because ballots vary greatly from one precinct to the next, each voting machine must store considerably more local configuration. With this comes a much more complex UI and many more opportunities for security to be compromised. If this is a first foray into a system this complex, it may be a simple underestimation of the requirements. When one considers that the operation of the Diebold voting machine as discussed in the Johns Hopkins paper is not unlike that of an ATM, it's easy to see where someone may have seen elections as just another nail to hit with their particular hammer. Little did they know that the demands are so different.
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by Progman3K · 2003-11-26 23:19 · Score: 2, Funny

>substantive discussion of how best to
>tally the votes and ensure it is done
>accurately and impartially.

>open public discussions

The process you're talking about sounds like democracy.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by ajs318 · 2003-11-26 23:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll tell you "how best to tally the votes and ensure it is done accurately and impartially" in just two words:

By hand.

But if you really must use machines, if it really is more important that it be done quickly than it be done right, then every aspect of the machines' operation must be absolutely open to public scrutiny at every stage of the process. Corporations' rights to make profits are subordinate to individuals' rights to democracy.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by divide+overflow · 2003-11-26 23:35 · Score: 2, Funny

>The process you're talking about sounds like democracy.

More precisely, it sounds like a *healthy* democracy, as opposed to what we currently have.
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-26 23:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Paper ballots, which are fed into a simple optical reader at the polling station. The ballot is then dropped into a locked ballot box. The result can be counted instantly by the machines, but there is a good old-fashioned paper trail which can be hand counted should there be any doubt over the outcome.
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by divide+overflow · 2003-11-26 23:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

> I'll tell you "how best to tally the votes and ensure it is done accurately and impartially" in just two words:
>
>By hand.

My two words would be PAPER TRAIL.
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by Zeinfeld · 2003-11-27 04:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Prior to entry into the voting-machine market, Diebold's primary presence in computing has been in manufacturing ATMs. A brief consideration (disclaimer: I didn't research this and won't be held responsible if it turns out to be dead wrong) suggests that these are, by design, pretty much turnkey systems in which a large amount of the security is provided by an extremely limited user interface. There aren't a lot of branches in the ATM flowchart, and the necessary local configuration is probably minimal.
The local configuration may be minimal but it may be enough to rig the vote.
What we need to do is to make sure that the configurations of the machines are identical. The trick used in Florida was to program the machines differently in white and black areas. In the black areas the machines were set to silently disqualify any ballot that had a problem of any kind anywhere. In the white areas the machines were set to give an error when there was a problem and the voter could try again.
That is the reason why the error rate was 12% in the black areas and 1% in the white. It was not as the GOP shills tried to claim that the voters were stupid, the machines had been rigged. These facts were all corroborated in the enquiry.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by StenD · 2003-11-27 05:53 · Score: 2, Informative

The county with a 12% error rate was Gadsden County, and it did not have optical scanners at the precincts. Rather, the ballots were counted only at a central location, so there was no opportunity to permit an invalid ballot to be corrected.
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by cheezedawg · 2003-11-27 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I assume you are basing this on Dr Lichtman's claim that "persons living in a county with a substantial African American or people of color population are more likely to have their ballots spoiled or discounted than persons living in the rest of Florida." (cited by the democrat majority in the USCCR report on the 2000 Florida election). This claim is a pretty good example of somebody trying to find evidence to support his preconceived conclusions, and it is thoroughly debunked in the dissenting statement.

Here are the facts:

Election procedures are controlled by the individual County Elections Supervisors. Out of the 25 counties with the highest ballot "spoilage" rates, 24 of the counties were supervised by a democrat, and the 25th was supervised by an independent.

The NAACP, who was called in to represent these minority voters that you claim were disenfranchised, were very clear that they don't allege that anybody "acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group."

Dr John Lott of Yale University did his own study, and he concluded that coefficient on the percent of voters who were black to the number of spoiled ballots was not statistically significant.

--
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by workindev · 2003-11-27 07:12 · Score: 2, Informative

The allegation that Jeb Bush and Harris fixed the poll was confirmed by the commission

Bull. Did you even read the commission report? From the Executive Summary:

The report does not find that the highest officials of the state conspired to disenfranchise voters. Moreover, even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred. Instead, the report concludes that officials ignored the mounting evidence of rising voter registration rates in communities.

The guy who was unearthing this was Pallast. The US press would not publish him but the UK guardian, the BBC and the international press did.

Isn't it interesting that the only "source" for these allegations is a so-called "reporter" who has renounced his US citizenship? It's quiet apparent that he has a vested interest in discrediting the Bush Presidency.

The US press only reported the story in July 2001 after the commission confirmed the evidence and Bush had been installed.

Again, Bull. Read the USCCR report before you look like an ass. The report did not find voter fraud, it found votor "disenfranchisement".

The Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated. In many cases, they were foreseeable and should have been prevented. The failure to do so resulted in an extraordinarily high and inexcusable level of disenfranchisement, with a significantly disproportionate impact on African American voters

This conclusion led to a harsh Dissent from comissioner Abigail Thernstrom and Russel Redenbaugh, who said in part:

The Commission's report has little basis in fact. Its conclusions are based on a deeply flawed statistical analysis coupled with anecdotal evidence of limited value, unverified by a proper factual investigation. This shaky foundation is used to justify charges of the most serious nature--questioning the legitimacy of the American electoral process and the validity of the most recent presidential election. The report's central finding--that there was "widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights" in Florida's 2000 presidential election--does not withstand even a cursory legal or scholarly scrutiny. Leveling such a serious charge without clear justification is an unwarranted assault upon the public's confidence in American democracy.

The only reason you won't see the US media looking into this story is simply because there is no story at all to report.
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by workindev · 2003-11-27 10:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Harris and Bush willfully disobeyed a rack of court orders that required voters with the right to vote to be allowed to register. They also selected ChoicePoint to scrub the voter lists despite the fact they were the most expensive by 25 times the cost of the cheapest bid.

Again, you are misinformed and are obviosly basing your argument on factless partisan rhetoric. Harris and Bush had nothing to do with the selection of DBT/ChoicePoint. DBT/ChoicePoint was hired in 1997 (before Bush and Harris were even in office) as a result of Florida statute 98.0975 passed by the state legislature (again, before Bush and Harris were in offic), and they were comissioned by the Florida Director of Elections Ethel Baxtor, a democrat.

Bush and Harris also had nothing to do with the "scrubbing" of the voter list. As specified by Florida state law, this was the responsibility of the local county election officials. This means that if anybody was incorrectly removed from the voter registration, they were removed by their county election officials (who shockingly happen to be democrats in heavily democratic counties).

However the facts found by the report validate the claim that the ballot was rigged in a massively partisan manner.

Facts? What facts? The commission heard testimony from 5 people who were inaccurately included on the list, 4 of which were eventually allowed to vote after clearing up the problem. Are these the "facts" that you use to cite a rigged ballot in a "massively partisan manner"??
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by workindev · 2003-11-27 10:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Ah so a dissenting statement by a group of Republicans proves that there was no electoral fraud!

And a factless report by a group of partisan Democrats does prove it?

BTW the dissent disputes the findings by rejecting all the testimony and facts found as 'anecdotal' they provide no contradictory claims, nor do they dispute the evidence in detail, they dispute the claim that the returning officer and governor had responsibility, which is odd when you look who was responsible for compiling the list at the center of the claims and for distributing the wrong and illegal advice to the returning officers.

Lets look at the "facts" represented by the USCCR report.

Willie D. Whiting, Jr., a member of the clergy and registered voter in Tallahassee, who went with his family to vote at his assigned polling place, Precinct 42 in Leon County. When Apostle Whiting presented his driver's license for identification purposes, the poll worker said his name was not on the registration list and called the supervisor of elections for Leon County to verify his registration status. Apostle Whiting asked to speak with a supervisor at that office, and he was told that an individual named Willie J. Whiting, born two days after Apostle Whiting, had been convicted of a felony in the state of Florida. Consequently, Apostle Whiting learned he had been wrongfully removed from the registration list. After Apostle Whiting threatened to contact an attorney, he was allowed to vote.[204]

William J. Snow, Jr., a Miami-Dade resident, testified that he received notice that he would be ineligible to vote in the November 2000 election because of a felony conviction. Receiving the notice "caused a great stress" upon Mr. Snow's heart because he had never been convicted of a felony. Mr. Snow testified that the problem has been corrected. Mr. Snow has been a Miami-Dade County resident for more than 33 years and voted in the 1996 election without incident.[205]

Marilyn Nelson, a poll worker with 15 years of experience in Precinct 232 in Miami-Dade County, encountered "quite a few" people whose names did not appear on the rolls at her precinct. When she called the supervisor of elections office, she was told that their rights had been taken away from them due to an alleged felony conviction. She was further instructed by the supervisor's office that she could not inform those voters of the reason for their removal from the rolls, but she was instructed to "tell them to call downtown at a later date."[206]

Professor Darryl Paulson testified that the Hillsborough County supervisor of elections estimated that 15 percent of those purged were purged in error and they were disproportionately African American. According to Professor Paulson, another source estimated that 7,000 voters, mostly African Americans and registered Democrats, were removed from the list.[207]

According to news reports, even those who had received a full pardon for their offenses were listed on DBT's exclusion list.

Reverend Willie Dixon, a Tampa resident, received a full pardon for drug offenses in 1985, and has since become a youth leader, a bible preacher, and a "pillar of the Tampa African American community who has voted in every presidential election."[208] But despite his 15 years of voting status, Pam Iorio, the supervisor of elections for Hillsborough County, sent Reverend Dixon a letter informing him that he had been removed from the rolls because of a prior conviction.[209] Eventually, Reverend Dixon was able to verify his status as a registered voter.[210]

Media accounts also captured the impact of list maintenance activities and the frustration they caused for Florida voters.[211]

Wallace McDonald, in 1959, was convicted of a misdemeanor, vagrancy, for falling asleep on a bench in Tampa while he waited for a bus. In 2000, Mr. McDonald received a letter from Ms. Iorio informing him that
Re:Who'd have thought reason would prevail? by workindev · 2003-11-27 12:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Eventually some people who complained a lot got their vote counted and their right to vote restored.

75% of the people who testified had their voting rights restored. If there were over 100,000 legitimate voters who couldn't vote, why couldnt the USCCR find a single one of them? The only person they found that could not vote had in fact been convicted of a crime.

But Harris and Bush succeeded in keeping over a hundred thousand voters off the rolls, most of whom were illegally and illegitimately denied their right to vote

Well, it doesn't look like you want to pay attention to the facts. Lets try this again (not that you are going to pay any attention). Bush and Harris had nothing to do with the voter rolls. Per Florida Law it was the responsibility of local county election officials to maintain the voter rolls. Per Florida Law, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris had no authority to change the voter rolls. How can you keep pounding your agruement with a straight face? You are blaming Bush and Harris for:

A law that was passed before they took office
A voter scrub list that was not commissioned by them, but was commissioned by a Democrat
Changing Voter rolls that they had no authority or method of changing
Voter disenfranchisement where nobody was willing to testify that they were disenfranchised (several people testified that they were inconvienenced, but not disenfranchised)

Why can't you see how ridiculously partisan you sound?

Diebold folds? by mattjb0010 · 2003-11-26 22:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Anyone else have visions of DMCA notification letters being folded into origami statues of liberty?

Re:Diebold folds? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-26 22:40 · Score: 2, Funny

I was more optimistically thinking "Diebold Folds" meant Diebold had gone out of business.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

GO DAVE WEEKLY! by Effugas · 2003-11-26 22:19 · Score: 4, Informative

I'd like to take this moment to publically thank, congratulate, and otherwise embarass my illustrious former roommate, David Weekly. Alot of people talk about problems, like how alot of people talk about "Gee, how tragic is Zero Tolerance for all these kids, oh look, another one just got expelled for learning the word 'Knife'!"

Most people don't do anything. David Weekly did.

He stepped up, fought back against Diebold, and brought justice -- not just for himself (he's the founder of the California Community Colocation Project, so the ISP takedown notices directly affected him), not just for the four college kids attacked by Diebold, but for all of us here and for everybody with a stake in the perceived integrity of the American vote.

That's some damn fine work, David. Thanks! And thanks to everyone at EFF and OPG who fought this battle with him too!

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:DMCA - how can i abuse thee, let me count the w by beacher · 2003-11-26 22:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Agreed. Just look at the RIAA uses the DMCA - "The copyright owner may then present a subpoena request to the Clerk of the Court that requires the user's ISP to identify the person who was using the particular IP address when the copyright owner observed the copyright infringement. " - and this is based on a good faith belief that the person has committedd copyright infringement. Then the case goes to civil trial. Completely bypasses the bill of rights.

Good Faith... RIAA/MPAA.. truly a disconnect. Nasty

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-11-26 22:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My Theory by benna · 2003-11-26 22:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think that their systems are faulty really. I think they work exactly as designed.

--
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

I highly reccomend people start acting on this now by TyrranzzX · 2003-11-26 22:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Now they won't be sueing everyone under the sun, that if you can, throw it up on p2p services and help get a bittorent of the file circulating. The documents can be found on kazaa if you type in diebold, as you can with any other app. I suggest shareaza, which is a spywareless free P2P app that handles and allows for hosting and downloading from multiple network protocols (gnutella, bittorent, edonkey to name a few) and can be found at

http://www.shareaza.com

. If you're just interested in reading documents, another good read at

http://www.blackboxvoting.com

for those of you who don't want to sift through hundreds of e-mails in the archive but want the good stuff(downloads are at the right side of the page). Of course, they probably can't get slashdotted to horribly without going under, and therefore, if you can download the files and throw them on a p2p app such as shareaza you'll be doing everyone a big favor or if you can download them off of a p2p app that works well too to make sure their website's bandwidth bill isn't horrendous.

Additionally, if you do nothing else and live in the US, goto the EFF's webpage and fill out their form and fax or e-mail it to your legislature (which is all nicely automated for you).

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =2821

This way, if congress gets millions of documents stating we know and we don't like the sharade, they'll have to pull it and may even throw a few congressman on the legal fire to keep us satiated.

--

Candy-Coated Knowledge

Beginning of DMCA downfall? by Froobly · 2003-11-26 22:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

I just read this in conjunction with the story on Best Buy and FatWallet, and I can only hope, maybe people are finally seeing the DMCA the way we see it. Here we have two cases against major companies challenging the DMCA for its chilling effects. How long before it works its way up to the Supreme Court?

Re:hooray! by silentbozo · 2003-11-26 22:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case. Although the main intent behind the suits was to stop Diebold from issuing any more takedown letters citing copyright, a successful injunction against Diebold would have sent a very strong message against any future abuses of copyright in ways contrary to the public good (ie, interference with 1st amendment protections.)

If the judge allows dismissal, the EFF misses a slam dunk chance to nibble away at corporate abuse (ie, the DMCA stands, Diebold gets away with saying "Oops, we really didn't mean to stifle free speech. We promise not to do it again *crossing fingers*" While OGP will probably be relieved that they won't have to go to the time and expense of trial, we're just postponing the inevitable courtroom clash between individual freedom and corporate manipulation of federal law.

Too bad they folded. by flacco · 2003-11-26 22:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

the best possible outcome would have been for this to go to court, for shoddy proprietary voting systems to appear on the evening news, and for the DMCA to be publicly humiliated for the piece of shit that it is.

from the company's perspective, i'd FIRE the dimwit who championed this strategy.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

Fair thanks by jdifool · 2003-11-26 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hi,

sticking to the relevant way of using the 'fair' mechanism, I'd like to thank those two students, and the whole bunch of people who fought Diebold's obnoxious use of the DMCA.

You did a fucking awesome job. And you proved that personal actions really matter in this deincarnated world.

This is no time to loosen the backlash ; Dieblod may ask for some 'mediation', my advice would be not to give them any relief. They *must* pay for what they've done.

Regards,
Jdif

--
Let's overcome our weakness.

Re:hooray! by silentbozo · 2003-11-26 22:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmm, after reading the Diebold response, it looks like someone with half a brain and a clue got through to the idiot execs. It is essentially a total surrender, abandoning claims of irrepairable harm, a recognition that the materials are too widespread to control, and a conditional promise not to sue under copyright.

I was wrong - this is a win (sort of)! Too bad we had to file suit to generate this response though...

Re:The Problem: by CrazyDuke · 2003-11-26 22:52 · Score: 5, Informative

The Republicans are firmly in the pockets of Computer Hardware and Software manufacturers that want to keep the DMCA to prevent competitors from copying products and making compatable ones.

The Democrats are firmly in the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA that want to keep the DMCA to help them keep their strangleholds in thier markets.

Everyone else has an icecube's chance in hell of getting in regardless of who funds their habits.

It is worth mentioning Mr. Kucinich is trying to get the presidential nomination and has very little financial contamination from the formentioned industries. $36,275 from TV, movies, and music industry and $25,590 from the computer industry out of $3,399,709 total.

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

Open source democracy by Savage-Rabbit · 2003-11-26 22:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

If ever there was a case for open source this is it. Democracy is not democracy without transparency. For Diebold to deny the public the right to know how its votes are counted and how secure the process is by keeping its source closed is inexcusable.....

"the code, which Diebold refuses to allow the public to audit, was discovered unencrypted on a publicly accessible Diebold Internet FTP (file transfer protocol) site.

.... uuuuhhh, oops my bad!, they are open source after all.

But all fun aside, at least it can now be said to have been officially confirmed that one of the numerous things DMCA will not protect you against is your own stupidity and incopetence.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:Open source democracy by timeOday · 2003-11-26 23:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I suppose diebold is to blame, but what about our government? Why are our tax dollars going towards a product that is all wrong for the application?
The govt. should contract to have the voting software written, so it is govt. owned and open source. I don't want my tax dollars wasted pumping up Diebold from now until the rest of eternity, and more importantly I want vote integrity - not just actual integrity, but also public confidence. They should form an oversight committe for this voting software contract. Reputable scientists from academia and industry would come out of the woodwork to join the committee and help insure votes are counted right.

Re:Kucinich by SiliBelgian · 2003-11-26 22:58 · Score: 2

For God's sake, try to make some common sense...

--

"Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun."

Denying the memos by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-26 23:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not all good news. If diebold really went on claiming copyright over the memos, then it would in effect be suggesting that the memos were real. Now it can still claim that they are doctored, etc.

Giving the EFF this concession is quite sneaky, as it helps them deal with the memos.

Re:Who votes anymore? by benna · 2003-11-26 23:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Kucinich. Apearently the real question is who reads the slashdot article anymore since if you had read the post you would know who to vote for. :P

--
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

this is not a win... by zeruch · 2003-11-26 23:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

...it means either Diebold has some other nefarious move up their sleeves, or (more likely) instead of doing what many other companies do -make a big spectacle of themselves- they are hoping to disappear into the woodwork during the upcoming election season so as to "help their benefactors" my 2 paranoid cents

Can WE abuse the DMCA too? by carcosa30 · 2003-11-26 23:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

There should be some sort of credo that when a system can't be fixed, it should be used/abused equally by everybody.

Surely there are enough correct-thinking corporations that we could begin to use the DMCA to begin to put pressure on certain groups. Then perhaps the government will begin to realize how asinine it is (the DMCA, not the... never mind.)

This is kinda like the putative holes in Diebold machines. If nothing can be done about them, surely they can be abused by everyone :)

--
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.

Re:DMCA - how can i abuse thee, let me count the w by beacher · 2003-11-26 23:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Take a look at The Register's article as mentioned a few days ago here in regards to the MP/RIAA seeking anti-trust exemption...

"Hatch said the big studios and major record labels need the exemption because of "market realities...The bill authorizes appropriations to ensure that all Department of Justice units that investigate intellectual property crimes have the support of at least one agent specifically trained in the investigation of such crimes," he said last week."

Why isn't the DOJ doing this? I'm sure that the DOJ and the FBI have models in place for persuing internet fraud and cracking cases (yes I know this is not the best comparison theft vis a vis copyright infringement), so until the DOJ gets Copyright agents, the RIAA/MPAA is acting as an affiliate of the government and conducting searches without due process.

Anyway, this is my take on it
-B

it's a win, a very big win by js7a · 2003-11-27 00:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case.

I think maybe you are confusing this with IBM's countersuit against SCO. In this case, there was no precident that could be set either way. (AFAIK, IANAL)

What happened at the hearing was that the judge made it clear that he was going to provide declarative relief in favor of the plaintiff, although not an injunction on the question of the fair use of all 13,000 emails. It isn't always as crystal clear from the hearing what the judge will do, but check out this comment from the Judge:

[page 4-5:] THE COURT: What if [plaintiffs] ... can show that they are suffering some type of collateral damage while the DMCA [process is] taking place? In other words, what OPG alleges here is that simply taking advantage of the safe harbor [provisions] isn't an adequate remedy ... for a number of reasons that they identify.... and I think I agree with them....

You can see how he's not going to go for an injunction if you read the whole hearing transcript.

One very importaint thing, it became clear that because of precidents set in the Scientology case, if Diebold had sued, the court was going to have to go through all the emails and decide on a case-by-case basis which of them are subject to fair-use protections and which aren't because they contain no public-interest material or contain an overwhelming abundance of "how-to/how-not-to" information with commercial value. From a technical perspective, of course, we have already seen how some of the source code with respect to weak encryption has some of the most importaint public-interest information. There is no way any judge would be savvy enough to catch that on the first go-round, and so this would have been a real money-loser for the good guys.

So, I am very glad this didn't go to trial.

Kucinich Blog on Election Activism by Henri+Poole · 2003-11-27 00:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is from the Kucinich Blog from June 20, 2003. Americans have become very sensitized to manipulation of the vote since the debacles in the 2000 presidential elections. All over america, people are expressing to me their concerns about honest elections, about election technologies, about the ownership of voting machine suppliers, about the potential for fraud...all of which can undermine our democracy. We need solutions. Here's what we can do: we can organize in every community across this country into citizen groups of individuals with technical expertise in computer programming, systems design, and working knowledge of elections. These precinct activists can begin immediately to create a template for securing the 2004 vote. The elements of such a program might include: taking action to gain access to inspect the technology, to learn what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that no coflicts of interests are involved, and to make sure there are no problems with the chain of custody. What I'm advocating is monitoring the vote. Maybe we should call it MTV2004...Monitor the vote 2004. Perhaps we could begin to post our ideas to the wiki www.civicactions.org. We will need to organize state by state or county by county. If anyone has any ideas, please go to the wiki and let's act collectively to ensure a fair election in 2004. (lifted from his Blog under his CC license).

Just last week, he blasted the FBI for stripping away the constitution. All from a man who 25 years ago, on Dec 25, 1978, refused to sell Clevelands municipal electric company under threat of political death. He stood by his principles and sacrificed his career. After a few years and hundreds of millions in savings, the people brought him back. If there is ever a candidate for president who supports rights of netizens, and "we the people", this is him. Consider a Thanksgiving day gift .

Re:Kucinich Blog on Election Activism by Guppy06 · 2003-11-27 04:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Here's what we can do: we can organize in every community across this country into citizen groups of individuals with technical expertise in computer programming, systems design, and working knowledge of elections. These precinct activists can begin immediately to create a template for securing the 2004 vote. The elements of such a program might include: taking action to gain access to inspect the technology, to learn what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that no coflicts of interests are involved, and to make sure there are no problems with the chain of custody. What I'm advocating is monitoring the vote."

Yeah! I know, we could get party members in each municipality to observe and inspect the voting machines while they're being set up. And then on election day, we could have representative of the parties present at each polling station to keep track of who came in. We could even have party representatives present when the machines are queried for their official vote talleys!

In case you have difficulty seeing my sarcasm, this is exactly what has happened since at least the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and he as a politician should know this already since before the election each municipality mails him a letter spelling out where and when the machines will be established and inspected so that he can send his representatives to observe the process. The only new idea he has here is giving it a snazzy new catch-phrase name. And judging from your glowing response, the tactic is obviously working.

"Just last week, he blasted the FBI for stripping away the constitution."

You mean just like every other Democrat candidate so far? Not that that is anything new, since you get elected by showing the incumbent's administration in a negative light. Candidates for the presidency running against incumbents have been complaining about how their opponent's administration of the FBI has robbed us of our Blessed Constitutional Rights (/me genuflects) for as long as we've had an FBI.

"If there is ever a candidate for president who supports rights of netizens, and "we the people", this is him."
(A) dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
--"Publius"
Federalist number 1
Re:Kucinich Blog on Election Activism by Zeinfeld · 2003-11-27 05:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Kucinich is a good guy on some positions, particularly on eliminating corporate welfare. The problem is that he is 100% unelectable as President. The US people are not going to replace the ultra-right Bush administration with Kucinich.
The fact is that despite Ralph Nader's claim that there was no difference between the major party candidates in fact it turns out that there is. The small matter of a multi-trillion dollar surplus being turned into a multi-trillion dollar debt and starting a war in Iraq before Bin Laden was eliminated.
At this point the clear priority is to replace Cheney/Bush or to use their corporate titles Haliburton/Harken. One thing is clear, the war in Iraq is not going to end any time soon when Haliburton is war-profiteering, lining its pockets (and therefore Cheney who still has a major interest).
It is not just the program, it is the way the program is communicated. Someone who is technically very good at communicating (and Edwards for example) could get away with most of Kucinich's program. Kucinich cannot.
I see the race as divided between the no-hoper candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton, Braun) the Bob Dole candidate who can be relied on not to loose too baddly (Gephart) and the serious ones.
Of the serious candidates we have the DLC sponsored Lieberman and Kerry and the outsiders Clark and Dean. At this point the party workers are so disgusted with the DLC and the policy of trying to fudge the Iraq war issue I don't think Lieberman or Kerry has much of a chance.
My guess is that the race will quickly settle to being between Dean and Clark, the rest will drop out either after NH or the big 7 primaries. The most likely outcome is a Dean/Clark ticket.
So if you want to influence the campaign with ideas on open source or copyright policy I would lobby the Dean people. At this point their attitude is 'yeah sounds like a good plan, problem is nobody understands technology or votes on it'.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

Re:hooray! [a bit too early to say] by waterbear · 2003-11-27 00:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case.

If the judge allows dismissal [...]

Yes -- and I was just now trying to puzzle out just where the two recent papers leave this case (transcript of hearing for an injunction, and Diebold's new document, see links in the main article).

Hopefully somebody with better insight into the procedure here will say more, but first it looks to me as if the parties had been waiting for the judge to decide, after a hearing, whether to grant an injunction against Diebold. (Was I the only one that found the hearing transcript obviously garbled in places, and the dialogue hard to decipher? I wonder how the judge manages to make use of such scrambled text?!)

It looked as if Diebold tried to pre-empt the next step, and the upcoming decision, by filing the paper with its concessions -- as if Diebold privately reckoned after the hearing that it would likely be on the losing side.

It looks as if the ball is now at least partly with EFF on what step to try next. The Diebold paper attempts to deal with the possibility that EFF might try to find a basis on which to persist in the suit for its 'test case' value, in spite of Diebold's concessions. Clearly Diebold hopes that its concessions took away enough of the 'sting' of injury caused by its DMCA activities, to leave the plaintiffs with nothing more to sue about, and to 'kill' the case before there is an adjudication that would likely make life harder in future for Diebold and other potential DMCA claimants.

I would guess EFF is now busy in legal conference and research to see if the case really is effectively dead beyond recall. (Go EFF!) Maybe we can still hope they will identify a way to take the case forward to an adjudication that could be of value, as a precedent to limit the scope for mischievous abuse of the DMCA in future. But I suppose it is possible no way will be found.

After the ATM story by lanalyst · 2003-11-27 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

..about how Diebold cash dispensers were infected with the Nachi worm I think they were left with no choice.

Corporate? by AndroidCat · 2003-11-27 01:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

the inevitable courtroom clash between individual freedom and corporate manipulation of federal law

But one of the larger abusers of the DMCA like this is the Cthurch of Scientology and they're not a corp .. oh .. never mind, I haven't caffievolved yet this morning.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:DMCA - how can i abuse thee, let me count the w by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-27 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a violation of the right to due process. Basically, the DMCA has granted private entities the power to issue their own enforceable subpoenas with no judicial or even administrative review whatsoever. This is completely unprecedented.

Don't forget Kucinich supports Slavery Reperations by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-27 02:38 · Score: 2, Informative

that disqualifies the creep right there oh and he is a VEGAN!

Re:hooray! by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-11-27 03:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Better yet, make the voting machines dispense cash, and the ATMs to let you vote.
That should increase voter turnout.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Re:hooray! by Zeinfeld · 2003-11-27 04:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case.

Screw the EFF case, the one that really matters is whether we get fair votes or not.

Down in Florida they showed just what the GOP is capable of, forget the recount. Before the poll even took place the Republicans disqualified over 150,000 voters, mostly black on bogus grounds. One man was disqualified because of a conviction in 2007!

The 'scrub' list was compilled by a GOP connected firm, despite the fact that their bid was $2.5 million rather than the $57 thousand one of the other companies bid. The list was compiled by matching the first four letters of the voters name, the date of birth and the race of the voter. This is how the poll was fixed, a white voter would not lose their vote because of a black convict still in jail in Texas.

There were also tricks played with the voting machines, not just the mechanical chad ridden ones. The optical scanners can be configured to reject a ballot if an error is detected or to silently consume it. The error can be voter error or machine error.

Well guess what? In the white areas the GOP configured the machines to give the voter another try if there was a problem. In the black areas the exact same machine was configured to silently eat the ballot. That is why the rates of miscounts were so much higher in the black areas (12%) than the white areas (1%). Easy when you know how.

Click on my sig and read the Pallast article which gives the blow by blow account. And before you squeak "bias" - the inquiry vindicated every one of the NAACP allegations. Only by that time Katherine Harris and the GOP had got away with it.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

corruption by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-27 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

The most important link
in the whole article.

The Diebold employee Ken Clark admits that numerous state counties had requested the .mdb files to not have passwords.

Re:Speech and Debate clause is limited by Animats · 2003-11-27 09:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

But see Gravel vs. US, which is more on point. That's the Pentagon Papers case. Hutchinson is a defamation case. The question in Hutchinson was whether a member of Congress has unlimited right to defame or libel anyone, and the Supreme Court ruled that the member does not. The question in Gravel relates to the release of protected information to influence public debate.

The current Supreme Court might well decide Gravel differently.

Has this ever come up before in an intellectual property context? And has it come up recently, since the expansion in intellectual property rights in the last decade?

Re:Speech and Debate clause is limited by sunbird · 2003-11-27 10:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, but in Gravel the Pentagon Papers were read into the public record at a subcommittee meeting. Later, the same Senator privately published the materials. The court found that the former was protected, not the latter:

The grand jury, therefore, if relevant to its investigation into the possible violations of the criminal law, . . . may require from [the Senator's aide] answers to questions relating to his or the Senator's arrangements, if any, with respect to republication or with respect to third-party conduct under valid investigation by the grand jury, as long as the questions do not implicate legislative action of the Senator.

408 U.S. at 628.

Thus, the Supremes held that information about private publication of the papers was not protected, but any "legislative actions," such as reading the text into the subcommittee's record, are fully protected.

If Kucinch had read the Diebold memos into the record, he would be absolutely protected. But, posting it on a website is not protected, public interest or not.

zerg by Lord+Omlette · 2003-11-27 10:51 · Score: 2, Funny

You mean we actually won one? Holy shit, someone pass around a hat so we can get everyone involved in the win some blowjobs and liquor!

--
[o]_O

Slashdot Mirror

Diebold Folds In DMCA E-Voting Lawsuit

51 of 153 comments (clear)