Trusted Computing/DMCA vs. Diebold Pentagon Paper

The Importance of writes "Diebold's ill-fated e-voting machines have gotten a lot of coverage recently. Of particular interest is the fact that some of the most damning documents are legal memos leaked from Diebold's law firm, Jones Day. The memos were leaked to the Oakland Tribune. Now Diebold's lawyers are trying to suppress their publication. The judge has ordered the documents returned, except for those already published on the internet. Hopefully, the First Amendment will protect the newspaper's rights to hold onto the documents. However, EFF's Jason Schultz points out a very real and very scary scenario in which trusted computing combined with the DMCA makes such leaks illegal, regardless of the First Amendment."

Comments

This is just not good

[The Analog Kid]

Now the government is going to allow suppression of freedom of speach, this is not good. America is becoming another Soviet Union, something they were actually trying to avoid. I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it.

Re:This is just not good

[FrYGuY101]

Nope. They've already been published on the internet, which means that Diebold can try all they like, but odds are since the document has been published,, can be republished.

Worst case scenario, they can't publish the report verbatim, but they can summarize it. Mark my words.

Re:This is just not good

[Anonymous Coward]

I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it.

Now you've done it! Prepare for Ashcroft to land a black helicopter in your lawn ...

Re:This is just not good

[S.Lemmon]

Actually, using the DMCA to suppress this kind of information might, in a round-about way, be a good thing. It would make for an idea court case to have the DMCA's constitutionality challenged.

Re:This is just not good

[The Analog Kid]

To tell you the truth, I've always thought about something like that when I post something like that, that I'll be put on the terrorist list by the government for speaking of it. I suppose though if I did get hauled in, it would cause enough unrest in the country to be the spark which ignites the flame.

Re:This is just not good

[Maserati]

Agreed. We've been waiting for a really good DMCA test case. One where it's being used against a newspaper is propbably the best possible test case.

Re:This is just not good

[Brandybuck]

While the US is on the road towards totalitarianism, it is hardly alone, or even leading the pack!

Re:This is just not good

[Eccles]

Now the government is going to allow suppression of freedom of speach, this is not good.

Oh c'mon, the U.S. government? That'll never happen.

Re:This is just not good

[KingOfBLASH]

The whole problem with this is selective enforcement. A law can be used by those in power only when they know it has the least chance of being overturned -- i.e. against a 12 year old sharing music over a P2P network.

Re:This is just not good

[Draknor]

'Tis a noble thought.

Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on /. or other tech-sites, but the spin that the mass-media public hears (assuming it hears anything at all, which is a big assumption) is that you were just another computer hacker-terrorist making threats & advocating "evil things on the interweb".

That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general - in a perfect world, people would be fully informed. But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide. It's not total control, but it works well enough for the majority of the people that it takes mountains moving before John Q Public hears and seriously considers alternate viewpoints.

Re:This is just not good

[SpaceLifeForm]

I believe that not *all* of the documents have been published.

The Oakland Tribune could just *leak* them again to another paper.

I hope they have not complied with the court order, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship. To illustrate, let me pose a hypothetical.

You're the accused in a high-profile case on some new, egregious law, a la the DMCA or PATRIOT Act. You're not certain about whether you're guilty or not given the novelty of the provision under which you're charged, so you seek legal advice, making full and frank disclosure of what you've done so your lawyer can give you the best advice possible. Somewhere along the way a "concerned citizen" gets ahold of the memos generated in the course of obtaining this advice and passes it to the prosecution, or, better yet, the press, who throw it into the public domain so it loses its quality of confidentiality.

Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech? Granted, Diebold is a corporation and nobody's liberty is at stake, but Diebold is a vessel for the economic interests of its shareholders, so property (another important right) is at stake and ought to be protected, no?

Re:This is just not good

[Ironica]

A. They did release the photos.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Not of their own initiative, and against their internal policies.

B. The photos were not of Iraqi war dead. They were of the Columbia space shuttle astronauts.

*Some of* the photos were, apparently a lot of them. But not all. (According to your source, anyway.)

And the photo that got a woman fired from her job as a military contractor in Kuwait was definitely of Iraqi war dead.

Re:This is just not good

[agrippa_cash]

I think you already see they key differences. Perhaps (almost certainly) these documents shouldn't be admissible in a trial. However, there is an matter of the public welfare to consider here. There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in. *By voteS I meant those of the citizenry. I have never voted twice in an election (though that may change with these machines.)

Re:This is just not good

[spiritraveller]

Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech?

This is all the fault of the defendant and his lawyers.

The whole point of there being an attorney-client privilege is that both the attorney and the client have to keep the information private.

Apparently, someone at Jones Day has committed malpractice. That is not the newspaper's fault. It is Jones Day's fault, and it is Diebold's fault for hiring Jones Day.

If a newspaper can publish the name of a rape victim which it obtains through legal means, I fail to see why it should not be allowed to print information about Diebold.

In my opinion, Diebold's activities are of far more interest to the public than the name of a rape victim.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in.

That seems to be a nice example of the general position, "I trust myself implicitly so I don't need oversight, but you, sir, are another matter". Your point on public interest is taken, but public interest is a very slippery concept, especially when you're using it to try and define the scope of important basic rights. Does the public interest allow for legal professional privilege to be restricted in cases of treason or similarly serious crimes? Does anybody who has dealings with the government lose their right to legal professional privilege, or only those who are involved in important government functions. If the latter, precisely how important is "important", and should the privilege be lost or only restricted in some way?

It's a question that judges don't like dealing with precisely because of its subjectivity. Of course, there are limits to lawyer-client privilege and confidentiality, such as when a person obtains advice to deliberately facilitate an illegal activity. However the focus should ultimately be on government, which is ultimately the party responsible for making its own processes (electoral or otherwise) open and accountable. Transferring that burden onto others by eroding their basic rights, even if they are in our opinion Bad People, is somewhat dangerous.

Re:This is just not good

[cthugha]

The decision you referred to is a somewhat faulty analogy: recieving information you know to have been obtained by breach of confidence or you know is being given to you in breach of confidence is different from picking up a report on display in a room which essentially anyone can access. In any event, the statute forbidding the publication of sexual assault victims' identity under any circumstances was shot down because it was far too broad, and couldn't cover situations where the newspaper came by information lawfully (access to the report containing the victim's name was not restricted in any way). The court cannot simply rewrite an offending provision according to whatever feels right to the judicial gut, it can only uphold it or declare it void. There are occasions where reading down or severance of one part of a law is allowed, but (IIRC) in the case of reading down the non-offending interpretation must be acceptable in the light of the intention conveyed by the words of the statute, and in the case of severance (again IIRC) the part of the law to be struck out must be clearly separable from the part to be upheld.

Re:This is just not good

[zurab]

Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship.

Except that the linked article is not about the attorney-client privilege. That's a separate right that exists with or without DMCA, and applies to the government. IANAL, but I believe any evidence obtained by prosecution that violates attorney-client privilege will not be admissible in court.

The linked article, however, discusses something else. This does not only apply to lawyers' documents but leaked Diebold documents and e-mails as well. For example, with the DMCA and "trusted computing," decrypting the leaked documents from Diebold by anyone else who is not "authorized" would violate the DMCA. Thereby, Diebold (or any other entity) would be able to control others' speech by swinging the DMCA around. Good example is whislteblowing which would be illegal with encrypted documents.

Re:This is just not good

[macdaddy357]

They should anonymously send them to every website and newspaper they can think of, including, but certainly not limited to the memory hole, and internalmemos.com.

Re:This is just not good

[spiritraveller]

It's a perfectly appropriate and applicable case. The newspaper in this case DID receive the information lawfully.

Do a google for "bob novak" and "valerie plame" if you want some examples of a journalist receiving information that was provided to him illegally. The provider of the information broke the law (much like the leak at Jones Day). But Mr. Novak did not break the law in receiving the information... he merely listened. The press has no obligation to shut its eyes or hang up the phone merely because it knows that the person communicating with it has broken the law.

The fact that the informant broke the law does not follow the information in order to somehow make the newspaper guilty.

Re:This is just not good

[dawg ball]

That is what is so scary about the Bush administration...

The scariest thing about Bush administration is actually George Bush himself.

Re:This is just not good

[d34thm0nk3y]

To me it seems pretty cut and dry actually. The person that leaked the memos did something wrong. The newspaper that repoted them did nothing wrong. As we slashdotters like to say from time to time: once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back. Why are the newspapers having the corrective burden placed upon them? If they have valuable news and they are being forced not to report it then they are suffering sanctions when those sanctions should rightfully be placed upon whoever broke the confidentiality agreement.

Regardless?

[rossz]

WTF? When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition? I'll tell you: legally, NOT EVER. The Constitution trumps anything Congress might try to do. The Constitution is the guidelines by which Congress is able to pass laws. To quote the Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the exact citation): "Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

Re:Regardless?

[aussersterne]

When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition?

Anytime. Or more specifically, whenever the Supreme Court says they can and law enforcement, guns and all (beginning with the Justice Dept.), sides with government. Who appoints justices and cabinet-level law enforcement? The President.

This is why presidential elections matter, even though it's supposedly congress that makes laws... the existence of checks and balances is not foreordained by the nature of the universe; it depends on a populace who votes carefully to keep these checks and balances in place and to keep the power-hungry or purchasable out of office.

Re:Regardless?

[Dr Reducto]

WTF? When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition? I'll tell you: legally, NOT EVER. The Constitution trumps anything Congress might try to do. The Constitution is the guidelines by which Congress is able to pass laws. To quote the Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the exact citation): "Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court, and the courts have a sense of justice and haven't sold out. Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary. Unfortunately, the apathy of the average American (spoken as a young American who is disenchanted by the rights we have lost so far, and the rights we will come to liose) makes me fear the future.

Re:Regardless?

[aussersterne]

My suggestion is to try to avoid voting Democrat or Republican. So long as people vote one of these two major parties, they simply reify and reinforce the tendency that both of them have developed (after years of playing as exclusive competitors to one another) to take whatever money is on the table in order to out-leverage and out-spend the other to get into or stay in office.

Re:Regardless?

[DrLZRDMN]

Your new to America arent you?

Re:Regardless?

[taped2thedesk]

That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court

Yep. And assuming that someone is so passionate about our RIGHTS that they have the balls to disobey the DMCA so that it can be challenged.

Until someone stops complaining about it and gets it to the Supreme Court, nothing is going to change. So the question is, is anyone ready to take the leap? I'm hoping that the Tribune goes and publishes anyway. Someone needs to take this risk, maybe it will be them.

I'm know I'd buy a subscription if they went through with it - probably not of much consequence to them if they lose the case, of course.

Here's to the digital millenium.

Re:Regardless?

[rossz]

Hardly. In fact, I've been here long enough to know the difference between "your" and "you're".

Re:Regardless?

[triclipse]

But don't believe for a second that the liberal end of the court will be more protective of your rights. One need only read Kyllo v. United States to recognize that Scalia and Thomas are two of the strongest defenders of liberty on the court. The same can be said for free speech.

Re:Regardless?

[dnoyeb]

I won't be voting for either. I hear many people get frightened into voting democrat because they fear

A. Bush will stay in office if they do not vote Democrat.
b. Their vote does not count unless they vote democrat or republican.

I refuse to give into fear-mongering.

Re:Regardless?

[LostCluster]

Unfortunately, that's not quite the way our system is designed.

It's nearly impossible for somebody who is not affiliated with an established political party to win White House. Simply put, our electoral system requires that the most powerful single-person role in or system have more backing than can be obtained in just one race alone.

See, in order to win the Electoral College vote, a canadate needs a whole lot more than just a plurality of the popular vote. A majority of the Electoral College votes must be captured, and that means one must win a plurality in several states. Having an evenly distributed 5% of the vote will register as a 0 under this scoring system. You'll need to distact at least 40% of the vote, and you'll need to do that in multiple states. Not just more than both the Democratic and Republican candidate, but you'll need to get a majority of the Electoral College "points" to secure a victory.

No non-party candiate has much of a hope of ever pulling that feat. At best, in a 3-man race, the most likely outcome will be a roughly-even split, something along the lines of 38%, 32%, 30%. That kicks our electoral system into overtime...

In such a situation that no ticket gets a majority of the Electoral College, the presidential race kicks to the House Of Representives... in a one-state, one-vote configuration determined by the representives of that state. In short, it'll end up being a party-lines vote going to the side that has a majority in the House.

Anybody who hopes to be president without the Democrats or the Republican Party's help must start their own party, and establish it by winning House seats one-by-one first. They don't need to take a majority control of the congress, they goal is to control a majority of the delegation to the House of at least 20, perferably 26 of 50 states. That way, their candidate needs only win a small number of states to win the election.

Ralph Nader's reputation is to be a "challenge the system" kind of guy, but the electoral system is entrenched in the Constitution and it's going to take an amendment to get it out. It doesn't mandate that we have a 2-party system, but it more or less prevents one individual from taking over the executive branch single-handedly.

A third party should seek a firm control of lower offices before trying to reach for the big one. One Representive it all it takes to filibuster the House, which is almost as effective as a presidential veto.

Re:Regardless?

[Templaris]

Actually there are instances where the law simply just fails. Remember when Andrew Jackson was President? I believe it was the Cherokee who were trying to hold onto their valuable land. They pleaded their case to the supreme court and ended up winning. They still had to abandon their homes anyways. Why? Because the govt wouldnt enforce the courts judgement. "They've made their decision, now lets see them enforce it." - Andrew Jackson

Re:Regardless?

[demachina]

"Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary."

You aren't going to topple the U.S. government with arms anytime soon. Nonviolence, think Ghandi is the only viable approach to defeating the monster that has taken control of America. Study Ghandi's tactics, for example his march to the sea to make salt to defy Britain's colonial tax on salt. Peaceful protests, legal but on the edge and sure to provoke an excessive response from the police state are how you defeat it. Kent State was one of the pivotal moments in turning the tide against Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger. You need to exercise your constitutional rights to free speech and assembly and not violate any laws that count, like don't hurt anyone and don't engage in stupid vandalism like Seattle. You do have to violate any arbitrary laws and ordinances thrown in your way which are designed to make peaceful protest impotent and to deprive you of your right to protest. For example you can't let them put you in fenced areas where the protest is never seen and is irrelevant. This is the dominant tool being used to suppress dissent at the moment.

When peaceful protests gain a critical mass and start informing people and turning people against the gross excesses of their current government, you can count on them overreacting, killing peaceful protesters and when they do they are doomed. Britain's massacre of hundreds of Indians so disgusted the people at home that it undermined Britain's grip on power in India.

There are groups trying to mount protests for the Democratic and Republican conventions. If you want to show your displeasure with the system that is the place to go this year. Think Chicago in 1968. The authorities in those two cities with the help of the Feds are going to do their best to create a giant wall around those conventions in the name of security and anti terrorism but that excuse will also be used to push all peaceful protests out of sight and out of mind and to completely suppress peaceful dissent.

The problem you have is there is a huge percentage of American's who love the current system, they are making a good living under it, they have expensive homes, they can afford the best schools for their children and they will consider you crazy if you suggest anything is wrong in the current system. They wont risk the well being of themselves or their family by rocking the boat. You need to think of creative ways to communicate to them there is something wrong, in particular that democracy and freedom is being stolen from under their noses, in particular by a President who is telling them he is protecting "Freedom and Democracy" 20 times in every speech when he is doing exactly the opposite. This is known as the "big lie". You make it big enough and keep repeating it, the gullible majority ends up believing it when it is the antithesis of reality and truth.

If anyone were to take up arms in the U.S. they would be slaughtered or in prison for life. The U.S. government would do exactly the same thing Saddam did to any of his people who had the audacity to challenge him, for example all the Shia's in the mass graves in Southern Iraq. George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt against Saddam after the first gulf war. When they did Bush the elder turned his back, didn't even give them the protection of a no fly zone so Saddam could use helicopters to slaughter them, and now George W. Bush uses those same mass graves as evidence of what a monster Saddam is, when it was his own father that precipitated an armed revolt that is going to lead to slaughter in just about any nation on the planet.

Armed revolt in the U.S. would be going up against the combined might of the FBI, the Secret Service, the ATF, the CIA, the National Gaurd and the U.S. military. They have a massive advantage in intelligence gathering, air superiority and massive arms superiority. Your only hope would be the soldiers and agents woul

Posting

[aePrime]

If my comments get moderated poorly, it's not my fault; I'm pretty sure Slashdot is using Diebold software to tally the moderations.

Time to re-write the Star Spangled Banner

[Anonymous Coward]

...o'er the land of the controlled...and the home of the oppressed.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doi? I'm confused... the reason this is might not be protected under the First Amendment is because the documents might have been obtained unlawfully, right?

Re:So...

[dfn5]

That's what it sounds like to me. Maybe everyone's private medical records should be "accidentally" published on the 'net and we'll see how long people scream first amendment. No, I think people here would instead be yelling about their privacy first. Doctor-patient privilege is no different than the attorney-client privilege. IMHO, the press shouldn't be allowed to print it, and the person who leaked it should be thrown in jail.

Re:So...

[man_ls]

If a corporation was hiding information regarding its misdoings which were at best harmful to the public good but not technically illegal, and at worst amounted to downright fraud and deceit, would you care how that information was obtained?

We're talking greater good here. It is in the interest of the public to know that Diebold's voting machines are downright dangerous to the freedom and security of American elections, DMCA and other laws on information be damned.

Re:So...

[arkanes]

Greater good can (and has) been used to trump privacy in the past. It's a very, very hard sell to most courts, which is a good thing. In other cases, it's not so hard - we don't publish AIDs victims, but we publish sex offenders.

Think about if right to privacy trumped free speech in ALL cases - there wouldn't be _any_ leaked memos. I think that, in this case, a newspaper might very well win the case, but it's not a forgone conclusion, nor should it be.

Illegally obtained information is not specially protected - this is a long standing principle. For example, the Pentagon Papers, which were obtained illegally. The main difference here is that it's a private entity and not the government which is involved, and that does make me nervous.

lets get diebold, monster style..

[negacao]

I'll bring the pitchforks.

Who can pitch in for the torches?

<g>

Re:FP

[FrYGuY101]

So what you're saying is...

In the US, you vote for politicians. In Soviet Russia, poiticians vote for you?

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Re:DMCA

[The Analog Kid]

Umm...it's not Clinton's fault for the DMCA, the bill passed Congress unanimously, even if he did veto it, it would have been overturned, and it wasn't just the Democrats, it was bi-partisan legislation.

Corporate America....

[TypoNAM]

Hey welcome to Corporate America and you're no longer free thanks to those who are in the house senate for voting our freedoms away.

And I strongly believe it could get a lot worse which it will, history tells us that.

Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[aussersterne]

Anyone who didn't see this distinct possibility as the result of DMCA et. al. either has forcefully inserted their head in the sand or hasn't been paying attention.

Information wants to be free isn't just a hacker hippie value. It's the foundation of western society, from acadamia through government. The sharing of information is fundamental to the stable and just growth of any society.

Re:Not exactly an obscure scenario...

[LordMyren]

the DMCA is the greatest weapon against freedom of information ever, yes. its horribly bad, yes.

however, by esposing the value of 'freedom of information' in such absolute form, you risk your crusade ruining your support.

patents are a form of information control. our military needs information control. there is a place for the control of information. however, the point of the DMCA 'evil' is that it should not be the corporations who control every bit of information at all related to them.

take everything to its natural ending and extremity, but no further.

Myren

It's what Osama wanted!

[kawabago]

Osama Bin Laden said after 9/11 that he wanted to destroy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. G.W. Bush is working as hard and fast as he can to fulfill Osama's every wish! Who is the real terrorist?

I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how people can defend these kinds of actions? What I mean is, Diebold's CEO is obviously in the back pocket of the Prez of the US. He has said he would give Ohio to the Prez in 2004 (I dunno, maybe as a bday gift). And this happens in California. I know that people are not that dumb. They have to see the connection, be it in Florida, California or even Ohio. Yet the backers of Bush and Co don't care. Are they so blind to the fact that they want only their party in power, that they can't see the road these actions are taking the nation?

Like the 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle. Is it so bad to admit the man you support is an asshat, and needs to be thrown out of power, and taken up on criminal charges? God people, take some responsibility, and quit listening to Rush and attacking anyone who doesn't think like you do.

In the immortal words of George Carlin:
I say live and let live. Anyone who can't accept that should be executed.

Breach of trust!

[LostCluster]

Diebold is going to be drummed out of the voting machine business very quickly now...

In California, the process of revoking their license for their transgressions has already started. The software that ran on election day wasn't the software version that was "locked down" and approved. That's just a basic outright fraud, and not something that a company in a position of trust should be trying to cover up.

Game over. Their word is no good anymore... if your anywhere in your state these machines are scheduled to be used, write your state election officials. Even if you're not going to vote on one of those machines, errant tallies from elsewhere in the state could tip the balance in your state's popular vote because it's looking to be a very tight presidential election yet again this year.

I think Diebold needs special treatment

[speedfreak_5]

The fact that they are a for-profit company (with a record of donating to the Republican party) in control of voting for some parts of the country seems a bit off. I don't believe these memos should have been leaked. They should have been publicly accessible. Hell, anything tied to their voting division should be publicly accessible to protect the voting process. And Diebold should be held accountable for having plans to screw voters over.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[rossz]

They have a record of donating to both parties. Let's not get into this so very tired "donating to the Republicans" bullshit.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[user no. 590291]

Do they have a record of their executives promising to deliver a state's electoral votes to both parties, too? In any case, the post you're replying to is correct--the voting process must be transparent, not hidden with a smokescreen of freedom of information loopholes resulting from intellectual "property" and government contracts with private corporations.

Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment

[speedfreak_5]

Well, according to opensecrets.org, for the 2002 and 2000 election cycles, it doesn't look like too much went to the Democratic party. Diebold could have been donating heavily to the democratic party and I still would be pissed because they are biased (not to mention secretive) and in control of the voting process in many places.

Anyways...

Where did you see records of them donating to the democratic party?

This is a great thing!

[erroneus]

When the first amendment is threatened by the DMCA, that's yet more people who will rally against the DMCA. The more people the DMCA hurts, the closer be come to removing it as law... once removed, it becomes less likely that laws more serious would be passed as well.

Remember the bill of rights?

[Metuchen]

Are there any other US Citizens out there that are pissed off that the government continues trampling on the bill of rights?

1. freedom of the press...just look at this story
2. the freedom to bear firearms...has been restricted.
3. the right to a speedy and public trial...citizens can now be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and major trials are often closed.
4. property can now be seized without due process of law.
5. wiretaps, which used to require a warrant, now can be performed with no proof and just a hint of suspicion.

The examples go on and on, and I would argue that while it may be justified in some instances, the slope is a slippery one, and I believe that we, as US citizens must stand up and tell our government that this is *not* okay!

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[Poeir]

But at least soldiers aren't being quartered in private houses.

Re:Remember the bill of rights?

[orthogonal]

Maybe parent's don't want their children's dead bodies paraded on CNN to be USED by the opposition as a political device?

Maybe the parents do. Let's ask Sue Niederer, mother of slain soldier Seth Dvorin (emphasis orthogonal's):

But many relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq believe the White House is trying to cover up what is happening there. Sue Niederer said she was refused permission to see the return of her son Seth Dvorin's body as it was flown into the Dover base. Lieutenant Dvorin, 24, from the 101st Airborne Division, was killed in February while trying to disarm a roadside bomb, a task for which he was not trained.

Speaking from her home in New Jersey, Mrs Niederer said: "They killed my son and they did not permit me to be there to see the coffin. They said it was for health reasons, and ... they did not want the public to see it and they did not want the newspapers there." She added: "They don't want any of this being shown because it's reality. A coffin strikes home. If you don't see the coffin you just say: 'Oh, there's another one who has died.' But when you show the coffin, you show families, you show people and emotions. This is what they are doing this is what they do not want you to see."

From "The image turning America against Bush" by Andrew Buncombe, for The Independent (UK)

By the way, if you think news shows showing coffins is "using" the fallen soldiers, what do you think of Bush campaign ads showing the remains of a fallen firefighter being removed from Ground Zero? Surely you'll agree that an advertisement showing mangled remains is worse than a news program showing a casket with an ironed and neatly folded American flag over it? Right? Right?

My experience

[du -Lhcs]

I live in Brasil. We have had voting machines in the last 12-14 years (yes, twelve to fourteen -- it depends the size of the city you are in). For the Brazilians here: the first election here in Belo Horizonte to use the machines were the mayoral (and city council, state representation, governor, house and senate) before FHC was elected (as I count it, 2 years + 8 years + 1 1/2 = 11,5 years). I know it, because I was "mesário" (election "table" official? election "clerk"? what is a good English translation?) in the previous election, and in the two subsequent elections). IIRC, there were electronic ballot boxes in Rio and Sao Paulo in the election before that (the only two cities larger than Belo Horizonte).
Our voting machines are mainly of three different (internally) models: (a) the old ones, that use VirtuOS (*) as the OS, (b) the new ones, that use WinCE as the OS, and (c) the newest and deprecated ones that have the second printer to print your vote, show it to you inside a clear acrilic case, and mix it with others inside the machine.
Externally, all of them look roughly the same: a box similar to the old "portables" of the eighties, with a 5-6" diagonal LCD and a big numerical keypad in the right side of the screen, that has, besides 0-9 keys, "confirma" (ok), "erro" (cancel), and "branco" (white).
The electoral process (from the point of view of the voter) begins ... when you get your first job. If you are a mandatory voter (literate person from 18 to 65) you have to go to Electoral Court and register to vote. In the process of registering, you receive the "Título de Eleitor" (voter id), in which you have the number of you voting section. To change jobs, and specially to get a government job, you have to prove you are a registered *and* *regularized* voter (you voted in the last election, or regularized your voting situation after it).
In the election day, you scan the newspapers (or the Superior Electoral Court website), search for the address of your section, and go there. No, there is no transit vote, you can only vote at that address. If you can't get there, you'll have to "justify" your absence.
At the section, you will present your voter id to one the "mesários", and if you don't have it on you, you can still vote (you can show other valid id), but will be delayed. The mesário will search for your name in the vote-ticket sheet, and annex it to your id while you vote. You will sign a receipt in a sheet, and proceed to the voting "booth". Another "mesário" will type your voter id # in a remotely connected keypad, setting the machine in the "ready to vote" mode.
The voting "booth" is really a desk with the voting machine over it, facing nobody else in the room, and sometimes with a cardboard "cover" around it. You will "dial" the numbers of the candidates, in order. when you dial all the digits of one candidate, a star-trek-like chime rings, his/her face will show up in the screen, and if you digited it right, you hit "ok". otherwise, you hit "cancel" and start over. After typing all the candidates, you hit "ok" one last time, the machine chimes again, and goes to "stand by" mode. You have voted. If you don't want to vote for nobody, you can hit "white" instead of the candidate ## (accounted as a "white vote", or "none of the above" -- this is the equivalent of putting your paper ballot in the box without marking anything), or if you really want to protest you can type 9999 or other non-existent-candidate-#, and your vote will be accounted as a "null vote", or "I'm really pissed of" (the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing "improper expletives" in a paper ballot)
Then, you get your id back, your ticket (keep it together with your voter id!!), and you go home. Ah, bars do not open (theoretically) in the election day, so hope you have bought your beer in the day before).
From the point of view of election officials, things are more complicated. The machines arrive to the Electoral Judge (yes, a Judge of Law) pre-prepared one to two months

Revolution? I doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even back in Washington's day he could seldom rally more than 5,000 troops, out of a population even then numbering in the millions.

Americans are too busy watching reruns of Celebrity Treasure Island or American Idol to care about boring shit like abuse of the Constitution.

We harp on and on about being the Land of the Free(tm) and Home of the Brave(tm) but we meekly rolled over and pissed on ourselves the second we were told to by President Rumsfeld.

Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.

Re:Revolution? I doubt it.

[persaud]

> Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's
> going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.

Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Starr.

Lifetime appointments last longer than 4 years.

not voting IS the problem

[LordMyren]

not voting is the problem. vote however you want, avoid the Democricans and Republicrats if you want, but for the love of god, vote.

if everyone actually got out there and voted, the whole election game would be miles left of where it is now. many with liberal leanings tend to feel dis-enfranchised (see: youth) and dont vote. and they make the system as bad as it is by letting all these assclown republicans actually have the relative support (votes: the only support that matters in the end) for the pranks they're pulling these days.

i think the state should release the names of everyone who doesnt vote. you should be able to track which of your friends vote in some obscenely easy manner(directly through friendster?). maybe just a red mark on everyone's head who doesnt vote.

voting is your civic duty. we have republicans because liberals are too stupid to vote. the election game would be so much better if people actually bothered to vote.

Re:not voting IS the problem

[Dwonis]

I have two points:

1. People who don't understand the issues shouldn't vote on them.
2. Voting isn't going to solve the problem unless a fair voting system is used.

Re:FP

[I don't want to spen]

You mean like:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Is This the America I Love?

[MichaelCrawford]

A couple of years ago I wrote an essay called Is This the America I Love? Maybe it's pertinent here, seeing how our next election is well on its way to getting even more fixed than the last one was.

I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

I loved America for what it stood for.

I was told that things like political persecution, detainment without trial, and beating of prisoners were things that happened in other countries, that they would never happen in America. I was told that we fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution specifically to ensure such things would never again happen in America.

But today I see the ugly face of repression rising in America. And it is brought to you by the United States Government.

Trusted Computing

[dacap]

Trusted Computing!?!?! What are Deibold and Trusted Computing doing in the same sentence????

Technology Dependance

[pipingguy]

There are times when it is worth the (ahem) "extra cost" of not using computers. I think this is one of them, and you have to know when to put the foot down. Insert appropriate Monty Python imagery here.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that managers (and elected politicians are just that, popularly-chosen managers) tend to not be the sharpest bricks in the bag of hammers when it comes to technology.

Diebold PHB's == EVIL what about the developers?

[sirrube]

Ok the Diebold PHB's may be evil - but there has to be a few decent honest developers working at that company.
Lets hear from you -
Since I am from San Diego I know for certain you were not working on your software.
I am assuming that you must have been reading /. at work like the rest of us do.
I find it hard to believe that everyone including the developers are evil at that company. I can only assume the PHB's are not writing the code so if something dishonest was happening I am sure we would hear from an honest developer. Besides you can always vote with paper by using a mail in ballot.

Internet Explorer - The crack ho of the internet.

Re:DMCA

[user no. 590291]

IF I were ever made president, I would veto EVERY peice of legislation that I didn't feel was constitutional, such as the DMCA. If congress wanted override that, then fine, but I would have let my voice be known.

That's one reason you won't ever be president. There hasn't ever been and never will be anyone in that office who doesn't owe somebody--the DMCA was downpayment on payback for years of bribes^W campaign contributions, and is only the beginning of things to come. Expect "trusted" computing to be mandatory by 2010, to "deny terrorists and spammers access to the advanced communication networks while preserving their usefulness for law-abiding Americans."

REALITY CHECK

[SatanicPuppy]

The DMCA does not supercede the constitution. So, until it becomes a consitutional amendment, newspapers and TV stations and anyone else has the right to file a freedom of information request.

Don't lose sleep in this case...

[YouHaveSnail]

I don't think we need to worry too much about Diebold setting up any sort of trusted computing platform correctly.

You don't have to do it across the board

[Greyfox]

I know that for the immediate future, no one can really challenge the major parties for the presidency. However there's nothing to stop you from voting for the lesser of two evils at that level and going whichever way you want to at lower levels. We had several libertarian and green victories out here in Colorado in the last round of local elections even though a lot of those same people voted for a major party for the congressional and presidential elections.

I think it shows a trend toward the major disenchantment with the major parties that people are voicing more and more. They're currently getting their feet wet with the other parties. If those parties prove themselves on a local level, we'll start seeing more fo them win in Congress and eventually they may take the presidency. And I, for one, welcome our new left-handed lesbian eskimo albino party overlords.

Re:You don't have to do it across the board

[Ironica]

However there's nothing to stop you from voting for the lesser of two evils at that level and going whichever way you want to at lower levels.

Sure there is: my own conscience.

"Anybody but Bush" is a very, very dangerous path to tread. I'll vote for Kerry if I think I wouldn't mind him as president, but if he pisses me off the way Gore did, a minor party will be getting my vote again.

Then again, I'm in California, so it's not like I'm going to lose the election for the Democrats (latest poll shows Bush's chances in California approaching those of Frosty the Snowman in Malibu). Still, it's the whole idea of voting against instead of voting for that leaves us with no good choices.

Now, if we could just get a decent voting system in place, that would be wonderful. Something like Instant Runoff Voting for example. Then there wouldn't be any of this fear about "throwing away your vote" and the whole peer-pressure thing. You could vote for who you *really* want as your first choice, and then choose your backup options if that guy doesn't make it.

The Best Of The Documents Posted Thus Far..

[althecat]

It is interesting to have a look at what these guys want back... So far the Tribune has only touched the surface of these documents.

Included in the set of links at the Bev Harris story linked in the original post is a particularly damning memo

This One

Unfortunately you can't cut and paste the content out of these memos - it turns to garbage... but this one deals with advice to Diebold on how to deal with the State of California's request to produce documents.

It is more than clear from this document that Diebold's lawyers were doing all they could to obstruct this discovery process. The memo states among other things that they want to figure out what the state already has via the original FTP site screw up so as not to get caught out.

They also talk about the "smoking gun" request, opining that their client "may need to obtain emails, if possible, regarding state certification of uncertified software. We need to devise a plan to locate responsive documents to this request."

What do you reckon this means...

Coming soon to a theater near you...

[k4_pacific]

Bruce Willis and Jeremy Irons go head to head in...

"DIE BOLD, with a Vengeance."

A Jerry Bruckhiemer Production

The US government is us....

[innerweb]

...and whenever we say the government is eroding our freedoms, we need to remember that we are not asserting our rights to prevent that erosion. Yep, most elected officials are crooked. Can't get away from that until we remove the huge sums of money from the election process (donations and such). Diebold may or may not be a company seeking to have an unusual influence on elections. More likely, like so many other companies, they are merely seeking to have an unusual hold on some contracts to supply equipment and services.

As far as the Pres and Co. goes, how do you think he got elected. Any president at some point is merely a puppet to certain private powers that be.

Think about it, why do we even need Tort law? Why do we even need contract law? Why do we even need freedom of press laws? Because people as a whole have some pretty sick individuals. And, those individuals (enough of them) tend to gravitate towards positions of power. Once they get some power, then tend to amplify it without regard for who it hurts.

Another way to understand what is happening is to look at the slow poisoning of the planet. What other effect do you think dumping mercury and lead into the atmosphere and rivers could have? What other effect do you think smog could have? What other effect could adding a grossly increased amount of heat trapping gasses into our atmosphere have? The majority of people do not care. If it kills their grandchildren, they will lament, but they will not care until then.

The reason the freedoms are being eroded and that companies get away with what they do is that most people do not want to give up their TV or their computer games. Most people will sit right in the path of that freight train until they get hit (and then cry foul).

The alternative? Fighting back is expensive and counter to the normal persons goal of having a nice quiet life. Another article on /. today mentioned a memo at Microsoft talking about the reason so many people did not abandon MS's poor products was the "lock-in" of people unwilling to put forth the energy to go to a better product.

Most people are like water, they choose the path of least resistance to arrive at the lowest standard of life. Not to be confused with the highest standards of consumerism. Heck, even I do not exert enough energy in the direction of preserving freedoms. I am too busy trying to ensure food is on the table, and my kids have a chance at college. Until we get past some rather serious social issues, the part where we clean up government is not likely to happen, as those in power will be able to keep it by keeping us divided amongst ourselves.

Innereb

Re:FP

[digitalunity]

Fuck you moderators. This is not off topic.

This story is merely a small example of the freedoms we are losing. During the last 55 years, americans have experienced the biggest disillusionment of all time. An extremely young country founded on the ideals of rebels who ran from the imperialist british to create a union of more-free people in less than 200 years has become more socialist and repressive than the british ever were.

The entire political structure of our government encourages only the megalomania-induced power-hungry to become president. There are no incentives to effect true progress. The president has four short years to make a difference. During the last two, the president will spend all of his time marketing himself to the populace for reelection while engaging in back office corporate pandering to keep the ever turning economy gears spinning. If reelection isn't going to happen, then there is no point in doing anything for the future. Look at our budget deficit, SSI shortfall and trade deficit. Each successive presidency has used their childrens money as a high interest credit card in the form of bonds and foreign debts.

Adam Smith, Jefferson, all the greatest financial and political minds of the time knew that the natural tendency of any government is to grow. Growth in many ways. The founding fathers of our country were just men. Everyone now looks at their intentions with respect to the constitution and what they would do(in regards to issues like equal protection for sexual preference and marriage).

Well, wake up people. If our founding fathers were alive today, they would rebel against us. This country hasn't been what they envisioned for a long fucking time. The legal framework was left for us to change our government at will, in accordance with the wishes of the population. The population is so disenchanted with the entire process that they have quit voting entirely.

The problem is self-sustaining though. Simply abstaining from the political process merely lets those in power continue to further their abuses of position. The only way to get people to care anymore is to piss them off.

Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, whatever. What the population doesn't realize is that the two parties down deep aren't that different. They are two parties, who on the surface have their own agendas, but in reality are very similar.

Put me in a room with the president. Tell me I can come out with impunity and I would walk out alone. That wouldn't really change anything. He would just be replaced by another look-alike self-interest only president. The entire system is broken. Does america need a revolution? Again? Yes. Who would do it? No one. They are all too apathetic. Most people I talk to don't seriously think that their vote counts, or that by voting anything will really change. In fact, most people I know that vote choose the lesser of all evils on the ballot.

Before you judge me, at least learn a few things about me.

I am an American.
I hate our government.
I love our country and what it stands for.
I'm patriotic.

And no, these aren't contradictory.

Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification

[Animats]

Here's Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 quality certification, issued by BVQI in October 2000. From what's been published about this election technology fiasco, their certification should be revoked. In any case, their certificate may have expired. They're supposed to be re-audited every three years, but their certificate dates from 2000.

This episode casts some doubts on BVQI's validity as a certification service. Their site has no indication that they've ever revoked a certification. Their pitch to companies has no indication that a company can be refused certification. They don't even seem to pull expired certificates.

The auto industry takes ISO 9000 certification of their suppliers seriously. See these standards. Note all the discussion of "revocation", "probation", "non-compliance", and "re-audit". In that world, quality standards violations lose companies the ability to sell to auto companies.

Re:Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification

[rm007]

Having at one point had the dubious distinction of guiding a company that I worked for through the ISO 9001 certification process, then acting as the "quality manager", perhaps I can shed a bit of light. First of all, for all its reputation, ISO 9001 basically certifies that you follow your own processes, if they are bad processes and you can show that you follow them, then you are in compliance with the standard. Even if you are getting customer complaints, if you have and follow procedures to deal with them, then you are in compliance with the standard. If your regular internal and periodic external audits find "discrepancies", you have a period of time to address them, usually at least 6 months and then be re-audited. The whole process of re-auditing, probation and theoretical revocation takes quite a bit of time - and to be honest, the certification companies do not want to take the drastic step because they get paid to do these audits. Re-audits make them money. Revocation looses them a customer. Expect Diebold to remain ISO 9001 certified for some time.

I thought...

[CountBrass]

That in the case of a conflict between law and the constituion that the constitution over-rode law. So actually it would be the case that the DMCA would get declared unconstituional- or at least not applicable in 1st amendment issues.

So why are the EFF getting their knickers in a twist- sounds like an opportunity to me.

T.C. or Who Needs A Stinkin' DMCA?

[BlueStrat]

Granted, the DMCA would prevent (legally) decryption of a T.C.-produced/encrypted document, but being able to crack the encryption itself would present large obstacles (think custom-built PCs and a 'cleanroom' (eg: not connected to the net or any other PCs/networks) environment, not to mention the skills/time needed to crack intentionally difficult hashes). T.C. itself would enable the creator/perpetrator to simply send a 'delete' command on that document(s), and every T.C. computer connected to the 'net would happily incinerate all incidences it would *ever* find, as long as the delete command from the document owner still resided on the T.C. authentication servers. It would also be conceivable that a record of each document occurence, along with the PCs'/owners' identity, along with the trail it took to get there could be extracted. That, in my mind, makes the DMCA almost moot in that scenario, in a practical sense, and also scares the beejeezus out of me.

Re:Trying to push the limit.

[0x0d0a]

While I agree with your sentiments...

Diebold screwed up, and they admit it.

It'd be very difficult for them to do anything else at this point.

Trusted computing is M$ FUD.

FUD != BS. FUD is spreading unfounded and vague worries about something. FUD is a very specific subset of BS. Trusted computing as an idea is not only pushed by MS, but by all those random little companies that keep popping up with ideas to control content that don't work. It's a useful tool to extract money from media companies. It (at least in the general purpose computing arena) has little chance of becoming practically usable.

The DMCA was written by technology and entertainment companies to protect a dying business model. Then enacted by a techonlogicaly illiterate Congress.

Mmm...maybe.

There are obviously severe issues with attempting to enforce the DMCA. However, remember that there are severe issues with attempt to enforce copyright offline, as well. When copyright started, you could whip out your printing press and knock off tons of copies. When Mark Twain was working on strengthening copyright internationally, it was common for people to rip off books. The DMCA is an attempt to deal with this in the only remotely practical way -- by preventing people from producing distributing tools designed to bypass copy protection mechanisms. Frankly, I don't think that it will work, and I'm tremendously irritated by the restrictions on what I can do. However, you don't have to be technologically illiterate to back the DMCA -- it codifies probably the most effective way to attack copyright infringement on the Internet. (The question of whether that way is very effective at all is certainly valid.)

In short, none of these groups really know what they are doing.

I disagree.

* Diebold got their money for the voting machines, and is sitting pretty. They know what they're doing.

* MS has gotten interest in their formats (such as wma) as "content protecting", and is using this oomph to go after the electronic music distribution market that Apple currently dominates (and, I would expect, eventually the video market). While they may not succeed, MS has stabbed Apple in the guts before rather nastily, and it's not unreasonable to think that they'll manage to beat Apple again. They know what they're doing.

* The DMCA is a *great* advantage for content provider companies, and pushing it is one of the biggest wins content providers have had for a while. If they move to e-distribution (and away from their current "dying business model"), it will *still* be a powerful club. They know what they're doing.

* Congress got their campaign contributions from the content providing industry. In general, I'd say that they probably know what they're doing. However, enough bad PR has been raised by anti-DMCA activists that a few legislators are working to temper things (such as the legislators that publically opposed the suing of the 14-year-old girl), so perhaps the move was not a good one.

On the whole, only Congress seems to have made a move that might not be in their interests, and that's debatable.