Slashdot Mirror


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."

35 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. This is just not good by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This is just not good by S.Lemmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:This is just not good by Maserati · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    3. Re:This is just not good by Eccles · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    4. Re:This is just not good by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:This is just not good by Draknor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      '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.

    6. Re:This is just not good by cthugha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:This is just not good by Ironica · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    8. Re:This is just not good by agrippa_cash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

    9. Re:This is just not good by spiritraveller · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

  2. Regardless? by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Regardless? by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    2. Re:Regardless? by taped2thedesk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:Regardless? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. Posting by aePrime · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. lets get diebold, monster style.. by negacao · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll bring the pitchforks.

    Who can pitch in for the torches?

    <g>

  5. Re:DMCA by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Corporate America.... by TypoNAM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This space is not for rent.
  7. Not exactly an obscure scenario... by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  8. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Breach of trust! by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. I think Diebold needs special treatment by speedfreak_5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
    1. Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment by speedfreak_5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

      --
      Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
  11. Remember the bill of rights? by Metuchen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    # They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Fran
    1. Re:Remember the bill of rights? by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Informative
      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?
  12. My experience by du+-Lhcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  13. Revolution? I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:FP by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 4, Funny
    You mean like:

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

    --
    Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
  15. Re:not voting IS the problem by Dwonis · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
  16. Technology Dependance by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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.

  17. Re:DMCA by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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."

  18. You don't have to do it across the board by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  19. The Best Of The Documents Posted Thus Far.. by althecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  20. The US government is us.... by innerweb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...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

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  21. Re:FP by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.