Slashdot Mirror


Election Officials And Crackers Challenge Diebold

Rick Zeman writes "The Washington Post is reporting that election officials in Florida have manipulated election results in controlled tests. From the article: 'Four times over the past year Sancho told computer specialists to break in to his voting system. And on all four occasions they did, changing results with what the specialists described as relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques. To Sancho, the results showed the vulnerability of voting equipment manufactured by Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems, which is used by Leon County and many other jurisdictions around the country.'"

219 comments

  1. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah looks really confusing.

  2. First Post.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    .... or is it second? We'll never know, because there's no paper printouts yet. Damn corporate America, interfering in our democracy!

  3. As they say by mgv · · Score: 4, Funny

    To err is human, but to really foul things up it takes a computer.

    After all - people have been trying to rig results for a long time. But this just makes it so easy for one person to potentially change the outcome of an election....

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    1. Re:As they say by nathanh · · Score: 1
      But this just makes it so easy for one person to potentially change the outcome of an election....

      What do you mean "potentially"?

    2. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this just makes it so easy for one person to potentially change the outcome of an election....

      You misspelled "to have changed".

  4. Re:Umm by mymaxx · · Score: 1

    Almost looks intentional since the one corner is curved.

  5. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!....NOT! by rts008 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes)

    North Carolina had the same problem with their voting machines (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051130/1121207 _F.shtml).

    The only new thing here is the current state finding Diebold non-compliant.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!....NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I live in western North Carolina. Last election our county used the optical-scan ballots, but for the next election we will be getting voter-verified paper-trail machines. Thankfully, we never got the true Diebold experience like some others had.

  6. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Articles which would not been posted to the frontpage before I guess...

  7. Insanely poor program architecture by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Windows XP + network connection + data held in an *Access DB* and then transferred by memory card with no crypographic checksum.

    If I prepared work like that for a client, I'd expect to get chucked out by security.

    I'll also note the following:
            a) Diabold say that a paper trail is not needed for security, but provide one on their own ATMs. Apparently independent verification of election results is less important then $$$ transactions.
            b) Both local and remote vulns have been demonstrated on their voting machines, but the ATMs have not been pwned.
            c) Diabold refuses to let the source code be reviewed, and chose to run on Windows XP so neither the program or the OS of the box can be verified safe.
            d) Diabold machines can have the vote totals rewritten on their memory sticks as they do not cryptographically sign or encrypt the totals. That's plain text on a card that can be removed from the machine and has a standard file format.
            e) Diabold security is fucked whether or not they put the same code they have tested on the box. With tested, verfied boxes they cannot add XP security patches for known flaws after te verification date (and if there is one thing worth keeping an 0-day for...). If they do add security patches etc then we are trusting closed source biaries to be added to election counting machines without the possibility of review. One bad actor and the elecetion is up for grabs.

    No thanks. I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but is is as if they were designed to be broken into.

    Would a BSD box with one simple program, output to the framebuffer, a results paper trail and a constant SSH tunnel to the FEC be that hard? *sighs*

    Fuck Diabold.

    --
    "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    1. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by mymaxx · · Score: 1

      Apparently independent verification of election results is less important then $$$ transactions.

      Exactly! This must be their code: if(machine_type==VOTING_MACHINE) { vote_result = take_vote(); if(rand()0.9) vote_result=something_else; record_vote(); return; // No receipt, since VALUE_OF_POLITICIAN = 0 } else { // Must be an ATM do_transaction(); print_receipt(); return; }

    2. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by mymaxx · · Score: 1

      I guess next time I should preview first, huh?

      if(machine_type==VOTING_MACHINE) {
      vote_result = take_vote();
      if(rand()==0.9) vote_result=something_else;
      record_vote();
      return; // No receipt, since VALUE_OF_POLITICIAN = 0
      } else { // Must be an ATM
      do_transaction();
      print_receipt();
      return;
      }

    3. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 3, Funny

      More likely:

      if (machine_type == VOTING_MACHINE)
      {
              put_republican_candidate();
      }
      else /* must be ATM */
      {
              do_transaction();
              print_receipt();
      }

      return();

      In light of recent disclosures both in the USA (Abramof) and here in Australia (the Wheat Board) I don't trust conservatives to behave honestly. (Not that I ever did, it's just that it's nice to have your prejudices confirmed.)

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    4. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Big_Al_B · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As nifty as a paper trail sounds, there are problems with that too. For example, how do you verify that the votes people input are logged correctly on the printout? Bits are easy to flip, whether done on purpose, or by executing buggy code.

      And do you really think that vote anonymity--an essential feature of our process--would last if people walked out of their polling place with some sort of receipt? If you can connect an identity to a vote, you can directly coerce or otherwise influence that voter with all manner of nasty tactics. No thanks.

    5. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by rben · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Control over the election of the President of the United States is probably the biggest cash cow you could have. Couple that with control over the elections of the Congress, and you have a way to influence how a trillion dollar budget is spent. Now how much would you pay?

      The only thing stopping wholesale cheating is the use of exit polls, and even they weren't enough in the last presidential election. If the exit polls and actual poll results differ by 30%, people will get upset. In reality, even a small deviation should raise alarm flags and cause a recount, except with the Diebold system there's no way to do that!

      Ultimately, this isn't Diebold's fault. It's the fault of a public that has become disconnected from the political system. It's become rude to discuss politics. Those who do discuss things are so polarized that it alienates the rest of us. The result is that most people don't care. They no longer get excited about the fraud and cheating that's discovered. They've come to expect it.

      The Press used to play an important role in keeping the public informed, but now the huge media companies are more concerned with protecting their bottom line than in providing objective reporting. In the last 30 years, the FCC has steadily increased the share of local markets that can be controlled by a single company, meaning there is little or no real competition in many major markets. The same company can own the radio, television and newspapers. If a story might hurt the interests of the larger corporate entity, do you think the average editor is going to risk his career?

      People need to be reminded that we have a pluralistic society, meaning that, at least in theory, we tolerate people who have ideas we don't agree with. That's what has made us a great society. It's important that we reestablish that as an important cultural value. It should be okay to discuss politics at parties without causing fist fights. Dissent at the dinner table should be met with well reasoned arguments, not shouts.

      That's my 2 cents.

      --

      -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
      www.ra

    6. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by evil9000 · · Score: 1

      Did someone say Tampa...? :)
      Children overboard? :)
      Gerald for Reserve bank board? :)
      Austrailan wheat board? :)

      I can only remember 4 things at a time, if u would like to add more then please do :)

    7. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      c) Diabold refuses to let the source code be reviewed, and chose to run on Windows XP so neither the program or the OS of the box can be verified safe.


      Do you have the source code for Unix?

      Also, do you have the source code for the compiler that compiled that version of Unix?

      And finally, do you have the source code for the compiler that compiled the compiler?

      Granted, all of this requires a level of sophistication not yet achieved. However, unless you are capable of manually examining the entire system, you still need to assume that there is a backdoor in the login program.


                      e) Diabold security is fucked whether or not they put the same code they have tested on the box. With tested, verfied boxes they cannot add XP security patches for known flaws after te verification date (and if there is one thing worth keeping an 0-day for...). If they do add security patches etc then we are trusting closed source biaries to be added to election counting machines without the possibility of review. One bad actor and the elecetion is up for grabs.


      The same can be said for OpenBSD, which was considered to be next to a perfectly secure operating system. Then suddenly, a new vulnerability class was discovered that caused a sudden auditing frenzy.
    8. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by deKernel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only thing stopping wholesale cheating is the use of exit polls, and even they weren't enough in the last presidential election. If the exit polls and actual poll results differ by 30%, people will get upset. In reality, even a small deviation should raise alarm flags and cause a recount,


      Why in the heck would exit polls stop wholesale cheating? You are assuming:
      a) people are telling the truth about whom they voted for
      b) either all the people are polled or a good sampling
      c) and the most important, the people taking the polls as well as reporting do not have a vesting interest in the results.

      'C' is the biggest problem because it also goes back to (b). The news media openly wanted the Dems to win. That was the biggest problem.

      Now dealing with the recounting issue, just about all of the recounts in Florida (I am assuming this is what you were referencing.) came out in favor of Bush so the majority did win.
    9. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      There is enough evidence that exit polls provide accurate results that they are generally considered to be a valid audit resource. Due to their status as an election auditing standard, it should take more than a random hunch to discount their validity.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    10. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by RacerZero · · Score: 1

      The comments so far show a remarkable misunderstanding of elections and vote counting.

      First read your constitution, Article 1 Section 4. Yes the Feds can make changes to the system but each state has primary responsible for the way elections are done in their state. http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm If they want to roll dice they can.

      Second, I'm only familiar with the way elections are done where I live but it appears that very few of you have ever worked an election at a polling place. I doubt elections are much different in other locations.

      Everything, voting machines etc, is sealed with a seal by reps from each party before we get it at the poling place. Both parties accompany the delivery and setup of the voting machines.

      The status of each machine is recorded before voting takes place.

      Everyone voting is counted. If, at the end of voting, that count doesn't match the numbers from the voting machines then everything is recounted.

      Votes cast on each machine are tallied on paper and electronically. The total number of votes on the machine are also counted mechanically. If those numbers don't add up properly then everything is recounted.

      Totals from paper and electronically are recorded on paper by reps from each party and signed by the worker at the polling place.

      Both parties seal everything with a seal before it leaves the poling place.

      Both parties accompany all materials back to the central vote tallying location.

    11. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that you google "Chicago" and "Daley" before you so blithely think that it is only conservatives who are corrupt enough to rig elections. Liberals are just as bad when they are in power, so the ability for an independent party to validate the vote is never in the established party's best interest, whatever their label.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    12. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by starm_ · · Score: 1

      The fact that a paper trail is such an obvious solution and that it is so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative used so suspicious.

      What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution that is currently implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? Hell, they might even had to pay to remove that standard feature from the hardware. No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have programmed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happens ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests show no bias. A paper trail is necessary!

      Consider,

      If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:

      1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.

      Or,

      2) add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.

      Which option do you think is less expensive?

      What would be the motivation for even trying the first option other than you _want_ to leave doors open?

    13. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bobzibub · · Score: 0

      {
                      put_republican_candidate();
      }
      else /* must be ATM */
      {
                      do_transaction();
                      print_receipt();
                      debit_account();
                      credit_republican_PAC_account();
      }
      = )

      It is my understanding that the suspicion is that the voting machines have been manipulated by someone logging in and running an sql query. This is due to cases where the number of votes for some candidates jumps by large margins in very a short period of time. So it isn't the code itself.

    14. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by deKernel · · Score: 1

      I am not aware of one single credable entity that places any value on exit polls. There are too many variables.

    15. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by tftp · · Score: 1
      if (rand()==0.9) vote_result=something_else;

      This condition will be usually false. It is a bad idea to compare floating point numbers unless you are very, very sure what they are. And if your rand() returns a FP number instead of the usual [0..RAND_MAX-1], then it's unwise to expect that all 32 or 64 or 80 bits of two floating point numbers will exactly match each other.

    16. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Daley was a Democrat, not a liberal. "Democrat-Republican" and "liberal-conservative" are orthogonal.

      And yes, he was a supremely corrupt fucker. What's your point?

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    17. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 0

      Oh, I forgot - George Wallace was a Democrat, too ... in the fine old nigger-lynching Southern style. I don't think he would have qualified as a liberal either.

      I just think this underscores that politics in many "democracies", but particularly in the US, is deeply corrupt. The Japanese sent a delegation to the US in the mid nineteenth century to see how democracy worked, and it took them about 15 seconds to realise what it was about - "Oh, this is all about bribery and influence-peddling. We can do this."

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    18. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by geckofiend · · Score: 1

      Do you have the source code for Unix?
      Why yes I have the source to everything on my Linux machine.

      Also, do you have the source code for the compiler that compiled that version of Unix?
      Yes because I compiled it all myself.

      And finally, do you have the source code for the compiler that compiled the compiler?
      Yes I do it's pretty standard pratice to compile the comppiler then recompile the compiler with the new compiler.

    19. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by ldspartan · · Score: 1
      And finally, do you have the source code for the compiler that compiled the compiler?
      Yes I do it's pretty standard pratice to compile the comppiler then recompile the compiler with the new compiler.

      You don't really understand the trouble here. You need to be able to verify the authenticity of the entire compiler chain; its trivial for the compiler to insert backdoors into the new compiler (including malicious code to reinsert the malicious code in any future compiler compiles...) without any of the source you have available showing any ill effects. The situation you describe gaurantees nothing.

      --
      Phil
    20. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just think this underscores that politics in many "democracies", but particularly in the US, is deeply corrupt...Oh, this is all about bribery and influence-peddling. We can do this.

      The US doesn't have a monopoly on bribery. After visiting Hong Kong my brother told me that 20% of the money spent on commercial projects like apartment complexes or office buildings goes towards bribes and kickbacks. They actually budget for bribes over there.

      America isn't perfect...especially over the last 5 years...but maybe the next revolution will end political corruption in the same way organized crime was curtailed in the 60s and 70s. Two of America's greatest senators...John McCain and Russ Feingold, nearly managed to push a campaign finance reform bill through congress in 2001. They failed, but it shows that some people at the top do care about making America a better place, and that they are working towards making it happen.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    21. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1
      I can't actually find a good reference. Here's a lower quality reference that has some better quality references of it's own.

      http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/111704DeHart/ 111704dehart.html

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    22. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I guess next time I should preview first, huh?"

      Looks like you failed to preview a second time.
      Try this:
      if (machine_type == VOTING_MACHINE)
          {
          vote_result = take_vote();
          if (rand() <= 0.9)
              vote_result = something_else;
          record_vote(); // No receipt, since VALUE_OF_POLITICIAN == 0
          }
      else // Must be an ATM
          {
          do_transaction();
          print_receipt();
          }
      return;
      I moved the braces to be in their logical places, rather than in the "cramped up to take up less vertical space in the book" K&R form. I also fixed the "rand()==0.9" bug for you, fixed the operator in the "VALUE_OF_POLITICIAN == 0" comment, and dropped the "return;" out of the "if".
    23. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A voting machine is really simple. It basically has to replicate the functionality of a piece of paper. It's quite plausible to write one in binary, and have it inspected by various parties and any members of the public who want to.
      Putting a whole desktop or server OS in there is stupid, giving it network access is staggeringly stupid.

      And for the real tin-foil-hat conspiracy of a backdoor built into the BIOS or some other chip, it could be specified that the machines have to be built of components manufactured before the software was written.

    24. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Mike570 · · Score: 1

      Well I wish they were better at it!

    25. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Yes I do it's pretty standard pratice to compile the comppiler then recompile the compiler with the new compiler.

      You do not understand. But you will: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p 761-thompson.pdf

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    26. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by geckofiend · · Score: 1

      I'm *well* aware of the attack vectors involved. None of them are insurmountable, and they're certainly a lot harder to pull off than in the closed source world.

    27. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by saskboy · · Score: 1

      It's not just conservatives you have to look out for, after all the Liberal party in Canada has been in power and has had money related scandals. I think the incumbent party in any system is the one to watch. Diebold's machines would be bad whoever was in charge, after all, a government should win openly and fairly.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    28. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      None of them are insurmountable, and they're certainly a lot harder to pull off than in the closed source world.

      I'm sorry, this just shows you really don't understand the 'attack vectors'.

      Closed source vendors compile once and send out binaries which you can checksum. Open source users recompile for many good reasons and many bad reasons BUT they still use the compiler provided by the distro for their initial compilation.

      There is nothing to suggest that the binary compiler provided by your distro of choice is any more 'secure' than the one used by Microsoft (as an example), and since the code used to compile -that specific binary- is unavailable, the 'many eyes' theory just doesn't apply.

      PS: By this post I don't mean to suggest that 'closed source' is more secure against this sort of attack, merely to point out that your assertion that open source makes you immune to it is a load of crap.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    29. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Whoops. Behold the strawman attack. I should not have implied that you said open source was 'invulnerable'. Please replace that with 'highly resistant to'.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    30. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by geckofiend · · Score: 1
      I'm curious, what makes a closed source vendors checksum any more safe than, say, Redhats? Regardless of that, someone would need distribute their uber-exploit compiler with every binary distro out there instead of ONE compiler for Windows.

      I write closed sourc software for a living and have done so for many years. It'd be beyond trival for me to inject all sorts of nastiness if I so chose.

    31. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      I'm curious, what makes a closed source vendors checksum any more safe than, say, Redhats? Regardless of that, someone would need distribute their uber-exploit compiler with every binary distro out there instead of ONE compiler for Windows.

      Absolutely nothing, as I said in my previous post I was not saying that closed source was any more secure in this (admittedly unlikely) scenarion. I was just rebutting your suggestion that open source was resistant to it.

      You wouldn't need to poison every binary distro either, just getting redhat or debian (for instance) would get you more than enough devices for whatever you wanted to do.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    32. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Apparently independent verification of election results is less important then $$$ transactions.

      Obviously. That's why Diebold was hired in the first place. Being capable of ensuring the "right" President is elected is worth big money. Not to you and me, but to corporations and powerbrokers and such. You scratch their back, they scratch yours. Damn straight there isn't going to be verification!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    33. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Exit polls are an extremely bad idea for this reason alone:

      A party could gain massive votes by canvasing their opponents as a guilt-ridden choice or 'immoral' choice, causing unbalance in the way votes are made and the way they are told to exit poll officials. eg. A person may (rightly so) feel uneasy about saying they voted for Democrats because the local community is very pro-war.

      Worse still, and this has happened in many countries, people could be scared of violent reprisal for revealing their vote choice (from the government or militia).

      There is a *perfectly* valid way to do voting, and that is with e-voting with paper trails (it has been said countless times, without refutation).

    34. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      In light of recent disclosures both in the USA (Abramof) and here in Australia (the Wheat Board) I don't trust conservatives to behave honestly.

      You imply that you believe the non-conservative polititions are less corrupt. Do you think if I went and created a table of Liberal vs Labour public corruption charges (for their members), that it would look horribly lop sided against Libs? Because if you follow through with your assertion, I don't mind doing one.

    35. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I moved the braces to be in their logical places

      I worked with a guy like you. He kept reformatting everyone's code to his preference, insisting that it was somehow more correct. The only thing he succeeded in doing was fucking up the repository diffs. We fired him, obviously, but what I really wanted to do was give him a blanket party for making our job so difficult.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    36. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Two of America's greatest senators...John McCain and Russ Feingold, nearly managed to push a campaign finance reform bill through congress in 2001. They failed
      What the hell are you smoking? Last I checked, it passed, 240-189
    37. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That was a severly weakened version. Considering how things are being run here (white house and libby/other traitors; Tom Delay; Abramhoff; etc), I think that Mary Matalin on MTP, this am had it right on; Allow lobbyists/peddaling at the state level. Basically, it makes congress more responsive to the voters.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    38. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Show me. Don't forget to include Phil Lynch, and Joh Bjelke-Petersen and all his little friends (yeah, I know they were Cuntry Party, but it's the same). Oh, and John Olsen.

      Most of the truly, deeply corrupt Labor politicians (except for Brian Burke) are from the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party, so I reckon they'd probably count as conservatives too.

      Oh, crikey! I reckon I might have slandered a few people. Fuck 'em.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    39. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      I never said the US had a monopoly on corruption (after all, it's a necessary cost of doing business in the Middle East, as our Wheat Board and the wonderful folk who do live sheep exports have discovered), but you have to admit they're very, very good at it (practice makes perfect).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    40. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I know how corrupt the Labor govt who preceded Joh in Queensland were too. I'm old enough to remember it. I think that's a Queensland thing, though. It's our Deep North (a bit like Mississippi, for you northern hemisphere folk).

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    41. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Underrated? WTF! I should have AT LEAST got flamebait for this one. How humiliating.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    42. Re:Insanely poor program architecture by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Oops. s/under/over/

      Too much red wine.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
  8. Re:Umm by bain_online · · Score: 1

    is this a what (paid)members see? may be its being shown to everyone by mistake? I always wished hard to find out (without paying any money of course) how do they inform the paid members of an slashdot story about to be released early... Wishes _do_ come true is it?

    --
    BAIN http://www.devslashzero.com
  9. Why not do something about it? by Jaazaniah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, if someone has the knowledge of the system you just proposed, why not take the long shot and propose to work for the gov't and put that together? Not only would you be able to demonstrate how insecure Diebold's system is with a tiny PDA that can read/write their memory sticks, but you'd also be able to demonstrate that you can't do that to yours. At least not on the fly with a PDA.

    Steps to stopping the stupidity:
    1) Put down (favorite game) when you're off work.
    2) Write plan, put something together.
    3) Get in touch with someone with the power to make the (smart) decision.
    4) Show off.

    1. Re:Why not do something about it? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Steps to stopping the stupidity:
      1) Put down (favorite game) when you're off work.
      2) Write plan, put something together.
      3) Get in touch with someone with the power to make the (smart) decision.

      4) Go to jail because now they can prove you tried to find a way to subvert the system.

    2. Re:Why not do something about it? by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm actually now seriously considering that.

      It may actually only be a few weeks worth of coding, and I can think of only a dew things that need to be covered.

      1: Graphic selection via a touch screen.
      2: Voice reading of the candiate names for the blind.
      3: A safe, intepreted language to provide a sandbox.
      4: An aim for the minimum number of LOC to make it easy to verify.
      5: No open ports, but constant transmission of votes as they are made on an SSH, public-key encrypted tunnel (so it will be noticed if the total changes fast).
      6: A paper trail (viewable by voter).

      This could be less then 2000 lines of code (addmittedly with hookups to ogg123 etc).

      Interesting...

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    3. Re:Why not do something about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      5: No open ports, but constant transmission of votes as they are made on an SSH, public-key encrypted tunnel (so it will be noticed if the total changes fast).
       
      Are you NUTS? Privacy, man...

    4. Re:Why not do something about it? by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

      That's what spin doctoring is for. If your opinion is that your low security demonstration was only so that you could present the state with a viable secure alternative in contrast to a now publicized failure, the statemen will listen to that.

    5. Re:Why not do something about it? by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      To break personal privacy for this would require someone with access to the FEC central server to inform the local voting centre that the vote had been made so they could check who had been in there, something that you would think might well be a felony (and an obvious one too, involving real civilian level operatives and people with). I would also like to imagine that it would be queried by the officials of one party if those of the others were making calls. But to avoid this, I suppose you could merely have the machine send data every 10 votes. Good call, thanks.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    6. Re:Why not do something about it? by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

      Have a simple pressure plate to stand on, machine reseting to 'ready' only when the pressure was relieved. Make it wide enough for disabled access.

    7. Re:Why not do something about it? by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      What about when the sensor data is spoofed?

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    8. Re:Why not do something about it? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      machine reseting to 'ready' only when the pressure was relieved.

      So you'd have to pee to make your vote count?!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:Why not do something about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About #6... People blast Diebold for the lack of a paper trail, but it's not their fault... the supervisors of elections don't WANT a paper trail! And these are the people whose heads roll if there IS widespread fraud! Their reasoning is simple, though: a Paper trail would require paper and printers, both making everything more expensive, and it would also remove the "secret ballot" aspect somewhat... So don't worry about coding that part. The Supervisors of Elections don't want it.

  10. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah. I'm not a subscriber but one day they offered day subsciptions similar to Salon.com, and the "Mysterious Future" just showed the next story and summary at the top without an option to comment on it.

  11. The guys in power don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    If they did we'd have this problem fixed by now. We've know they were insecure for years now; ever since the accidental release of diebolds e-mails detailing backdoors and holes that were not patched. Who remembers that security researcher who went before congress and said specifically that his code, which was to illustrate a backdoor into the machines, was used to hack the elections in ohio? I forget his name.

    Fact is, CEO's and friends of voting machine companies get into power. Why? Guess. It isn't the 20% of the vote they need to swing; it's the 6% after they've divided everyone on the issues. Voting laws and policys are consistantly broken, and is anything done about it? The answer lies in the question; Has anyone been taken out of power yet? Dictatorship only works if people are divided; if they stand for something and stand by it for hell or high water.

    And I might, just might give credit to the guys who said "well, it's stil the will of the people" if it weren't for that they can't prove their position since there's nothing for them to count. The election board can't even tell them who voted for who so they can go around asking people.

    Of course, the best way you can tell the government you don't like what you're doing is to decide you stand for something and stand for it tall. I personally chose the constitution; it ain't perfect, but it's something everyone can agree on. Of course, ever since the civil war and reconstruction the constitution's layed dormant. To make a long story short, if you want to get rid of the current government, the best way is to simply stop working for them; stop giving them your money. How do you do that? Well, basically the 14th amendment set you up to be a federal citizen by the name of a "U.S. citizen" and social security turned you into a corporate legal fiction so that income tax, which worked only on corporations, now works on you. How do you get out? You rescind your federal citizenship, declare your citizenship of your state as it was before reconstruction, rescind your birth certificate (to remove proof of being under the 14th), rescind your social security (to correct your status as a soverign instead of a corporation), then begin rescinding everything else; drivers lisence, fishing lisences, gun lisence, any contract with the federal government and it's munincipal corporations (read; the states are corporations). You can get a non-binding play-ID from the SS office if you want to get a bank account, for example. Then you simply stop paying income and social security taxes, atwhich point you stop giving the government 30% of your income and begin working to reinstate lawful government in your state via holding elections and office and organizing locally. More to the point, if enough people do it quickly enough, the federal government will have about 10 trillion in debt to pay off, and no way repay it back which means a massive collapse. :X...

    The price? Reading a few books; learning how history, governments, and legal documents work. Mabye $500 in books total. A good place to start is here:

    http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_histo ry/Contents.html

    Do a find for john ainsworth and ed wahler on this page

    http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt06.html

    They've been preparing a book and an organization to do this on a massive scale. The book comes out in march-ish along with the publicisation of the startup and they hope to do it state-by-state.

    1. Re:The guys in power don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The price? Prison sentence; learning how the courts work. Mabye $500,000 in fines total. A good place to start is here:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174700&cid =14531758

    2. Re:The guys in power don't care. by das3cr · · Score: 1
      If they did we'd have this problem fixed by now.
      It sure seems like it. After all, "Something must can be done." I'm all in favor of E-voting .. someday. Just not today and not with Diebold.
      You rescind your federal citizenship, declare your citizenship of your state as it was before reconstruction, rescind your birth certificate (to remove proof of being under the 14th), rescind your social security (to correct your status as a soverign instead of a corporation), then begin rescinding everything else; drivers lisence, fishing lisences, gun lisence, any contract with the federal government and it's munincipal corporations (read; the states are corporations). ~ Then you simply stop paying income and social security taxes,
      Good luck with this. Let us know how it works out for you.
      --
      Hurricane Island Outward Bound
      OB
    3. Re:The guys in power don't care. by GIL_Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While government in general is massively inefficient, the true "cost" of your proposal to "rescind" everything (even were it legal) would actually be - no police, no firemen, roads getting crappy even quicker, massive theft and robberies since social programs wouldn't be funded, etc.

    4. Re:The guys in power don't care. by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      You'd have a lot more credibility if you could name someone who has actually done this. As it stands, the second you try it, they'll simply treat you as the crackpot criminal tax evader you are.

      This reminds me of the crackpot theory that you don't have to pay income tax because the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:The guys in power don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Ainsworth and Ed wahler to name a few, but several hundred have already done it.

      Actually, there's a movement underway already of people who've done it. In north caroline they've already begun reinstating lawful government and the current federal government is honoring them just fine. Infact a few of them have gotten 3 years back taxes from the government by sueing and the federalies complied. That archive I posted earlier has some details by those two on how they did it.

      http://www.ncrepublic.org/

      The problem is, by the 14th amendment you're a U.S. citizen with civil rights; you have no standing to question anything so long as it's passed by congress or your state munincipal corporation(ex: STATE OF ILLINOIS, all caps) or your local munincipal corporation (town), both of which have contracted with the federal government to have some of the federal governments power and they look like the state or towns but really, they're just an occupation force waiting for the people to reinstate their own government like the U.S. did for the french after World war 2. Literally, congress could pass a law that bush is allowed to forcibly butfuck you and you'd be required to do it; you have no rights, constitutional, god-given or otherwise in the eyes of the federal government.

      If you're just a U.S. citizen, then yes, you can get out of social security and income tax. When you get into social security (your parents signed you up when you were born at the hospital, or nowadays, the hospital just signs you up without anyone's permission and it's legal), part of the contract stipulates you declare yourself a legal corporate fiction. The 16th simply says that congress can tax the income of those who enter into a legal binding corporate contract with them which is a power they never had before. Once you enter into social security, you become a corporation (it's a legal fiction, but it's an accepted one), and by the 16th, they have the right to tax your income. More to the point, once you enter into social security, everything you do, even drawing breath, is a privelage they give you which means you also have no standing to question them at all and they can take even your civil rights away on a whim.

      To get out of social security you can file for relgious objector status and have the contract nullified in their favor (they don't have to pay you anything back). Alternativally, you can rescind your federal citizenship and declare your citizenship to your state as it was pre-civil war via the right you have as a U.S. citizen in the expatriation act passed right after the civil war. In doing so, you gain your right as a soverign back. Then you have standing to rescind contracts with the government since you have constitutional right to do that (the right to abolish a government and reinstate a new one).

      Otherwise, you can expect to get butfucked by bubba in pound-me-in-the-ass prison. If you question the government or screw with them when you have no standing, then expect to get screwed. Yes, it's definatly deceptive but you, through your own ignorance, have entered into these contracts.

      As far as how you deal with cops when they pull you over, all you've got to do is bar jurisdiction on the charges since the federal government has no standing to try you since you aren't a U.S. citizen and you have no contract with them; they and their citizens can still charge you in common law which is their natural right so it isn't like you're above the law and can get away with murder. Getting the title to your car back is a bit more difficult since they own it, and your home and property (they issue you a certificate of title; check the print) but it's being worked on. Within the next month or two a book'll be coming out detailing what to and not to do and why, along with their seed-of-an-organization to organize people in different states to rebuild the old union.

    6. Re:The guys in power don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're insane.

      You pay federal taxes because the federal government provides an army, they build interstate highways, they'll give you a cost of living stipmend when you're unfortunate enough not to have a job, they provide funding into basic research so you can have cool things like the car, the telephone, the internet, plastic, etc.

      If you dislike paying the federal government so much, you could renouce your citizenship and move to Latin America. But good luck trying to maintain the standard of living your used to.

      Or instead of renoucing anything, you could get involved in making a change. You could volunteer to moniter election boards or even be on one. You could write to your representative that you think the election system is broken. Or if you don't trust your representative, support someone you do trust or even run yourself.

      Trying to go back to the Articles of Conferdation will not help you avoid taxes or problems with the athorites. For a good example, look at the EU and all of the problems they're having maintaining unity.

    7. Re:The guys in power don't care. by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I'm intrigued by your ideas and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    8. Re:The guys in power don't care. by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Police, firemen, and roads are paid for by state and local taxes. These are not the responsibilities of the federal government.

  12. Re:Umm by mgv · · Score: 1

    is this a what (paid)members see? may be its being shown to everyone by mistake? I always wished hard to find out (without paying any money of course) how do they inform the paid members of an slashdot story about to be released early... Wishes _do_ come true is it?

    My subscription had lapsed, and I saw the funny title, so I used it as an excuse to get another subscription ... for the record - no change whatsoever so its not related to being or not being a subscriber.

    However, the small title area probably explains why so few people have seen this submission

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  13. The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My impression is that the Bush family is the most corrupt family every to have political power in the United States. These are people who believe that they are more than 100% right, and that other people don't matter.

    It does not surprise me that Jeb Bush's state is involved in voting machine vulnerabilities. Quote from the story "... vendors such as Diebold have too much influence in the administration of elections, a view that resonated with Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, the founder of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition."

    The president of Diebold said he would deliver the votes to Bush. And he did.

    I wrote short reviews of books and movies about the corruption, but I only barely touched the surface: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Note that, although Michael Moore's manner of expression is sloppy, other authors supported his main points in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. For example, George W. Bush does hold hands with Saudi leaders, his father was at a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11, and so on.

    1. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Grumpy+Troll · · Score: 1, Informative
      The president of Diebold said he would deliver the votes to Bush. And he did.
      Via USS Neverdock, America - Vote Fraud in Ohio - By Democrats! :

      Fortunately, today comes more bad news for the Democrats. Their long awaited investigation into voter fraud found no evidence of voter fraud by the GOP and their deranged poster boy, Dean was forced into a humilating admission.

      A five-month study for the Democratic National Committee found that more than one in four Ohio voters experienced problems at the polls last fall, but the study did not find evidence of widespread election fraud that might have contributed to President Bush's narrow victory there.
      In a stinging reply to the report, Mr. Mehlman agreed that there were numerous election abuses that took place in Ohio last year, but said they were perpetrated by Democrats or their political allies. In one instance, he said, "Democrat allies attempted to disenfranchise Ohio voters by submitting registration cards for Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Michael Jordan."

      ...

      "Overwhelmingly," this report said, "these problems were reportedly traced primarily" to four Democratic political allies who supported Mr. Kerry: ACORN, America Coming Together, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP National Voter Fund.
    2. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by TallMatthew · · Score: 2, Insightful
      My impression is that the Bush family is the most corrupt family every to have political power in the United States. These are people who believe that they are more than 100% right, and that other people don't matter.

      I think you overestimate the influence of morality. The interest of this family (and their party) has little to do with right and wrong. Despite our president's delusions that the voices in his head are Jesus Christ telling him what to do, that's really not the point.

      At some point (hint RR), the federal government shifted from being a organization serving the needs of its citizens into being a multitrillion dollar business. The people running things, both Rep and Dem, are very wealthy and in many instances, particularly in the White House, are ex-CEOs. They are making national decisions based on profit margin, not for us, but for themselves.

      For example, it's much cheaper to drill Iraqi oil fields than it is to drill offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil reserves in this country are going to be depleted sometime in the near future and the Bushes, and all their cronies, understand full well they will be out of the oil business if they don't position themselves within the Middle East, which is where we'll squeeze the last drop of crude out of this rock we live on.

      This administration has made certain individuals in this country extraordinarily wealthy. There is no way in hell that the people making so much money at taxpayer expense would give that up to something as fickle as a general election. Thankfully, someone's got an eye on them.

    3. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My impression is that the Bush family is the most corrupt family every to have political power in the United States.

      Bush family? Sad to say, Abraham Lincoln was more corrupt than all the Bushes combined. With GW, it isn't considered treason to say that the Gulf War II was wrong. In Abraham Lincoln's regime, it would have been. As unconstitutional as W's wiretapping efforts were, Lincoln wiped his arse with the constitution by suspending it completely.

    4. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      F 9-11 was crap on many levels. It was a crappy movie from a propaganda point of view, because he began by focusing on the 2000 election, turning off any potential 'switchers' who supported Bush in 2000 but then grew uncomfortable with his actual leadership. It was crappy from a investigative point of view as well.

      So, Bush hangs out with the Saudis, and they influence our policy, eh? THEN WHY THE FUCK DID WE GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ!? Hello, the Saudis were against the war! They were doing diplomacy up until the final minute to try to avert a war, because they thought it would be destabilizing to their regime in either the bad case (Iraq collapses, war spreads through the region) or the good case (Iraq democratizes, pressure is put on SA to democratize). Duh.

      Next Moore tried different stunts like proving he can't tell the difference between Iraq and Vietnam with the 'sign up your son for war' bit. FFS, doesn't he realize that the draft is over? In the Vietnam War, "would you make your son fight?" was a legitimate question, because people in power kept their kids from fighting by pulling strings to get them out of the draft. In the Iraq War, there's not a single man or woman over there who didn't sign up for military service themselves. Everyone over there is over 18 and legally decided to go on their own. The whole stunt about 'sign up your kid' didn't even make sense. You *can't* sign up your kid for the military. You have to volunteer for yourself.

      Then Moore continued to drop bombshells like "mothers are sad when their children die" and "Bush protected the privacy of someone unrelated to his military record by blotting his name" and "rich people hang out with other rich people." Wow, way to blow the lid off of that one! The whole thing is just a bunch of ridiculous guilt by association garbage.

      What makes it really infuriating is the fact that Bush actually has done so many crap things out in front of every, like the PATRIOT Act, that there's no need to make up all this bullshit about "boo-hoo, they stoles our election from us! Wah," and then play clips of people fixing their hair in slow motion with sinister music that lets us know that only bad guys like Wolfowitz lick their palm before slicking their hair back. For crying out loud, just focus on the actual things that matter instead of trying to figure out if Bush tried to get out of military service back before he turned his life around and decided not to just waste it on drinking and drugs. F9-11 is such a pointless waste of potential!!

    5. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Hiigara · · Score: 2

      I don't know about you, but where I come from (Michigan) we require more than just blog posts to make such dangerous accusations. Perhaps you should consider modifying your links to point to more direct and reputable sources of information?

    6. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by trixillion · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing corrupt for dictatorial. Compared to those immediately before and after, Lincoln wasn't very corrupt at all.

    7. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      doesn't he realize that the draft is over?

      You, my friend, have obviously not heard of "stop-loss" and people being called back into duty. How these are different from a "real" draft I cannot see.

    8. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      You, my friend, have obviously not heard of "stop-loss" and people being called back into duty. How these are different from a "real" draft I cannot see.

      Does a 'stop-loss' force people who were never in the military to join or go to jail? If not then the difference to a "real" draft is quite obvious.

    9. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      There's a strong that many in the US military today would have probably ended up in jail had they not enlisted. There's a reason recruiters work the hardest in poor areas.

    10. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, Bush hangs out with the Saudis, and they influence our policy, eh? THEN WHY THE FUCK DID WE GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ!?

      Well, for the oil, basically. But interestingly, from reading Perkin's excellent book, Confession's of an Economic Hit Man, he points out a couple of other advantages of holding Iraq: the valley is strategic, however holds that controls the region, and secondly, it is an area rich in water resources, which in the future will be even more crucial than oil. Finally, one other "hedge" is that, speaking of the Saudis, this corrupt Kingdom is on the brink of destruction. People forget that Bin Laden, Al-qaeda, for them the U.S. is just a side interest, their real aim is to overthrow the Saudis. [In fact that's why the whole Saddam is a bad guy is such a joke. Saudi's are just as bad or worse.]

    11. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Well, for the oil, basically.

      I think, basically, that the hundreds of thousands of people tortured for their political beliefs in Iraq pre-invasion would disagree. But feel free to ignore documented evidence for your own political gain. I think it's sick frankly. cue 'yeh well ... bush is sick' deflection...

    12. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should consider modifying your links to point to more direct and reputable sources of information?

      Perhaps if you did a simple google search of the opening paragraph text you'd find the document duplicated across the web. This for example.

    13. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Despite our president's delusions that the voices in his head are Jesus Christ telling him what to do...

      Argumentum ad hominem.

      The people running things, both Rep and Dem, are very wealthy and in many instances, particularly in the White House, are ex-CEOs. They are making national decisions based on profit margin, not for us, but for themselves.

      A nicely demonstrative example of Argumentum ad Lazarum there.

      I'll leave the rest to the viewers at home.

    14. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      "Does a 'stop-loss' force people who were never in the military to join or go to jail? If not then the difference to a "real" draft is quite obvious."

      Seems like you could think of it as, Does stop loss result in people who dont want to be in the military (finished their term of service) , being forced into military service or face jail? At that point it seems pretty similar to me.

      It all depends of how ya spin it huh? But is it really how we should handle the problem?

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    15. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems someone watched the History Channel the other night, hmm???

      On a more serious note to back Lincoln, if he lost then the country would be divided not in spirit but in reality. If I remember the show correctly, Lincoln was using his rights under the Constitution as a President involved in a war. An actual war. I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about this war on Terror. From the first time I heard those words, I knew it was something we have no chance of winning as there is no definitive definition of winning. The issue of Iraq is nothing I care to get involved in. However, I want my right to privacy protected.

      Note: The rights under Constitution was how it was stated in the show, I have not looked into this, so take that part with a grain of salt, kind of like how most people take my posts.

    16. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lincoln had half the country threatening to run off and create their own slave colony. Bush is chasing phantom terrorists around the world on false pretenses. Not even close.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    17. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As others point out, this isn't corruption at all. How did this get rated insightful? Lincoln took away a lot of rights in wartime, it's true; he even had a yankee anti-war senator sent down to jefferson davis to get him to shut up. But if you look at US history, it was routine to have massive civil liberties violated in wartime, and it still is. It's only recently it occurred to Americans to complain about it (I'm exaggerating a bit of course - there certainly were some voices speaking against wartime repression but not many until the 20th century). It's true Bush is nothing new in this regard; what is new is his absolute arrogance before the rule of law. I'm not sure Lincoln can be accused of that.

    18. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      If so, then what Moore spent 75% of F9-11 talking about (Bush being a puppet of the Saudis) is mostly irrelevant. Bush just wants oil and only pretends to like the Saudis to get it. When the rubber meets the road, the Saudis have no real pull on policy, because we're willing to piss them off it means getting more oil from elsewhere. Which all goes back to my theory that Moore sucks.

    19. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Spin, sh-spin. When you sign up, your contract specifies how long you'll stay in in case of a stop loss. It's all there in the fine print, which, given that the high pay and benefits for military service are premised on the hightened risk that you'll die in a hail of gunfire, is worth reading more closely than your usual EULA. You either accept that possibility, or you don't sign up for the military. So long as their are charities in the US, you have options other than going into the military open to you. You can eat at a soup kitchen, sign up for welfare, and let them assign you a crap job. Sure, it sucks, but you don't have to worry about dying in a desert. As mentally competent adults, it's your responsibility to judge your options and weigh which one is the best.

    20. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by TallMatthew · · Score: 1
      "One chooses dialectics only when one has no other means ... it can only be self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons." -- Nietzsche

      This isn't debate club. Pointing out the spite in my argument doesn't obscure the truth about your murdering crook friends in DC. The only people worse than them are the people who stick up for them, who do so even though they're being screwed over just like all the rest of us. You're a fool.

    21. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Pointing out the spite in my argument doesn't obscure the truth about your murdering crook friends in DC.

      I'm confused, are arguments riddled with holes suddenly ok now?

    22. Re:The Bush family is the most corrupt ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe you should consider that Lincoln was in a real war with emminent threats and dangers for all Americans. After the war he reinstated the Bill o Rights to its full glory. Hell, more americans could celebrate those rights after the war.

      Will GWB return all these powers he's accrued when the war is over? When exactly do you think the "War on Terrorism" will end?

      All in all, don't be such a naive putz.

  14. Re:Umm by mabinogi · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks like a new viewing option.
    I'm not sure what the grey ones are - possibly articles in other sections that wouldn't otherwise make the front page (as someone else suggested).

    Have a look at your preferences - there's a new part in the front page section that lets you choose whether or not to display the grey bars, or whether to show the full stories for all, grey bars for all, etc.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  15. Not that sort of paper trail by gaijin99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The voter doesn't take the paper with him, as you say that would ruin the whole anonymous ballot thing. The voter gets the paper, looks at the human readable output to verify that his vote was correctly recorded, and drops the paper into a ballot box on his way out. If the paper shows that his vote was incorrectly recorded, he can ask an election official to remove his vote from the machine, destroy that paper ballot, and try again.

    The election officials keep the paper ballots, machine printed recepts that is, so that in the event of a dispute they can be hand counted. Since, theoretically, every voter looked at their recept and verified that it recorded what they truly intended to vote for, if someone hacks the machines and falsifies the votes recorded there, the paper ballots get the final say in the event of a dispute.

    It also gives you a good indication of where the falsification of the electronic votes got started since you can say: hmmm, district 123 shows 4000 votes for candidate X on the computer, but the paper ballots only show 1000 votes for candidate X, who messed with the machines in district 123?

    Essentially we're keeping the old paper method of vote recording as a backup in the event that its suspected that someone hacks the machines.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    1. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      One little change - the voter wouldn't be able to touch the paper trail - it would be behind glass. Otherwise folks would walk off with them, and in the event of an audit the counts wouldn't match - thus making it impossible to detect true fraud.

      Have the paper drop into a box after verification - otherwise it goes in a trash box. Do a random audit of x% of the results, and a systematic audit any time there is cause to do so...

    2. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by Kevinv · · Score: 1

      no, for reassurance the person should hold the paper receipt and drop it in the box themselves. That's the way most balloting systems (with paper) work these days. Even the punch cards we use here, we put the punch card in an paper folder and drop it in a container.

      I'm assuming current counter-measures against ballot box stuffing are sufficient from someone printing up a couple of thousand fake votes and putting them in the box.

    3. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Printing a password that is encrypted with a password on each ticket would avoid stuffing. (It is funny that you could even encourage people to try stuffing anything they like in the boxes, knowing that the encryption is too strong to crack from a sample ticket). You just discard any tickets that do not decrypt to the password when counting.

    4. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      The voter gets the paper, looks at the human readable output to verify that his vote was correctly recorded, and drops the paper into a ballot box on his way out...

      The election officials keep the paper ballots, machine printed recepts that is, so that in the event of a dispute they can be hand counted...the paper ballots get the final say in the event of a dispute.


      Sorry to be argumentative, because I'd like there to be an elegant solution to this problem, but doesn't this essentially turn the electronic vote into an "[un]official" exit poll reading?

      I mean, how is this an improvement over machine counted paper ballots we use today? Other than a faster preliminary count?

      Also, if the papers are dropped in a ballot box, but not counted unless there is a "dispute", how do you recognize a dispute in the first place? Don't both have to be tallied and compared to discover some discrepency?

      Like I said, I'd love electronic voting to work well, and I'd love an elegant and transparent auditing methodology. The devil is in these details...

    5. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      One slight modification to your description:

      The machine used to enter your selection and print a slip of paper doesn't actually count your vote. Your human-readable slip of paper is also machine-readable (preferably using something like OCR, rather than a barcode, so there's no chance that the machine reads it differently than a human would). You feed that slip of paper into a second machine, which scans your vote and counts it.

      You get all the advantages of electronic voting (instant accurate count, no hanging chads, easy and flexible user interface can easily be made accessible to the blind and non-English-speaking) plus all the advantages of paper voting (completely verifiable, still anonymous, and you can request a new ballot if you screw it up).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Only if you plan on 100% counting the boxes - and not having the machine do any tallying at all. That wasn't the proposal as I read it.

      The problem with reading paper ballots is that it is less than 100% accurate and probably would require manual verification. If you want a purely manual election that is fine - the computers would still help by validating the ballots so that you don't have two people marked for one office.

      However, if you want the voting machine to keep a running tally and simply audit the boxes, then you can't let the voter touch their ballot. Otherwise some might change their mind before getting to the box and just pocket their ballot. Then you end up with a mismatch between the box and the machine. Sure, the box would override, but the discrepancy would cause audits, and if you're going to 100% audit all the time anyway, why bother having the machine keep a tally? Also - the low-level noise in the ballot counts will tend to mask low levels of fraud (such as adding 100 votes to every precient in the state - it would probably disappear in the noise of people walking out with ballots but could add up to a substantial number of votes).

      I'd just have the paper trail behind glass, and make the printer nice and noisy so that party reps would notice if it just started printing votes without somebody in the booth (or make the mechanism dependant on somebody pulling a lever to get the vote in the box).

    7. Re:Not that sort of paper trail by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      The voter doesn't take the paper with him, as you say that would ruin the whole anonymous ballot thing.

      There are crytographic methods that allow the voter to take with them a verifiable receit that can be validated by (and only by) someone with the proper key.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  16. The Bush - Osama link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For example, George W. Bush.... his father was at a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11, and so on."

    That is intentionally misleading, is just an attempt to play on ignorance. The bin Laden family is HUGE, with a large number of brothers, of which Osama is a black sheep who has hardly had any contact with anyone.

    This was one of Michael Moore's weakest points. It is like trying to link Chris Dodd with that Kennedy rapist (William Kennedy Smith) because Senator Dodd has a close collegial relationship with the rapist's relative Senator Ted Kennedy.

    "Chris Dodd Supports Rapists" is as good a headline as the one Moore tried to cook up with the imagined link between GWB and Osama.

    1. Re:The Bush - Osama link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      It is like trying to link Chris Dodd with that Kennedy rapist (William Kennedy Smith) because Senator Dodd has a close collegial relationship with the rapist's relative Senator Ted Kennedy.

      Especially since Smith was acquitted.

    2. Re:The Bush - Osama link by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Informative

      This was one of Michael Moore's weakest points.

      That's funny, it was strong enough of a point for the Bush administration, they had a citizen of Canada "renditioned" to Syria for more than a year for working with the brother of a known terrorist.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  17. Easy Voting Machine by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is my idea for a voting machine. It depends for its operation on the idea that when a current is passed through two solenoids in series, both armatures will pull in. The machine itself has two units: the voting booth unit and the presiding officer's unit, linked by a cable. When not being used for an election, the machines would be made available for public scrutiny.

    The voting booth unit {VBU} has a large rotary switch, a pushbutton and a meter with a green zone. The Presiding Officer's unit {POU} contains a power supply, and a column of non-resettable electromechanical counters, all but one of which are covered by a metal plate. This plate is fastened in place with a wire with an aluminium seal bearing the Returning Officer's mark. The counter readings before the start of the election are recorded on a paper label affixed to the underside of the cover plate. There is also a switch labelled "CHARGE" and "VOTE".

    Each voter is issued with a unique, identifiable token -- a postcard with their name and address on it. The voter shows the token {Token One} to the Presiding Officer, who first spoils Token One and then moves the switch on the POU to "CHARGE" as the voter steps into the booth. The Presiding Officer then moves the switch to "VOTE". The voter has now traded Token One for a second token, all of which are absolutely anonymous, identical and indistinguible from one another: Token Two is an electrical charge stored in a capacitor contained within the VBU.

    The voter spins the rotary switch to their preferred candidate, checks that the meter is in the green zone and depresses the voting button. The VBU capacitor is discharged through the coil of one of the concealed counters in the POU. One terminal of each of these counters is commonned together; the current through any one of the candidate counters also flows through the master counter, and returns to the other plate of the capacitor. The charge in the capacitor is soon exhausted, and cannot be replenished unless the Presiding Officer moves the POU switch to CHARGE. The voter then has the option to move the rotary switch to a different position so as to conceal their preference -- or to leave it there to advertise their preference.

    Every voter has a receipt to show that they have voted {the spoiled Token One} but once a vote has been cast, the only record of that vote is the fact that the master counter and one of the candidate counters have advanced by one place. There is thus no way to link a voter with their vote. The master counter is in view of {and the counting mechanism is within earshot of} the PO, who can thus confirm visually and aurally that a vote has been cast {or separately, manually record a "no vote" if the voter leaves the booth without voting for any candidate}. All the candidate counters are concealed until the close of polling, when a few minutes' worth of mental arithmetic will reveal the true count. By virtue of its simplicity, and the fact that it has been subjected to public scrutiny, we can take for granted that the mechanism is behaving as it is supposed to; the Returning Officer need only inspect the tamper-evident seals to determine whether the result is valid or compromised.

    {In case the above constitutes a patent claim, I hereby licence it for use royalty-free in all applicable jurisdictions, in the hope that it will be of service to Humankind}.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Easy Voting Machine by stony3k · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much the system that is used in India. Its pretty simple, and seems to work just fine. I wish all these e-voing machine guys would remember the KISS principle.

      --
      Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
    2. Re:Easy Voting Machine by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have a slightly more revolutionary idea for a voting machine that involves a pencil, several pieces of paper, a large folded sheet of cardboard that can be used as a booth, and a locked wooden box with a small opening in the top.


      You'll have to wait until the morning after the election to get results, but it's a fair bit more reliable and secure than any electronic system in use today.

    3. Re:Easy Voting Machine by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1
      I see this is modded as funny, but I can't honestly tell if it was intended as a joke or not.

      In case it wasn't, I'd just like to point out that this would NOT work in a typical election where I live (Illinois) because I have neverseen an election with only one question.

      It also assumes a lot more technical savy and attention being paid to the movement of each voter than I typically see from the retirees that are acting as judges at the polling places I have used.

      The method here works pretty well - get a paper ballot, mark it with a magic marker, and run it thru a scan-tron machine before the voter leaves to validate.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    4. Re:Easy Voting Machine by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Funny as the mods mod'ed it, this was actually meant as a serious suggestion. But they are unlikely to come back and explain their reasons now, since to do so would undo their moderation ..... guess I'll have to write it off as an example of /. weirdness.

      The Indian machines are actually a lot more sophisticated than my description -- they're fully electronic, no moving parts. But that in its own turn makes them harder for a lay-person to scrutinise. OTOH, the Indian implementation of the "unique token which is exchanged for an anonymous token" is wonderfully simple and next to abuse-proof. Token One is the voter's own skin, and is "spoiled" by applying a dye which will take longer to remove than the polls stay open for -- unless you use some technique such as bleach and a scrubbing brush that will leave a mark of its own.

      I came up with the "solenoids in series" idea as a way to get around the need for mechanical interlocks between the counters -- my first idea was for each candidate counter solenoid to have a peg that caught in a slotted strip running along the row and linked to the master counter, so any one would move on its own and the master counter but no others {the slot would slide straight past the peg of any non-energised counter}. But that would require specially-made parts; you can buy non-interlocked counters off the shelf and the coil impedance isn't exactly a secret from anyone with an AVOmeter. Doing the interlocking electrically should work just as well, as long as the coil resistances are within a certain tolerance of one another and the counter mechanisms are not too worn {another good reason to use non-resetting counters and record the before and after readings, rather than using resetting counters: there is an instantaneous reading of how worn the counters are}.

      This system is still second-best to pencil and paper and counting by hand though, IMHO. As another reader points out, you would need to have separate machines for each question being asked; it doesn't do away with most of the traditional requirements of the Presiding Officer; and it's only good for a "first past the post" system where votes can be counted as you go along and still be meaningful. Most of the world actually uses Single Transferrable Votes, and I'm not sure that there is any way to count these on-the-fly. Each vote probably would have to be stored on a machine-readable {but also, for transparency's sake, human-readable} ballot paper or something like it, and these run through the machine several times {so the votes were counted from the actual human-readable ballot papers and not some auxiliary memory susceptible to tampering; and also to minimise the total parts count, which makes the scrutineers' job easier}. This raises the question, how do we ensure that the votes are not kept in chronological order {which might give some traceability} whilst only allowing them to be counted once each? Separate cards for each vote, maybe; or a continuously-circulating loop of paper tape which would be punched in essentially random positions.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Easy Voting Machine by Jonathan_S · · Score: 1

      For the sake of this response I'm going to assume that the parent post was serious, which may not have been the case.

      While that design sounds like a nice simple idea, it does seem to overlook certain issues.

      The first and possibly largest, is that it seems to assume that there is only one issue to be voted on. But on election days, there are often Senate and House races, local races, various propositions to be votes on, etc., in addition to the presidential election. (Assuming a presidential election year). The single dial can only handle a vote for a single race or issue. Adding a dial per race or issue gets ugly really quickly.

      Two, requiring a voting token in the form of a post card invites people interested in performing vote tampering to either attempt to duplicate the vote token to allow multiple votes, or remove the vote token from the mail boxes of those people who they feel will vote against the issue. Or more simply, mis-delivered, late delivered tokens, or tokens that have been misplace since receiving them will also impact peoples ability to vote.
      (Of course you could add a back-up mechanism to handle missing tokens, but then that sacrifices much of the benefit of using tokens in the first place.)

      Three, a rotary knob has an inherent maximum number of possible settings, and eventually some race will come along that has more candidates that whatever was chosen. (Or a vastly huge max selection will be chosen say 360, which will require excessive accuracy in selection, which could be an issue for older people).

      Four, this system fails to account for those people with disabilities, either unable to read the printed names, or without the muscle control or gripping strength to manipulate the rotary wheel.

      Five, this system does not appear to have a mechanism to allow a vote to be canceled and recast. So a mistaken vote would be permanent. (Adding a cancellation mechanism would greatly complicate the design of the unit).

      Six, this system appears to be potentially vulnerable to malicious manipulation of the displayed selection for the rotary wheel. A false nameplate or sticker could be devised to cover the proper one, and scramble the positions of some of the candidates. (Possibly in an attempt to steal votes from a more popular candidate).

      I'm sure that with a bit more though additional issues with this system could be realized. Voting system design is really easy to get wrong, because there are additional requirements that are often overlooked.

    6. Re:Easy Voting Machine by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      I'll respond to your points in order. They do seem to be mainly nitpicking; there are already established procedures in place to deal with any scenario you could name with the time-honoured pencil-and-paper system used in the UK which would adapt readily to a semi-automated scheme.
      1. You would probably have to conduct elections for separate posts on separate days. In the UK there are generally only one or two posts being contested at a time; rarely three {Local, National and EU}.
      2. This is almost how the system already works in the UK -- voters are issued with a card by post. But you're right, there is a backup system in place. The name and address on the card {or, if you don't have the card and the Presiding Officer does not actually know you personally, any piece of ID with them on it} are crossed off a list by the Presiding Officer's assistant, and the Presiding Officer -- who only sees a name being crossed off, not whose name -- marks an un-numbered ballot paper with a special punch and gives it to you. The pattern of the punch is unique to that polling station on that date; but in any case, you can't falsify a ballot paper because the Presiding Officer would not allow you into the voting booth without first issuing a ballot paper. {With my electromechanical system, charging the VBU capacitor represents issuing a ballot paper.} Even if you do manage to steal someone else's vote by giving a false name and address, you will automatically lose your own vote when the Presiding Officer recognises your face. And if, at the end of the election, there is a mismatch between votes cast and voters accounted for, the Presiding Officer will be aware and will follow the established procedure.

        In some organisations where membership cards are used, the membership cards have a row of numbers which are punched out to signify voting in elections at meetings.
      3. How many candidates do you actually have in your elections? 20 positions ought to be more than plenty. Note also that there needs to a core in the cable for each selection, plus two for the capacitor terminals and one more for the moving contact {which gets disconnected from the capacitor by the charge/vote switch} so this will impose limitations of its own.
      4. In such a case, as is done with pencil-and-paper ballots, the voter would have to be allowed to take an able-bodied carer whom they trust into the voting booth to help them.
      5. Hello? Neither does a pencil-and-paper ballot, or any kind of voting machine. Once the paper goes through the slot, or you have pressed the voting button, there's no changing your mind. What my system does have is a two-stage, "choosing and confirming" process. You get plenty of time to make your mind up. If you were taking so long that the meter fell out of the green zone, you would have to call to the Presiding Officer {who can see whether or not the master counter has advanced} for a recharge.
      6. As currently happens in pencil-and-paper ballots, the Presiding Officer would notice any attempt to tamper with the election process and inform the police that a crime was being committed against the Representation of the People Acts.
      The system is not designed to replace common sense -- ultimately, nothing can. A Presiding Officer is still required. However, the counting of the votes is done instantaneously {it has actually been going on the whole time}. But most crucially, the system is absolutely open to public scrutiny at every stage -- and uses science that should be capable of being understood by anyone with a high school education.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    7. Re:Easy Voting Machine by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      I finally figured out how to count STVs on the fly with something like this -- but it's not very nice. Basically, there has to be one counter representing each possible way of filling out a ballot paper; and one "master counter" for each possible preference ranking. The maths start to get really hard; and you haven't even the benefit of being able to divide the papers up into piles and shove them around the table. And that's before you look at the VBU, where there needs to be some way to prevent a candidate from being voted at more than one preference while at the same time preventing a preference being allocated to more than one candidate -- it's beginning to get past the "any school leaver could understand it" point, which was one of my design criteria :(

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  18. Re:Umm by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 1

    I think these are the stories that are usually on the right, after 'Your Rights Online', it usuallys says (1 More), and the stories that don't usually appear on the main page will now take up a line of text.

    I like it, there's often stories in those '1 More' links that are very interesting, and they are hidden from view until you actually go and look for them.

    --
    Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
  19. Weak. by lheal · · Score: 1, Informative

    You believe Moore's lies and distortions because you want them to be true.

    Diebold is a fine example of how the small-mindedness of some people manifests itself. Particularly, it shows that proprietary softare and oafish business practices are next of kin.

    But it has nothing to do with President Bush.

    You defend Moore's dishonesty, but tout Diebold's ineptitude as evidence of President Bush's alleged corruption because his brother is governor of Florida?

    That's some strained reasoning.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Weak. by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Florida?

      Volusia county, enough said. Maybe not because of Jeb Bush, but someone there is pulling a little too hard for the Republicans. Of course, the same thing can be said about Democrats in Ohio, but what do you expect when the two major parties in our country are basically scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to look for candidates? Somebody's gotta make it look like people actually want to vote for these guys.

      Diebold's ineptitude

      See, here's the problem: their secure and successful ATM venture tarnishes their image as "a bunch of inept oafs" as you would, for lack of a better word, "defend" them. "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" rings hollow when the company has created and deployed a system that has not been broken, and not for lack of being a very juicy target.

      You believe Moore's lies and distortions because you want them to be true.

      As for lies, which ones are you referring to? Bush admitted that he holds hands with saudi leaders, he explained that it was what was expected of him in their society, "when in Rome...". As for Bush's father meeting with the brother of binLaden, that was apparently enough for the Bush administration to "extraordinarily rendition" a Canadian citizen to Syria for over a year. Maher Arar's crime? Well, we don't know exactly, because just like thousands of other people (including at least one American citizen, Padilla) the Bush administration doesn't bother to charge people with crimes or otherwise justify their behavior. But the man does claim to have been interrogated about his employment alongside the brother of a known Syrian terrorist.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I won't get into the political side of this thread, but I will say this. You views of Diebold are incorrect. Do I believe they have sloppy security and don't care to fix it? Absolutely. Do I believe they chose Windows XP and are using it as a flimsy excuse to not provide the source code of their machines to the state of North Carolina? You bet. But don't for a minute think that Diebold knows anything about security.

      You say that Diebold's ATM machines haven't been broken, and not for lack of being a juicy target. You're right, an ATM machine might be a juicy target. But you would have to know way more than the workings of Windows XP in order to extract cash from them. But the main reason you haven't seen them broken into? Because they're not on the Internet. The banking ATM network is a completely separate network, or so I have been told by a friend who is the IT manager at a local bank. There's the Internet, there's the bank's internal network, and then there's the ATM network (not to be confused with the ATM protocol).

      But just to show how secure Diebold's ATM machines are, take a look at this article: Nachi worm infected Diebold ATMs. These guys *ARE* a bunch if inept oafs who have no businesses in the banking or voting industries.

    3. Re:Weak. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      See, here's the problem: their secure and successful ATM venture tarnishes their image as "a bunch of inept oafs" as you would, for lack of a better word, "defend" them.

      ATM mistakes happen all the time, you are arguing out of ignorance of the history of ATM failures (where a transaction was incorrect, not just the thing going into breakdown mode).

      "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" rings hollow when the company has created and deployed a system that has not been broken, and not for lack of being a very juicy target.

      Your saying has no place in voting systems, where there is enormous focus on preventing malicous hacking. After all, it is clear that once a voting system breaks down it is quite possible for that corruption to live off it's own feedback so to speak, and grow large.

      Bush admitted that he holds hands with saudi leaders, he explained that it was what was expected of him in their society.

      And your point here is that .... by holding hands ... bush corrupt .. ahh i get it

    4. Re:Weak. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      ATM mistakes may happen all the time, but they're the result of random bugs, and as another poster mentioned, mindless worms with dumb luck. If you have any cases where someone sat down and hacked an ATM into giving them all of its money (either by attacking it directly or simply working out which sequence of bugs lead to an unrecorded transaction and repeating this until it ran dry), let me know so that I'd change my position, but in these cases, BBV and other challengers sat down and hacked an election into giving them all of its votes, not just one or two incorrect transactions. The other poster mentioned that ATMs are hard to attack because they're not on the internet. If Diebold could make ATMs work securely despite whatever flaws by simply putting them on a completely separate network, why are voting machines vulnerable?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  20. Re:Umm by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Well, I *am* a paying customer (witness the star by my ID, though it's more of a token of support than an insatiable desire not to see ads), and I haven't seen them before. I'm guessing they're a new feature.

    Although, it's weird, because I don't see how this story relates to the one it's "attached" to in any way.

    Oh well, guess we'll find out at some point.

  21. Paper trail is a red herring. by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 0
    The voter gets the paper, looks at the human readable output to verify that his vote was correctly recorded ...
    All that proves is that the screen and the piece of paper say the same thing. How do either of those relate to the actual value recorded as the vote?
    ... so that in the event of a dispute they can be hand counted
    The data should be verifable without resorting to a manual recount. It would take a fairly large discrepancy to initiate a recount: In the last 'election', not only did the US not fulfill its own (and the UN's) requirements for an open and fair election, but also for the first time ever exit polls diverged greatly from the tallies reported by the polling sites. Neither of those set off a recount.

    Talk of a "paper trail" is a lot of noise and a red herring. The real issue is that validity, origin, and authenticity of the poll data. That can be done with or without paper.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the end, there are better ways from the standpoint of guaranteeing a secure election than demanding or not demanding a single hardware vendor to do this or that.

      A standard should be set for the ballot and the voting software's capabilities, and then several companies' equipment set up at every station. In fact, if these all generate a standardized paper ballot, then the counting process could (and should) be completely divorced from the voting process, perhaps even an additional vendor could deal with this task. Increasing the number of vendors perhaps increases the risk that one will act in bad faith, but decreases the damage one such vendor could do. I mentioned in a post in an article some time ago how this kind of setup could help guarantee correct results without devolving to random manual recounts, by simply requiring all machines to produce a machine-and-human readable ballot, with these ballots machine sorted and counted. Should there be any question of whether the sorting machine is correct, one must only flip the ballots like a flipbook and watch the line in question, any improperly sorted ballot will be easily caught. Should there be a question of the counting machine's integrity (this would be hard to do, since a stand alone counting machine should be unable to know what is being counted at any time) then a different counting machine could be substituted. This leaves incompetence and malice in the human component, and with oversight from independent election observers, the risk of the latter can be reduced. Counting ballots before sorting and comparing the total to the grand total of sorted votes will cut down on chances of the former causing someone's stack of votes to be accidentally lost.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "All that proves is that the screen and the piece of paper say the same thing. How do either of those relate to the actual value recorded as the vote?"

      It doesn't. But the original posters' point was that if there is any suspicion of discrepancies/errors/hacking, the "system" (meaning the whole election process) can fall back on a more traditional/reliable method (paper votes).

      Paper ballots have their own problems, but in general it's a different set of problems than the ones in electronic systems.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by lheal · · Score: 1
      Talk of a "paper trail" is a lot of noise and a red herring. The real issue is that validity, origin, and authenticity of the poll data. That can be done with or without paper.

      No it's not, yes that's right, but no it can't.

      I think you're reacting to a misreading of the term "paper trail". The official ballot has to remain tangible, because it makes a chain of custody possible. That means paper (or punched metal, or whatever). Electronic ballots are subject to a range of tomfoolery that make the process unsuitable for chain of custody, recounts, and the all-important public trust.

      The electronic ballots get counted first, naturally, and sent in. That makes getting unofficial results very quick, suitable for our instant gratification-based world. But the official count is done, by hand or machine, with the paper ballots which were printed out and (presumably) were individually verified by the voter.

      Any discrepancy between the paper ballots and the electronic ones triggers a recount. If it's really bad, say a 1% difference, you bring in the accountants and lawyers.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    4. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1
      All that proves is that the screen and the piece of paper say the same thing. How do either of those relate to the actual value recorded as the vote?
      By itself, nothing.

      As part of a spot-check quality control process, however, it is pretty damn foolproof.

      You make it a requirement to, on the day after the election or whenever, go back through say 1-5% of the total machines in any county or city, plus any machines with exceptional results, and read all the paper vote results off the internal record, and compare to the electronic copy. The results should be identical. If they aren't identical for any sample, throw a red flag and freeze the results, and then go compare a much larger sample, and if necessary test them all by reading out all the paper results in the area.

      Basic statistics indicates that for large enough numbers, even spot checks of a few percent will almost certainly catch any attempts to do widespread (i.e., statistically significant) manipulation or fraud within the computer mechanism.

      No single level of security at any level can possibly catch all voter fraud. You have to check redundantly, you have to check at multiple levels (computers all agree, but 2x as many recorded votes as registered voters, anyone?). It is possible for multiple levels of checks to make it very very hard for any conspiracy to statistically affect the results.

    5. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any weaknesses in this system that can't be overcome with pretty simple measures (e.g. keep public cameras on the paper vote boxes at all times to prevent tampering when the employees take them to the warehouse).

      I also don't understand why it was not in place from the beggining, other than not having coughing up enough money to fund it 100%. If that was the case then why not wait a few years longer until we have a proper system in place (e-voting + paper backup)?

    6. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Basic statistics indicates that for large enough numbers, even spot checks of a few percent will almost certainly catch any attempts to do widespread (i.e., statistically significant) manipulation or fraud within the computer mechanism.

      And made even more powerful by focusing on the states where votes are close.

    7. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
      But the original posters' point was that if there is any suspicion of discrepancies/errors/hacking, the "system" (meaning the whole election process) can fall back on a more traditional/reliable method (paper votes).
      Then we are probably much better off going with a 100% paper model and skip the bullshit (aka "IT Solutions"). A paper trail is useless if the authenticity and origin of the electronic records cannot be known 100%. Say on the day of the election the machines tally +1.01 or +1.02 for every vote for party A and +0.99 or +0.98 for party B. The 'paper trail' won't inherently give any clue about that nor is it likely to be discovered since it will follow projected demographics very closely.

      Anyway, how much of a suspicion of errors, cracking or other discrepancies would it take to get authorities to cough up the cost of a manual recount? In the last US presidential 'election', for the first time ever exit polls diverged greatly from the tallies reported by the polling sites. Nor did the US fulfill its own (and the UN's) requirements for an open and fair election. Neither of those set off a recount.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    8. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice comment. E-voting keeps coming up on /. periodically, and there are always dumbasses that cry "paper ballots prove nothing", or else "need to count all paper ballots by hand to get results". You address those two issues nicely.

      I suggest you copy/paste your comment as a First Post whenever e-voting comes up in the future.

    9. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
      The official ballot has to remain tangible, because it makes a chain of custody possible. That means paper (or punched metal, or whatever). Electronic ballots are subject to a range of tomfoolery that make the process unsuitable for chain of custody, recounts, and the all-important public trust.
      Then the electronic ballots are only a disadvantage and extra work. An all-paper / only-paper model sounds more practical.
      The electronic ballots get counted first, naturally, and sent in. That makes getting unofficial results very quick, suitable for our instant gratification-based world. But the official count is done, by hand or machine, with the paper ballots which were printed out and (presumably) were individually verified by the voter.
      Exit polls take care of getting the unofficial results. Or at least they have in all elections except the last one...

      Again, if the electronic tallies are not sound, then they are a waste of resources to set up and maintain. There are ways to mess with a paper ballot election, but we should go back to paper-only until Diebold and company are out of the way.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    10. Re:Paper trail is a red herring. by lheal · · Score: 1

      Paper and electronic ballots each have points of weakness. Doing both hedges our bets, since the techniques for messing with them are mostly orhogonal. Having the voter look at his ballot removes any chance for the ballot making machine to skew the results. Counting them both makes it really hard to hide local trickery or incompetence.

      Exit polls are not credible. They rely on people telling a reporter something, and the reporter getting it right. It's more likely, especially in a contested race or a blowout, that only people who think that they will agree with the reporter will talk to one.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  22. Re:Umm by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I thought it might be a way of displaying "active" topics from subjects you hadn't subscribed to in your preferences. Certainly they all seemed to be articles worth skimming to decide if they're worth reading in detail.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  23. "Crackers Challenge Diebold" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is anyone else disturbed by the racist tone of this story?

    1. Re:"Crackers Challenge Diebold" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see any racism in the story at all.
      care to point out the parts you consider to be?

    2. Re:"Crackers Challenge Diebold" by shakah · · Score: 1
      The poster's probably making a joke re the use of crackers:

      "5a) usually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white"

    3. Re:"Crackers Challenge Diebold" by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      The poster's probably making a joke re the use of crackers:
      "5a) usually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white"


      No, the poster wasn't making that joke, but rather the definition of "one who breaks into computer systems."

    4. Re:"Crackers Challenge Diebold" by shakah · · Score: 1
      "Is anyone else disturbed by the racist tone of this story?"
      That's what I was referring to, I'm assuming that's a joke. Seems to me like you've missed the context of this thread.
  24. Someone already is. by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's an organization called the Open Voting Consortium whose mission is "the development, maintenance, and delivery of open voting systems for use in public elections." They are directly opposed to the shenanigans that Diebold has engaged in.

    Problem is, they spend their donations on actually developing the system, not in paying off Congressmen to give them lucrative exclusive contracts. Still, one can hope that it changes someday. (And donate to support the effort...)

    1. Re:Someone already is. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Problem is, they spend their donations on actually developing the system, not in paying off Congressmen to give them lucrative exclusive contracts.

      Why should government listen to an organization that is not part of the government (assuming OVC isn't)? They have their own non-partisan government organization which has been formed using our own rules of democracy and tax money.

      I would feel uneasy about _any_ non-government organization being adopted by the government as your wishes expressed, for fear of political bias within the NGO. You need strict selection of staff by both sides of politics for these types of ultra-sensitive organaizations (voting of all things, talk about politically sensitive!).

    2. Re:Someone already is. by romerom · · Score: 1

      did you read what the OPEN VOTING SYSTEM is all about?? there can be no political bias if the system that we're using to vote with is OPEN SOURCE AND OPEN TO EXAMINATION.. unlike someone like diebold who threatens to pull their voting machines out of states that attempt to examine their source code (north carolina)..

      --
      http://www.awwsheezy.com
  25. Re:Umm by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    Now I just wish the "1 More" counters said "since when"? I read several sections when I realize they update, but sometimes there'll be "3 More" for days, but not always the same 3 articles.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  26. There's one flaw in your argument by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even at full capacity, it would've taken 10-20 years of taking all of Iraq's oil profits (or it may even have been total net sales...) to pay for the initial cost of the war. Iraq's oil fields aren't running anywhere close to full capacity due to initial damage from the war and constant ongoing damage from insurgent activity.

    Note that by "initial cost", I mean the initial 80-100 billion that Bush requested for the war. What's the price tag up to now? 200b? 300b? It's a hell of a lot more. Plus there's the cost of upgrading/rebuilding Iraq's oil production infrastructure.

    If this was about oil, it was a damned stupid financial decision.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:There's one flaw in your argument by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this was about oil, it was a damned stupid financial decision.

      Yep, fucked the country over good and half of the voting public willingly bent over for another reaming too.

      It wasn't about oil - it was about oil infrastructure. Most of the oilfields in Texas are dry (or too expensive to extract from, even at $70/barrell) but what Texas has a lot of are the companies that build rigs, build pipelines, do geo-petrol exploration, etc. Those companies have made a killing since the Iraqi invasion.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re: There's one flaw in your argument by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > If this was about oil, it was a damned stupid financial decision

      Ah, but you neglect the distinction between who is going to pay for it and who was supposed to profit from it.

      The oil companies were supposed to supposed to benefit from it (by means of the distribution contracts rather than by pwning the oilfields per se), but you and your descendents will be paying for the war, yea unto the seventh generation.

      (Saw a news story somewhere this month about a new estimate of the war's total costs to the USA running to the amount of two trillion dollars. Cheney and his cronies won't be picking up the tab; they're already getting tax breaks on their record profits, while the national debt goes ballistic.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re: There's one flaw in your argument by TallMatthew · · Score: 1
      Ah, but you neglect the distinction between who is going to pay for it and who was supposed to profit from it.

      Exactly right. Hussein overthrown, friendly government installed, Haliburton cleans up mess, US military keeps the peace, total cost to US taxpayers astronomical.

      Once the dust clears, friendly government sells drilling rights to US oil companies (you think the Bushes have a piece of one?), who patiently wait for the dust to clear to jump in and make astronomical profits.

      For that kind of money I might consider creating fantastic tales of weapons of "mass destruction", "mushroom clouds," secret Nigerian uranium and the like. These guys belong in jail, all of them. Mothers are losing children so these bastards can get rich.

    4. Re: There's one flaw in your argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tin

      Foil

      Hat

    5. Re:There's one flaw in your argument by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but they didn't pay for the war. Your tax dollars paid for the war. OK they pay taxes as well, but that is only a small part of the total cost.

      They however, will get all the profits.

    6. Re: There's one flaw in your argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Head

      Up

      Ass

    7. Re:There's one flaw in your argument by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the war wasn't about the actual commodity, but how the oil was being traded. Saddam was, apparently, going to start trading oil in euros instead of dollars. The petrodollars are essential for the US's economy, and if the world (or even some big players) started using euros instead of dollars for trading, then the US gets a massive hit. As Iran is now calling to trade in euros, the war is seeming more likely. Oil is still pretty much everywhere - the more immediate danger is the currency. If the dollar is devalued even more, the US is fucked.

    8. Re:There's one flaw in your argument by doormat · · Score: 1

      If this was about oil, it was a damned stupid financial decision.

      Not if you're a Saudi oil barron (oh, and who is the Bush family friends with?). You've seen your product more than double in price for no real increase in the cost of actually getting it out of the ground.

      The UAE has so much oil and natural gas money they're building an underwater hotel.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    9. Re: There's one flaw in your argument by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      (by means of the distribution contracts rather than by pwning the oilfields per se)

      Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one to have spotted that. I was beginning to think I was alone.

      Too many people think we're there to "steal the oil." No, we're there to steal the oil development contracts (that, before the war, were exlusively under control of French and Russian companies--with U.S. companies shut out by the sanctions and Hussein's hostility). Iraq, after all, sits on one of the most underdeveloped oil reserves in the world--worth countless billions to companies that can develop them to their full capacity.

      So not only does Bush get to offer a huge development boon to his and Cheney's oil-buddies back in Houston, but he also gets a great excuse to funnel taxpayer money to some of his biggest campaign contributers at Halliburton and Bechtel with HUGE no-bid contracts for reconstructing what we had torn apart.

      And, best of all, since it all goes on the national credit card with no sacrifice asked of the current generation--Americans don't even give a shit! Hell, people actually PRAISE him for it! Talk about the perfect scam!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  27. Re:Umm by coolgeek · · Score: 1

    It's since you last looked at that section.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  28. Re:Umm by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, it's just more, half-baked UI ideas from programmers who couldn't design a GUI to interact a way out of a paper bag.

  29. You can always use paper ballots! by Bobzibub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Canada's national election happens to be tomorrow.....

    "All votes are made on the same standard heavy paper ballot which is inserted in a standard cardboard box, furnished by Elections Canada. The ballot and the box are devised to ensure that no one except the elector knows the individual choice that was made. Counting the ballots is done by hand in full view of the representatives of each candidate. There are no mechanical, electrical or electronic systems involved in this process."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_sy stem#Non-partisan_election_officers

    Scandalous!

    Cheers,
    -b

    1. Re:You can always use paper ballots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      One big difference between Canadian and US elections: in Canada (in the federal election at least) you're only voting for a candidate for Member of Parliament (MP). In the US (depending on the year) you have: Congressperson, Senator, President plus the possibilty of all kinds of ballot initiatives (plus other stuff that I may have forgotten/don't know about). Makes counting the ballots by hand a much longer process...

      Jack.

  30. It's the news that isn't. by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 1

    Electronic voting machines and their makers never fail to amaze me. I mean, voting's a big deal, right? Elections are supposed to be honest, the results are supposed to be untampered, and we're supposed to come out with a real winner chosen by the people, no matter who we're electing for what position. Voting is practically the backbone of our democracy, and one of the most influential ways that we can speak out in our towns and in our country... And yet, for some reason, most if not all voting machines appear to be almost designed to be hacked, if they aren't defective outright.

    Here in my own county, residents are very concerned about the coming elections that will be held here for county positions. Electronic voting machines will be deployed widely - I don't believe they're Diebold's, but that's not the point - and elected officials have already been cited as asking their associates off the record to find ways to crack these machines. I shit you not. The story has been mostly swept under the rug, but somehow I don't think that these guys are out to stress test these machines, given the far from spotless reputation of Madison County's upper management. The machines in question leave no paper trail whatsoever, and are practically a mirror image of Diebold's machines in functionality and security. In other words, they're fancy piles of electronic garbage designed to produce the same.

    This bothers me a great deal. It really makes me just want to stick with old fashioned paper voting, or simply drive the point home by defacing one of these boxes on election day with a third-rate off the shelf hack. Preferrably both, if possible. It's ironic that the single greatest threat to the advancement of society today is the advancement of high technology. Broken tech and rigged voting machines threaten our democratic process, while robust surveillance threatens our privacy and freedom, and yet people just eat this stuff up. It's sick. Not to say that the advancement of technology is evil, but in some cases it's application would appear to be extremely counterproductive to our society and the preservation of the basic values of our country...

    1. Re:It's the news that isn't. by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      I agree that the machines are flawed - however a minor correction. The machines don't threaten anything. It's the criminals who attempt to hack them who threaten the democratic process. The same criminals that used to see to it that dead people voted every year now just have an easier and more sure way to rig the election. That's not the machine threatening anything. If people were honest, these machines would be fine. Since people are not honest, people threaten the system.

    2. Re:It's the news that isn't. by Cognitive+Dissident · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason for this is more than 'apathy', it's active suppression. The major news outlets that aren't actually controlled by the same people who are behind Diebold and its ilk are intimidated by the constant barrage of 'media bias' attacks from the segment of the media that is allied with Diebold & Co. There is a perfectly good book that documents the theft of our last several elections by Mark Crispin Miller, just published a few months ago. But he can't get PBS or NPR (specifically WHYY) to let him appear and promote it. I have submitted stories on this but only get rejected. Can anyone figure how to get this information about censorship onto the main page of slashdot?

      Mark Crispin Miller's Blog

      The story on his blog noting Joe Bageant's recent essay on his inability to get airtime on WHYY's "Fresh Air"

      Joe Bageant is a journalist and recently a very popular blogger of the plight of the 'redneck' culture in the neo-con political machine. His most recent essay is specifically about the refusal of WHYY to allow Mark Crispin Miller to appear on Fresh Air or otherwise promote his book -- Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One, Too (Unless We Stop Them) He hits tha nail on the head:

      It is safe to say that WHYY and the rest of the public media gang are simply scared to death of uttering the book's title on the airwaves. They know that the neocons will jump up all over their asses claiming liberal bias. Maybe even launch one of their infamous letter writing campaigns. The Republican game plan of unrelenting bullshit, that steady grinding away day in day out -- it works. They have managed to wear down those media they don't already control from the top, make them either doubt themselves or make them damned afraid of repercussions. We can well imagine what the GOP assault on public radio and television has created around places like WHYY. Hell, if they can get Bill Moyers they can get anybody. Right?

      It's censorship by intimidation. Large numbers of people are never going to hear about htis book because they don't search Amazon.com for new books about election fraud or by Mark Crispin Miller on a regular basis. They rely on the mass media to keep them informed, and it isn't working anymore. I also agree with his suggestion to contact WHYY directly and let them know that their fear of 'conservatives' reactions will attract the wrath of lots of 'liberals' whom they depend on for their funding at least as much as corporations or the government:

      By the way, if you wanna give WHYY hell personally, the phone number is (215) 351-1200. Email is talkback@whyy.org

  31. My personal experiences with Saudis by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Redundant

    You said, "The bin Laden family is HUGE, with a large number of brothers, of which Osama is a black sheep who has hardly had any contact with anyone."

    I have personal experiences that influence my opinions concerning this. For several years I would go to a gym at night and work out, perhaps 2 or 3 times a week, for at least an hour and a half and often 3 hours.

    I met sons of very wealthy Saudi families at the gym. Working out is very boring, and people sometimes take a break and talk. Often we would have extensive conversations. This was long before 9/11/2001. I wasn't involved with a woman friend at the time, and the Saudis, who had been sent by their families to study at the university here, were never very well accepted in the U.S. culture. So, we both had plenty of time to talk. I talked with other gym regulars, of course, not just Saudis. (I've never known anyone with the name bin Laden.)

    It is true that Osama bin Laden is just one of 53 children of his father, and the only one who is publicly a terrorist. However at the gym I developed a sense of how Saudis feel, although they were always polite and, being Arabs, never stated their feelings in a completely open way.

    My sense is that Arabs don't like to see other Arabs killed. The U.S. government has been in the business of killing, or paying to kill, Arabs for decades. Remember, that is one of Osama bin Laden's major complaints. (The other is that he didn't like U.S. government weapons in Saudi Arabia.) Most U.S. citizens have very little awareness of the violent actions of their government, I've discovered, and would be surprised to learn how much of their money has gone to kill Arabs, or help kill Arabs, even long before the first U.S. government-Iraq war.

    I never met a Saudi who was anti-American. Obviously, if they existed, I probably wouldn't. However, it seemed that Saudis were often against the habitually violent policies of the U.S. government.

    Remember, 15 of the 19 people who attacked on 9/11 were Saudis. Although the U.S. media often tries to trivialize this fact, those Saudis gave their lives for their beliefs.

    The Bush family believes they are friends with Saudis, particularly the man who calls himself Prince Bandar, and whom the Bush family calls "Bandar Bush". For reasons too complicated for a Slashdot comment, it is extremely unlikely that Bandar likes George W. Bush, or even George H.W. Bush. In spite of the fact that Bandar acts friendly with the Bush family, and holds hands with George W. Bush while being filmed by national media, I think that Bandar is not actually deeply friendly. He is only pretending to be friendly to advance his own agenda, a tactic that has worked extremely well.

    The point of this is that Saudis often have feelings which seem sensible to them but which may seem unreasonable to U.S. citizens. Several members of bin Laden's family, not just Osama, gave money to causes that they considered pro-Arab. Those causes were sometimes anti-U.S. government. In general, people who seem to know about these things have said that there has been considerable sympathy inside the bin Laden family for Osama's actions.

    I'm resolutely against violence. I'm resolutely against any government acting in secret. I love the United States intensely. However, I recognize that many people will agree with the sick logic that says that, if the U.S. government kills Arabs, Arabs can attack the United States.

  32. Old news by plsuh · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's really amazing/frightening to me is how long it has taken for the mainstream media to pick this up. The tests done by Harri Hursti for Leon County were conducted and reported back on December 13th, 2005! The Post waited until a slow news day over a month later to report on it. Since then, there's been a whole slew of additional activity on the voting machines front. For more details, see the original blackboxvoting.org article.

    --Paul

    Disclaimers: I have been working with the good folks at TrueVoteMD.org to get the d*mned things banned in Maryland, my home state; I'm also a plaintiff in a lawsuit in Maryland that seeks to force the Maryland State Board of Elections to follow exsting state law and get rid of them.

    1. Re:Old news by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      Keep it up! I tried to complain about e-voting in Frederick Co. during the 2004 election. I got a patronizing smile for my efforts.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  33. Security through Obscurity by yroJJory · · Score: 1

    What Sancho did "is analogous to if I gave you the keys to my house and told you when I was gone," said David Bear, a Diebold spokesman. As Bear sees it, Sancho's experiment involved giving hackers "complete unfettered access" to the equipment, something a responsible elections administrator would never allow.

    So, they're saying that a hacker without physical access would never have been able to get in and that it was only because they were allowed to touch the physical unit that they could make it do such things. That's great security. I guess we shouldn't worry about all those military computers tucked away in heavily-guarded military bases. Since no hacker could ever gain physical access to the boxes, they're totally secure!!

    --
    Jory
  34. Re:The "Bush" family is the most corrupt ever. by damian+cosmas · · Score: 2, Funny

    I agree completely. Take, for example, the manner in which Joseph P. "Bush" made millions from insider trading and stockpiling of liquor during prohibition, supported appeasement of Nazi Germany, and stuck a deal with Joe McCarthy to help his son's senate campaign.

    Then there's the way that John F. "Bush," after a Senate career buillt upon the tacit support of Joe McCarthy, was elected--without a majority of the popular vote--President in 1960, despite allegations of voter fraud in Texas and Richard Daley's Chicago. After delivering an inaugural speech plaigarized from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ("...it is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for the country in return."), he made several attempts to assassinate the president of Cuba, began US involvement in Vietnam, and, after repeated humiliations by Nikita Khrushchev, allowed construction of the Berlin Wall.

    His younger brother, Edward M. "Bush," got drunk one night and drove his car into the sea, leaving a female passenger to drown, and promptly calling his lawyer, then going home for the night, leaving the submerged car undiscovered until the next morning.

    Ted's nephew, William "Bush" Smith, had a medical career plagued by allegations of rape and sexual harrassment, including several lawsuits settled out-of-court.

    Replace "Bush" with "Kennedy," and I agree with your assessment. Unprecedented corruption? Hardly.

  35. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the new gray-bar format disables it so it's really a moot point, but it's most definitely not since I last looked at the section. I thought it might have been "in the past 24 hours" but there were days where the games section would have like "26 more" and maybe 10 were stories posted in the last day. The numbers didn't match "since the last time a story made it to the front page" either.

  36. Right... by supersocialist · · Score: 1

    ...and then they'll give you a flying pony for being a good citizen.

  37. Re:The "Bush" family is the most corrupt ever. by Oswald · · Score: 1

    This was a work of art until the last paragraph. Try not to diminish your impact by overexplaining. Thanks for a great post, anyway.

  38. Manipulation Preferred . .. by Dausha · · Score: 0, Troll

    But, Democrats will prefer Diebold machines now. I mean, if they can easily go in and alter the results, they have a better chance at stealing more elections and "taking back the majority."

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Manipulation Preferred . .. by comm3c · · Score: 1

      Hell, if your enemy is playing that game, better to play it back. If someone was stealing my shit, I'd start breaking into their house too.

    2. Re:Manipulation Preferred . .. by Itanshi · · Score: 1

      So we are voting for the best hacker? .;;

  39. The 21th century dictatorships factory by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    In the 20th century, dictators managed to get elected thanks to their understanding of the full power of radio or television. In this new century, the wide adoption of riggable and unaccountable election systems will become the tool of choice for all dictators wannabes.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  40. Re:Umm by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    Yes. I got here through a grey bar link. I agree it sucks, the whole thing looks like some articles are randomly reduced to such mini-announcements.
    Now going and looking for an option tou switch them off...

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  41. Re:The "Bush" family is the most corrupt ever. by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's something eerie about a man named "Oswald" replying to the post above...

    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  42. Why paper ballots don't work in the US by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    In all fairness, you could use paper ballots in the New England states, which don't vote for all that much. You might only vote for 5 offices in any given year.

    In 2004, here in Columbus (Franklin County, Ohio) we voted for 57 different offices, judgeships, city/county/state initiatives and referenda. If you multiply that out by the 590,000 votes cast, then you see why electronic balloting is a necessity.

    1. Re:Why paper ballots don't work in the US by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      If you multiply that out by the 590,000 votes cast, then you see why electronic balloting is a necessity.
       
      Actually, I fail to see that.
       
      If it's worth the effort to set up a vote for these offices, then is it not worth the effort to insure that the votes are accurately recorded and correctly counted?
       
      "It's takes too long to count the ballots" is not a valid answer.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    2. Re:Why paper ballots don't work in the US by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      "It's takes too long to count the ballots" is not a valid answer.

      I actually agree. (I for one don't care if we don't know the election results for a few weeks.)

      I've done pollworking in Franklin County and have an idea what we would do if we had regular paper ballots. The process of counting ballots becomes exponentially more complex with the higher quantity of offices. Under 10 offices is fine, but after that it just gets bizarre.

      Hypothetically, the 4 precinct officials would count all the ballots (of which there might be as many as 3000 cast.) I think that at those numbers accuracy is thrown out the window.

      Paper based ballots with optical scan isn't a bad compromise.

    3. Re:Why paper ballots don't work in the US by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      Paper based ballots with optical scan isn't a bad compromise.

      Especially since they provide an authoritative, physical record of the voter's original intent. Paper receipts are not good enough because they do not necessarily reflect original intent. What good is a paper receipt from a computer after voting for 50+ offices/ballot measures? Will people remember all the choices they made?

      --
      Serve Gonk.
  43. Re:Umm by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's retarded. I almost missed this article, then thought... wtf is that? Is Slashdot rendering pages wrong in Firefox again?

  44. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have a problem with the presentation. But I want to know why it's attached to the Disney/Pixar deal story. It implies that there's a connection.

    What, is Jobs going to buy Diebold and give us iVote, and leverage the Mickey Mouse property to promote it? "Heeeey kids! Tell your parents to vote - they can do it on their iPods now! Hee hee!"

  45. Fer sure... by $ASANY · · Score: 1
    I would have liked it if instead of saying "here's how you do it" you said "here's how I did it."

    I worked with a guy a few years ago that got wrapped up in this, um, er, philosophy. He actually got the HR department for a fortune-500 company to stop witholding social security from his paycheck on the basis of a poor reproduction of a letter on congressional letterhead from a Congressman with these unique ideas. About 9 months later, he gets word from HR that not only are they resuming witholding, but complying with a garnishment order to recoup not only the witholdings in default, but penalties and interest as well. If HR hadn't ended up looking like complete idiots in this case, I'm pretty sure they would have let him go, but I'm sure the embarrasment on their part tied their hands.

    Lo and behold, he's dismissed about a year later. Last I heard he was serving time for trying to meet with a supposedly 14 year old he met on the internet who had in fact been an undercover police officer in a chatroom. Wish I could get you to talk to him, but I'm sure he can't take phone calls these days...

  46. How many Iraqis did Joe Kennedy torture? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    A Brazilian was telling me that Lula, the president of Brazil, is corrupt. I asked him, "How many innocent civilians did Lula kill?

    1. Re:How many Iraqis did Joe Kennedy torture? by damian+cosmas · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that you saw fit to drag out that tired old chestnut, since the IBC is disingenuous at best, by placing the blame for deaths caused by IEDs and homicide bombers on the US. However, the UN estimated one million casualties in Iraq from famine during the period of 1990-1999. At 100k deaths per annum, it would seem that Bush's action--ending the embargo and deposing Hussein--has significantly decreased the rate of civilian casualties in Iraq.

      Considering Joe Kennedy's complicity in the appeasement at Munich, I could just as easily say that he's personally responsible for the death of about six million Jews. But that would be absurd to the point of stupidity, and would have no place in an intelligent and enlightened discussion such as this one.

    2. Re:How many Iraqis did Joe Kennedy torture? by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Dude don't both even replying to people who purposely confuse intentional targetting of civilians with those poor iraqis who died as of the result of the US Army. The US Army has not and never will target civilians (and will charge any employees found guilty of so). There is a world of difference between the two concepts.

    3. Re:How many Iraqis did Joe Kennedy torture? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      "The US Army has not and never will target civilians (and will charge any employees found guilty of so)."
      "Dude", your faith is touching. I could list some cases for you, but it would have been beside the point, because I don't know a single government that was so saintly that it didn't behave like this in times of pr-crisis:

      1. cover up.
      2. ignore.
      3. deny.
      4. The cooling period. It's hard for anyone to sustain public outrage for a long time. If the outrage is gone, pretend it never happened.
      5. If you must face the accusations, use a lot of time to run a very poor investigation.
      6. If that won't work, find scapegoat far down in the chain of command, and focus on their immorality.
      7. In the rare case even this is not possible (Think A. Sharon and the Phalangists), make the sentence as light as possible, preferrably symbolic.

      How far a goverment gets down this chain depends on a lot of issues, like how easy it is to divert people's attention, how hard it is to control/manipulate media, and how far the public is willing to go to keep their beliefs about their leaders (and, by extension, themselves).

      The cooling-off/distraction period is especially interesting to view in the US (note, I don't believe other governments are much better). There have been a lot of scandals, like most recently the president admitting to illegal wiretapping, but it seems to me they have sort of dribbled out, from one newspaper to the next, when I suspect that had the exact same issue been on all headlines at the same time, he could have faced impeachment. As it is, it seems he gets away with not talking about it.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:How many Iraqis did Joe Kennedy torture? by Mo+Bedda · · Score: 1

      Neither study seems like a good measure of the rate of civilian casualties. The iraqbodycount.org site seems to be tracking Iraqi civilian deaths due to violence during the war. The U.N. study is trying to estimate the impact of the sanctions, including things like starvation and lack of medical care. Is anyone even counting those types of deaths at the moment?

      The war brought an interruption and general degradation of basic services. Ending the embargo has helped things in some areas, but the lack of security, unreliability of basic services, and high unemployment may well offset it with regard to the actual "rate of civilian casualties in Iraq." Iraqbodycount.org certainly does not seem to be factoring in starvation or any increase in mortality rates due to lack of basic services. Your defense of Bush seems to be based on a faulty comparison.

      There are a lot of similarities between the Kennedy family and the Bush family. Do their sins really just cancel each other out? Does the fact that half of the criminals call themselves Democrats while the other half call themselves Republican really make it O.K. that the country is being run by criminals?

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Read this for an explanation of the oil/cash thing by mr_tenor · · Score: 1
  49. Re:Umm by shadowone · · Score: 1

    Not just firefox.. konqueror too

  50. What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
    A team managed to manipulate the results of a mock election. Using the old systems - punch cards, voting machines with paper tape, all the old systems this same thing has been done for decades. In Maryland they have had the "late" returns, where the dead were voting to put behind Parris Glendenning over the top and steal the election from Saurbrey (she is now an ambassador). We also now know that Nixon won the election in 1960, not Kennedy. Lots of examples of this.

    What they really need is a secure voting system. One that requires positive identification of the voters, cross checking to make sure they only vote once, a paper trail - with incremental checksums. They can do it with lottery tickets, why not with voting? Purple dye people's thumbs too.

    The only real question is - is the Diebold system more secure than what we had, which was very insecure and subject to known corruption? I think we all know we are not there yet to a secure system. One that ensures that even the stupid can cast a vote.

    1. Re:What is old is new again by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      We also now know that Nixon won the election in 1960, not Kennedy.

      Cite your sources, and you'll gain credibility.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    2. Re:What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      Cite your sources, and you'll gain credibility.

      I thought everyone knows about this. National Public Radio (NPR) is the source (amoung many), they even had one of the guys on the air that fixed the election in West Virgnia. He told how they fixed the election in Chicago (Mayor Daily is famous for this - "Vote early and vote often.") as well. They story seems to be offline now. Maybe if there is enough interest they will bring it back.

      Even so, it has been generally accepted that Nixon won the election anyhow (very close election). He conceeded and let Kennedy have it without even going to court nor did he whine about it. Of course who knows what would have happened if Nixon got in instead of Kennedy. Well besides no Watergate (Nixon bad) and no Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson bad).

    3. Re:What is old is new again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In Maryland they have had the "late" returns, where the dead were voting to put behind Parris Glendenning over the top and steal the election from Saurbrey (she is now an ambassador).

      No. A handful a fraudulent votes were found in the first Glendening/Sauerbrey contest, but not enough to matter.

      Sauerbrey was an underdog who ran a (from a stickly political-game perspective) very strong campain and almost, but not quite, caught up to Glendening. (Registered Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Maryland, so it was pretty much his race to lose.)

      Her allegations of fraud proved baseless, and damaged her image enormously. (I'm not saying there weren't irregularities, only that they weren't significant to the final outcome.) In 1998 the Maryland GOP was silly enough to make her their candidate again and she got defeated again.

      (For the record, I didn't vote for either of them either time.)

      What they really need is a secure voting system. One that requires positive identification of the voters, cross checking to make sure they only vote once, a paper trail - with incremental checksums.

      The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.

      I don't understand your reference to checksums.

      Purple dye people's thumbs too.

      It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      Her allegations of fraud proved baseless, and damaged her image enormously. (I'm not saying there weren't irregularities, only that they weren't significant to the final outcome.)

      It was dismissed by a Democratic judge who even tried to make himself look better by saying he voted for Saurbrey (He later admitted that he didn't). Indeed they proved that dead people did vote in that election and clearly fraud had been comitted in those heavily Dem areas. Fraud that was so easy to do that ANY idiot could do it under the old punch card system that was used at the time. If the lawsuit had proceeded a lot of people believe Saurbrey would have been declared the winner. Justice denied. Maybe I should have brought up Washington State's clear violation of law - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-06 -washington-governor_x.htm ? They stole that election and everyone knows it. The "late" and felon vote again. Plenty of examples of this throughout the country. Dead people shouldn't vote!

      The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.

      The whole thrust of the original /. article is that we need more security. Maybe you are criticizing the original article? Elections need to have integrity or what good are they? Allowing someone to win through fraud is a really bad thing and you should be very opposed to that. Do you want people comitting fraud? They will if they think they can get away with it. Feel free to suggest your own method of one man, one vote. Also keep in mind that most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age. If you get arrested for something, you could spend a long time in jail until they figure out who you are. Thought I would mention it since a lot of people don't know that.

      I don't understand your reference to checksums.

      A method to authenticate a piece of paper loosely called a checksum. It is not really a checksum, something to ensure it is one vote, authentic and not a copy. Otherwise we could have a situation whereby people are making copies of votes. Just hit 100 copy and viola! 100 more votes the way you want them. The point I wanted to make is that they can absolutely ensure that a receipt or a paper log is authentic. It can also be done inexpensively. Expense is an issue for many jurisdictions. Especially after blowing so much money on the last systems of questionable integrity. Ideally I would like to not hear whining after the next election from the looser, whoever that is. Right now we can discuss that very well since we have no idea on either side who will be running. Just vote for the better man, or woman as the case may be regardless of party.

      It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.

      Funny, this hasn't been an issue even in Iraq or Afghanistan where voting could get you killed. In fact they display it proudly. Maybe you are insecure? Afraid of the man? It doesn't show how you voted, just the fact that you did. Here in the US I have more respect for those who actually do vote. Too many complain a lot and never vote. In fact many people weren't even registered and to fix that they had the motor-voter law in most states. Of course you don't have to vote if you don't want to. I don't understand why you are concerned, they even show people who voted on TV. It is even a matter of public record, along with information on your house, marriage and other information. Maybe you don't know how exposed you already are?

    5. Re:What is old is new again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Indeed they proved that dead people did vote in that election and clearly fraud had been comitted in those heavily Dem areas.

      There were incidents of fraud but they were not significant. Several of the alleged "dead" voters turned out to be not just alive, but to have voted for Sauerbrey. An FBI investigation turned up no sustaining evidence of significant fraud.

      Maybe I should have brought up Washington State's clear violation of law

      I don't claim to be familiar with that case, but did you read the article you linked to? "The judge found that the Republicans failed to prove that Gregoire received one illegal vote among those improperly cast. In fact, he said, the only "clear and convincing" evidence he saw was the statements of four felons who said they voted for Rossi and one who said he cast a ballot for a Libertarian candidate."

      Also keep in mind that most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age

      I do not believe that to be true. Cite, please. A qucik LexisNexis search of Maryland law turns up nothing relevant.

      It is not really a checksum, something to ensure it is one vote, authentic and not a copy.

      I think the word you're looking for is "watermark."

      Ideally I would like to not hear whining after the next election from the looser, whoever that is.

      Casting votes on watermarked paper does very little to help with that. The problems are seeing that only people permitted to vote are allowed to vote, and coversely that everyone permitted to vote is allowed to vote. You can have the voters etch their ballots into special platinum-iridium tablets under the watchful eyes of the Dali Lama and the Pope, but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether the guy doing the etching is authorized to vote or not, or of denying access to people who are authorized.

      Maybe you are insecure? Afraid of the man? It doesn't show how you voted, just the fact that you did. Here in the US I have more respect for those who actually do vote.

      I choose to tell people that I voted; heck, I choose to tell them who I voted for and why they should vote the same way. :-) That doesn't mean that such disclosure should be forced. With such a marker it would be very easy to cruise a neighborhood full of "undesirable" ethnic/socioeconomic types and beat the hell out of any of them that dared to vote.

      It is even a matter of public record, along with information on your house, marriage and other information.

      Voter registration is a matter of public record. Whether you go to the polls or not is, AFAIK, not, and should not be.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      ...An FBI investigation turned up no sustaining evidence of significant fraud.

      That was in the original article. The Post chose to print what they wanted to, not what was testified to in court. There were plenty of people who really were dead that supposedly voted. Also look at how it was worded - no sustaining evidence - meaning they can't prove it. As I said, the punch card system that they used is extreamly easy to corrupt, so easy ANY idiot could do it. Say you look at the voter register after the fact and see Jane Doe of 123 Any St. is checked off and the cross reference shows she died last year. Ok, who did it and can you show the same person did it more than once or a pattern? Good luck. How about the 100% turnout? Do you believe that one? If you do, I have some swamp land to sell you.

      In fact, he said, the only "clear and convincing" evidence he saw...

      He also said "Unless an election is clearly invalid" making a very high threashold indeed. Translation - he wants it to be so clear that any idiot would understand the election was stolen. His other statements were there to try to justify it and excuse himself. Otherwise he might find himself featured in Michael Moore's next "documentary" (and he says it with a strait face too) flick.

      ...A qucik LexisNexis search of Maryland law turns up nothing relevant

      Your not typing in the right stuff then. This is where law is a bitch because law can be more than what is written in the annotated code (i.e. why you need a competent lawyer). If you get stopped on a corner by a cop you had better be able to identify yourself positively or they may take you in. There is a lot of case law to back that up. They also stress this to high school students. Do you think I'm a paralegal or something? Well here is some law since you seem to need some help (with no more than free - google):

      Current Law: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, a 1968 Supreme Court case, gave police the right to temporarily detain someone if there are specific facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a crime might be occurring (reasonable suspicion). It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime the officer thinks is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. Police officers are free to ask persons for identification without violating their rights under the Fourth Amendment.

      Background: The Supreme Court has held in several cases that officers may request identification in Terry stop situations; the Court's most recent decision came in a June 2004 case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County. Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving an assault. Nevada's "stop and identify" statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that "[T]he request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures." Twenty states currently have "stop and identify" statutes: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

      My advice as a friend, non-lawyer (after all, I'm not getting paid for any of this)- have some ID on you. By the way, Maryland has a bill for this right now - HB 578. However it seems clear from the 1968 ruling that they can do it right now anyway. As it would apply to voting - they could suspect that voters are comitting fraud and therefore an ID is necessary. Don't wor

    7. Re:What is old is new again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      If you get stopped on a corner by a cop you had better be able to identify yourself positively or they may take you in.

      They can take me in, in the sense that they have more guns than I do; cops do whatever they can get away with. They may take me in, in the sense of following the law, if and only if they have specific and articulable facts supporting probable cause to believe that I've been involved in a crime. Not having a photo id on me is not grounds for such suspicion.

      Now, if there is some misunderstanding, and Officer Friendly has cause to beleive that I've commited a crime because someone described the perp as a guy named J. Random Badguy who vaugely resembles a hippie version of Tom Cruise, is it useful for me to have some id on me to prove that while I fit the physical description, I'm not the guy they're looking for? Sure. Is it legally required that I have such id on me? No. I wasn't breaking any law when I went jogging yesterday and left my wallet home. If such a case of mistaken identity had arisen during my brief jog, yes, I could legally have been arrested - for suspicion of the crime that J. Random Badguy commited, not because I have violated some law mandating that I carry id with me.

      the Court's most recent decision came in a June 2004 case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County. Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving an assault.

      While the Hiibel decision was yet another example that literacy and rationality are not prerequisites for sitting on the Supreme Court, the case is not relevant to this question. Hiibel was asked to identify himself - "What's your name?" - not to produce identity papers. There is a sharp difference between empowering cops to arrest you for not giving them your name, and for empowering cops to arrest you for not carrying ID papers.

      Again, I ask you to cite a law requiring a United States citizen to carry photo id; or please retract your earlier claim that such laws exist.

      By the way, Maryland has a bill for this right now - HB 578.

      This bill was (thankfully) defeated. But it applied to the "what's your name" questioning, not the demand for identity papers.

      After all, we all know that drinking is far more important than voting (as if). Drinking effects you for the next say 8 hours, voting can affect your life and livelyhood. The next 8 hours are more important it seems. Maybe I make my point on how short sighted and backwards this is?

      It's exactly because voting is more important than buying a beer that we cannot restrict it to those possessing driver's licences, or who can take the time and pay the money to go get a non-driver's ID or a passport. These can be substatial hurdles for the rural poor; people who don't have a birth certificate may find it very difficult to obtain such documents.

      Unless obtaining photo id becomes as easy for everyone as voter registration - and I can't see how that's possible - requiring such id runs smack into the equal protection mandate.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      While the Hiibel decision was yet another example that literacy and rationality are not prerequisites for sitting on the Supreme Court,

      That is the most absurd statement you have made and you have lost a lot of respect as a result. Clearly every one of them is literate, very literate. If they were not literate they obviously would not be there this day in age, they surely would have been voted down on confirmation. Rationality is a more subjective quality. I used to think they weren't rational at times either until I read the cases. Then it became clear that they generally do a very good job and their decisions are very well thought out even if I don't agree with it. The biggest problem right now on the court is O'Connor. Not because she is right, left, center, etc., it is because she tries very hard to answer the minimum question often leaving more questions than she answers. Another problem is that they don't have to take cases if they don't want to and for say the 2nd amendment they haven't heard a case in a very long time.

      Again, I ask you to cite a law requiring a United States citizen to carry photo id; or please retract your earlier claim that such laws exist.

      Why don't you simply admit I'm right? I showed you. Along with that question of who you are (which you have no choice but to admit such laws exist in those states, because they do), the very next thing that cop will say to you is "Let's see some ID." Otherwise it is meaningless - I could say I'm one of (Benedict Arnold, John Gacy, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Bill Gates), or some other made up name (John Jobs, Jack Sky). No ID, your probably going to end up taking a trip (ala the 1968 law I cited). I think you should conceed that the Terry stop laws are effectively what I said. Here is another scenario - an INS agent stops you and wants to deport you. Good luck if you don't have some form of US photo ID. Maybe we could say it also depends on your ethnicity as well? If not, go ahead and not carry a photo ID then. See if I care. Don't get upset if something bad happens to you. I won't conceed that I'm wrong and you shouldn't expect me to. Even the best lawyers in the country disagree on the law. That is why we have courts. Even courts make wrong legal decisions - the reason for appelate courts and so on. Ever listen to a Supreme Court case? Often I think both sides have a darn good argument and yet they both can't be right.

      It's exactly because voting is more important than buying a beer that we cannot restrict it to those possessing driver's licences, or who can take the time and pay the money to go get a non-driver's ID or a passport. These can be substatial hurdles for the rural poor; people who don't have a birth certificate may find it very difficult to obtain such documents.

      ??? You conceed it is more important than beer and yet you don't require at least that much security? Do you work for the ACLU or something? Stop it already with the propaganda. You don't really believe that, do you? The "poor" is already required to have such documents for assistance - food stamps and the like. I have worked with the poorest of the poor for over 10 years and I have NEVER found one single solitary poor person that didn't have a photo ID. I did come across a rich woman that didn't. It was no big deal to fix it, even though her birth records had been destroyed in a church fire (churches usually held birth records back then). I'm sure there is a sob story with a poor person out there someplace, however I'm sure it is a very uncommon case.

      Unless obtaining photo id becomes as easy for everyone as voter registration - and I can't see how that's possible - requiring such id runs smack into the equal protection mandate.

      I have yet to see a good argument as to how getting an ID is somehow hard. It is a myth. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc, they all can get and ID, there isn't even a reading test. I don't see how this could possibly have anything to do with the equal protection mandate.

    9. Re:What is old is new again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Clearly every one of them is literate, very literate.

      Except, apparently, when it comes to the Constitution of the United States...

      Why don't you simply admit I'm right? I showed you.

      No, you haven't. No citation of a law such as you describe has yet been provided.

      Along with that question of who you are (which you have no choice but to admit such laws exist in those states, because they do), the very next thing that cop will say to you is "Let's see some ID."

      Yes, they will. That doesn't mean that it is a crime to not have any such ID on you. That was your claim: "most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age". I'm asking you again to substantiate it: name the state and the statute. (California once had one, it was struck down by Kolender v. Lawson.)

      I've already stipulated that having and showing an ID can be a useful means of removing any reasonable suspicion. That does not mean that your claim, that it is unlawful to fail to carry such ID, is true. (After all, it would also be a useful means of removing reasonable suspicion to have a tattoo on my face so that I can't easily be confused with someone else.)

      I think you should conceed that the Terry stop laws are effectively what I said.

      So your arguement is that "stop and identify" laws, which require people to state their name to cops, somehow make it a crime to not carry photo id? No.

      The Hiibel opinion states, "The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop", not "require a suspect to produce identity papers." It also says, "As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs."

      Requiring to see my papers is a search under the text of the Fourth Amendment - "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". A Terry stop is not a warranted search, but a mere "frisk".

      Again, I stipulate that concenting to such a search - showing papers - may be in some circumstances a wise means of removing suspicion and preventing arrest for some other crime, but that does not mean that choosing to not carry or display such papers is a crime in itself, as you assert.

      Otherwise it is meaningless - I could say I'm one of (Benedict Arnold, John Gacy, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Bill Gates), or some other made up name (John Jobs, Jack Sky).

      Or I could be carrying an easily obtained fake id. So what? Both lying to the cops and showing fake id are crimes. Leaving my wallet at home while I go walk the dog is not.

      Even the best lawyers in the country disagree on the law. That is why we have courts.

      Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.

      I have worked with the poorest of the poor for over 10 years and I have NEVER found one single solitary poor person that didn't have a photo ID...I have yet to see a good argument as to how getting an ID is somehow hard. It is a myth.

      It is a fact that thousands of people in Georgia do not have government-issued identification. And they are hard to

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      Clearly every one of them is literate, very literate. Except, apparently, when it comes to the Constitution of the United States...

      Oh, so now you think you know more than they do. Please do tell, where have you been a judge and what are your credentials. You have a good line of legal thinking in what you wrote, this makes you look bad. It is an easy way for people to dismiss you or think something worse. I can tell you that fighting them won't work.

      Again, I stipulate that concenting to such a search - showing papers - may be in some circumstances a wise means of removing suspicion and preventing arrest for some other crime, but that does not mean that choosing to not carry or display such papers is a crime in itself, as you assert.

      Maybe you missed the part where I said that law is more than what is written? No, it isn't a crime as far as I know in any of the annotated codes nor the USC with certain exceptions.

      Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.

      Yea, that is what we have here.

      It is a fact that thousands of people in Georgia do not have government-issued identification. And they are hard to get in a state where fewer than 60 of 159 counties have DMV offices. Making someone take a day off to go to the next county over to pay for a photo id is indeed a significant obstacle for many people. It's a 21st century poll tax, a clear attempt by Repubs to disenfranchise poor voters.

      I looked at the WP article... That is funny. It is a propanda article that is not typical of the Post. Where did they show these "thousands"? It says thousands voted without an ID, I voted without showing an ID too and I have one. Written to mislead. 17 forms of ID including mail, something to legitimize that individual is hardly a poll tax. Other key words to race bait it - Jim Crow. So they weren't even requiring a photo id. Simply something, anything with your name on it - paycheck, utility bill, etc.. Again, why are you denying me my equal protection under the law from those that want to vote more than once and those that are not even citizens? Are you that concerned that Democrats will be voted out en-masse if the field is level (I'm looking at Hilary and Ted)?

      Call it what it is - a clear invitation for fraud. The real funny part is that you think that the ACLU/Democrats actually care about the poor blacks. They even attack blacks that dare to go outside of the Democratic party - like Mr. Steele of Maryland. Racial attacks, ephitets, all kinds of stuff to keep other blacks in line and scared. Used to be a black would never vote for a Democrat because they were the slave masters, Lincoln - a Republican freed them.

    11. Re:What is old is new again by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Maybe you missed the part where I said that law is more than what is written?

      If something is not contrary to a written law, it is not illegal. If we can't agree on that simple fact, further discussion is pointless.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:What is old is new again by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      If something is not contrary to a written law, it is not illegal. If we can't agree on that simple fact, further discussion is pointless.

      Back again? What is the matter, can't you handle winning your point? We already agree, didn't you write: Disagreements are over the interpretation and application of law, not on the text of the law itself.?

      You did. What more do you want? You remind me of a young man with something to prove. Can't take yes for an answer without a fight. Now, move on to what else I said. Unless I miss my guess, you still have issues. Try to not let it get to you either. It is not worth loosing sleep over.

  51. "Near misses" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John McCain and Russ Feingold, nearly managed to push a campaign finance reform bill through congress in 2001. They failed, but it shows that some people at the top do care about making America a better place, and that they are working towards making it happen.

    How naive. I live in Las Vegas. There are very strict rules about programming gaming machines. Under the rules it is allowable (and common practice) to program "near misses" in slot machines. Slot machine payouts are not exactly random. The percentages are tightly regulated. A "near miss" is a neat little trick that controls the outcome of non-winning rolls. As long as the computer has determined that you aren't going to win on this roll, it manipulates the outcome so that it looks like you "almost" won.

    For instance, if three 7's is the big jackpot, it can make the result be two 7's, with the third slot having a 7 just one row off. You can see all three 7's in the window, and you would have one with just a little more luck.

    This encourages players to keep playing.

  52. The LAST thing semi-democracies need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dubya hams it up with his old chum and Bonesman pal, Jack Abramoff who currently is exposing several criminals whom he easily bought and paid for, like J.D. Hayworth, that you elected to represent you and protect you in Washington D.C. When asked about the landslide of photos that show Dubya palling around with Abramoff, always sporting that huge "I just got more money" grin, Dubya refused to comment but his mangy unbathed lapdog McClellan stated: "We also got pictures of him playing in aircraft in Texas while your parents served & died in Vietnam and we got no pictures much less record of him copmleting his dodge of Vietnam before disappearing about the time his Daddy was made head of the CIA with no experience or qualifications for that job." Rumors are flying that as long as Abramoff names only names that oppose W and his Bonesmen plots that Abramoff will be pardoned or given the fat life along with his family similar to another patsy, Jack Ruby.

    Several photos are now being excused away by the White House in at attempt to sweep more facts and associations under the rug. This may serve however as an excellent distraction from the other ongoing cancers destroying America such as: the failure of the illegal aggression in Iraq, no WMD there, the best live training and recruitment station ever for terrorists in Iraq before they deploy stateside, the building of further anti-american sentiment in the middle east and amongst Muslims, Scooter Libby releasing any classified information he wants with a promise of a pardon from Dubya, Carl Rove just barely dodging an indictment also with a pardon promise from Dubya, hordes of other Republicans committing tax fraud & embezzlement & profitting from the position you elected them to while doing nothing for you, the ever weakening dollar you only work harder for, unstoppable juggernaut of inflation causing a skyrocket in the cost of living, out of control housing costs, lack of good jobs, poverty totally unchecked and cared about, the out of control deficit, big business empowered to further economically repress the people, the growing massive devide as Americans are no longer Americans but strictly only a religious and/or political label, a failing economy that cannot support the majority who is impoverished, no hope for a better future as none of the above are addressed or cared about, skyrocketing oil costs again despite no hurricane to excuse the gouging with an oil man in office stealing oil, no aid for the poor this winter as they are not important enough to not freeze, mixing of church and government just like Iran, complete disregard for the Constitution they swore to protect as they bypass it and all checks and balances in the name of "terror" with no warrants or check to this power, encouragement of racial profiling furthering bigotry and racism again in America, lack of accountability as another crisis is thrown out so the old one and charges from it are forgotten, more of your liberties and rights and freedoms are taken away for "your own good" and safety, torture of human beings not even getting a day in court, removal of any and all due process. This list could easily continue as this administration makes the biggest grab for power for the Executive "branch" ever in the history of the United States.

    Google: A Patriot's Letter

    http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]

    What will not be news is Americans continue to vote Democrat and Republican into office to push and continue the same failures that keep failing. If you are truly sick of it, vote out *ALL* encumbents and vote Libertarian otherwise you asked for it so enjoy it. Hopefully your vote will not be ignored like in 2000 & 2004, or "Diebolded" to be more accurate.

  53. Re:FINALLY AN AMERICAN ALSO AWAKE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SAMA means something to this poster, and if doesn't to you then you know don't know shit about America's foreign policy and just how far we will go to further the corporatacracy and the imperialist goals of those bound for the World Bank after cementing their fortunes in US office.

    Here is a link directly to the book's site:

    http://www.economichitman.com/

    I suggest the rest of you wake up also before blindly supporting the leader of your herd through everything.

  54. Nothing New Under The Suns: SSRat And Voting Mech. by polymers · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me that none of you ever read Harry Harrison's famous "The Stainless Steel Rat for President" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553276123/qid=11 38052026/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/102-5041110-1773764?s =books&v=glance&n=283155. explaining how to rig an electronic voting system (for the good of the people, though...)
    See, I have been living the last few years down in sunny MX, which, in its best days, always reminds me of "Paraiso Aquí", the subject of this book. In the others, though, it reminds me of "Make Room! Make Room!" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425023907/qid=11 38052026/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/102-5041110-1773764?s =books&v=glance&n=283155 by the same author (Soylent Green). I find it fun that these techniques float slowly north to G.WLand.
    On the other hand, rigging elections has always been my country's most popular sport (i'm from Corsica....), so that I am nobody to comment.
    If you have not read that book, do it, it quite worth it, and funny too...
    It's a Proud and Lonely Thing to be a Stainless Steel Rat....

  55. Re:Bush vs Lincoln is apples vs pears by happyrabit · · Score: 1

    Bush family? Sad to say, Abraham Lincoln was more corrupt than all the Bushes combined.

    It is from historic point of view meaningless and erroneous to compare the governance between two people coming from different centuries. Worldview, Democracy, rights and ethics evolved enormously since the 19th century, we are talking of a time where it was considered normal (anyway in most of Europe) that 'normal(>90%)' people are not considered 'able' to vote.
    The point is do not compare Bush with Lincoln, but Bush with it's contemporaries. Considering this, it does not mean the conclusion would be different at all, :)

    --
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
  56. Because Diebold, etc. are big Bush campaign donors by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Because there is no point in trying to change things when the chief executives at ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia are all huge Republican fundraisers. You think a Republican-controlled federal government and mostly Republican-controlled state goverments are going to kick *them* to the curve in favor of an open-source system?

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  57. Re:The people LET this evil happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you have got to be off your rocker with your head cracked.

    The Federal Government has no business in 99% of the shit it dips into, when the Constitution was framed by our Founding Fathers...now try to get into the mindset they had in that time with the crown and their own challenges, the Federal Government's job was to protect the rights and freedoms of it's citizens and protect the Constitution and protect the sovereignity of our nation so we are not overrun. Building highways? You poor daft soul, that gets CONTRACTED out by bids to PRIVATE companies anyway and the Feds just steal their cut for doing JACK SHIT. They build an army so they can take away your local help in a disaster and send them to die for nothing in an illegal and unjust act of aggression. Anything and everything the Feds can and do do, can be done better and cheaper and again BETTER by a private corporation. They do not need to STEAL my money so they can WASTE it in their corrupt lives partying up with Jack Abramoff and Dubya. I am an adult, I can make my own decisions and do my own saving and my own planing and can do it much better when the Feds are not stealing all the money that *I* worked hard for since I have to work from January till June JUST to compensate for that theft (Called "Taxes" by most cattle). We would not have that theft happening if the Feds did not need to constantly fund their ongoing failures and new failures while crippling the value of the dollar and destroying the economy while making an all time record high and growing deficit get bigger. If they were not so busy trying to take away freedom and tell people how they can live their lives and how they can make choices and precisely what choices to make, there would not be black markets and underground clubs. People will regardless do what the fuck they want to do when they want to do it, including the world. Stem cell research steams ahead in the rest of the world who will benefit and reap it's rewards while we are stuck back in 2000 starting to fossilize and prepare to accept our oncoming 3rd world status as we stagnate.

    Overturn Roe v Wade, Mexico and Canada and the rest of the world will be waiting with open arms. They banned stem cell research and the rest of the world laughed hard and kept going with their research and progress. Keep your lost and pathetic war on drugs, you have yet to even make progress and supply continues to meet demand and the rest of the world profits and criminals grow stronger just like what happened with the 18th Amendment. The victim in these examples is the American Citizen, and we pay the ultimate price as our economy and coveted Superpower status moves into atrophy while conservatives move to strangle our progress and competition because of their obsession with imaginary friends. We are committing suicide by allowing the Feds to get more powerful and produce more failures and more restrictions and laws and actions that accomplish nothing in the big picture. Does your imaginary friend think suicide is cool or something for fucks sake? Then why are we trying to hang ourselves by justifying a total failure like the Federal Government in it's current role, growing role and capacity!?!?!?!?!!!!

    People are obsessed with the two parties which have brought nothing but failure after incompetent failure. They will vote for somebody not even knowing the first thing about their platform based soley on their association with one of the two long term providers of constant pure failure. Now they voted they feel they did their civic duty and leave that parasite unchecked as they forget their constituents and head to D.C. to get with Dubya and get on the Abramoff cash cow for personal wealth and benefit. Maybe when they are caught being a crooked criminal and the media hypes it a bit, that person pretends to care again and may gripe a bit at work. They do not change the way they vote. They do not make it a point to keep tabs on D.C. at all. They do not protest. They do not show their dislike of this by writing to a

  58. Americans don't care anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Federal Government has no business in 99% of the shit it dips into, when the Constitution was framed by our Founding Fathers...now try to get into the mindset they had in that time with the crown and their own challenges, the Federal Government's job was to protect the rights and freedoms of it's citizens and protect the Constitution and protect the sovereignity of our nation so we are not overrun. Building highways? You poor daft soul, that gets CONTRACTED out by bids to PRIVATE companies anyway and the Feds just steal their cut for doing JACK SHIT. They build an army so they can take away your local help in a disaster and send them to die for nothing in an illegal and unjust act of aggression. Anything and everything the Feds can and do do, can be done better and cheaper and again BETTER by a private corporation. They do not need to STEAL my money so they can WASTE it in their corrupt lives partying up with Jack Abramoff and Dubya. I am an adult, I can make my own decisions and do my own saving and my own planing and can do it much better when the Feds are not stealing all the money that *I* worked hard for since I have to work from January till June JUST to compensate for that theft (Called "Taxes" by most cattle). We would not have that theft happening if the Feds did not need to constantly fund their ongoing failures and new failures while crippling the value of the dollar and destroying the economy while making an all time record high and growing deficit get bigger. If they were not so busy trying to take away freedom and tell people how they can live their lives and how they can make choices and precisely what choices to make, there would not be black markets and underground clubs. People will regardless do what the fuck they want to do when they want to do it, including the world. Stem cell research steams ahead in the rest of the world who will benefit and reap it's rewards while we are stuck back in 2000 starting to fossilize and prepare to accept our oncoming 3rd world status as we stagnate.

    Overturn Roe v Wade, Mexico and Canada and the rest of the world will be waiting with open arms. They banned stem cell research and the rest of the world laughed hard and kept going with their research and progress. Keep your lost and pathetic war on drugs, you have yet to even make progress and supply continues to meet demand and the rest of the world profits and criminals grow stronger just like what happened with the 18th Amendment. The victim in these examples is the American Citizen, and we pay the ultimate price as our economy and coveted Superpower status moves into atrophy while conservatives move to strangle our progress and competition because of their obsession with imaginary friends. We are committing suicide by allowing the Feds to get more powerful and produce more failures and more restrictions and laws and actions that accomplish nothing in the big picture. Does your imaginary friend think suicide is cool or something for fucks sake? Then why are we trying to hang ourselves by justifying a total failure like the Federal Government in it's current role, growing role and capacity!?!?!?!?!!!!

    People are obsessed with the two parties which have brought nothing but failure after incompetent failure. They will vote for somebody not even knowing the first thing about their platform based soley on their association with one of the two long term providers of constant pure failure. Now they voted they feel they did their civic duty and leave that parasite unchecked as they forget their constituents and head to D.C. to get with Dubya and get on the Abramoff cash cow for personal wealth and benefit. Maybe when they are caught being a crooked criminal and the media hypes it a bit, that person pretends to care again and may gripe a bit at work. They do not change the way they vote. They do not make it a point to keep tabs on D.C. at all. They do not protest. They do not show their dislike of this by writing to a snake still in D.C. They do not show they are serious by voting these vermin and all of thei

  59. Re:The Bush family financed Nazis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is hazard pay you thinking of kid, which was gone the milisecond W performed his little stunt on the aircraft carrier declaring an end to active combat despite it obviously still being dangerous. You were just introduced into one of the many unlubricated shafts handed to our poor as they are sentenced to die in Iraq for nothing, not to mention their families left without a breadwinner/parent getting crap for pay with a high chance of their loved one dying every second they are in Iraq.

    A majority in Iraq are National Guard, which is a far cry from a fulltime active soldier but they are treated and deployed as such. It is fine printed that you can get pulled into service for a far fetching lie like the illegal and unjust aggression against Iraq, but not what the liar who recruited you promised when they spun one weekend a month and one month a summer serving your local community.

    Some lies and treacherous acts you just simply cannot spin away or ignore.

    Given the Bush family history, Google Prescott Bush and his Bank, it does not surprise me in the least and thus why I never supported this tyrant.