Slashdot Mirror


How to Hack the Vote and Steal the Election

divisionbyzero writes "Many people have asked for it so that the government will have to deal with it. So here it is: a guide to stealing an election that uses electronic voting machines written by Jon Stokes over at Arstechnica. From the article: "In all this time, I've yet to find a good way to convey to the non-technical public how well and truly screwed up we presently are, six years after the Florida recount. So now it's time to hit the panic button: In this article, I'm going to show you how to steal an election.""

587 comments

  1. Lack of ethics by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information? At what point do you take responsibility for what you post, and NOT diseminate information that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:Lack of ethics by chrismcdirty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd go as far to say that it is more ethical to distribute it. The information becomes widely known. Maybe someone will hack an election to make it very obviously hacked, thus forcing a re-vote with an honest, verifiable way to count votes.

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    2. Re:Lack of ethics by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or is it more unethical to have access to information that threatens us all and not say anything for fear that some "bad guy" might use it against us? The truth is that some "bad guy" is already sitting around thinking up ways to to use the information or writing the information down for himself from scratch. Security through obscurity never works for long.

      --
      My humor is probably your flamebait
    3. Re:Lack of ethics by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Well, if you look at it from a pure ethical standpoint, no; but then if you look at the "ethics" of some in Congress, perhaps this information could be put to good use, a.k.a. rousting out the bums.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    4. Re:Lack of ethics by rainmayun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, if your ethics demand that you do whatever is in your power to change the situation. The alternative to this? Security by obscurity... and we all on Slashdot know how well that works...

    5. Re:Lack of ethics by zokrath · · Score: 1

      The information is already in the wrong hands. It was born into the wrong hands.

    6. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security by obscurity doesn't work - if the author could figure this out, someone else can and will too. Nobody in power seems to be listening to the warnings that these machines are critically flawed, so it's time to push the point a little harder.

    7. Re:Lack of ethics by Atraxen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. As a chemist, I know what harm chemistry can cause - illegal pharmaceuticals, explosives, etc. And so, I demand an immediate crackdown on publically accessible chemistry texts, to ensure a brighter tomorrow.

      Correct. As a firearm owner, I know what harm firearms can cause - killings, accidental shootings, property damage, etc. And so, I demand an immediate crackdown on publically accessible repair manuals, to ensure a brighter tomorrow.

      Correct. As a driver, I know what harm poor driving can cause - vehicular homicide, property damage, etc. And so, I demand an immediate crackdown on access to automobiles, driving instruction literature, etc., to ensure a brighter tomorrow.

      Congressmen should maintain an exemption to all of the above, to ensure they can oversee said systems, and protect the workings of our great society. Public oversight should not be necessary, as I have full trust in the state.

      --
      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
    8. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Republicans have already hired people to do this, under the guise of proof of concept, and its on the public record, prior to the last Federal election. So, no, I don't think we will keep pretending this is not an issue and keep hiding information about it.

    9. Re:Lack of ethics by BoomerSooner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just hope someone does it. MY PARTY!!! lol... the system is screwed.

      When people give a shit more about some gays marrying in NJ than they do about genocide in Darfur, military and civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan, and people dying in this country due to being priced out of receiving their necessary meds, we have become a country that has lost focus on things that *actually matter*.

      That being said, I'm not optimistic anyone that's in my camp has the guts to steal an election, we'd rather give it away. Liberal media my ass... I wish!

    10. Re:Lack of ethics by HappySqurriel · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Or is it more unethical to have access to information that threatens us all and not say anything for fear that some "bad guy" might use it against us? The truth is that some "bad guy" is already sitting around thinking up ways to to use the information or writing the information down for himself from scratch. Security through obscurity never works for long.

      You're correct in saying that Security through obscurity never works but the question is what is the correct way to approach a security problem?

      Personally, I think that broadcasting the information is a highly risky approach and should only be done after you've exausted most private channels; for example, if you knew of a factoring method that made 1 in 16 RSA keys insecure it would make more sense to contact RSA and inform them of this weeks/months before you publish the method because it will take time for them to adapt their system.

      The reality is that it will take less time for a hacker to take advantage of a potential exploit then it will for a company to fix an exploit so you should give a company the opportunity to fix the problem before you announce it to the world.

    11. Re:Lack of ethics by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > I'd go as far to say that it is more ethical to distribute it. The information becomes widely known. Maybe someone will hack an election to make it very obviously hacked, thus forcing a re-vote with an honest, verifiable way to count votes.

      And if they get away with it, honestly, is that really so bad?

      DATELINE: January 27, 2009 - President Stallman and GNUHSEC announces arrest of Redmond, WA voting-machine hackers.

      President Stallman today announced the disruption of a terrorist plot, allegedly involving electoral fraud originating from a the terrorist organizations known as the Red Mond Alliance and the Darlings of McBride, both of which owe allegiance to a shadowy figure known only as the Monkey of the Thrown Chair.

      "Let the elections of 2008 stand as a warning to all who would attempt to defraud the American public", warned Vice President Eric Raymond. "The GNUTIA (Gnu's Not Total Information Awareness) surveillance programme is fully operational, and GNUHSEC (Gnu's Not Homeland Security) agents will not tolerate any future incidents of voter fraud."

    12. Re:Lack of ethics by SomeGuyTyping · · Score: 1

      Seems this info should come out right AFTER an election to give sufficient time to put a new process in place for the next election

      --
      My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    13. Re:Lack of ethics by thrillseeker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When people give a shit more about some gays marrying in NJ than they do about genocide in Darfur, military and civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan, and people dying in this country due to being priced out of receiving their necessary meds, we have become a country that has lost focus on things that *actually matter*.

      You left off the words "to me".

    14. Re:Lack of ethics by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      But can't you also get the information "widely known" by circulating a story about how easy it is without including the specific (or at least accurate) directions to commit this felony?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    15. Re:Lack of ethics by paganizer · · Score: 1

      And I just wasted my mod points.
      BTW, if you happen to be a prefessional writer, PLEASE expand this into at least a short story?

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    16. Re:Lack of ethics by 70Bang · · Score: 1


      The (our) state's Secretary of State has taken time to frequently announce "the system is working to where a proper piece of recognition with a picture will permit you to vote without hassle.

      Then again, the state purchased many, many voting machines three years ago but their contracted company couldn't make it work. ES&S was sneaking sotware so untested code was going to be used. When a whistleblower terminated her about an hour later, the state turned around and hired her as a watchdog.

      ES&S and Diebold seem to have a combined corner on the market but collectively have a problem of getting things to work.

      The state's BMV finally went live (six->eight years late, after several governor and buckets of money after a "CEO" ("Half of the time I don't know what's going on.") resigned.

      In both situations, why not pick a precinct or two to test either of those systems, kick the bugs, then go state?

      As it is, you're going to look at a lot of handcounting in Indiana if one of their engineers used meters|yards improperly. :(

    17. Re:Lack of ethics by JasonKChapman · · Score: 1
      I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information? At what point do you take responsibility for what you post, and NOT diseminate information that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?

      If it were a matter of public safety, or even the personal safety of some segment of the public, I might agree with you. But in this case, it is no more harmful than refusing to give up a seat on a bus or burning a draft card. Bigger, maybe. More tumultuous. But no more harmful.

      Disseminating such information helps set the stage for a very real court challenge, one that will hopefully force the courts, lawmakers, and the public to focus on the very real mess that this can become. If one court in one state determines that some legal standard, say blood-alcohol tests, for example, are unreliable, that decision can then be used as precedent in future cases. Similarly, if one court in one jursidiction determines that electronic voting systems are too vulnerable unless X, Y, and Z steps are taken, it becomes a matter of public record and can be used to force a more rigorous security standard on such systems without which the results are automatically suspect.

      --
      Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
    18. Re:Lack of ethics by Abreu · · Score: 1

      "Let the elections of 2008 stand as a warning to all who would attempt to defraud the American public", warned Vice President Eric Raymond.

      That's where my suspension of disbelief broke apart... We all know that if Stallman became Ruler, ESR would be the first against the wall, even faster than Ballmer!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    19. Re:Lack of ethics by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      That has already been tried.. *surprise* *surprise* companies don't fix bugs unless their customers demand it.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    20. Re:Lack of ethics by hurting+now · · Score: 1

      Your right, this is THE pressing issue. And the politians have completely ignored it. Yes, it is completely ethical, and even needed to properly get the attention of our political representatives.
      They must understand that this is a completely flawed system. That poster is posting nothing more than a compilation that is readily available on the internet.
      The voting machines are flawed and he is only organizing the readily available info.

    21. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gays aren't marrying in NJ. They are civil unionning. The difference is huge.

      And marriage is kind of important. It's where most of the babies come from. And yes, belive it or not, babies are actually a critical part of society.

    22. Re:Lack of ethics by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People hav ebeen writing reports and letters to the machine manufacturers and politicians since BEFORE the 2004 election warning how unsecure the electronic voting system was. A totally new way to bypass what little "security" these machines have seem to show up on a monthly basis.

      People have given sworn testimony in court about the security issues and how their concerns fell on deaf ears in upper management, or sometimes even met with legal threats and unemployment.

      Quite simply, proper channels HAVE been exhausted. Either nobody gets it or they are deliberately trying not to hear it.
      =Smidge=

    23. Re:Lack of ethics by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 0

      The biggest threat of election fraud does not come from our own political parties. That form of fraud would be unacceptable, but it would be punishable if the person were caught.

      No, the biggest threat comes from terrorists (they have the command and communication infrastructure in place, not to mention motive) or foreign intelligence agencies (a country like Iran would probably rather have a militant administration in power to keep the middle east destablized to keep oil prices high.)

      It is a low-risk operation, requiring no weapons, only computer hackers (and yes, terrorist organizations have already proven themselves competent at targeted system attacks.) These kind of people probably already know the information presented, and it is the job of the media to expose negligent government practices to the people. The government has shown themselves totally unwilling to address the problem, so it's going to take someone fixing an election to get the point across. I'm just hoping it's the Republicans and not Iranian intelligence.

    24. Re:Lack of ethics by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


      You're joking? The people with the motivation to rig the election are the main parties. They're also best placed to get away with it. Who are these "terrorists" that would want to rig the results? As far as a group like Al Quaeda (who I presume you're thinking of here), both the main parties are pretty much identical. They are, after all, funded by the same players and neither has shown much compassion to the people of Saudi Arabia in living memory.

      Terrorists want attention and to make a statement. Rigging an election is something that has limited benefit once it is publically known. If an election is or has been rigged, you'll find the culprits much closer to home.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    25. Re:Lack of ethics by HappySqurriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You left off the words "to me".

      True enough, the importance of an issue is largely subjective ...

      Another way to look at issues is how time critical are the issues at hand, and one thing you'll notice is that the most time critical issues (genocide for example) are usually the ones that fall lowest on the national/international radar. Gay marriage will be heavily debated both inside and outside of the media where (regardless of the outcome) ten years from now the day to day lives of those involved in this issue will remain (essentially) the same; genocide (on the other hand) will not be a focus of any news report (or debated much by anyone) yet every day that passes means that hundreds or thousands of people die as a consequence of doing nothing.

    26. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not a technical problem, it is a human problem.

      No amount of security, accountability, scrutiny, oversight, open source standards or anything
      else add up to jack in the face of a government that is corrupt to the core and shameless
      about that corruption. Exposing the deception and scullduggery is too little too late. Nobody
      in America can swallow the idea that democracy has been bypassed, the entire nation is still
      in active denial. If you want democracy back you're going to have to fight for it now.

      Capcha "secede"

    27. Re:Lack of ethics by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      I'm not optimistic anyone that's in my camp has the guts to steal an election, we'd rather give it away

      See Johnson, Lyndon B.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    28. Re:Lack of ethics by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 1

      Academically, sure. But since this provides a how-to be unethical, what exactly does academia have to do with it? Is it a unalienable right to provide education to be unethical?

    29. Re:Lack of ethics by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Maybe someone will hack an election to make it very obviously hacked

      Write-in candidates, anyone?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    30. Re:Lack of ethics by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that if this guy has the information, other people do as well. Again, it's the whole, Open Source Security vs. Closed. In just about every case I can think of Open is more secure, assuming it's important enough that many people use it.

      If the voting machines were open source then I'd feel 99% better about using them (as it is I'm labeled as a permanent absentee voter). An election is important enough that there are going to be vastly more people trying to FIX the problems than would be trying to exploit them.

      In a related thought, the company who makes the voting machines also makes ATMs (notice I didn't repeat machine), they should be open source too. I'm not saying they have to be GPLed or anything, but it would be nice to have a QA department that includes every programmer who uses ATMs...

    31. Re:Lack of ethics by Plutonite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To him?

      Mass murder, loss of life due to partial failure of socio-economic systems in some classes, war and chaos are all private matters of concern now? Don't know why I should have to actually say this at risk of karma, but a if a few guys screwing each other in NJ with matrimonial ambitions - if they are more important to us than the above issues, then maybe we have lost a lot more than just "focus".

    32. Re:Lack of ethics by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'll settle for amature writer.
      That story was off to a great start.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    33. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wrong hands already have this information.

      Keep in mind Joe Average doesn't understand how the magic electric box really works and has no concept of how exploits occur. It's the difference between saying "It's possible to make a cake." (true, but if you've never done any baking, it's hard to imagine how likely or easily someone could make a cake) and "It is possible to make a cake and here's how easy it is..."

      The importance of this is to tell Joe Average not just "It's possible to steal an election... take my word for it." but "It's not just possible to steal an election, but it's not too hard for someone to do it. Here's how the bastards will^H^H^H^Hwould do it."

    34. Re:Lack of ethics by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      The reality is that it will take less time for a hacker to take advantage of a potential exploit then it will for a company to fix an exploit so you should give a company the opportunity to fix the problem before you announce it to the world.

      which is exactly why there are no secuirty issues with windows. big profit driven companies with huge brand images are always very quick to point out and fix flaws in their systems. i would imagine it is doubly so for politicians. thank god you can count on corporations and politicians to always do the right thing.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    35. Re:Lack of ethics by pudro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If only there were millions upon millions of unwanted children that would otherwise die or lead poor quality lives for these gay couples to adopt so that they could counter your argument.

      Oh wait...

      And if only having kids wasn't a prerequisite for marriage and licenses weren't being revoked from straight couples who can't produce children.

      Oh wait...

      --
      Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
    36. Re:Lack of ethics by orielbean · · Score: 1

      Security through obscurity (through not posting it) is not an answer at all. You are passing the buck along to someone with less scruples who will simply just use it and NEVER tell anyone. Expose these evil methods to the light of liberty and freedom, and see what still stands up when the fires have abated. Or maybe noone will care and just continue watching cable. But the ethical step IS publication, not standing aside and waiting for another method of fraud to take place. If someone says something AFTER it happens (like Iran Contra or any other unpleasant Congress-hearing-level issue) then it is already far too late for everyone but the historians.

    37. Re:Lack of ethics by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he left off the words "to sane, rational people who haven't let their vindictive excuse for morality blind them to the real problems." If you're claiming there are valid reasons to prioritize the "dudes kissing" problem over genocide in Darfur and the Iraq war, you're going to have to present them, because I'm pretty damned skeptical.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    38. Re:Lack of ethics by AllahsAvatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm fairly certain that the human race would be in no danger of under populating, if same sex marriages/ civil unions, were legal. Or for that matter if marriage were abolished altogether, we still wouldn't have that problem. People have been having babies much longer than the idea of marriage has been around.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back, one year!
    39. Re:Lack of ethics by GaratNW · · Score: 1

      There is a truisim in software development, especially game development: If you really want to get something fixed that is clearly broken, filing a bug is not the answer. Exploit the hell out of it, or at least make the engineer in question afraid you and others will exploit the flaw. The problem that otherwise would have taken months to get fixed.. is magically fixed in the next build usually.

      Evil? Yes, but if it's broke, exploit it to fix it!br

    40. Re:Lack of ethics by thrillseeker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another way to look at issues is how time critical are the issues at hand

      Well, you still left off the words "to me". The genocide in the Sudan is unlikely to affect the majority of the voters - in any country - regardless of the eventual outcome, hence it continues, to the tune of millions dead even - but what's a few million dead people - over 60% (2.5 million or so) of the Montagard tribe of Vietnam was exterminated after the peace loving Americans forced the US military to cut and run from Vietnam - but hey, they ended the war, eh. The situation in Iraq, etc., due to the rise of terrorism, the importance and quantity of oil, the historical and stated intent of the ruling elite (as we watch Iran pontificate now), and even the historical influence of the Ottoman peninsula, affects many people, and hence the interest. It's "easy" to liberate a Grenada, except for the shitstorm of "unbiased" press reports afterwards, but not so easy in Haiti, for example, nor in Iraq - but Iraq has much more influence, whether for or against, because of location, etc., to the US, and so is important.

    41. Re:Lack of ethics by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      It's unethical for MacGuyver to accurately depict how to make a bomb or explosives from common household materials. They should flub the details a bit so that people who actually try it at home don't kill themselves.

      However, if new ATMs could be easily opened with a paperclip and rubber band yet governments are beginning to MANDATE they be installed, then it's in the public's best interest to publish these simple instructions as far and wide as possible until people finally sit up, take notice, and get rid of the damned things, rather than obediently dropping their money in the slot.

      It's civil disobedience. Hack every single one of these machines you find. Change all the votes to write-ins for "Mickey Mouse" or "Bugs Bunny." Or at least scream at the top of your lungs what a fraud and a sham these machines are. These machines are so insecure and unverifiable I can't imagine the design flaws are anything less than deliberate. Let the manufacturers get their wish. Break them.

    42. Re:Lack of ethics by mrchaotica · · Score: 2
      ...this felony?

      If done for the right purpose (i.e., making the winner something so absurd that it is obvious it was faked, in order to draw attention to the issue), I'd say that someone who hacked the election should be lauded as a hero, rather than persecuted as a felon.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    43. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a matter of right and wrong or morality, not your value vs. mine. Values are not immune to morality; is it moral to justify the issue of gay marriage has more importance than people dying?

    44. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Disclaimer: My personal philosophical stance agrees that the problems of genocide, etc. should be prioritized above the question of gay marriage, and I personally abhor anyone dying at the hands of someone else.

      However, if you leave your personal philosophies out of the equation: what's to say that genocide is wrong, in absolute terms? Just because you and I and many other people recoil in horror from it doesn't mean that it's not the optimal evolutionary or societal progression path. Again, that is completely opposite my personal philosophy (and my "gut instinct"), but scientifically you can't deny the possibility exists.

      That's why the person that posted about the words "to me" being left off the original rant is correct - each and every person in the US (and in the world, for that matter) is entitled to an opinion on what the priorities and proper courses of action are for each and every issue. In the US we're fortunate enough to be able to vote on these issues, according to our own philosophies. If someone is going to vote for a genocidal warmonger, even though you find that abhorrent, there's no absolute ground you can stand on and tell that voter he or she is wrong; if there was, there would be scientific grounds that the Supreme Court could base a decision on and eliminate his vote.

    45. Re:Lack of ethics by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      The way to deal with this rampant electrion fraud is to give people paddleboards with two colors: black & white (so at least the colorblind can participate).

      Then, order a national voting day with pay. Everyone who will vote goes to a large open pieceof land and for each candidate, ballot, whatever, they flip up their colors. The ballots and measures and such have to be stated in PLAIN language, not asshole politician or lawyerspeak.

      Then, foreign country planes or satellites acting as impartial observers shot pics of the paddles and the vote for each candidate or ballot measure or whatnot goes to color that is prearranged as the yay or nay color. Not electronics. No FUCKING around with the tallies.

      Final remedy: SHOOT, hang or emascualte ANYone who tampers with the voting process or tries to disenfranchise voters. Time to reform the jerks screwing with the system.

      (Slash image word: "blasted")

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    46. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, that would have been GNHSEC and GNTIA

    47. Re:Lack of ethics by EvanED · · Score: 1

      We've tried more measured aproaches, telling people it's insecure, etc.

      It didn't work.

    48. Re:Lack of ethics by rblum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hm. People dying vs. marriage between same-gendered people. Yes, clearly priorities here are only personal preferences.

      Look - nobody is saying his (or your) way to reform the medical system is right. But it *is* broken, and we need to talk about fixing it. It's not bums who don't get coverage - it's blue collar people who need to take several jobs and *still* can't get decent coverage. Who's poking whom where is not exactly an overriding concern, compared to that.

      Iraq is undebatably a clusterfuck - even el Jefe agrees by now. Again, nobody says either side has the right solution, but shouldn't that discussion *also* receive more exposure than sex between consenting adults? (BTW: If your complaint is that they now get privileges from the government, there's an easy solution - neither hetero nor homo couples get any preferrential treatment over singles. Screw government interference).

      As to your other perceived threats: Kim Il Jong, on a *really* good day for him might be able to kill a million Americans. That's if he's having a really good day, and around 2015 when he might have ICBMs. In the meantime, each year 60,000 Americans *do* die due to missing medical coverage. (I'm not even going into the fact that Dick Cheney more or less killed negotiations with both NK and Iran because "you don't negotiate from a position of power" - water under the bridge).

      Either way, nobody is proposing to ignore NK. Or Osama. Just maybe focusing a couple of the billions we hand to Haliburton (look at the GOA reports how *much* of that is just waste) on other topics, and doing something good on the side.

      But I guess the thought that you might have to give up some of your money to do humanitarian works as opposed to blowing people up is just not bearable...

    49. Re:Lack of ethics by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

      I'd say that he did the right thing exposing this problem, he did the ETHICAL thing, there should be more people like that in the world and maybe governments of every country would think twice when they want to screw people.

      If it causes problems enough maybe they will take those machine out and go back to have ballots with paper and people. meanwhile i would not be surprised that those states that have taken those electronic machine are republican strongholds and they deliberately choose something that could be manipulated .

    50. Re:Lack of ethics by XenoRyet · · Score: 1
      I'm also going to have to add a disclaimer that I don't believe the position I am about to state is the logical and correct one, but it does illustrate why priorities might differ in such drastic ways.

      Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization, and to allow same sex marriages would fundamentally damage the institution of marriage, and by extension fundamentally damage American civilization. By that reasoning, it must take priority over any external issue.

      Again, I, personally, don't believe that to be a logical viewpoint, but there are others out there who do. To just dismiss those people out of hand is not fair or right. Any statement of priorities should, implicitly or explicitly, include the words "to me". There, unfortunately, is no universal, absolute set of priorities.

      --
      If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
    51. Re:Lack of ethics by codepunk · · Score: 1

      He did not show a single tactic that any "real coder" does not already know. In fact he missed many other attack vectors that are just as easy to exploit.

      --


      Got Code?
    52. Re:Lack of ethics by soloes · · Score: 1

      that is back to the old Marcus rainer arguement of security through obscurity. the problem that he couldnt see is that notifying the masses does not increase the risk of an exploit being used. It increases awareeness so that people are watching for it.
      It is dangerous to hide away things and hope that nobody looks in that box in the corner. If soembody does lok in the box, not enough eyes are out tthere to see if they used what they found in the dark.
      The way we got Microsoft and other companies to start things like super tuesday was by pressuring them with tons of people omplaining to them about flaws that we published in bugtraq etc.
      hopefully this mass awarenes will have the same effect on diebold and the others as well as all state governments and election officials.

      --
      New and improved Guilt. Now its alcohol soluble!
    53. Re:Lack of ethics by Johnny5000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization, and to allow same sex marriages would fundamentally damage the institution of marriage, and by extension fundamentally damage American civilization. By that reasoning, it must take priority over any external issue.

      Again, I, personally, don't believe that to be a logical viewpoint, but there are others out there who do.


      If people really wanted to defend marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.

      Also, when people pull out the "damage the institution of marriage" I usually ask them
      how exactly the damage occurs, because honestly I don't see how gay people getting
      married affects the marriages of straight people.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    54. Re:Lack of ethics by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      But can't you also get the information "widely known" by circulating a story about how easy it is without including the specific (or at least accurate) directions to commit this felony?

      Think of it as a form of civil disobedience- commit a crime as a form of protest, and accept the punishment as a consequence.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    55. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you are one sick bastard, please for all of our sakes get help.

      And while you are there ask for a brain, the're having a special.

    56. Re:Lack of ethics by Jaeph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People always play this stupid game - it's about life and death, who cares about [insert lesser issue].

      So we shouldn't build roads, fund museums, build schools, create wildlife sanctuaries, and so on. All of our cash should go to immediate life-saving projects.

      OH, and for the record, while I'm not in either "camp" and don't give a squat about the sexual practices of NJ males, it was never really about that. It's all about the money (government benefits to spouses), and it always is. Both sides put a bunch of nonsense up on the airways and refuse to talk about what matters in grownup land - how much does it cost.

      Personally, I think government should get out of the marriage promotion business altogether and just concern itself with guardianship laws and contract law. But hey, now both sides can target me for not caring.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    57. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would still be a felony and no president would dare pardon you. Any hackers around here willing to go to jail to save the U.S.'s election integrity? C'mon, you'll get to be on all the front pages of the newspapers and every news program in the world for a few weeks!

    58. Re:Lack of ethics by XenoRyet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Honestly, I don't see how it damages the institution of marrage either. However, the fact that you and I, as well as many others, disagree with something that group feels is so fundamentaly important is the reason the issue gets so much attention.

      It's not the details of the issue itself that gives it such a high priority in the public eye, it's the fact that one or more sides feels that it is of vital importance.

      --
      If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
    59. Re:Lack of ethics by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was about to comment the same thing when I saw your post. *Truthfully* if these folks really wanted to defend the *sanctity* of marriage then why are they not going after outlawing (or imposing more barriers) to divorce, civil marriages, co-habitation, pre-marital sex, adultery, and wedding chapels? Or is that on hold till after gay marriage is outlawed?

      Though I guess if you personally find something offensive, what better way to get people behind your cause than to invoke a pseudo religious reason for your cause!

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    60. Re:Lack of ethics by nuzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      > However, if you leave your personal philosophies out of the equation: what's to say that genocide is wrong, in absolute terms?

      Well hell, if you leave personal philosophies out, there's no such thing as "wrong" at all. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle! You can argue from the lack of an absolute morality, but you certainly can't deny that personal moralities exist, and are in large part shared by societies. Most moralities are squishy enough to support inconsistencies, but any morality that not only allows, but actually supports glaring contradictions, needs to be reevaluated. Thus does gay marriage create a bigger knot than genocide across the world.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    61. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course it's unethical! It's advocating that people take illegal measures just to prove something we already know - that dishonest people will cheat during an election. It's a scandal and scandals are hardly ethical.

      If Stokes really wanted to improve the security of elections, he would've taken a more constructive path and chosen to inform the appropriate evoting vendors and the related government agencies. So, that the appropriate actions could be taken to further prevent election tampering.

      As for Stokes credibility, his words almost speak for themselves:

      "Over the course of almost eight years of reporting for Ars Technica, I've followed the merging of the areas of election security and information security, a merging that was accelerated much too rapidly in the wake of the 2000 presidential election. In all this time, I've yet to find a good way to convey to the non-technical public how well and truly screwed up we presently are, six years after the Florida recount. So now it's time to hit the panic button: In this article, I'm going to show you how to steal an election."

      There's three points that I think do a fair job of discrediting Stokes. First, Stokes is basically stating as *fact* that the 2000 election was rigged. If that was true, where's the public outcry. Surely the public is intelligent enough to realize this after six years! The idea that the election was won by who had the better campaign strategy remains elusive to this man, he's still living back in the media hype of 2000. Second, Stokes is speaking in ambigous and vague terms, by "screwed up", is he talking about the election process are the downsides to fighting a war? He points back to the Florida recount as if the solution to all the world's problems lies there, but again he's choosing to live in the past, before 9/11. Third, Stokes solution is to "hit the panic button" and in his words, "steal an election." In other words, Stokes is admitting that he lacks the capacity to deal with this "problem" in an intelligent and civil manner, so his solution is to panic and advocate chaos.

      The better question: Is ./ being ethical by given this conspiracy theorist that's living in the past the light of day?

    62. Re:Lack of ethics by orderb13 · · Score: 1

      Maybe some of our "Russian friends" will do it. After all, they don't abide by our laws and I can't really see Russia handing someone like that over to us.

    63. Re:Lack of ethics by MLease · · Score: 1

      It's not bums who don't get coverage - it's blue collar people who need to take several jobs and *still* can't get decent coverage.

      It's also white collar workers who find themselves unemployed for an extended period, and can't convince an employer that he/she is willing to work for $20-30K less than he was making when he/she got laid off.

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    64. Re:Lack of ethics by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1

      Right, wrong, and "moral" are just as subjective as my or your opinion. What I might cosider a moral thing or issue, you might believe otherwise. While I may (and do) share the same opinion as the GGP and you, it is also not my place to try to push my views down the throats of others. Who's to say that what you (or I) view as moral really is moral? Who's to say that it is not? That is purely subjective.

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    65. Re:Lack of ethics by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Might be worth trying to sell it though. I mean, trying to get people to care about things in this country is like trying to shit gold bricks, but they're vulnerable to hysterical fearmongering...Witness how well terrorism paranoia mobilized the midwesterners, and the southerners who are hilariously unlikely to ever encounter anything resembling terrorism.

      So, we say, "OMG! Terrerists are trying 2 steal teh elections!!!!!1!!" and since most people here probably believe that if you win the election on paper you're automatically president, regardless of fraud, and thus believe that Pres. bin Laden is possible, and that they could all be forced to grow beards or wear burkas, we might be able to get some real voting machine reform/standards.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    66. Re:Lack of ethics by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
      Dude, you soooo don't get it. He said, "It's where most of the babies come from." when talking about marriage. Didn't know you know that? Having babies has nothing to do with sex, although in some cultures, a woman can get pregnent by kissing, and not by marriage.

      Sheesh! What are they teaching kids these days! :P </sarcasm (for those who's detectors are turned off)>

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    67. Re:Lack of ethics by happy_place · · Score: 1

      Divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. If gay marriage is legalized there will also be gay divorce. So all things being equal, discussion of divorce rates is really a nonstarter, and really should not be part of the discussion. --Ray

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    68. Re:Lack of ethics by demachina · · Score: 0, Troll

      "neither hetero nor homo couples get any preferrential treatment over singles. Screw government interference)."

      I agree wholeheartedly, but its probably not realistic to expect social engineering by government to stop anytime soon. There are deeply ingrained biological, political, religious, economic and social compulsions to promote the stereotypical "family". If everyone stops having children and raising them properly then social structure collapse. As most developed nations have instituted massive social safety nets for seniors, and as life expectency has dramatically increased there is a social compulsion to make sure people breed more so there are enough young people to bleed white to support seniors who are often living 20-30 years past retirement and are receiving extensive and expensive medical care. Affluence and education actually leads people to have fewer children which is bad, while the poor and uneducated produce ever more kids, so politicians are obsessed with stepping in.

      Japan is currently in the forefront of developed countries with declining population and a huge economic and social problem providing a safety net for its seniors. There are only three solutions, cut benefits to seniors and threaten their quality of life or survival, jack up taxes and bleed the young ever more which hammers economic growth or try to engineer the production of more children through things like tax incentives.

      In a massively overpopulated planet it would be extremely desirable if we actually did have a big population contraction. Unfortunately population IS contracting among the affluent and well educated and still exploding in the 3rd world among the poor and uneducated which is bad.

      So the bottomline is there is are a host of reasons why government in developed countries engage in social engineering favoring the married with children occurs and is unlikely to ever stop. Religious bias among politicians also compels them to promote the Adam and Eve family.

      Tax breaks also win votes from the married with children crowd who are probably more likely to vote than partying singles. It is also a fact that raising children is expensive and is a big financial burden on families that singles don't have and they can use some help.

      There are a lot of days when I really don't appreciate paying to educate someone else's juvenile delinquents especially when that education is so horrible in the U.S. and is doing such an incredibly poor job with the most gifted kids. The "No Child Left Behind" obsession with the least able students is pure insanity for social well being. We should be pouring maximum resources in the most talented students to insure they get world class education and encouraging the least able in to vocational education where they can find skills suited to their abilities. In reality I think "No Child Left Behind" was more focused on compelling all kids to develop the basic skills necessary for military server and to give military recruiters unlimited access to young children to try to maximize the supply of cannon fodder without instituting a draft. I really think "No Child Left Behind" is really militarism posing as education and is seriously biased to getting the least gifted students prepped for enlisted duty in the military.

      --
      @de_machina
    69. Re:Lack of ethics by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your complaint is that they now get privileges from the government, there's an easy solution - neither hetero nor homo couples get any preferrential treatment over singles.

      But the whole point of what the Christians want is to be able to reward people they like (i.e. themselves) and punish people they do not like (i.e. fags). So, taking away their special privledges to put them on a level field does not accomplish this. Giving gays the right to marry does not accomplish this. What they want is the government to send checks to Christians and put the fags in jail. Because, you see, Christians are so "loving".

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    70. Re:Lack of ethics by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      o most of what he says is obvious to anyone with a security or even a general computer background
      o the article is completely missing any actual weapons like exploit source
      o crooks won't be emboldened: they would already have been trying to find vulnerabilities. It would be a waste of their time to read an article saying things like "the central tabulator is vulnerable".
      o the worst case is when crooks know that systems are vulnerable but the public thinks they're safe

    71. Re:Lack of ethics by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information?
      Yeah, keep it secret so only those few who know about it will try it and it won't be obvious. If this gets out, all kinds of people might try it, even really incompetent ones. Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if it was obvious people were trying to steal an election instead of the usual, where it's stolen in secret?
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    72. Re:Lack of ethics by Steepe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I could honestly care less about what people have sex with what people. I do kind of dislike having it forced on me. Personally I think two guys kissing et all is rather sick and disgusting. If they want to do it thats cool as hell. More women for me right? :) What I don't like is having it sprung on me and forced on me. Particularly in movies / TV shows. Went to see Taladaga nights. I like Will Farrel, he is funny as hell. Not one single place in any trailer / early review did it say anything about dudes frenching all throughout the movie. So we went opening day, and shazam. A guy should be warned about that in advance. but then again, very few people would go see it.

      thats kind of off the point, but... I am one for the government staying out of everything. I don't want government aid, and I want them the hell out of my pocket. We can discuss whatever needs to be discussed, but the great grandparent (the one I originally replied to) said oh well this stuff is ultra important to everyone bla bla bla. I REALLY don't like people telling me how I should and should not think. He can pretty much kiss my ass while its dirty.

      --
      Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    73. Re:Lack of ethics by A.Gideon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly, I don't see how it damages the institution of marrage either. However, the fact that you and I, as well as many others, disagree with something that group feels is so fundamentaly important is the reason the issue gets so much attention.

      What if you don't "see how" because the statement is a lie? What if people aren't against gay marriage because it would "damage marriage"? What if people are against gay marriage for the same reason that people are against mixing of the races, women having the vote, or that other religion being permitted to meet in an other wise good, my religion town?

      Why were so many people against rights for blacks? Fear of competition? Hatred of anything different? Something else?

      Does it really matter why they're this way? The reality is, lots are that way. Does having a lot of bigots in our town/state/nation mean we should permit bigoted laws?

      This is why we've things like the Bill of Rights in this country. This is why we've something to fear in a tyranny of the majority.

      Those that would consider voting with their bigoted natures should realize the conceit in the assumption that they are safe because they're in the majority. Demographics evolve. Those promoting an intolerant society will only have themselves to blame when they're the next target of intolerance.

    74. Re:Lack of ethics by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. If gay marriage is legalized there will also be gay divorce. So all things being equal, discussion of divorce rates is really a nonstarter, and really should not be part of the discussion. --Ray

      I was merely pointing out that the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is a sham.
      The argument being that gay marriage is responsible for somehow destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, but where does that leave divorce? What could be more destructive to the institution of marriage than divorce?

      Of course, no one cares about outlawing divorce. Of course it is a nonstarter issue, because outlawing divorce doesn't do anything about keeping the homos in their place, which is really what this is about.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    75. Re:Lack of ethics by adamofdoom · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is this supposed to prove some point? Basically you are saying that you are an asshole, or that you endorse being an asshole, or something screwed up like that.

    76. Re:Lack of ethics by Steepe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, have no sympathy for you. I was laid off from my tech job at the time in 2001 bla bla bla bubble burst, bla bla bla 9/11 bla bla bla and was laid off from permanent employment until this time 3 years ago. Beyond that, at the time I lived in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. Not a large market for tech workers. I also could not get a regular job because they took one look at I was making 60k and said nope, he will leave as soon as he get a big offer. Thats probably true enough.

      So.. for almost 2 years, I did not (would not) take one single dime of aid from the government beyond my unemployment. I worked my ass off on the internet with only dial up access to find consulting work, I was working with 3 temp consulting companies, traveling probably 4 days a week on the road to keep myself working, my family fed, and my health insurance paid up. (get major medical and a little extra for the kids if you have them). So I worked probably 90 hours a week or so and slept in the car sometimes to make 40ish K for those two years, and keep everything rolling until a fulltime 70k sysadmin job come around, which I am still working, with full company paid healthcare. :)

      You work for what you want. If you want work, you can find work. Its not my fault you are not willing to put in the effort. If I can do it from the middle of nowhere KY, you can do it from wherever you are.

      Not saying for sure its you you are talking about, I don't know you. but whomever it is, pooey on them, Its not my fault they are lazy.

      --
      Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    77. Re:Lack of ethics by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that the world is full of problems and that there are pressing and important things going on all over. Nevertheless the election of a US president is the single most important event in the world. That may sound a bit over the top but I really think it's true.

      The US has the biggest military and is willing to use it to pursue what it thinks is best for it. On top of that it is one of the largest economies in the world.

      What happens in the US effects the rest of the world. Imagine if Gore had won the presidency. Would the world be different? You bet. Maybe under a Gore presidency 9/11 would never have happened.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    78. Re:Lack of ethics by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >I could honestly care less about what people have sex with what people.

      It's the corner cases that pop up as problems, though.

      Do you care in these cases?

      1. The sex is with *you* while you are unconscious.
      2. The sex is with your 8 year old child.
      3. The sex is between your 14 year old daughter and her 35 year old English teacher.
      4. The sex is between your spouse and his or her yoga instructor and goes on while you are working two jobs? ... etc...

      I would mention sex between a member of the US House of Represnatives and a younger-than-18-year-old participant in the Congressional Page program -- but there seems to be no evidence of any such thing happening, at least not since the Nixon administration when a House Democrat did it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    79. Re:Lack of ethics by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've been married for over 20 years. We have no chance at all of having children in the home.

      I have absolutely no idea of how allowing a gay marriage will dammage my relationship with my wife.

      NO ONE has ever even attempted to answer the question. They just say that it does. I have even done some quick Googleing and struck out.

      The closest I have seen is the argument that some employers will drop family benifits if it is not outlawed.

      So can anybody even point me to a link on the web to anywhere that talks about this in a logical that even atempts to explain how I could be hurt by this?

      There are lots of logical arguments the other way. The most valid of which is that we do not have close to a clear definition of what a man and a woman are legally or biologically

    80. Re:Lack of ethics by happy_place · · Score: 1

      Like most arguments you're employing a tactic that I see threaded throughout this whole objection, which is, that IF there's something wrong with X, because of Y, that there's nothing to fear because of Z.

      Therefore Z has no impact on X and is hunky-dory.

      In this case, X = Marriage (or its sanctity), Y = Divorce and Z = Gay marriage.

      Regardless of the devastating impact Y has on X, it should implies nothing about the relationship of X to Z.

      I would think the impetus would be upon the proponents of Z to demonstrate how it "improves" X.

      Using the above logical construct, I could say...

      X=Computer Internet Functionality Y=Viruses bad Z=Spam's okay
      X=American Security Y=Terrorism Z=Income Tax Evasion
      X=Voting Security Y=Hacking Electronic Voting Machines Z=Illegal Aliens should be allowed to Vote

      That's really my point... I see yours too, though.

      --Ray

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    81. Re:Lack of ethics by rthille · · Score: 1

      Well, what do you think it would do to American politics and the respectability of the American president if the terrorists could cause the election to go to a Libertarian? First off, it would show the election to be a sham, secondly, if we honored the results, the Libertarian would probably leave them the hell alone, stop supporting the despots we love to hate, etc.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    82. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course all those tactics rely on you doing all this fraud in the middle of a crowded room with election judges and people watching you. Yep easy as pie.

    83. Re:Lack of ethics by Steepe · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Huh? What in the hell does gay marriage have to do with anything you listed there? Every single one of those is illegal in every single state with the exception of #4 which has nothing to do with gays, and there isn't anything you can do about it anyway except get divorced so she is not your wife any more while having sex with her yoga instructor.

      But just for the hell of it, even though it makes absolutely no sense in the grand scheme of things, and has nothing at all to do with the topics mentioned..

      1. I generally don't go to sleep in a situation where someone can have sex with my while I'm asleep except my wife. Unless they broke into my house, in which case the alarm would go off and they would be dead because I would put a 45 shell between their eyes. Completely legal in my state.

      2. Illegal this time, but the above mentioned 45 shell in the above mentioned between the eyes would once again happen.

      3. I have 4 boys, no daughters, if my 14 or 15 year old boys were having sex with their english teacher I would probably have a problem with it only because she is a teacher, therefore in a position of authority. I however personally remember having sex when I was 14, and with a 14 year old girl. Never had sex with a 35 year old in that age range, mostly because I was not attracted to them.

      4. Hire a private eye, get it on tape, and then D-I-V-O-R-C-E

      --
      Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    84. Re:Lack of ethics by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      And marriage is kind of important. It's where most of the babies come from.
      No, most babies come from a man sticking his wiener in a woman. The fact that in many societies this coincides with marriage is a separate issue. Quite often, the imminent child is what instigates the marriage in the first place. Were marriage to be abolished tomorrow, I am confident that men will still seek to stick their wieners into women as often as possible. It's basic freakin' biology, man!
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    85. Re:Lack of ethics by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Everyone is missing the point. WE DON'T NEED MORE SECURITY. We need a better system. It doesn't matter how secure the voting apparatus is if you can't trust the people COUNTING the votes.

      The whole black box voting thing came as a response to some elections being RIGGED in 2004. The governments responsible for the elections said "that's impossible, these machines are secure" and we went on to prove that they weren't. So basically, they could have been rigged.

      But what needs to be known by every citizen is not that the machines are insecure. They need to realize that there are people who are rigging the elections. And it's not going to be some dickhead cracker who rigs the election. It's going to be the Secret Service or the CIA or some election commissioner somewhere who's a friend of a friend of the president or an influential senator. The MACHINES are not the problem. The PROBLEM is we can't trust the people who HOLD the elections because they are RIGGING them. More security will not solve that problem--it will simply hide more information and allow the government/shadow people/whatever to control the results more easily. Just like the false fear of the word "terror", increased security in voting will mean giving up some of your freedom, AGAIN.

      What I am scared of is some non-technical asshole reporter at the Washington Post picking up this story, misquoting/paraphrasing the article and slapping a headline like "Hackers Post HOWTO Manual to Rig Elections". The public will then percieve their enemy to be "hackers" or "people who know about voting machines". Thus, the lawmakers will seize this brief distrust and make such information illegal, furthering their control over the voting. THE MACHINES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. PEOPLE ARE *RIGGING* THE ELECTIONS.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    86. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again what hapens around the world also affects the US, it is a symbiotic relationship between countries. One country can not ignore another, and htey both need to work together or they both die.

    87. Re:Lack of ethics by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      How's this:
              If you were to publicly advocate those things in person, 99% of the people listening would detest you, and many of them would act on it. By act on it, in some places, you would have about 30 seconds before you were looking at your left kidney on the sidewalk. Yes, in some places you could possibly expect to be protected by law, but there is no law that says all those people have to do business with you, and few would feel any obligation to treat you with more than the bare minimum of rights, again as defined by law, at best. I sure wouldn't if I knew you supported genocide. Pragmatically, YOU are argueing from evolutionary survival, not law, and if your actions threaten your survival, you gain no evolutionary benefits from knowing the law might protect you, unless you have an absolute assurance a cop will show up in time, and won't take the lynch mob's side. If it's all about evolutionary paths, dead and legally vindicated is still dead.
                However, you are posting here on slashdot, a forum where you are protected by anonymity, and at least somewhat by dealing with rational and adult people (yeah, I know that last's a thin reed). So, to use your absolute terms, YOU have selected an environment with people YOU think are worth at least some respect for their ethical position on killing, compared to saying the same things publicly to the masses. Those people overwhelmingly disagree with the proposition. The 'absolute' and 'scientific' position you are in is that the very fact your debate opponents hold the counterposition is all that lets you take such a strongly pro killing position here, and it's your belief in their overall ethical rectitude that makes you trust this forum enough to openly state that position. Your doubt in that rectitude is enough to make you cautious, posting anonamously, but it is not enough to make you chose not to post at all, so YOU have already ceded that your opponent's ethics have at least a great deal of merit, if not quite absolute merit. Something that has to be stipulated as part of the discussion is an axiom. YOU are already reasoning from that axiom, so why not apply it to the question of genocide?
            (In other words, I didn't prove you wrong, but you did yourself)

      On a more minor note, in that last sentence, you're conflating logical truth and scientific truth. All science presumes the posibility of further experiment disproving an established hypothesis - in this sense, there are no absolute truths. So asking for an absolute ground that is also a scientific ground is like asking for a four sided triangle. No wonder nobody has given you one.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    88. Re:Lack of ethics by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Like most arguments you're employing a tactic that I see threaded throughout this whole objection, which is, that IF there's something wrong with X, because of Y, that there's nothing to fear because of Z.

      Fair enough.. I actually realized I had done that after I hit submit.

      I'm sure there are plenty of people who are against gay marriage would also like to outlaw divorce as damaging the sanctity of marriage, but that's not something that has broad appeal. Banning gay marriage is a more-reachable goal for them. I think a lot of it boils down to political support.

      Another analogy (and hot-button issue) would be abortion- pro-lifers may work towards banning specific types of abortion (like partial-birth abortion) but that doesn't mean they approve of any other type of abortion any more, just that they take their victories where they can get them.

      Anyway, I appreciate your response and your point is taken- I'll take it into consideration for creating future arguments :)

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    89. Re:Lack of ethics by Deagol · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It is also a fact that raising children is expensive and is a big financial burden on families that singles don't have and they can use some help.

      "It is also a fact that owning a Hummer is a big financial burden on people that those without Hummers don't have, and they can use some help."

      See how ridiculous that sounds? People have choice on whether or not to breed, as do they have a choice to own a Hummer. I don't feel pity for the financially strapped family in either camp.

      (posting from Utah, where 5+ kids is too damn common for my comfort)

    90. Re:Lack of ethics by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      A group like Al Qaeda desires to spread confusion and terror through the American people in order to change American policies abroad (their true goal, an Islamist superpower caliphate, is unattainable with the US projecting its power into the middle east.) Once you get past "OMG these guys are evil!" you start to look at them like any other subversive element in society.

      Hell, they don't even actually have to rig the election. All they have to do is *claim* that they have and have enough Americans believe them that it creates unrest. If there's no paper trail, and you can't prove that they didn't, that is a bad thing.

    91. Re:Lack of ethics by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Poor guy. I would have very much approved that part of my unemployment and social security insurance payments are distributed to you, so that you can get back on your feet earlier without killing yourself. And in return I'd get help should need arise for me. Solidarity is a good thing. It's sad that large parts of the younger generations in the US (and in Europe too it seems) don't see that.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    92. Re:Lack of ethics by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information? At what point do you take responsibility for what you post, and NOT diseminate information that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?

      Sometimes it takes a demontration to get people to listen. When politicans and the general public doesn't pay attention then they need to be hit on the head.

      Falcon
    93. Re:Lack of ethics by kpang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gays are not being "forced on you". If you agree that gays should be allowd to kiss, then you should be fine with them doing it wherever they please whether that be in the privacy of their own home, in public places, or on the big screen. Gays are not displayed in movies for the sole purpose of disgusting you, just like like fat people kissing each other or ugly people kissing each other in movies isn't done for the sole purpose of disgusting you. They're simply parts of everyday life. A racist person may find the idea of interracial relationships disgusting. That doesn't mean that those relationships should not be in movies, right? The same applies to homophobes and their view on gay relationships. Just because you don't happen to like watching it, doesn't mean that Hollywood should no longer be able to depict it. As for government aid: it's easy to complain about the government digging into your pockets when you're not a victim of circumstance. Just realize there are people out there who deserve a chance to succeed. It's not the cripple's fault he lost the use of his legs in a car accident. It's not the african american child's fault he was born into poverty and gang violence. There are always going to be people who abuse the system, but there are plenty more who should have an equal right to live healthy, productive lives.

    94. Re:Lack of ethics by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not just benefits.

      It's thinks like counting as 'family' for hospital visits, and medical decisions, and adopting children, and dividing property in case of a split, and all sorts of shit like that.

      Personally, I think human beings have the right to add (and, if they wish, remove) anyone they want to their family. They shouldn't even have to come up with a reason or it be any sort of 'named' relationship. If you and some random guy are stranded on a desert island for five years, and you get off, and trust each other implicitly, I don't see why you can't call each other 'family', and have that legally true. Or if you honestly wish to remove a parent from your life, I don't see why you can't and have them unable to make medical decisions for you. (Assuming you're an adult, that is. And, no, I'm not talking about emancipation.)

      Instead we have 'marriage', which carries all sort of baggage with it and people who are not planning on a sexual relationship don't even consider (Except that historical oddity, 'Boston Marriages'.), and which morons are fighting to keep people of the same gender from doing even when they are in a sexual relationship, and 'adoption', which only makes sense for a parent/child relationship.

      There's no way to get a 'blood brother' or anything and have them recogized under the law as actually being part of your family.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    95. Re:Lack of ethics by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with stealing an election? If Roslin had stolen the election then the humans would never have had to endure Cylon oppression on New Caprica. Oh wait...are we talking about reality here?

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    96. Re:Lack of ethics by Steepe · · Score: 1

      No need to poor guy me. There are things that are sadly missing in society today. Self respect, honor, integrity, and respect for others. I could not have faced my children had I just holed up and collected welfare. How could I, as a person who decided it was easier to sit on my butt and collect welfare demand perfection from them in their school work? How could I, as that person, demand that they work hard for what they want out of life, and show them that something earned is worth far more than something given? How could I, once again as that person, set rules and limits when the food in their mouths and the roof over their heads were provided by someone else?

      No thanks, I'll work the hours needed and be able to live with myself and face my kids.

      --
      Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    97. Re:Lack of ethics by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      Obviously not. There have been countless stories talking about how easy it would be that have gotten exactly no traction with the mainstream media, or the general public. This has been harped on for years, at least two years prior to the previous presidential election.

      I fully understand and support this article. Without an "OMG look at exactly how easy this is, and now it soooo public anyone can do it" step-by-step article, it will get no more attention than it has to date. Hopefully, this will cause so much upset and attention it can't be ignored.

      Who am I kidding, this will just get swept under the rug and buried by The Powers That Be(TM), whilst the sheeple get distracted by the next America's Dancing with the Idols on a Lost Island.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    98. Re:Lack of ethics by jc42 · · Score: 1

      [I]s it really ethical to distribute this kind of information ... that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?

      Sorry, but you can't get away with that argument this time. The information is already in the wrong hands - the people who built the equipment, and are selling it and "advising" the people running the elections.

      It's quite clear from the way things have been done, and from some of the participants' comments, that they fully intend to make it easy for their clients to steal elections. The only way we can stop them is to publicise the information about what they're up to.

      If we don't distribute this information to the general public, they'll continue to get away with it. The only way to straighten things out is to make as many people aware of the problems as we can.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    99. Re:Lack of ethics by rblum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And those are no problem if they're of the opposing sex?

    100. Re:Lack of ethics by Steepe · · Score: 0, Troll

      Completely hiding a VERY large part of the movie from appearing in trailers or being mentioned in reviews by professional reviewers I would actually consider forcing it on me. Had they made mention of it, I would have chosen to spend my money elsewhere that evening. I certainly would not have went and stood in front of the theater and said "eww. your going to see that movie? eww your gross" to whomever chose to go, but I personally choose not to see it.

      To your second point, It is also not my fault they are in that circumstance. Why should I have to pay for it, and in the end, my kids have to pay for it? I didn't hit the guy with my car. I didn't force the african american child to live in poverty. I didn't impregnate his mother and leave her there to have the child in poverty. So quite frankly, why should I be forced to pay for them?

      If I so choose to give to a charity, and I do when its one I belive in, or give someone work to do who needs the money, then I can (and do quite often) give them what I wish. I do not however see how it should be forced on me by others who then determine what to do with my money.

      Sound cold and heartless? possibly. but where does it stop? If you give to this african american child, then what about this white middle class child whos parents are busting to keep residing in an excellent neighborhood with excellent schools. What if that kid can't have the clothes of the same brand as is popular at the time, so that child is ridiculed in school, and suffers humiliation from his piers. should we not then give that child his jeans?

      --
      Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    101. Re:Lack of ethics by rblum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please do not confuse religious fascists with Christians. They might call themselves that, but they are not. There are plenty of decent Christians out there.

    102. Re:Lack of ethics by doom · · Score: 1
      Anonymous Coward wrote:
      Bullshit. If Gore had won, the Taliban would still be in control of Afganistan.

      But the Taliban are in control of Afganistan.

      (Oh my god, this explains it: Bush and Gore are actually the same person!)

    103. Re:Lack of ethics by AeroIllini · · Score: 1
      I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information? At what point do you take responsibility for what you post, and NOT diseminate information that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?

      I think that's a valid concern, when talking about certain kinds of information, such as instructions for building a nuclear weapon.

      However, I think the author's point is that we have been trying the responsible way of getting people to reform the vote for the last six years, and the response has been overwhelming apathy. No one even cares that the voting system is broken, yet it is so fundamental to our governmental process of checks and balances that everything else hinges on it. Disseminating information that further breaks the system is not really going to damage anything any more than it already is. It is time for some drastic action.

      Once Bart Simpson* is elected president in 14 key districts, people might sit up and take notice. Only then will we get meaningful reform.

      ------------------

      *Of course, the only way to get people to sit up and notice is to elect someone absurd. Someone who isn't even on the ballot. Otherwise it's too easy to dismiss the results as genuine, and leave people bickering instead of reforming.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    104. Re:Lack of ethics by labnet · · Score: 1

      So not being from America, please clarify for me.
      You as a public citizen, can't go to a public hospital and get free treatment??

      --
      46137
    105. Re:Lack of ethics by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Holing up and demanding/collecting welfare is not the same as receiving and in turn giving solidarity. That solidarity has become a tainted notion is another thing that is wrong with the world. And that people don't see through the badmouthing of solidarity and who benefits of de-solidarization.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    106. Re:Lack of ethics by jafac · · Score: 1

      What could be more destructive to the institution of marriage than divorce?

      WoW?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    107. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There are plenty of decent Christians out there.

      We're just having trouble finding any that will stick up for the non-christians.

    108. Re:Lack of ethics by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization

      Golly, and here I was thinking it was freedom. What a silly bunt I am.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    109. Re:Lack of ethics by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Also, when people pull out the "damage the institution of marriage" I usually ask them how exactly the damage occurs, ...

      As a resident of the state of Massachusetts, where gays have been able to marry legally for a couple of years now, I could comment on how this has affected my marriage with my wife.

      It hasn't. None at all.

      We have even attended a few gay weddings since they were legalized. Those didn't affect our marriage, either. They just made us a bit pleased that some friends of ours were permitted something that they were previously denied.

      The "damage marriage" argument is, as far as I can tell, totally bogus. Nobody else's marriage affects yours at all. Yours is just something between you and your spouse, and if it doesn't work, it's not the fault of strangers who have married someone else.

      Well, not unless they're having an affair with your spouse. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    110. Re:Lack of ethics by kpang · · Score: 1

      It's unreasonable to expect Hollywood to warn you of everything that's going to be in a movie based on what may or may not offend certain segments of society. Having a warning for "gay scenes" is heading down a very slippery slope. Where do you stop? Keeping with the same analogy as before, if a movie has a white man and a black woman in a relationship, does Hollywood need to warn us of this in the previews as well? As for why you have to pay for other people's misfortune? Well, it would be nice if the people directly responsible for putting those in need in the positions they are in had to pay to fix the situation. Unfortunately, that simply isn't possible. Usually, you can't pinpoint the ones responsible for a person's unfortunate situation. E.g. who do you blame for African American povery and education? The parents? White oppression? And even in the cases where you can actually point the finger to those responsible, they oftentimes lack the funds to adequately compensate for what they've done. So what do we do? We take the collective burden of the needy and distribute it to the people. A collective punishment to those who haven't done anything wrong? Yes. And on an individual level I agree with you, it isn't fair. But it would be a much larger injustice to those in need to have done nothing at all. And on a colder note, the government is going to do what is best for it. And frankly, it needs functioning members of society, not a bunch of disabled, poor, uneducated people out on the streets because they can't afford shelter.

    111. Re:Lack of ethics by fontkick · · Score: 1

      people dying in this country due to being priced out of receiving their necessary meds, we have become a country that has lost focus on things that *actually matter*.

      My reply is off topic, sorry, but I couldn't let this pass.

      Can you give actual real world examples of people dying in the U.S. due to lack of medical care?

      Illegal immigrants (i.e. the poor) get free medical care if they show up in an emergency room and require a life saving procedure. Emergency rooms aren't allowed to turn people away. Mexican laborers in this country are the poorest people here, yet they still manage to send billions of dollars back to Mexico every year. A year or so ago a young girl here in NC had a heart transplant at Duke (she later died because the doctors incorrectly typed her blood and gave her the wrong heart.) She couldn't afford the operation, which costs about a million dollars, and the mother was from Mexico, but she STILL had the transplant. Granted she died, but that wasn't because she was prevented from getting a procedure done by the 'evil Republicans'.

      I think leftists who complain about America being a horrible place to live really have their heads up their asses. The country hasn't lost sight of anything because the 'country' doesn't do anything. There are plenty of *people*, including people who work for drug companies, providing low cost or free health care services to the poor. That includes every single taxpayer and every person who is responsible enough to pay for their own health coverage.

    112. Re:Lack of ethics by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      So can anybody even point me to a link on the web to anywhere that talks about this in a logical that even atempts to explain how I could be hurt by this?

      I don't have a link, but personally, I'm of the opinion that not allowing gay marriage damages the sanctity of marriage.

      Though slowly becoming undone, there is still a "taboo" nature of being homosexual. Individuals that are homosexual may not come to terms with it as a result of societal pressures. They marry into a heterosexual marriage and have kids. The end result is a divorce, a broken home, and emotional stress on all involved. If people were able to realize who they are sooner by being free from those social pressures, those unfortunate types of marriage problems might be reduced or nearly eliminated.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    113. Re:Lack of ethics by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Huh? What in the hell does gay marriage have to do with anything you listed there?

      oops my bad. The way the articles were sorted, this looked like a thread about Congressman Foley, not about gay marriage.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    114. Re:Lack of ethics by Gooba42 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      This has been incredibly important from the first time Diebold claimed their machines were perfect and secure but refused third-party audit of their code or hardware.

      Any doubt whatsoever about our votes is damaging to our national identity and voter enfranchisement. Any amount of time that passes between discovery of this kind of insecurity and either fixing or banning the affected machines is too long. The *only* way that, 6 years later, we can force this issue is with widespread abuse and tampering of the machines.

      Diebold (among others) simply doesn't plan to address this issue unless they are forced to do so. We can't wait any longer and let any more questionable elections happen.

      --
      I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
    115. Re:Lack of ethics by RxScram · · Score: 1

      If it was just you and some random guy for five years, then there is a good chance that you would have gotten off... by yourself on another part of the island, if nothing else.

    116. Re:Lack of ethics by bryguy5 · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our e-voting hacking overlords.

      Geeks of the world Unite!

    117. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nevermind the absurdity of this discussion. As a Christian, I'm offended by your gross mischaracterization of my faith. Homosexuals are more at odds with tradition (the traditional family values that have defined our modern society) than any single religion. Christians are more likely to invite homosexuals to church to learn about Jesus than "put the fags in jail", as you put it. Any one that screams "God hates fags" or "You're going to Hell" is either not a Christian or an extremely misguided Christian. But, such oversimplifications underline your ignorance of the different denominations that can be found in America. Finally, I believe that Christians are far too sophisticated to subscribe to your system of blindly rewarding any politician that claims to hold their values. Christians believe that they are no more and no less a sinner than anyone else. So, from a Christian standpoint, we're all equal in God's eyes. And as a Christian I'm constantly questioning and testing my faith. Christians are not the religious zombies you've so recklessly characterized them to be.

    118. Re:Lack of ethics by J053 · · Score: 1
      Personally I think two guys kissing et all is rather sick and disgusting. If they want to do it thats cool as hell. More women for me right? :) What I don't like is having it sprung on me and forced on me. Particularly in movies / TV shows.

      What if it's 2 hot chicks? Do you feel any differently about Hot Lesbian Sex than you do about male homosexuality? If so, why?

    119. Re:Lack of ethics by Denial93 · · Score: 1

      Are there? So where are you decent Christians when your fundamentalist (would-be) brethren push their latest "Bible vs. Reality" project? I keep hearing most Christians aren't fundamentalists, but all the input I get from the Christian camp is so fundamentalist it makes me sick. So if you are a non-fundamentalist, and if you have friends who will take the advice, will you finally make a noise about it and start a proper theological debate that seperates what is wacko about fundamentalism from what is cool about Christianity. Until you do that, you are freeriders on the fundamentalist rise to power and no non-religious person in their right mind will offer you many more respect than they do towards fundamentalists.

      Sorry if this sounds like flamebait. I'm just really disappointed with the moderate Christians' PR job.

    120. Re:Lack of ethics by icebones · · Score: 1

      It's unbelievable that something so obviously flaim bait gets modded up to 4, Insightful.
      A great example of slashdot modding and meta-modding at it's finest.

      --
      Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
    121. Re:Lack of ethics by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So not being from America, please clarify for me.
      You as a public citizen, can't go to a public hospital and get free treatment??

      Unless you are dying, no you can not go to a hospital and demand treatment. If you have no health insurance, and they will ask for it, all the hospital is required to do is to stabilize your condition if you are seriouly ill or injured.

      falcon
    122. Re:Lack of ethics by DenDude · · Score: 1

      I'm be happy to stick up for any non-Christian, as long as he isn't ridiculing me for my "invisible friend". I have no problems with any group aside from those militant anti-Cristians that think you must be a retard to believe in a higher power.

      --
      A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
    123. Re:Lack of ethics by demachina · · Score: 1

      Actually your analogy is the only thing that sounds ridiculous. Hummers are a luxury. Having children is an essential biological process necessary for preservation of your species and genetic material. A spouse and children are a really valuable thing to have when you age or have a serious illness because they will hopefully take care of you versus dumping you on the mercies of strangers in public health care. Its not as true as it was but children also propagate some continuity in wealth creation, especially in home ownership, farms and small business.

      As you grow older I think you might realize that having no children means your life has substantially less meaning than if you have a couple well raised children. It fosters continuity and stability which is why governments like marriage and children so much.

      I wont dispute there is a lot of validity in your point that people having a LOT of children, and getting government subsidies for it is probably a net negative, but it is an extremely desirable part of societal well being for people to have one or two children so tax breaks aren't an unreasonable thing for that. Its kind of an unfortunate fact of life that capitalism, nationalism and militarism thrives on population growth so governments routinely strive to fuel it, until it reaches the point overpopulation becomes a net negative as it has in India and China.

      --
      @de_machina
    124. Re:Lack of ethics by statusbar · · Score: 2, Interesting
      genocide in the Sudan is unlikely to affect the majority of the voter

      Neither does same-sex marriage...

      And if they say it does, because of an insanse fear of some violent God's retribution towards humanity, wouldn't that same violent God (from "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Fame) be more upset at genocide?

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    125. Re:Lack of ethics by aevans · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it would have happened twice.

    126. Re:Lack of ethics by icebones · · Score: 1
      It's not the cripple's fault he lost the use of his legs in a car accident.

      no, it's the fault of the drunk that hit him, so sue him and live off that ;), unless the cripple is the one that was drunk, in which case....

      It's not the african american child's fault he was born into poverty and gang violence.

      no, it's his parent's, but a good friend of mine that was born into that situation, worked his a$$ off, got a scholarship and was a licensed stock broker at 21. He's also the last one that would want the gov'ts help.

      --
      Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
    127. Re:Lack of ethics by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Get Bin Laden in the House. That should raise a few eyebrows.

    128. Re:Lack of ethics by aevans · · Score: 1

      even el Jefe agrees by now...Castro toeing the communist party line? Remarkable!

    129. Re:Lack of ethics by kpang · · Score: 1

      1. It'd be lovely if the drunk who hit the cripple could pay for the damage he caused, but that's often not the case. I know a kid who, when he was only 6 years old, was paralyzed in a car accident because of some drunk lunatic losing control of his car. Luckily for him, his parents were well off because the drunk had little to no money at all. They sued, they won, but there's no way they'll ever see the money. If his family weren't already well off and there were no social benefits to rely on, he'd be in a very difficult situation.

      As for your friend. Good for him. But I think he'd be the first to admit that his path to success was much more difficult than his peers. And it's not always the parent's fault. If it were, then you could easily blame the grandparent's since the parents were most likely born into poverty. And then the grandparents. And the great grandparents. Until you trace back the blame to some slave who probably shouldn't be held accountable for the situation he wound up in. The world's not quite as cut and dry as "tough shit, deal with it".

    130. Re:Lack of ethics by aevans · · Score: 1

      You do notice that what you describe can't be done by homosexual couples?

    131. Re:Lack of ethics by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think government should get out of the marriage promotion business altogether and just concern itself with guardianship laws and contract law.

      Hear Hear!

    132. Re:Lack of ethics by Deagol · · Score: 1
      As you grow older I think you might realize that having no children means your life has substantially less meaning than if you have a couple well raised children. It fosters continuity and stability which is why governments like marriage and children so much.

      Assume much?

      I happen to be the happy father of two, thank-you-very-much. One came as part of a package deal with my wife, and we had one more. We got her tubes tied, and have been happy with our mere two replacements on this planet ever since.

      Why is it necessary for citizens of one of the richest first-world economies to be hand-held in their responsible *choice* to breed? I honestly can't fathom that a couple that concluded that they were too financially strapped to responsibly have children would actually reconsider that choice when they take a goofy tax tax credit into account. That's just silly.

      Again, I think that tax breaks for things like having children is lame -- why the hell should people who breed (or get married, for that matter) get off the hook for some dollar figure come tax time? Sure, I take advantage of them myself, because, well, I also think taxes are lame, so I'll take advantage of any legal means I have to reduce my taxes. But you can bet your ass that I'd vote for any candidate or ballot measure that aimed to eliminate the punishment of the child-free and unmarried.

    133. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people really wanted to defend marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.

      Don't even go there. People in my home state are trying to outlaw no-fault divorce and trying to raise the bar for "fault". Several politicians have openly stated that this is just a stepping-stone to a total ban of divorce here.

      I'm dead serious.

      A month or two ago, I was scanning for any local radio conversations with my handheld transceiver and I ran across what turned out to be a radio show. Someone was talking about how our schools weren't teaching kids properly and how there was poverty in the inner cities, and "You didn't have those remedial courses on this level until there was no-fault divorce!".

      What's amusing is that these people are invariably fundigelical "Christians" who wouldn't know Christ if he walked right up to them and said "Feel my wounds.".

    134. Re:Lack of ethics by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood..I barely even watch the news anymore. The issue is one of priorities - what should be news - and yes the horrific bloodshed of international conflict stemming from sad state of politics at home is more important than building museums. I want to know all about our museums, but we should know more about the historical events shaping our world (like groundbreaking science, sabotaged elections) before those museums turn into wartime memorials.

    135. Re:Lack of ethics by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      You left off the words "to me".


      Thanks for the obligatory relativistic post but I just can't understand how a (fortunately declining) number of Americans support acts that are totally contrary to all the groundlines laid down in your wonderful constitution. No seriously. I know it may sound sarcastic but the way the American Constitution specifies which issues should be handled bu which level of government and, more importantly, which issues should be left up to individual people themselves is still as inspiring now as it was more than two centuries ago.

    136. Re:Lack of ethics by LardBrattish · · Score: 1

      Yes, but just imagine what President Nader will do until the recount...

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    137. Re:Lack of ethics by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Security through obsfucation has been proven to NOT work. Simply view Window's.

      The simple answer on this, is that groups have spent several years trying to get the public to listen. But many politicians are back these companies. So, now they show how to crack these systems. Personally, I hope that at least several are set to 100% communist (or 100% republican or democrat, etc). Once that happens, then folks will realize that it is easy to crack these system and that there is a good chance that something similar has already happened.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    138. Re:Lack of ethics by Alegery · · Score: 1

      Speaking from my own experience, surrounded by the elderly, laypeople don't believe it's really as easy to hack voting machines as everyone says. The first place they hear about it isn't from Princeton, it's from CNN or FOX, and they dismiss it as sensationalism as usual. They're too enamored with how easy it is to use the machine to "hassle" themselves with absentee ballots and they think it's neat to push buttons on the screen. Novelty is outweighing the desire for free and fair elections.

      After the election, even if, contrary to all expectations, the Republicans win races they really shouldn't, I believe that in today's political climate no one would be receptive to the claim that the machines were hacked simply because Democrats are seen as chronic whiners and sore losers, and because the public just doesn't respond to the media anymore unless its reinforcing what they already believe.

      And in the name of unnecessary political correctness, I'll explain that the reason why I'm talking as if the Republicans are the only ones cheating is because everything points to that Party being the one that needs to cheat to still win at this point.

    139. Re:Lack of ethics by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Please do not confuse religious fascists with Christians. They might call themselves that, but they are not. There are plenty of decent Christians out there.

      I have two responses to this. First, who gets to decide who is a "real christian"? I have been around lots of christians that claim other people who call themselves christians are not christians. Sometimes it is people who say "anyone who hates another person isn't a christian" sometimes it is "anyone who votes democrat isn't a christian". sometimes it is "anyone who is a catholic isn't really a christian", "mormons aren't christians", "anyone who doesn't attend my particular church isn't christian", etc. Unless you recognize a central authority who gets to decide who is and who is not a christian, I have to go with the rule of whoever says they are christian is a christian.

      My second response is that if christians are so decent and 90% of america is christian, why do gay bashing measures always seem to pass by overwhelming margins when it comes up for a vote?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    140. Re:Lack of ethics by ancientt · · Score: 1
      Okay, first genocide isn't something I get much influence on. I agree it is bad but my potential impact by considering the question is much less than my admittedly minor impact by discussing gay marriage and potential voting machine fraud.

      Gay marriage: Don't care unless the state makes marriage actually significant.
      Judicial legislation: Bad. It is an example of a minority enforcing its opinion on the majority
      Voting machine (potential) fraud: Why didn't I didn't get to vote on how my vote would be counted? Its one thing to have someone defraud me of my right to vote, but the machine is only half the problem, the other half is who got to decide which machines to use.

      What should happen:
      1. Make marriage really costly to mess up
      2. Let the people decide what it is
      3. Make voting by machine reliable
      4. Give the legislature back its role as the maker of the law (instead of letting the court do it.)
      This is a very reduced post on the topic covered in much greater detail here. Please feel free to debate or slander or support with a comment there.
      Disclaimer: Of course it is according to me, who else could I represent?

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    141. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, those whom you consider "religious fascists" would probably hold your "decent Christians" in the same light. That is, they probably wouldn't consider them Christians. So, what does it mean to be Christian?

    142. Re:Lack of ethics by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the wonderful world where we could march three ranks of people directly into the ocean constantly and STILL increase in population.
      People are still, after thousands of years, acting like sheep or lemmings and not stepping far enough out of their box to see that a lot of rules that do exist are merely because someone is uncomfortable with the thing that they are preventing.
      Condom use seems to increase with IQ. Note that that's not solving the problem I mentioned above. We have enough care to take care of enough people who if we didn't have it wouldn't have survived. Think about how many people wear glasses now. This is going to keep increasing because it's now normal to see people with glasses. If people who had really bad eyesight stopped having kids, the problem would resolve itself. This is not going to happen because of ethical reasons.
      It's important to realize that these same ethics are driving the discussions around another way out of the situation. Genetic Engineering.

      Humans do stupid things. Take a course on how well we can actually make decisions, you'll die laughing. It's shocking that we've survived so long. What's even more important to realize is that even with an article that basically hands an election out, nobody's going to do anything. If it raises a debate, it would be surprizing. People will wait to see it realized and then shit themselves IF it's proven. We're going to have to see someone take a fall before ANYTHING is done about it. And then it will take at least a decade before changes to the system start showing up in it.

      Just think. They're still arguing about building on the WTC grounds six years after they supposedly cleaned it up. And they just uncovered MORE bodies. This article won't change a thing.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    143. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to get any PR at all when most of our culture is focused on conflict. In this case our newspeople have decided that rather than having moderate Christians discussing logically and empathatically why they do not think gay marriage is a good thing, we'd rather see extremists from both sides throwing rocks at each other and being restrained by police.

      I totally agree with you about our responsability to do our best to discuss this matter civally with everyone we know. Too often Christians do not examine why they believe something is true and so are simply not ready to debate it. I can't say I'm completely ready to back up my argument on the matter myself. Other times it's a matter of intimidation. We *know* that negetive stereotypes of Christians are abundant, and we *know* that we'll have to change people's perceptions of us when we talk to them. That's a big deterrant to any Christian who is not used to being mocked.

      Not that we should not try, or learn to do it right. We have God who wants us to do just that after all, don't we?

    144. Re:Lack of ethics by superiority · · Score: 1

      He's not saying same-sex marriage should be allowed because divorce is both harmful to marriage and legal. He's saying divorce should be outlawed (according to the logic behind a common anti-SSM argument) for the same reasons same-sex marriage is not allowed. Yet, curiously, there is no widespread divorce-criminalisation movement.
      Wow. When you think about it, that's exactly what you'd expect if these anti-same-sex marriage activists only nominally cared about the 'sanctity' of marriage and the real issue was, as a sibling post said, putting the fags in their place.


      Funny coincidence, that.

    145. Re:Lack of ethics by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Too bad there are none in politics willing (or able) to stick up for their decent Christian values.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    146. Re:Lack of ethics by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      If you're a real Christian -- now let me say this slowly and carefully, so you'll be sure to understand -- it doesn't matter at all what other people think of your "invisible friend."

      When you (and all the other Christians out there) understand that, we'll all finally be able to move on and start discussing things that matter.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    147. Re:Lack of ethics by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Umm, why would the parent poster get off over two guys being on an island for 5 years?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    148. Re:Lack of ethics by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I think that the people dieing is really just hyperbole for the elderly who live in pain due to unable to purchase the required pain medication. A bad situation none the less. I'm sure that there are some heart medications, blood pressure medications, and diabetic issues that are also difficult to get paid for. You are right we seem to be pretty good at the initial taking care of someone, because as someone who got stuck with a pretty sever bone infection for almost 4 years because I was a starving college student with no insurance, the initial taking care of me was fine. It was the complications and the on going care that sucked.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    149. Re:Lack of ethics by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't pounce you like others for trying to explain someone else's viewpoint :-), but here's a thought: you fight Differents, folks different from your standard, absolutely, and you fight familiar Differents closer more vehemently than unfamiliar ones. The debate on homosexual marriage has been going on for a decade now; Darfur has just come up on the radar screen. Besides, those poor improverished folk form a small part of the screen while watching CNN or BBC. An Elton John or a Rainbow Coalition march through the town is much much larger, and much more in-your-face.

    150. Re:Lack of ethics by Pulchellissima · · Score: 1

      Bravo and well said.

      I'm one of those 'older' (ok, I'm 44 and a woman, I can maybe have kids still) adults that choose, yes choose, not to have children. I'm noticing nothing lacking in my life. No meaning is lost.

      I see no merit in marriage either. But then I'm in a long-term heterosexual relationship and quite happy. Maybe I'd feel differently if my partner wanted to marry, but I doubt it.

      I would like to get the breaks a married couple with kids gets. And frankly, if the laws remain as restrictive as they do, once my partner and I get older we might be forced to get married. Our relationship is as deep and important as a marriage. We want the right to decide medical/health and financial issues for each other if need be. But that's denied us by current law, just as it's denied to homosexuals. How unfair is that?

    151. Re:Lack of ethics by Magada · · Score: 1

      Hell yes. It is, in exactly the same way in which America's atomic spies, who passed on the bobmb secrets to the russkies, did the safe and ethical thing, in retrospect. If EVERY party can hack the election, there's a much lower chance that one will actually succeed in doing so.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    152. Re:Lack of ethics by Magada · · Score: 1

      No, HE wouldn't. Go read the Bible. Genocide and mass murder are quite ok when done by lawful representatives of the Chosen People.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    153. Re:Lack of ethics by houghi · · Score: 1
      but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information?


      I have information on how to get on a ship and trow tea overboard. Would it be ethical to distribute that kind of information?

      To andwer the question, I think it would be un-ethical NOT to distribute the information. This is about the freedom of your country. It might be highly illegal, but it is ethical. I really, really hope that it will be done in EVERY computer out there, because otherwise they will just not be counting those machines. They did it bofore, you know.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    154. Re:Lack of ethics by statusbar · · Score: 1

      I guess you are right... I never really understood how "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means "Thou Shalt Kill"...
      ... because they know what God thinks.
      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    155. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is as ethic as publishing software failures.

      Its better to know that you are screwed than discover it yourself when its too late.

    156. Re:Lack of ethics by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      We need a lot of somebodies to do this. If only a few machines are hacked, it's a statistically small error and some judge will get to decide. To me, it would be unethical for the errors to be so small that the hacking isn't obvious. If Ralph Nader, or even better, Mickey Mouse, won by a landslide, the problems would be so obvious, that the election would need to be repeated and on oldfashioned PAPER ballots of the sort Jimmy Carter would endorse. It might still be illegal, and the patriots involved might be arrestedd, but this would be more likely to lead to effective reform than simply stealing the election.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    157. Re:Lack of ethics by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Because you obviously haven't been reading the second topic long enought to understand the discussion and write a meaningful comment.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    158. Re:Lack of ethics by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      When people give a shit more about some gays marrying in NJ than they do about genocide in Darfur, military and civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan, and people dying in this country due to being priced out of receiving their necessary meds, we have become a country that has lost focus on things that *actually matter*.


      The people that you are referring to are the Republican strategists who think that this tactic will be an effective distraction from the fact that the administration hasn't done anything worth bragging about concerning the genocide, Irag, Afghanistan, and overpriced meds. I am hoping that the silliness of this attempt will make the failings of those in power completely obvious to anyone who pays attention.
      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    159. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .............I guess you are right... I never really understood how "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means "Thou Shalt Kill"... ......

      Well, the text actually says "Though shall not MURDER". As much as I hate killing, there is a difference between murdering and killing someone. Another one of many misquoted verses in the bible.

    160. Re:Lack of ethics by happy_place · · Score: 1

      Using divorce as a self-evident point is still a poor example, because you have to derail your point to prove another point, and then tie it back to the first. It may be that divorce (applied wisely) improves marriage. Further, as I noted originally, if divorce is really really bad, adding gay marriage will increase the rate of divorce, because not only will there be hetero-divorce but homo-divorce. Of course lawyers love this stuff. So if you're a huge fan of lawyers, I can see where this would be your dream. Further I think a majority of voters who oppose gay marriage, also oppose frivolous divorce. Either way it's a logical bait and switch. Further, you create a strawman argument that the debate is all about "putting the fags in their place", when it may not have anything to do with "fags". While no doubt there are religious arguments, there are also civic arguments, such as the possibility of creating social incentives for marital relations in which the potential for the next generation of tax payers can have a stable environment in which to grow. --Ray

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    161. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully all of you 1) are quite weathy, 2) plan on having your own children completely support you with no social security, or 3) be coming up with a solution to the social security problem which doesn't require the product of other people's "choice to breed" to support you. It seems as though people want breeding couples to pay for all expenses, with no benefits, then later take the money being fed into those now-grown people's children's work. Since all of the money left over from soc. sec. right now is funeled into the general budget (mean there is no surplus being saved) and money must be fed in by the current generation to support the generation who earlier supported their own parents/grandparents, it's definately in you insterest for people to have children.

    162. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there are more references in the bible advocating slavery than there are condeming homosexuals-- and yet most "Christians" do not still accept slavery, but many condemn homosexuality -- I have a little issue with the argument.

        Also, if I remember correctly, the portion that does make 2 (or so) references to homosexuality is also the part that refers to what methods you should use to clean yourself after touching a mestration woman and what food you should eat (remember no shellfish!!!).

      If the Bible were followed systematically, there might be more respect. It's the same problems with "Islamofascism" as with the fundamentalist christians - there's no enough condemnation of the extremes by the moderates to be legitimate for the rest of the world. Just look at what's happening in Australia . . . or the Children of God cult - every group says they are following the "true" teachings . . .Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with such groups, no matter my actual beliefs.

    163. Re:Lack of ethics by DenDude · · Score: 1

      Okay, the OP stated that (paraphrasing out of laziness here) "We can't find Christians to stick up for non-Christians".

      My reply was (paraphrasing out of habit) that I'm happy to, as long as I don't have to spend all my time defending my faith.

      Any your point is that what they think doesn't matter?

      Well, you are partly correct, it *doesn't* matter what other people think of my invisible friend. What does matter is being ridiculed for it. That's it. The whole thing. Not many people I know like having intelligent conversations with, or defending other people that ridicule them.

      Just as it wouldn't matter what your opinion on other races is. However, if you start out a conversation ridiculing blacks, most black folks will not want to talk to you, and certainly would not want to defend you.

      By the way, no need to speak slowly and carefully, I'm more than smart enough to understand normal conversation. Even though I'm a Christian, I actually have the ability to understand english.

      Another by the way here: What the hell does the -- "If you're a real Christian" thing mean? That Christians are some kind of homogenous entity? I'll say this slowly so that you can read it slowly; "There are many, many different sects of Christians. Some have different beliefs than others." For example, I'm a Christian that thinks the theory of evolution is about the best way to explain things. Tons 'o folks would brand me a heretic for that.

      A little generalization goes a long way.

      --
      A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
    164. Re:Lack of ethics by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Does it say that in the original hebrew?

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    165. Re:Lack of ethics by noigmn · · Score: 1

      According to an incredibly reliable site that I found, "The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number."

      So it would be sensible to say that the Hebrew version of the bible doesn't really say anything. It's just one rediculously huge number. :)

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    166. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are not willing to do what it takes to get a job then you are starving by choice. You should of sucked it up and went to work for someone that could get you insurance to pay for your pain medication. Unless, of course, you were deliberately leaving yourself in pain. People do that by choice too.

    167. Re:Lack of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curiouser and curiouser... is it prime? Is it a valid Goedel number, perhaps? A Mersenne, even? Any of the above would be ever so very much cooler than any of the old "bible code" theories.
      I have a sudden urge to go look up the Hebrew numbering system and possibly look for a machine readable Hebrew copy of the old testament.

    168. Re:Lack of ethics by labnet · · Score: 1

      Wow..
      Just for you information.
      In Australia.

      You can show up at any hospital for anything concerning you (from a cold to broken arm to trauma) treatment is free
      Generally though people will go to a local GP unless they think it is urgent. Consult is about 25USD
      For non life threataning treatment, you go on a waiting list which can be from a day to several years... or you can use go to a private hospital where you would generally have private insurance.
      Fund your own health insuance (about $600 per annum).

      The medical system is subsidised by a 1.5% tax on your annual taxable income.
      Many drugs are also heavily subidised by the Govt.(if the net benefit outweighs the drug cost)

      --
      46137
    169. Re:Lack of ethics by Magada · · Score: 1

      You've stumbled upon the Gematria.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    170. Re:Lack of ethics by MLease · · Score: 1

      I used to think, as you do, that anyone who really wants work can get it. However, I've discovered that getting suitable work sufficient to support a family, pay a mortgage, pay for health insurance, etc., was a different animal. Good for you that you were able to do what you did. But not everyone is capable of it. I'd guess that you were in your 20's or 30's and in excellent health at the time. Pushing 50, dealing with sleep apnea, clinical depression and other health issues significantly changes what one is able to do. If I were to work 90+ hours a week, it wouldn't be all that long before I dropped dead, literally. I have tried to find consulting work, and it really hasn't worked out; the competition out there is fierce, and most of them are a lot younger than I am. So far, all I've taken from the government has been unemployment; I've used that up, as well as my severance package and my savings. OTOH, I've paid plenty of taxes into the system over the past 30-odd years, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't get some of that back now.

      But if it helps you sleep better to dismiss me as lazy so you can smugly go off and tell yourself how much better you are than me, go ahead.

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  2. How quaint. by pupstah · · Score: 1, Funny

    Anyone using this to aid H.R. Clinton will be granted a one way ticket to Iraq to stand out in the middle of a city street wearing a Bush t-shirt.

    --

    -- pupkick

    1. Re:How quaint. by kalirion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup, and anyone using this to aid the GOP will be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    2. Re:How quaint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people are thinking too pedestrian.

      Why not give the masses a REAL incentive to revolt? Hack in the Prohibition Party!

    3. Re:How quaint. by Al_Maverick · · Score: 1

      Stop using the word "freedom", please. I dont think it means what you think it means. :p

  3. In two easy steps ... by SpooForBrains · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party
    2. There is no step two ...

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    1. Re:In two easy steps ... by msobkow · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is so a step 2.

      Make sure you have enough connections that if the vote is questionable or close, the courts will arbitrarily award you victory regardless of the numbers.

      Worked for Shrub... :(

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:In two easy steps ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Quick search. First couple of results:
    3. Re:In two easy steps ... by FrostyCoolSlug · · Score: 1

      Of course there's a 2.. 2) Profit!

    4. Re:In two easy steps ... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party

      Er, the head of ANY company is generally a supporter of some particular party -- And good GOD, sometimes they are even ENTHUSIASTIC supporters!

      What are you saying, are we supposed to take away the voting rights of any executive that might be connected to voting machines?

      Oh, I think I got it. We only allow voting machines to be created by "vociferous supporters" of the party that YOU like.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:In two easy steps ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supporter? Don't you mean beneficiary?

      (The term "support" is really just a slick way to say "benefit from". People "support" political parties or laws for exactly that reason: they benefit from the law in some way or have at least convinced themselves of it.)

    6. Re:In two easy steps ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just simply forget about voting machines and use something that actually works properly.

    7. Re:In two easy steps ... by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's wrong to take away the voting rights of anybody. Just ask them to step down from any position that puts them in a conflict of interest.

      Here in Ohio in 2004, Ken Blackwell was the Secretary of State, who is in charge of running the elections. He was also the head of Bush/Cheney re-election campaign in Ohio. This is was a conflict of interest. He should have stepped down from one position or the other.

      Similarly, if an executive of a company that makes voting machines is giving speeches in support of a candidate, or writing in a fund-raising letter stating that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,", that is a conflict of interest. Either work for the company, or work for a candidate/party. Go ahead and vote. But don't campaign or participate in fund-raising events. To do make voting machines and actively campaign for a candidate or party is a conflict of interest.

      The problem is that when a private company is making voting machines, there is no built-in parity of the system. With the old paper ballot system, representatives from *both* parties were physically present during the voting and the counting, to provide oversight. In the case of black-box machines controlled by a private corporation, they do not have to have representatives from both parties witness the development and implementation of the machines. This will lead to fraud and corruption.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    8. Re:In two easy steps ... by lixee · · Score: 4, Informative
      1. Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party
      This actually happened a few months ago in Mexico; http://www.correntewire.com/mexico_calderons_broth er_in_law_wrote_the_vote_counting_software_and_its _already_been_hacked

      If you're not convinced the election has been stolen, check out this excerpt from an article by McNeills:
      Victor Romero is a Doctor of physics who specialises in statistics and randomness at the National University of Mexico. He studied the electoral commission computer results closely and he believes there is strong evidence of interference. Dr Romero explained to me a very unusual statistical pattern he noticed with the PRD vote as the tallies came into towards the end. "The PRD was winning and then suddenly at about 70% they start losing and never even gained .01 of a percentage," he explained. It seems incredible that as the last 30% of results came in, the PRD share of votes never increased. "It could be like this and then like that," Dr Romero explains, moving his hands up and down, "More of one party and less than another. But not in order. The order here is completely unexplainable."
      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    9. Re:In two easy steps ... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Any use of the word "Shrub" to refer to President automatically qualifies you as a troll.

      It wasn't funny or clever 6 years and now it's just annoying.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    10. Re:In two easy steps ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, if an executive of a company that makes voting machines is giving speeches in support of a candidate, or writing in a fund-raising letter stating that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,", that is a conflict of interest. Either work for the company, or work for a candidate/party.

      Honestly, that wouldn't be a problem if the voting machines had been well designed. But then, if the voting machines were well designed, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

    11. Re:In two easy steps ... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Troll, eh?

      Guess the Shrub-lovers either don't like the truth or don't see the humour of worrying about whether voting machines can be hacked when voting machines weren't responsible for that fraudulent "victory."

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    12. Re:In two easy steps ... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      So if not Shrub, what other term would you like to see used to express my utter lack of respect for that man's policies and decisions? While I sympathize that he acts on the information provided by advisors, he is nonetheless the one making the decisions for the US administration.

      G-Dub and Shrub don't qualify as all-out insults or leave one open to charges of defamation and such.

      The terms I'd like to use would leave me open to legal action.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    13. Re:In two easy steps ... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well, I have no problems with the fact that you feel that way, I'd just like to see people be a little more original. People will pay more attention to you, and if they laugh they are less likely to be offended if they disagree with you.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  4. German Petition against voting machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All germans, please sign this petition:

    http://itc.napier.ac.uk/e-Petition/bundestag/view_ petition.asp?PetitionID=294

    It currently has 13748 votes.

    Thanks!

    1. Re:German Petition against voting machines by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``It currently has 13748 votes.''

      And now we watch the /. effect do its job...

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:German Petition against voting machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In /English/ law, parliament is not informed how many signatures were on a petition, merely that there /was/ a petition. To maximise the effect, it's actually worth setting things up one signature to a petition. That would then be reported as n number of different petitions, which would attract significantly more attention. Don't know if the same applies in Germany, and I'd be interested to know.

    3. Re:German Petition against voting machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, and i'm accountable for 13745 of them!!

    4. Re:German Petition against voting machines by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was the 16,385th voter.

      Now there are -1 votes for this petition.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    5. Re:German Petition against voting machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the irony of 13,748 people voting electronically against electronic voting. :)

  5. Are you the RIAA? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you the RIAA, going on about "stealing" intangible concepts that cannot be stolen? You can't steal an election, any more than you can steal music.

        -- The Diebold P2P Network Team

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Are you the RIAA? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Actually you can. See, if you steal the election from the people, they no longer have one! Erm...

      If you steal the election, the people no longer have their result! Mpff...

      If you steal the election, the people will have a different result than they originally had!

      Rats...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Are you the RIAA? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You should be +5 insightful.

      A lot of slashdotters who would argue both those ways without seeing a conflict.

      It's like the iraqi they had on NPR last night.

      A) He wants americans killed and he wants the shiite militia to do it.
      B) He wants the americans to stay and protect him from the suni's.

      he sees *NO* conflict in these two positions.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Are you the RIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) He wants americans killed and he wants the shiite militia to do it. B) He wants the americans to stay and protect him from the suni's. he sees *NO* conflict in these two positions.

      There is no conflict. If the Americans left, the shiite militia couldn't kill them any more. It's easy to turn peoples words on themself and doesn't provide any insight. Yesterday I heard Bush describe his goals for Iraq. I don't remember his exact terms, but I just started laughing. He described Iraq before the invasion. That doesn't show anything, except that Bush is sometimes careless with his words. Big deal.

    4. Re:Are you the RIAA? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      What is stolen is each voters ability to influence the election. Unlike the music company that still has the music and can still try to sell it, the voter really has lost something they had. So yes, this can be considered stealing.

    5. Re:Are you the RIAA? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      In tort law this would be called conversion and it is entirely different from your example with music. Your analogy breaks down here. The election may not be a tangible object but it is something which can be taken away. As in your right to vote can be withheld from you through vote fraud. This is conversion. With music, copying the music does not stop someone else from using that music as they choose. In fact it allows more people to enjoy it. See the difference?

    6. Re:Are you the RIAA? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate to respond to an AC, I have to. I can not even start to explain to you how wrong your analysis is. You said that if the Americans left Iraq that point A would go away. Well this is true but that would be going against point B. This is where the conflict is. I swear, some people are so mired in looking at things through one world view that they can't even see the basic problems sitting right in front of their faces.

    7. Re:Are you the RIAA? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      They aren't actually stealing the election. They are electronically changing data in a voting machine to make one number higher than another. I am sure I could be even more precise about the exact method if I wanted. Stealing, in both cases, is used by ignorant people as a shorthand. So no, you cant steal an election, but you can influence it electronically to your parties benefit. It is just semantics in both cases as nothing is literally being stolen.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    8. Re:Are you the RIAA? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      He doesn't want or believe that the shiite can protect him from the sunis.
      He only believes that the americans can protect him from the sunis.
      He wants the americans to stay to protect him from the sunis.
      He wants the americans to be killed by the shiites.

      He is incapable of seeing any conflict in these mutually exclusive states and apparently so are you.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:Are you the RIAA? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the mutually exclusiveness of his position. He wants the Americans to stay for two reasons: (a) to help him out with the sunnis, and (b) to get killed by the shiites. It would be mutually exclusive if he wanted the Americans to stay and to leave at the same time, but that's not what he wants: he wants them to stay. The killing of Americans might give him entertainment of sorts. Don't know. He's a moron, but not inconsistent.

  6. Vote from orbit by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the only way to be sure...

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:Vote from orbit by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1
      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  7. CowboyNeal for President by jon787 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we use this to create a CowboyNeal option in the next election.

    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    1. Re:CowboyNeal for President by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me, I'm voting for Kodos.

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    2. Re:CowboyNeal for President by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think the Americans should use it to elect an independent candidate. That way, everybody will know the election was rigged. Has the US even had an independent president, or non-democrat/republican?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:CowboyNeal for President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we use this to add the one missing option no politician or government ever wants you to have (or even consider, let alone discuss):

      Eliminate this position of power

    4. Re:CowboyNeal for President by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Do the Whigs count?

    5. Re:CowboyNeal for President by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      Has the US even had an independent president, or non-democrat/republican?

      Yes, several times.

    6. Re:CowboyNeal for President by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work, or rather, didn't work for me last time....

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    7. Re:CowboyNeal for President by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Well, looking at Wikipedia's List of POTUSA's they have had 4 presedients who were whigs (Harrison,Tyler,Taylor, and Fillmore), One who was Federalist (J. Adams), One who was no party (Washington), and 4 who were Democratic-Republican (Jefferson,Madison,Monroe, and J. Q. Adams). I don't know what Democratic Republican is supposed to be, some kind of mix I guess. Anyway, that was all a very long time ago. Since 1853, out or 30 different presidents, there has not been a single non-democrat/non-republican as president.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:CowboyNeal for President by alaska+nemesis · · Score: 1

      I think its time you read about american history. The Republican party only dates to slightly before the American Civil War in 1860. Their first presidental candidate was fremont followed by a guy named Abraham Lincoln. The Democrat party only really dates back to Andrew Jackson. The first two presidents were not elected by party and The Democractic-Republican,Federalist,Anti federalist and Whig parties have fallen by the way side along with most of the smaller parties that while they might have had some local inpact have never managed to grow stong enough to elect a national ticket.

    9. Re:CowboyNeal for President by Knara · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that there have been two seperate, distinct political parties in the US named "Republican", which is likely what the late 19th century-early 20th century party they refer to as "democratic republican" is.

    10. Re:CowboyNeal for President by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Well, if you start
      1
      then go to
      2,
      then keep doubling, you will eventually get there.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    11. Re:CowboyNeal for President by gettingbraver · · Score: 1

      There were the Democratic-Republicans and the National Republicans. The D-R's evolved into the democratic party, and the N-R's, the repubican. But, along the way, their ideology changed/reversed. Civil War, Industrial Revolution, Bull Moose party, Pullman Strike and so on.

  8. Litigation by Xehn · · Score: 2, Funny

    In other news, the Bush administration has filed a lawsuit against Arstechnica, stating that releasing this information is a "danger to national security". Meanwhile, GOP officials are scrambling to determine who 'leaked' their 2006 Election Strategy to the press.

    1. Re:Litigation by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      In a related story, President George W. Bush has filed a separate lawsuit against Ars Technica, involving an alleged patent infringement.

      Finally, in other news, the FBI has is investigating the mysterious disappearance of Jon "Hannibal" Stokes. A spokesperson for Ars Technica, a Web site for PC enthusiasts, had no comment.

    2. Re:Litigation by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, GOP officials are scrambling to determine who 'leaked' their 2006 Election Strategy to the press.

      Actually, they are sueing because they have a "business method" patent issued in 2000.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
  9. Why not? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm not in any way encouraging anyone to actually go out and steal an election. This article is intended solely as a guide to the kinds of information and techniques that election thieves already have available, and not as an incitement to or an aid for committing crimes.
    Why not? I'd rather have a hacker with good intentions to steal or otherwise grossly manipulate an election (libertarian party coming out as first) and get the system fixed subsequently, than to have the republican/democrat party keep themselves in power and dismiss the people complaining about election fraud as conspiracy theorists.

    Since you cannot validate the correctness of the election either way, I'd opt for the path which fixes the situation.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Why not? by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily disagree, but the site is almost obligated to put up that message if they don't want to be brought to court after it happens. They're simply trying to cover their asses.

    2. Re:Why not? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      That's ridiculous. There's no information in this article that isn't in the public domain and relatively easy to work out. If someone rigs an election this site would in no way be culpable. I mean I think it would be quite funny if someone did hack the election in an obvious and outrageous way... say 23% of the vote going to the Erisian Liberation Front. But if someone goes and does it, they can't blame me for giving them the idea.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:Why not? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Do it, but make it obvious - libertarian party (or Ben Stein, if you like) wins the election with 120% of the voters voting.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Why not? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an electronic revolution :)

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    5. Re:Why not? by Neph · · Score: 1

      If someone rigs an election this site would in no way be culpable.

      Of course it wouldn't. It's perfectly clear to anyone. But, unfortunately, that's completely irrelevant to whether they will be sued into oblivion. For goodness' sake, SunnComm threatened to sue the guy who figured out that holding down the shift key would disable their copy protection system.

      I think that litigation, even if frivolous and idiotic, is still something that someone publicising potential election-hacking information needs to be very wary of. Hell, under the DMCA such a suit could even be successful.

    6. Re:Why not? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "(libertarian party coming out as first)"

      It's ok to cheat if your party wins.

      You should vote for someone prepsterious to win.
      Hmm, I gues it could be the libertarians!

      That was a joke.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. I don't want to "steal" the election... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Stealing implies taking from someone their rightful property; what I want to do is "copy" votes...mine, theirs, and everyone's and put them in places that will do the most good.
     
    Who is to define "good", you ask? Why, that would be me, silly.

    1. Re:I don't want to "steal" the election... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Existential narcissism at it's best folks.

  11. Liberal Vote Counting Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1. COUNT (they lose)
    2. RECOUNT (they still lose)
    3. RECOUNT EVERY SPOILED BALLOT AS DEMOCRAT (they still lose)
    4. THROW OUT MILITARY BALLOTS (they still lose)
    5. RECOUNT ONLY DEMOCRAT COUNTIES (they still lose)
    6. SUE IN COURT (they still lose)
    7. DECLARE ELECTION A FRAUD

    At any stage where they don't lose, claim victory and declare the election over.

    1. Re:Liberal Vote Counting Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      {tinfoil hat}

      I'm positive that the 2000 election was rigged. I remember election night in 2000, I was watching CBS I believe. They called Florida for Gore. Everyone was annoucing that Gore had won. They cut back live to Crawford, Texas for Bush's reaction. He almost exactly said, "I'm not too woried about it," and definetly didn't exhibit any signs that he thought he'd lost. I never saw that 20 second live interview again on any later newscasts. Coincidence?

      His brother is the govenor there you know ... I guess you don't need electronic voting machines to rig things.

      Oh and by the way, I voted for Bush that time. I thought and still think that Gore is a whack-job. Just posting my thoughts, anon for obvious reasons ;)

      {/tinfoil hat}

    2. Re:Liberal Vote Counting Procedure by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember election night in 2000, I was watching CBS I believe. They called Florida for Gore.

      The influence of the provably biased media on elections as they are occurring should be a shameful thing to us and disallowed. I know people who were standing in (a long) line in Florida and heard it'd been called for Gore and so didn't bother to vote (for either candidate) after that - talk about sanctioned disenfranchising.

    3. Re:Liberal Vote Counting Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      6. SUE IN COURT (they still lose)
      The case was named Bush v. Gore, not Gore v. Bush.
    4. Re:Liberal Vote Counting Procedure by hakubak · · Score: 1

      Where were you voting? If you were in Florida, the polls were still open and you didn't vote based on CBS's projections, that makes you sound a bit dense.

    5. Re:Liberal Vote Counting Procedure by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Seriously, CBS should have been kicked off the air for that stunt. Talk about wholesale voter fraud.

  12. Explain the problem by nuggz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But people aren't listening because they don't understand the problem.
    Explaining how easy it is might help people understand this is a serious problem.
    Can you think of a better way to explain how easy it is? and how much of a problem it is?

    1. Re:Explain the problem by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      You know why that is? Wilful ignorance. Let me explain what I mean in this context:

      To 95% of the population, computers are magic black boxes. You press a few buttons on the outside, magic goes on on the inside, a letter to your great Aunt Flo in Australia comes out of a beige box with paper in it. The most people know about things like computer viruses is that "they're bad". Why that is, and what the potential consequences are, are a complete mystery - and most people are happy for it to remain that way.

      What the masses do know is:

      - Generally speaking, it works.
      - When it does not work, it is normally pretty obvious very quickly. You'd soon know about it if letters to your Great Aunt Flo started including passages taken from the screenplay of "Deep Throat".

      Try to explain what's gone wrong with a computer, and most people don't want to know - they just want it fixed. But in the case of voting machines, it's not immediately obvious to the layman that something is wrong so nobody's paying much attention to the people saying "It is and this is why".

    2. Re:Explain the problem by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Someone else in this thread set this before, but the best way to get this across to the general public would probably be that 'Al Quaida could make Bin Laden president'.

  13. Been done already by MECC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its already been done.

    From the referenced url: '"Electronic voting machines also caused widespread problems in Florida, where Bush bested Kerry by 381,000 votes. When statistical experts from the University of California examined the state's official tally, they discovered a disturbing pattern: "The data show with 99.0 percent certainty that a county's use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004."'

    'Charles Stewart III, an MIT professor who specializes in voter behavior and methodology, was initially skeptical of the study - but was unable to find any flaw in the results. "You can't break it - I've tried," he told The Washington Post. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic-machine Democratic counties."'

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Been done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever thought that maybe the Electronic Voting Machines might be immune to the type of election fraud that the Democrats have been caught doing over and over in the last century?

    2. Re:Been done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could it be that the richer counties that are more likely to vote Republican are the only ones that can afford electronic voting machines?

    3. Re:Been done already by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or that they're susceptible to the types of election fraud that the Republicans have been caught doing over and over?

      Trying to pretend one side or the other is lily-white is stupid, we should use a system that is immune to anything that either side might try.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Been done already by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Its already been done.

      I'm not going to argue whether the conclusion come to by the U Cal professor was right or wrong. But I do have 3 things that I throw out for consideration by those who do believe it.

      1) Why is there only suspected fraud on the part of the Republican Party? I'm totally serious here - are the Democrats too stupid to cheat themselves?
      2) If the Democratic Party seriously believed cheating had occured, why didn't they make a really big deal of it? Wouldn't they stand to gain by convincing people that the election was rigged?
      3) Why isn't the Democratic Party pushing harder for an end to Diebold voting machines? Who'd want to use them if they thought that doing so was in their worst interests?

      It just seems to me that in this day and age, it's getting harder to keep secrets. If there was vote fraud already, why hasn't someone confessed or been caught? Surely everyone at Diebold can't honestly favor the Republican Party. If the Democrats win the House and/or Senate in a few weeks, will you think that THOSE elections are fraudulent? Or is it only fraudulent when Republicans win?

    5. Re:Been done already by MECC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone know if 'richer' counties are more likely to get electronic voting machines then 'poor' counties? In ohio, poor inner city areas had electronic voting machines (which didn't work, and lacked paper backups, sadly).

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    6. Re:Been done already by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      You have to have some seriously braindead and paranoid thinking to come up with that...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    7. Re:Been done already by MECC · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be certain, politicians from all parties have tried to rig elections - republicans have just been the most successful to date. They're very well organized. Maybe the party that cheats best should win.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    8. Re:Been done already by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      The classic case of corrolation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but the obvious counter argument is that you compare the same area to an election when there were no voting machines yet at the place to the present state. If the area had comparatively no anomalies during that previous election compared to other places, then there shouldn't be any anomalies now either, comparing to other voting areas now.

      So yeah, something like this means that the reason of the change of votes were the voting machines.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    9. Re:Been done already by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      Answers:

      1. Te republican party is the party of Big Business, and Big Business makes the machines. Corporate America could care less about ethics when big money is on the line. Since they make the machines, it is logical that they woudl have the easiest access to them. It doesn't help when the CEO of Diebold states that, "We will win Ohio for the Republicans at any cost." In addition, there are more republican secretaries of state than democrats. They have complete and unfettered access to the machines. Thirdly, with the way republicans are nowadays, any democrat who would attempt this would most surely be caught, while Republicans, protected by the shields I mentioned previously, would slip through undetected. Finally, more election fraud occurs before the votes are even cast, by purging voter rolls and creating undue burdens to voting.

      2. Some Democrats did, but the party as a whole has been so beaten down by Republicans calling them traitors for even existing, that they suffer from battered democrat syndrome. Basically, they didn't want to look like sore losers, esepcailly when the proof is circumstantial in most cases.

      3. See number 2, although many precincts have decertified Diebold machines.

      There have been many stories about diebold fraud, especially in Georgia:

      http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_ 23063.shtml

      Thanks,

      Mike

    10. Re:Been done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Why is there only suspected fraud on the part of the Republican Party? I'm totally serious here - are the Democrats too stupid to cheat themselves?

      Because they're in power, they're going to fall under more scrutiny.

      2) If the Democratic Party seriously believed cheating had occured, why didn't they make a really big deal of it? Wouldn't they stand to gain by convincing people that the election was rigged?

      First, the media is controlled by the same people who are in power. Should a democrat or anyone raise their voices, it would be drowned out on every news channel because what Paris Hilton is doing today is deemed by the media to be more important.

      Second, and this is much more debatable, is that the Democrats and Republicans are one and the same, facades for one group behind the scenes that are pulling strings, and that canidates are systematically 'put' in place in order to achieve the desired effect --> kerry as the opponent to bush; kerry is scripted to concede as soon as possible. etc etc. Hard to believe, but who knows. Some of the shit that has happened needs to start being at ATTEMPTED to be explained, and conspiracy theories are a great place to start :D

      3) Why isn't the Democratic Party pushing harder for an end to Diebold voting machines? Who'd want to use them if they thought that doing so was in their worst interests?

      Again, this needs an explanation, and conspiracy thoeries are a great place to start. A more sound place to start, however, is the fact that the Democratic party is so fragmented and disjointed that it hasn't got any idea what's going collectively. If one member knows that 2+2=4, the rest of the party is almost guaranteed not to know it.

      There's logical places to start at when answering these questions, and those foundations make sense and are sans-conspiracy theory. But the absolute absurdity of the state of politics, voting, and government in general in the United States is so out of hand now that conspiracy theories need to be given some credit, and at the very least, investigated.

      The old idea that if someone went ahead and did something so crazy-wrong and bad with no history of ever doing anything near that level of badness, no one would believe they did it... except for a small group. This group would be labeled as conspiracy theorists, and promptly laughed out of the room. Did Bush steal elections? Perhaps. Did he order the "second pearl-harbor" so he could start his campaign against various countries? Maybe. But you would never expect a president to attack his own citizens, that we can all agree on. The events that have happened in the last 10 years or so are so insane that investigations really need to start happening so that these theories can be put to rest or people can be executed for treason. Letting them linger on just helps divide the people, and even further divide the people who are the same side (example: the democrats). Break open Bush's private information (and every politicians private info) and break out the guillotine! ;)

      Given bush's "I've never been 'Stay The Course'" ordeal, I think things have truly become 1984-esque, with the people who laugh the conspiracy-theorists out of the room being the thought-police. If that's the case, cool, I'm down with Victory Gin and Victory Cigarettes. 2+2 has always equaled 5. We have always been at war with Iraq. The world trade center never existed.

    11. Re:Been done already by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry for having to say it in such a direct way, but your argumentation is apologetic.

      1) Why is there only suspected fraud on the part of the Republican Party? I'm totally serious here - are the Democrats too stupid to cheat themselves?
      2) If the Democratic Party seriously believed cheating had occured, why didn't they make a really big deal of it? Wouldn't they stand to gain by convincing people that the election was rigged?
      3) Why isn't the Democratic Party pushing harder for an end to Diebold voting machines? Who'd want to use them if they thought that doing so was in their worst interests?
      1. Why, the Republicans won this election! Hence they are the ones under scrutiny. It's useless to argue about what would have happened, had the Democrats won. Why do we only distrust the one player at the poker table who has won the past ten rounds? Why not the other ones? Your argument is eristic, in Schopenhauer's sense: Under attack, you simply return the attack and hope for your opponent to try to defend himself.

      2. In the aftermath of the election, it would have looked ridiculous if Gore had accused Bush of election fraud. His spin-doctors certainly told him to do so. The study showing statistical correlation between Diebold-usage and Bush-majority was done much later, when it was juristically impossible to change the outcome of the election.

      3. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats don't want to look like bad losers? What happened in Mexico after the last election is a warning example of how to destroy your reputation by crying foul. It's the people's job to find out if they are cheated for their basic rights, not the opposition's.

      Finally, of course it is possible for Diebold to rig the machines without much outside notice. Diebold may have 16.000 employees, but I assume only about ten were ever able to look at the whole source-code for the machines. Sorry, but that's not enough scrutiny to rest America's well-being on.
    12. Re:Been done already by zippthorne · · Score: 1, Insightful

      everyone else is missing the issue.

      The e-voting machines were predominantly placed in heavily democrat-leaning districts, by DEMOCRAT elections supervisors. It's an elected position. By starting at >90%-D, odds were good that they'd close toward the mean a bit before the election.

      It's pretty obvious when you start looking at who was complaining about the machines in the lead-up, and who was buying the machines that they were purchased for the express purpose of claiming vote-rigging. Obviously, a properly secure machine with a paper record would distract somewhat from the claims.

      The only problem is that insecure machines are insecure and that's bad for everyone regardless of affiliation.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Been done already by pacalis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's tough to write here in Gitmo, but I';ll get this out quickly...
      1) The statistical evidence only shows abnormal variations in a certain districts. Individually this is not a problem, but accross districts, a consistent bias to republicans is demonstrated to be highly unlikely as arising by chance. This does not demonstrate that either side isn't cheating, just that it is unlikely to be 'chance' that the overwhelming majority of abnormal skews favor republicans.
      2)They did, they failed. They don't have the courts, eaither florida or federally. It didn't help that jackass Kerry ceeded on election night. Shit is hitting the fan all over the place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold. Plus whistleblower protections have collapse under the republicans making it very difficult to challenge the institutions.
      3) The hard one. Why are democrats so useless? I have no idea. But, rememeber that incumbant dems have nothing to gain in a fight, and the challengers are zeros unless elected.

      The only real option, Kerry, showed a complete lack of leadership in his loss. I think after 20 years of BS we need a constituional admendment to ban all Yale alums from running for or holding higher office.

    14. Re:Been done already by nizo · · Score: 1

      It would also be interesting to see if counties that typically vote pro-democrat are more likely to get electronic voting machines, wouldn't it?

    15. Re:Been done already by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      So...let me get this right. The Democrats bought these machines and rigged the elections. For the Republicans to win. And take over. So they could complain about it?

      Wow. I'm all for coming up with new conspiracies, but this one is a real winner.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    16. Re:Been done already by MECC · · Score: 2, Informative

      The e-voting machines were predominantly placed in heavily democrat-leaning districts, by DEMOCRAT elections supervisors.

      Actually, if you read the accounts of the Ohio election, republicans placed the majority of the e-voting machines, led by the republican secretary Blackwell who pushed hard to get Diebold machines put in voting places. That in combination to the fact republicans where the ones making the decisions to place e-voting machinge in Ohio make the 'purchased by democrats to strengthen rigging claims' tenuous there. But, even if Democrats did make the decision to use e-voting machines, linking that to a hidden agenda of wanting to blame the machines is logically an ad-hoc theory, albeit an interesting one.

      However, I don't think the earlier quoted correlation studies were done in Ohio voting districts. Given the various illegal stunts pulled by Blackwell, Noe, and other republicans in addition to the placement of e-voting machines would doubtless cloud any correlation between e-voting machines and bush-leaning districts, so any kind of e-rigging claims in Ohio can't likely be substantiated.

      Correlating manufacturer/party contributions with extent of likelihood of that manufacturer's machine to lean in a party's favor would really be interesting.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    17. Re:Been done already by pacalis · · Score: 1

      My last post wasn't clear enough - reversion to the mean is a fact of life and statistics, but the results of the studies don't rely on this. What the more compelling studies have done is test the deviation of actual results from polling results. In many cases there are larger than expected error shifts, to both democratic and republican candidates, in both democratic and republican districts. In moderate or low dem disctricts (i.e. mod or high rep districts) this is random, as we would expect. But consistent with fraud in high dem districts it is directional - ie. only where there are a lot of dem votes, the shifts favor republicans. What does this math mean - when there are a lot of pres. democratic votes at stake there was an extremely high likelihood that the results would 1. deviate signficantly from the polling numbers and 2. these would not deviate in a random way. In high rep. disctricts similar abborations were not found. Cheap example - 1000 voters High dem - 900d 100r ---> switch 100 random votes, get 810d, 190r Mod dem - 500d 500r ----> switch 100 random votes, get same 500d, 500r

    18. Re:Been done already by doom · · Score: 1
      Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) wrote:
      1) Why is there only suspected fraud on the part of the Republican Party? I'm totally serious here - are the Democrats too stupid to cheat themselves?

      Because that's what the evidence shows. There was a very peculiar, statistically significant bias in the exit-poll discrepancies, that nearly always favored the Republicans; and it correlated with a number of interesting parameters like "the presence of Republican governors". What does that sound like to you?

      2) If the Democratic Party seriously believed cheating had occured, why didn't they make a really big deal of it? Wouldn't they stand to gain by convincing people that the election was rigged?

      Read some of Mark Crispin Miller's stuff, if you want to hear from someone who thinks he can read the minds of Democratic politicians. Myself, I'm more worried about what the Republicans actually did, than in what the Democrats thought they were doing.

      3) Why isn't the Democratic Party pushing harder for an end to Diebold voting machines? Who'd want to use them if they thought that doing so was in their worst interests?

      Some Democrats are, e.g Debra Bowen, who is up for the Secretary of State office in California.

      If there was vote fraud already, why hasn't someone confessed

      Well you see Son, this is not a Perry Mason episode, and in the real world bad guys have lawyers who tell them to never admit anything.

      or been caught?

      Why isn't Bush in jail for shredding the Constitution? Because his party is in power, and it's politically impossible for him to be impeached until his party is out of power.

      Repeat that for Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State in Ohio, and so on.

      Surely everyone at Diebold can't honestly favor the Republican Party

      The boss does though, and the boss hired a bunch of people with felony fraud convictions who are perhaps not as fine, upright, and principled as yourself.

      Also there have been a few whistle-blowers floating around, the media just hasn't paid much attention to them.

      If the Democrats win the House and/or Senate in a few weeks, will you think that THOSE elections are fraudulent? Or is it only fraudulent when Republicans win?

      Ah, it appears I've been talking to a shill. Oh well, those are the breaks.

  14. But what about by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 1

    the fact that this gives more bad guys the tools they need than might have had them before?

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:But what about by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The process is broken - better to make it obvious than let them powers that be sweep it under the rug, because you know they will.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:But what about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Security through obscurity doesn't work for long. I'd feel pretty safe at guessing that by now more than a handful of people with the capability have also figured out what to do and probably some who even had intentions at the next election. The bad guys have the tools already, even if it's only one than that's enough, your argument protects and shields only that bad guy and ensures that he gets full cooperation of the voting machine when it comes round to the election.
       
      The lack of ethics problem going on is with the people responsible for not fixing the issue when first alerted. And to put a tinfoil cap on I myself why would people on purpose install and setup machines with a known configuration that enabled a fixed election even after being notified of the issue, it's beyond a simple little hole like IE problems or something. somebody has gone out of their way to ensure that the election can be fixed, that is who you are currently putting your trust in, i myself would advise against that.

    3. Re:But what about by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1
      the fact that this gives more bad guys the tools they need than might have had them before?
      If some guy from Ars Technica can think of this stuff, then they bad guys already did.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    4. Re:But what about by johneee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hannibal is brilliant by all accounts (especially his own...) and one of the few people who understands technology and communication well enough to be able to put esoteric subjects into terms understandable to an intelligent lay person, but he's not anything close to the only person to be able to figure this kind of thing out - especially since he probably didn't spend a whole lot of time on this article compared to the amount of time someone who wanted to actually steal an election would.

      If Hannibal can do this then someone who wanted to steal an election, and could spend a trivial amount of money on doing it could absolutely do the same. It is utterly absurd to think that the analysis he did in the course of researching and writing a single article couldn't be done (and probably was done a long time ago) by any one of hundreds of other organizations if they had a small team working on it for months or years.

      The result? The only people for who this is news are the people who don't have a vested interest in stealing an election - and those are the people who need to know about it. Bravo to my favourite tech site for doing this.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    5. Re:But what about by Hannibal_Ars · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, cracks about my (in)famous lack of humility aside, you have a great point. This article took me a week from concept to execution, and over half that time was spent making the diagrams. Ultimately, I did a little over two days of basic technical research for this (including email correspondence with security experts in this area). I am not an infosec expert and I don't pretend to be--I'm just good at digesting tech info and turning it into a form that a non-specialist audience can grasp.

      There are many Slashdot readers who could get up to speed on how to really steal an election in about half a day (or less) using publicly available documentation. The hardware isn't that complex at all, and the vulnerabilities in Windows (for the GEMS server) and WinCE (for the machine) are very well-known.

      What I've described here is very, very low-hanging fruit for anyone with real security expertise.

      --
      Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
    6. Re:But what about by Eljas · · Score: 1
      The bad guys have the tools already, even if it's only one than that's enough, your argument protects and shields only that bad guy and ensures that he gets full cooperation of the voting machine when it comes round to the election.

      Wait, what? Are you saying that the next election will be won by the side with better (election machine) hackers? Isn't this just great employment opportunity for the Slashdot crowd?

      I, for one, am eagerly expecting the election machine hackout!

    7. Re:But what about by Esteanil · · Score: 1

      I hope for your sake you don't actually live in the US.
      If you do, I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the week you'll have been declared an illegal combatant.

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  15. Time for 3rd parties to step up by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Seems like some 3rd party candidates need to read this guide, rise to the challenge, and get 70% of the vote.

    Now that would be a mandate for change!

  16. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How to steal an election in seven easy steps:

    1) Put the word Linux on your website.
    2) Add copious amounts of Microsoft bashing.
    3) Add Socialist blurbs to the website.
    4) Call the current astate of affairs evil.
    5) Advocating lowering the voting age to 10.
    6) Ask KDawson to post a link to your website.
    7) Have everyone on slashdot believe you are the |37357 |]()()|] @®0|\||}

    Well, it may not work, but most kids here think it will.

    1. Re:Moo by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``1) First year i denied all requests and printed tons of money. Everyone was angry, and inflation was high. But noone could do anything because it wasn't an election year.
      2) Second year i printed no money, and gave everyone everything they wanted. Everyone was happy, and inflation was low. Everyone re-elected me because it was an election year.
      3) Rinse, wash, repeat.''

      Sadly, that's exactly the sort of behavior a democracy encourages. As well as taking measures that sound good but aren't. Getting people to believe there is some problem that the other parties are denying, but you will solve. Wasting money for the benefit of those who vote for you. Making huge debts, knowing the next government will have to clean up. Putting of unpopular decisions so the next government will have to make them. Etc.

      "Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others."

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that's exactly the sort of behavior a democracy encourages.

      Not really. Democracy advocates what the people want more commonly.

      Basically, everyone wants a well-run system. Well-run systems have two tiers. One, laws with low-changeability based on well-thought-out principals. Two, laws with high-changeability based on popularity. Put another way. One, the guidlines. Two, the practical application.

      It is rare to have a country with laws from only one of those sets. If the prior, it will be out of touch with reality. If the latter, judges will be extremely capricious. A mixture of both, however, can protect long-term interests while addressing short-term problems.

      Democracy puts the laws in the people's hands. And, if the people separate these two groups, they can get very good results. Just have a higher line that must be reached to change the first category of laws, such as more votes, or voting on them less-often. Politicking can even exist on which group which laws fall into.

      The US is not a democracy. It is a representative democracy. Thus, we expect out representative to evaluate these two groups, and at times give in to the public, and at others, resist them. Like a child complaining to the parent, we advocate the view not taking by the one in power, not because we want them to agree, but because it allows us to be one-sided, knwing the the "responsible" person in power will make the "right choice".

      The issue with this system is that the representatives want to stay in power, more than they want to do the "right thing". This puts almost everything in the second category, making laws more of a game than a serious approach to protecting the populace.

      Then again, the people who vote for them are choosing the politicians that give them more power like a child grabbing candy at the store. I dare say this is more of a lack of appreciation for some less-changeable laws, so people can vote without thinking long-term.

      Perhaps then, the failure of a democracy is that it expects people to think long-term. But with so many people thinking about short-term gains (the business sector shows this issue as well) we lose the benefits of the less-changeable rules.

    3. Re:Moo by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Democracy advocates what the people want more commonly.

      Democracy, as practiced in the US, allows Paul to vote how much Peter will pay him. This has an inevitable meltdown as the eventual conclusion.

    4. Re:Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

      Democracy, as practiced in the US, allows Paul to vote how much Peter will pay him. This has an inevitable meltdown as the eventual conclusion.

      Not really. Because it requires a majority.

      The appropriate complaint is that it allows tyrrany of the majority over the minority. But, with the US's strong slant on individuality, and tacit encouragement of groups like the ACLU, that is a fight always being fought, and has brought a lot of otherwise hidden prejudices to light, which is a "Good Thing".

    5. Re:Moo by zxnos · · Score: 1
      the majority known as 'paul'...

      i prefer likening democracy to being like two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. that is why we have a constitution-based federal republic, it gives a strong voice to the minority. that way the lamb has more power to resist the wolves eating it.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
  17. Premium access ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He wants to make a political statement but his PDF is not free to download, you have to be premium member of Ars Technica ? Am I missing something here ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Premium access ? by HWguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, you are missing something. The entire article is available. You just have to click through it page by page. The PDF is a convenience for subscribers. You can make your own PDF with just a little work if that's what you need.

    2. Re:Premium access ? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``He wants to make a political statement but his PDF is not free to download, you have to be premium member of Ars Technica ? Am I missing something here ?''

      Yes. This means you have to authenticate before you can download the information. So they know who is interested...and send some agents over for a friendly talk.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Premium access ? by quisxt · · Score: 1

      You have to pay for a premium membership to get the pdf, but you can read the html version of the article for free. That's the way Ars Technica articles have worked for the past few years. They do have to make money, afterall... I fail to see the problem.

    4. Re:Premium access ? by Frenchy_2001 · · Score: 1

      Yup. You missed the fact his online articles are free to access.

  18. Know Where To Look by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Informative

    Folks, if there's gonna be wholesale election fraud, a smart fraudster is going to do it where nobody is looking. Don't expect it to take place in the precincts that make the news for irregularities.

    Expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 70-75% of the vote.

    That is, expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 75-80% of the vote.

    If you don't want anyone to notice you're doing it, do it where nobody will notice; if the election is close enough (which so many of them are,) your candidate will carry the day.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Know Where To Look by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's the way to know if the election is hacked:

      Republicans do well - wholesale voter fraud, machines were manipulated, etc.

      Democrats do well - most open and transparent election in years; the people have spoken.

      I look forward to reading the post-election commentary, no matter who does well.

    2. Re:Know Where To Look by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``Expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 70-75% of the vote.

      That is, expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 75-80% of the vote.''

      Why change these results if your candidate already won anyway?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Know Where To Look by Zeek40 · · Score: 1
      Expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 70-75% of the vote.
      Those are the situations where it doesnt really matter though. Because of our goofy Electoral College system, it doesnt matter if canidate A wins state X by 1% or by 25% of the vote, all of state X's Electoral College votes go to canidate A. Remember, you're not actually voting for your president in the US, you're just giving a suggestion to the Electoral College.
    4. Re:Know Where To Look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All locks can be picked and seals bypasses given the right tools and time. What happens to voting machines if the seal is found to be broken when the votes are tallied? Is it just sorry, too bad, your votes don't count. Is breaking a seal a denial of service exploit?

      Maybe the best way to stop ill conceived electronic voting is to determine the type of flash memory a machine uses and just drop new memory chips behind the machine after voting. A little creative littering might scare the right people into fixing the problem before something happens. As it stands, I don't think the machines will be replace due to the political embarrassment of spending money on junk until something happens or appears to have happened.

      My captcha was "legally". Sometimes I wonder...

    5. Re:Know Where To Look by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Informative
      ``Expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 70-75% of the vote.

      That is, expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 75-80% of the vote.''

      Why change these results if your candidate already won anyway?

      Why? To win a state and the state's electoral votes (in a presidential race).

      In the US, the president is elected by the Electoral College. Each state sends a certain number of "Electors" to the Electoral College to cast their vote's for that state's winning candidate. So on a state-by-state basis, it's a winner-take-all system. So you want to change outcomes in counties in order to win a whole state. Here's a way to cheat with the above system (minimizing chances of getting caught):

      1. Pick a populous state with a close election like Ohio or Florida or several others.

      2. Adjust the vote for your candidate up by 5 or 10% in counties where you expect him to win. This increases the overall statewide vote for your candidate. Enough, you hope, to push your candidate over the top.

      3. Your candidate wins the state, gets those electors, and wins the Electoral College vote.

      4. Profit.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    6. Re:Know Where To Look by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      I have never doubted some people's ability to put their hands into sand, but I have to admit: I haven't seen such down-to-earth brutally simple way to do it in a long long time...

      You don't even deserve the regular arguments that cite "two wrongs don't make a right", "statistical proof", etc...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    7. Re:Know Where To Look by pla · · Score: 1

      Those are the situations where it doesnt really matter though.

      He didn't mean per state, he meant per county (or whatever type of district boundaries a battleground state uses).

      If a strong dem county shows a win for the rep candidate, that might raise eyebrows. If a strong rep county has a 10% stronger showing than normal, that still boosts the statewide tally but no one would think to call foul.

    8. Re:Know Where To Look by Abreu · · Score: 1

      True, that kind of electoral fraud doest work in the US.

      Down here in Mexico, however, that was exactly the way it happened... Right Wing National Action Party (PAN) has most of its support in the industrialized, wealthier north states and Left Wing Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) has most of its support in Mexico City and in the poorer southern states.

      Both sides engaged in unethical campaign practices (however, the media sided with PAN heavily and this showed), and ballot stuffing was rampant in the strongest states and cities for each side, since the contested cities and states were being closely watched by both national and international observers (that's why "nobody" could find evidences of fraud)

      in the end we now have a President-elect that "won" by 0.56% of the votes and with serious questions about the legitimacy of the process...

      And we don't even have electronic voting systems, because the Electoral Institute decided that they were not safe!!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    9. Re:Know Where To Look by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      heads...although if there is a scorpion in the sand putting your hand there is just as stupid...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    10. Re:Know Where To Look by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Well then the Republicans are fucking idiots if they don't question each and every single electronic voting district that went Democratic, especially unexpectedly. Really, are you saying the Republicans are that stupid?

      My biggest worry about these machines is that unless the election is a landslide one way or another, the loser is going to cry that the election was stolen, and you literally will not be able to prove them wrong. This is going to suck no matter who wins and if you actually believe it is going to make a difference which side does the complaining you have a lot to learn.

    11. Re:Know Where To Look by oGMo · · Score: 1
      No no:
      • Republicans do well: Republicans cheated!
      • Democrats do well: Democrats cheated!

      If you don't believe this, you should: it already happened. Go check up on the 2004 Washington State election (yeah it's a Wikipedia reference... go follow all the links or do your own research if you don't like it). Democrats win despite the Republicans thinking they would: lots of recounting, ridiculously tiny margin of victory, lots of arguing, etc. Same as the national election, just the parties were swapped.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    12. Re:Know Where To Look by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It goes beyond that. For any elected office beyond the scope of "local", you're going to have party strongholds dotted about the landscape: rich suburbs, rural areas, inner cities, college towns and the like. Each voting district is going to have its own demographic makeup, and a candidate will almost always have at least a few "core" precincts where he knows he has a solid lead and will soundly beat his opponent. Any campaign manager worth his salt will have a very good idea of where these strongholds are.

      Now, let's say that the House Race for the fifth district in the state of Ficticia is down to the wire. Candidate Smith has a strong showing in the densely populated Ficticia City, where he's beating Candidate Doe by a two-to-one margin. On the other hand, Candidate Doe has a solid lead in Uniform Heights, Graded Meadow, Irongate Estates, Culvertdale, and the other suburbs and exurbs of Ficticia City. Between the two areas, the candidates are locked in a dead heat, and accusations of voter intimidation have been flying thick.

      Let's assume that of these two candidates actually is planning to engage in wholesale vote fraud. Should he do it in all districts, in a district he's sure to carry, a district that's split about 50/50, or a district where his opponent is likely to win?

      If he throws the vote in a district where the two candidates are neck and neck or where his opponent is likely to win, his opponent's supporters will be more likely to notice tabulation discrepancies. A closer-than-projected result in a district that was supposed to be a "lock" for his opponent--or a wider victory in a contested area--will not go unnoticed, because most people expect voter fraud to occur in places where the person committing the fraud is the underdog. Because the point of voter fraud is to "win", most people assume that a potential fraudster would try to rig the "obvious" areas: the areas where the fraudster is vulnerable or likely to lose.

      If, however, the fraudster's "core" areas report a stronger than expected performance, people are much more inclined to assume that it was the last minute get-out-the-vote operation, or strong appeals to the base, or whatever. People simply don't expect others to cheat where they've already "won".

      In the end, it doesn't matter which candidate "won" which precincts; what matters is the total across all precincts. If a candidate inflates his performance in his own backyard, his opponent is less likely to notice that it happened...

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    13. Re:Know Where To Look by doom · · Score: 1

      Yes that Washington State election is an interesting case, alright. It looks an awful lot like an attempt by the Republicans to steal an election that didn't quite work, which should be an inspiration to us all, in this troubled electoral season.

    14. Re:Know Where To Look by doom · · Score: 1
      For example, quoting from that same wikipedia article, Washington gubernatorial election, 2004:
      Furthermore, in precincts with voting machines that were repaired within two weeks of the election, Rossi had a touch screen advantage in 56 out of 58 (96.6 percent). The average margin for Rossi at these polling places was 11.58 percent more favorable than the absentee votes, and averaged 10.8 percent more than Gregoire on Election Day. [...] This raises serious questions as to whether the machines requiring repairs were tampered with to improperly assign votes to Rossi.

      By the way, if you're wondering what I deleted there from the quote, it was this sentence:

      However, the Republicans countered this by stating that among 90 precincts with no reported machine problems, 44 had touch screen vote counts more favorable to Rossi than the paper ballots from the same precinct, while 46 had a touch screen count that favored Gregoire.
      It makes absolutely no sense in the context of that passage, and reading it over and over again, I still can't figure out how it's supposed to "counter" the assertion that there was evidence indicating possible fraud with the tampered machines. Politics on the internet, you got to love it, eh?

    15. Re:Know Where To Look by doom · · Score: 1
      OakDragon (885217) wrote:
      Here's the way to know if the election is hacked:
      Republicans do well - wholesale voter fraud, machines were manipulated, etc.
      Democrats do well - most open and transparent election in years; the people have spoken.
      I look forward to reading the post-election commentary, no matter who does well.
      Well the way it goes with me is that if the Democrats win really big, I'm stuck revising my model of the world, because I think the Republicans will be able to at least rig two of the three close Senate races in order to retain control of the Senate. If the Democrats don't win at least the House, then you'll find me raving that the problem is even worse than I thought it was: look at the clear difference between the pre-election polls and the official result, how could they be more blatant, etc.

      So it appears that I don't quite fit into this cyncial quip, maybe you should try another one.

  19. Motivation by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (libertarian party coming out as first) and get the system fixed subsequently"
    If you really want election reform you have to make it in the best interest of the the Dem/Rep party. The best way to do that would be to have a third party victory. As long as someone in the Professional Politicians Club get's elected, the powers that be don't care about voting accuracy. They have no reason to.

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:Motivation by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      If you really want election reform you have to make it in the best interest of the the Dem/Rep party. The best way to do that would be to have a third party victory

      As long as we only allow "single vote per citizen" elections, then the eventual result will be a two-party system, and a declining participation rate. Neither party cares the slightest what the participation rate is - they care about being the one in power at the end of the day, and that only requires more votes than the other guy out of an ever smaller pool of interested people (so it's that much easier to influence those who bother to vote).

    2. Re:Motivation by TMB · · Score: 1
      As long as we only allow "single vote per citizen" elections, then the eventual result will be a two-party system.
      The majority of democratic countries in the world have single vote per citizen elections but not a two-party system.

      [TMB]
  20. That Makes Absolutely No Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    1. Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party

    Ahh, that old canard again. As if it wouldn't be patently obvious it was hacked if something suspicious happened.

    No, the Democrats have perfected stealing elections to an art. Have corrupt union heads and mobsters in your pocket to get their constituents to vote for their preferred candidate.

    1. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by thrillseeker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the Democrats have perfected stealing elections to an art

      oppose proof of identification at voting places.

    2. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by evil_Tak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It WAS patently obvious.

    3. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by Manchot · · Score: 1

      God forbid that they want their constituents to be able to vote on election day, and that pretty much every state Supreme Court in the country has declared voter ID laws unconstitutional.

    4. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by Beltway+Prophet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a SECRET vote. That means nobody has the right to know how you voted. INCLUDING the mobsters and union bosses you are so sure are stealing the election. That's why you should never expect a receipt with the vote you cast on it (though you should, IMHO, be shown evidence that your vote has been recorded correctly before you leave the polling place, such as a paper tape with a print out of your vote on it rolling past a window on its way to a lockbox, where it should later be tallied and compared with the computer record to ensure that they are consistent).

    5. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      pretty much every state Supreme Court in the country has declared voter ID laws unconstitutional.

      24 states and the District of Columbia currently have the minimum HAVA ID requirements - first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide ID verification with their registration must show ID before voting.

      19 states require ID for all voters.

      2 states require all voters show photo ID

      3 states request all voters show photo ID

      2 states require ID of all first-time voters

      source

      Meanwhile (September 21, 2006)... "The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks. The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member."

    6. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      The article makes useful distinctions between retail and wholesale fraud, and between detectable and undetectable fraud. A requirement to present identification at the polling place would make one kind of retail fraud more detectable, and maybe preventable. That's a good thing, to be sure.

      But it's really small potatoes compared to the undetectable wholesale fraud that the article outlines. If undetectable wholesale fraud is this easy and there's no audit trail behind the votes, it really doesn't matter if the people voting presented ID or not.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    7. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by mrobin604 · · Score: 1

      As if it wouldn't be patently obvious it was hacked if something suspicious happened.

      Yeah, you're right. If that were to happen, it would come out in other ways, like exit polls would show the other guy winning.

      Oh, wait...

    8. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      it should later be tallied and compared with the computer record to ensure that they are consistent

      What do you do if they are not?

    9. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by doom · · Score: 1
      No, the Democrats have perfected stealing elections to an art.

      Yeah, that's how they won the last two presidential elections. Oh, wait.

    10. Re:That Makes Absolutely No Sense by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Shoot everyone involved in the fraud in the kneecaps and have the voters vote again.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  21. Re:Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude Ruffles All Dressed will stop any revolution.

  22. How to Steal an Election by Talennor · · Score: 1

    1. Get extra ballots.
    2. Fill them out for your employer/candidate.
    3. Stuff them into ballot box.
    4. ???
    5. Profit!

    And if you don't think that this is actually done, well I'll just point out that here the "Profit!" line actually works as long as you can get away with it.

    --

    //TODO: signature
  23. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    Remember Andorra? Of course you do! How did you get elected as governor every two years?

    1) First year i denied all requests and printed tons of money. Everyone was angry, and inflation was high. But noone could do anything because it wasn't an election year.
    2) Second year i printed no money, and gave everyone everything they wanted. Everyone was happy, and inflation was low. Everyone re-elected me because it was an election year.
    3) Rinse, wash, repeat.

    Back thewn, i though it was a game, and had no relevance to real life.

  24. Would you trust Windows CE to run your country? by Marcion · · Score: 1

    I would not trust my country's election with Windows CE! If they try to bring them into the UK then I will blockade the ballot box, anyone with me?

    1. Re:Would you trust Windows CE to run your country? by Phu5ion · · Score: 1
      *sees the OS is Windows CE*

      Well there's your problem.

      --
      Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
  25. a better solution by J-1000 · · Score: 1

    Ideally technology should be used to enhance the existing voting process, not replace it entirely. How about this: have the voter complete a standard voting card, then place it in a template and press a button. This action takes a digital photograph of the voting card. Later on, if any voting card is questioned the digital photograph can be used as a reference to help resolve the confusion. Punch cards with their hanging chads, for all their faults, can at least be subjected to a system of checks and balances comprised of non-technical individuals. They should be made better though. Heck, I don't see why Scantron-type #2 pencil bubbles wouldn't be better than chads.

    1. Re:a better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we all know that digital photos can't be manipulated.

    2. Re:a better solution by J-1000 · · Score: 1
      Because we all know that digital photos can't be manipulated.
      Even if it were, it won't matter. Before the scan would even be consulted there must first be a recongnized problem with the paper ballot. So to pull off a fraudulent vote you'd have to A) damage the paper ballot, and B) manipulate the scan of the same ballot. Doing one or the other but not both will have no ill effect.
    3. Re:a better solution by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Heck, I don't see why Scantron-type #2 pencil bubbles wouldn't be better than chads.
      Actually that is what Los Angeles county uses for Absentee Ballots. The problem is I have no way of verifying if my marks counted for the candidates I wanted. A better system would be just to submit Absentee Ballots via a SSL secured website (Damn if we can trust it to do banking on we can use it to vote) and then I could print off two copies of my vote confirmation. One copy goes in the mail to the election board in case a recount is needed. One copy I keep so I have a record of my vote. Anybody see any problems with this system?
    4. Re:a better solution by J-1000 · · Score: 1
      One copy goes in the mail to the election board in case a recount is needed. One copy I keep so I have a record of my vote. Anybody see any problems with this system?
      Well, the mailed in copy would be super easy to forge in advance. And the reason you can trust computers to count money but not trust them to count votes is because in the case of theft you have one party with very little basis for argument: the thief. But in political voting, both parties are equally represented and will fight equally hard to defend an outcome, fraudulent or not. Also, theft has more evidence. A bank account that is suddenly stuffed with $200,000; a sudden log of excess spending on a credit card; all this stuff raises red flags and is relatively easy to sniff out. A voting machine with the wrong tally is far more believable and therefore dangerous. Yeah, being able to contact the actual voters as a failsafe sure seems like a good idea. They don't do that current though, do they? Perhaps they have a good reason not to.
    5. Re:a better solution by ShinyBrowncoat · · Score: 1

      Yes, absentee balloting in general is vulnerable to bribery and intimidation because you aren't guaranteed a safe and private place to cast your vote. In your example, I could demand to see your print out and/or watch you at your computer before paying you (or agreeing not to break both your kneecaps)

      --

      "They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
    6. Re:a better solution by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that kind of retail fraud would not have a great effect. Read the Article.

  26. So the solution would be by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    To ban all voting machine employees from voting.

    1. Re:So the solution would be by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      So the solution would be To ban all voting machine employees from voting.


      How would that solve anything? It's not about the voting machine manufacturers voting. It's their right to vote however they want to vote. What they do not have the right to do is design their voting machines such that *my* vote is altered.

    2. Re:So the solution would be by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      No, that's the opposite reaction.

      If you take away my right to vote because I'm in a position to alter the vote, I'm more likely to feel cheated by the system, and help cheat the system in return.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  27. Now if we could by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    just get this posted on Drudge maybe more non-technical people will see it!

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  28. Here's hoping by dlc3007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best thing that can possibly happen for this country and secure elections would be for Buggs Bunny to win 100% of the vote in at least one, preferably multiple districts. Until people see these results come in on election night, they'll never believe that it can really happen.

    1. Re:Here's hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded. The American citizenry will NOT make enough fuss about electronic voting until/unless there is a blatant, cannot-be-denied fraudulent result in multiple districts. It would only take about 100 brave souls, I bet, to create a firestorm of the next election. Then either it would be fixed, or the lack of willingness to fix by the current administration would be undeniable evidence of their complete corruption.

    2. Re:Here's hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer Jessica Rabbit.

    3. Re:Here's hoping by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I think the best thing would be for Bugs to win 100% in one precinct, 37.4% in another precinct, and 12.3% in a third. If someone simply hacks the vote to give one candidate 100%, there's a large chunk of the electorate who will assume that the results can only be manipulated in easily discovered ways.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    4. Re:Here's hoping by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      What would be totally awesome would be to hack the vote such that if you plotted "bugs bunny's" support on a map of the US, it made a picture - perhaps of a hammer and sickle or something like that. Then the n3wbz would know they were pwn3d!

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    5. Re:Here's hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking about this all day long. What are the penalties if you're caught? If it's not severe.........

    6. Re:Here's hoping by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      /me bows before your greatness

      Seriously, that idea rocks.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:Here's hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure where you're going with this. Goofy and Elmer Fudd already won in 2000 and again in 2004, and the only person questioning the results now is Daffy Duck (Kerry? A bit of a stretch...)

    8. Re:Here's hoping by oppy2k · · Score: 1

      Sadly that is probably the only way for the system to get changed. But the real tragedy is in order to prove that the system is flawed you have to commit what I can only assume is a huge felony and would there fore have to sacrifice your voting rights for ever.

    9. Re:Here's hoping by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would rather A) the software flips a coin between Kirk and Picard, to let the populous know they have handed the keys to the country to geeks or B) write in votes for the CEO of Diebold, to get the right name (to blame) in the press right up front.

      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

  29. In other news by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hotels across the United States reported an alarming shortage of hotel bar keys.

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  30. Access? by mogrify · · Score: 2, Informative

    In an article that exposes flaw after flaw in the electronic voting system, the one thing that really made my jaw drop is that the master vote tabulation is stored in an Access database. To my mind, Access is crippleware designed for quick-n-dirty solutions on small data sets for people that don't know any better. Putting it into a production application is madness. Madness!

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    1. Re:Access? by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      I was shocked by this as well. For something as large and important as an election, Access just doesn't cut it. When I took a database class, for the final project (build a database for a fictional company of your choosing) I maxed out Access and had to scale the project down (apparently you can't have more than 30 relationships in an Access database).

      Note: Yes it is ridiculous that we used Access in a college database course. I was not particularly satisfied with this element of the course. But to be fair, it got the job done at least conceptually. Besides, the department is still under the impression that MS is wonderful.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    2. Re:Access? by suggsjc · · Score: 1
      Are you kidding? Access is a fully featured ACID compliant database engine that powers many a fortune 500 company. Microsoft actually just throws that crappy interface onto its "desktop" so that people don't get intimidated by its raw power and speed. If you want to fully enable it all you need to do is some simple config changes
      Change the attributes for MSDOS.SYS so it is not 'Read Only', MSDOS.SYS is found in the root directory of your C:\ drive. Open the file using Notepad or another text editor (not Microsoft Word or any word processor).

      Change the value of 'BootGUI=' to 'BootGUI=0'.
      Reboot and your good to go...
      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    3. Re:Access? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      While an Access database is dumb, the real problem is Access being on the Servers at all. I mean Access can connect to all kinds of databases through ODBC. Just having the software present should cause people to see red flags and question the results.

  31. I've been waiting for this by morleron · · Score: 1

    Wow! After nearly a decade on Slashdot I have a "first post". But, I didn't come here to write about that. I came here to write about the story, which is not only believable, but presents a scenario which I suspect that we will see played out this year. That's right, the Republicans, with a little help from their good friends at Diebold, will make sure that they maintain control of both the House and the Senate. Given the Bush Administration's coordinated and continuous assault on our civil liberties this is not only the next logical step in the restriction of same, but will also ensure that no one, especially those nasty Democrats, will ever be able to prove that such a thing has happened. The scary thing is that, in state-wide races, it is not necesaary to manipulate large numbers of votes. All one needs to do is identify the "swing" districts in a given state and infect the machines there with vote-stealing code. This not only limits the number of people who need to be involved in the scheme, it has the additional benefit of producing entirely plausible results as the chosen "stolen districts" are historically unpredictable. I doubt that even sophisticated statistical analysis procedures would be able to detect vote fraud of this type. The implications for the future of this country are dire indeed. We may very well see the end of American democracy with this election.

    Just my $.02,
    Ron

    --
    Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
    1. Re:I've been waiting for this by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I doubt that even sophisticated statistical analysis procedures would be able to detect vote fraud of this type.''

      How about exit polls?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  32. The presumption is that voting matters by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The incorrect presumption here is that voting matters. Does it really matter if you vote for a Demopublican or a Republicrat? Either way they're going to pick your pocket and line their own. No matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected. Funny how that works.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by Symbha · · Score: 1

      A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

              The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

                      From Bondage to spiritual faith;
                      From spiritual faith to great courage;
                      From courage to liberty;
                      From liberty to abundance;
                      From abundance to complacency;
                      From complacency to apathy;
                      From apathy to dependence;
                      From dependence back into bondage.
      -- Alexander Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)

      Where do you think we are?

    2. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Tuesday, I went to a State Government Lecture at my local state university. Supposedly, they recorded it, but I can't find a copy of it right now.

      From what I gathered from the lecture, your vote does matter.

    3. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, cynicism is addictive, but it's not attractive. You can't think of a single thing that would be different about this country if Al Gore had won the 2000 election?

      Would we be at war in Iraq? No.

      Would we be running up record deficits? Probably not.

      Would we have slashed public services to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? Hardly.

      Would we be torturing people in secret prisons?

      Would September 11th have been pumped up into justification for a global war against 'Islamofascism?'

      Yes, both sides are pretty deep in the pockets of corporations. Both sides are often self-serving at the expense of both their stated ideals and the good of the country. Neither side is offering up solutions that really satisfy me. But to say there is "no difference" is just whiny, and promotes the sort of apathy that corrupt systems thrive on.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    4. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by spud603 · · Score: 1
      So go out and submit a blank ballot.
      Voting is a crappy tool for controlling government, but it's a tool nonetheless. On the grand scale, the political differences between Bush and Kerry are marginal. As it's played out, those marginal differences have resulted in:
      • increased national debt/deficit
      • a war in iraq
      • drilling for oil in arctic wildlife refuge
      • billions of dollars for Haliburton
      • ...

      funny things, those critical points. In an arena as huge as international politics, seemingly small changes can have enormous consequences. Voting and political participation should not be the only ways you interact with the world, but we should make sure that they are at least reliable within their scope.

    5. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by 808140 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Bush supporter by any means, but I think playing what if with the Al Gore scenario is counter-productive. The whole 9/11 thing changed everything with Bush, largely because the American public demanded that something be done. Of course in hindsight, doing nothing other than rebuilding and going on with life probably would have been the best solution, but instead we rose to the bait and gave Al-Qaeda enormous worldwide credibility.

      The thing to realise is that if Bush hadn't declared the so-called "War on Terror" in the months following September 11th, he probably would have been drawn and quartered by the American public. The same is true for Gore, I'm sure. Gore might have handled it in a less corrupt way, and he probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, and so things probably would have been better, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's very difficult to predict how a President -- any President -- would react to something like September 11th.

      Remember what Bush was like before 9/11? The guy spent less time in office than anyone else had, he was largely considered to be a harmless if ineffectual president, and people were already saying that he was certain to be a one-termer. Things didn't play out that way though...

    6. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by 808140 · · Score: 1

      The big difference with modern democracies is that there are limits on what the government can do. Specifically, the US Treasury cannot print money, and they cannot make the Fed (who can) do anything of the sort. This means that all the money the government spends, voters eventually have to pay back in taxes. This greatly decreases the incentive to "get money out of the government treasury."

      Which is one of the reasons that so many Americans are always harping on increasing the government's fiscal responsibility. Runaway spending like the kind we're experiencing now has happened before, and will likely happen again -- but in the long term people will feel the sting of the recession that inevitably follows. Because all that debt we sell to the Chinese and the Japanese isn't paper money, it's money we will have to repay -- defaulting on a T-bill payment would destroy confidence in the US dollar and our assets would plummet.

      I think enough people know this that your doomsday scenario isn't really workable.

    7. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      Dependence. Look at the percentage of people employed by governments of one strip or another.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    8. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      You're neglecting the evil that Al Gore would have thrust upon us. Since you're only looking at the side of the coin which happened to win, your entire argument can be ignored.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    9. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      Voting is a crappy tool for controlling government, but it's a tool nonetheless.

      In other words, ?you think our government is out of control? I agree with that sentiment. Now .... what to do about it? Voting obviously isn't working. What's the next step?

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    10. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I smell a communist hippie. Communist hippies always talk shit about everybody, because to them everybody but them is wrong and even bad. Nothing is worse to a communist hippie than someone who's not a communist hippie. And they aren't doing anything but talking shit whenever someone's doing something, and talking about how the system is bad and evil down to the root. They don't like the paint so they want to get rid of the paint AND its frame. They know anything that can be known anyways, and they're always right.

      And Slashdot is crowded with communist hippies, and some of them have moderation points, that's why the parent comment is modded Insightful in spite of being some scandalous piece of communist hippie crap, and why this comment will get modded down to Troll of anyone ever notices it.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    11. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it really matter if you vote for a Demopublican or a Republicrat?

      My grandfather had a saying, "Both of them take my money but, at least with the democrats, I get a little bit back." Not to mention that the Demopublicans seem to operate less efficiently and are less apt to act as a unified structure.

      That being said, I see your point. And, in a sense, I agree. However, I think that the desire for a "quick fix", i.e. vote Libertarian (or Green Party or whoever) is one that does not work. As with most quick fixes, it is attractive as a solution because it seems so simple and easy! "Just vote Libertarian and all of your problems will be solved!".

      The real problem is not the parties, nor even the two party system in general. The _real_ problem is the complacency/apathy of the public and the ingrained sense of detachment of society from government. In this we have the chicken/egg problem. However, it is an obstacle that can be overcome.

      Somehow, the public/society needs to be introduced to the truth. What is really going on (and most people here on /. actually have an inkling of what is really going on) is abhorrent and detrimental to the public at large. Once they are introduced to the truth, they will be pissed.

      Once they are (more) aware of what is going on, they might be persuaded to do something about it. If shown that their participation can and will eventually make a difference, perhaps more people would be discussing possible courses of action, speaking out, blowing the whistle, demonstrating in the streets, etc..

      Once they are aware, they discuss. Once they discuss, they develop ideas/strategies/solutions. Once they develop, they work on implementing.

      A fundamental problem with the challenge that faces us is how to introduce the truth and some of these ideas to the public without mass panic and/or backlash and to guage what is possible in the near term as well as short-term strategy to implement.

      One possible way to do this would be through entertainment. If you are a conspiracy believer, you have already heard how this kind of thing is supposedly done.

      A television show/movie about what really happened re: 911 is a good start. You could then branch out to sister television shows (both past and present and how it all got this way and what is going on now (corruption, globalization, surveillance, privatization, etc). This introduces the idea(s)/truth in a non-threatening manner as well as gets people discussing these issues. The awakening begins.

      You then introduce possible modes of action (in the form of entertainment set in the very near future) and the pros and cons to each of those modes of action. This reminds people that the chosen mode of action will have consequences down the line and that they should be careful not implement something too harsh, something too quickly, or something for the wrong reasons. Remind them that the end does not justify the means and to proceed cautiously, yet expeditiously.

      *Sometimes people are awakened with a start. **Sometimes people wake up on their own by their own process/course. ***Sometimes people need to feel that it is ok for them to wake up. ****Some people need an alarm clock. Sound the alarm. It is time to wake up America.

      WAKE UP AMERICA! WAKE UP!

      This method of introducing ideas through entertainment can serve all of the above. * "I never thought of it that way. I'm going to look into this more. "
      ** "I already had an idea and I've been thinking about the ideas presented and feel that..."
      *** "I've kind of suspected but always felt uncomfortable talking about it for fear of being viewed as.... "
      **** "holy shit, where the hell have i been"

      WAKE UP AMERICA! WAKE UP!

      "Lights out guerrilla radio
      turn that shit up

      It has to start somewhere
      It has to start sometime
      What better place than here
      What better time than now"

      WAKE UP AMERICA! WAKE UP!

    12. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, Russ, I've never been terribly impressed by your rhetorical skills. This post pretty well demonstrates why.

      We could go round and round for hours, trying to figure out the full effects of a Gore presidency. You could argue yourself blue about how Kyoto would have turned us into a third world nation, or how his victory would have destroyed our moral fabric by legitimizing Oval Office blowjobs. Or how he was a nutjob who wanted everyone to believe he singlehandedly wrote the TCP/IP protocol stack.

      But that was never the point.

      The point is, the country would be in a very different place today had the election turned out differently. We would probably have higher taxes, stronger environmental regulations, lower corporate earnings, etc. I don't see that state of affairs as 'evil,' but maybe you do. But the country would be running more in accordance with my beliefs and values had Gore won. That fact singlehandedly debunks your overreaching claim that elections don't matter. Now, if you want to scale back your claim and say that there isn't nearly enough difference between the parties, and that both parties are too self-interested, you'll have my full agreement.

      But right now you're defending an untenable position, and doing it rather badly.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    13. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't generally expend much effort thinking about alternative histories. My only reason for doing so was to provide some counterweight to the defeatist "elections don't matter" mantra.

      Russ does have a point. If all we do is obediently queue up every two or four years, then there are very firm limits on how much change we can effect. There are problems with the government that neither party has an interest in fixing. The overstating of a case that has some merit doesn't bother me much, but the apathy such attitudes engender is antithetical to the attitudes that will get this country back on track.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    14. Re:The presumption is that voting matters by spud603 · · Score: 1

      it's not so much "what's the next step" as "what else are you doing in addition to voting"...
      There are lots of other tools we have, some less crappy than others. You can stop paying your income tax. You can stop driving to work (where's that oil come from, again?). You can spend more time on the street and talk with strangers. You can start a garden. You can shout, loudly...
      The biggest problem is that the government does and always will have the big guns, and does and always will inflict violence to maintain authority... That's what makes me feel pretty helpless.

  33. let everybody vote - then worry about the machines by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

    Get rid of the complex rules about who is allowed to vote. That stops officials arbirarily omitting names from the electorial role. So long as you are over 16 and not in jail you should be able to vote (even crazy people.)

  34. Article seems lacking details by pkcs11 · · Score: 0

    Step One: Upload vote stealing or vote adding software.
    What kind of HOWTO is this??!

    --
    "I have an odd craving to whisper about those few frightful hours in that ill-rumored and evilly shadowed seaport of dea
    1. Re:Article seems lacking details by Phillup · · Score: 1

      What kind of HOWTO is this??!

      Give 'em a break... they started off with a MythTV HOWTO.

      ;-)

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
  35. Well by The+Creator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's better that many bad guys know of a "hack" that doesn't work anymore, than that a few know of one that still does.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  36. Has anyone seen a cat? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    *holding an empty bag in his hands*

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  37. Don't blame me... by Bobo_The_Boinger · · Score: 1

    I voted for Kodos.

    --
    --David
  38. It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this case, having one bad guy with the directions really isn't any better than 10 bad guys with it.

    In fact, the more bad guys that have it, the more likely the problem will get fixed, thus it's actually better that the most 'bad guys' possible get it. If only one person knows how to rig the election, chances are higher they'll be able to get away with it. If 100 people know and all try to rig the election, chances are none of them will get away with it, because the tampering will be too obvious.

    Frankly I think the best thing to happen would be for someone to utterly steal the next election; make "Mickey Mouse" or "Elvis" get 100 seats in Congress or something. The cost of having to repeat a single election is certainly much smaller than continuing for decades with a flawed process, where nobody can tell whether the vote is being rigged or not.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by Howserx · · Score: 1

      Too late for Canada. We already have a Mickey mouse PM. Unfortunately, we can't blame this on Diebold.

      --
      I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
    2. Re:It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Did you hear about the precinct that turned in 10 times as many votes as it had registered voters?

      That was pretty blatant. But they let the fraudulent votes be counted. (Didn't they? I never saw any notice that they threw them out.)

      The main hope is that if there's lots of people trying to fix the election, they MIGHT cancel each other out. (Not a very big hope you say? Yes. But it's the best one.)

      The elections have been rigged ever since electronic voting was introduced. There are many instances where it's been so blatant as to be beyond dispute. Were they rigged before electronic voting? Maybe. Not as systematically, and not as blatantly. But I can't prove that it wasn't happening then.

      So. Either democracy in the US is now a farce, or it's been one for (you pick the time interval since you believe there was a sufficiently honest election). What the electronic voting machines have definitely done is cause the voter fraud to become blatantly obvious. Now nobody who is paying attention can doubt it. I'm not sure this guarantees that the government will fix the problem. This "problem" may well be how the people in charge got elected.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by xlyz · · Score: 1

      Frankly I think the best thing to happen would be for someone to utterly steal the next election; make "Mickey Mouse" or "Elvis" get 100 seats in Congress or something.

      wrong. couple of year ago we put lots of votes for Goofy in Ohio, and they didn't sh... oh, never mind.

    4. Re:It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by nizo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What really bothers me is that many votes will probably get tossed, including valid votes, which is absurd. Apparently we have no threshold for calling an entire election invalid and redoing it, which is pathetic.

    5. Re:It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Apparently we have no threshold for calling an entire election invalid and redoing it, which is pathetic.

      If we did have such a policy, when would the recounting be considered sufficient? When the "loser"'s body wasn't found one day?

      The Founders didn't want federal officials elected by the public - the states would make those decisions, hence our entire electoral college ... and ever since we've tried to go to a "everyone votes" system we've had these problems. Which is easier to monitor and ensure non-fraudulent - 100 million voters or 50 states?

    6. Re:It's like a tamper seal. You want it to break. by doom · · Score: 1
      nizo (81281) wrote:
      What really bothers me is that many votes will probably get tossed, including valid votes, which is absurd.
      Yeah, this is a big problem, but it's by no means the biggest problem we've been seeing of late. What you're talking about is essentially "normal" fraud (talk about pathetic), it isn't the "wholesale" variety that has become possible with the likes of Diebold and ES&S in the game.
      Apparently we have no threshold for calling an entire election invalid and redoing it, which is pathetic.
      Well, we do, sort of. For example, in 2004, Barbara Boxer -- in a rare display of "spine" on the part of the Democrats -- actually stood up in the Senate and tried to get the Senate to debate the election irregularities in Ohio before just rubber stamping the election. The thing is that party loyalties evidentally trump everything else these days, and the Republican majority just jammed the process; they ignored the evidence, complained about "sour grapes", and broke out their rubber stamp.

      It's a similar problem with, say, the impeachment process as a check on Presidential power. It can't possibly work unless you have a split in control between congress and the executive branch.

  39. I've never told anyone before, but... by golgotha007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ventura, California, Buena High School, 1988 Class President election:

    It was the first year of electronic voting, done on a room full of Apple IIe's.

    Some kind of voting program was running. I simply made a break in the program, figured it which variables belong to which candidate and bumped the variable count up for my favorite. After that, i simply continued the program and then logged my official vote.

    My favorite was Todd Turner. I hear he won by a landslide. No one contested the results. Lucky Todd.

    And Todd, if you happen to read this, don't get mad at me, ok? I mean, you probably would have won anyway, right?

    1. Re:I've never told anyone before, but... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      Too funny! Ventura High, Class of '80 here. My buddy was elected class president too, but no fancy electronic machines back then.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  40. OTHUMOR by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Security through obscurity never works for long.

    What? It's worked for the Apple Macintosh for nearly 20 years now! When was the last time you saw a virus targed for the Macintosh?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:OTHUMOR by Shadarr · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's not obscurity, that's security through irrelevance.

    2. Re:OTHUMOR by rthille · · Score: 2, Informative

      There were lots before OS-X, Not sure how easy it is to find info about them, since they were pre-internet, but they exist, passed mostly by floppies.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    3. Re:OTHUMOR by CreatureComfort · · Score: 0, Troll


      First, somebody has to care enough about the results to make it worth the effort.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  41. Re:let everybody vote - then worry about the machi by norkakn · · Score: 1

    Since people in jail are the ones most effected by the law, why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Do we with to disenfranchise them more?

    If someone feels that they are in jail for political reasons, should we at least let them vote to change it?

  42. How informative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SAW III is coming out!

  43. too complicated by truesaer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That article was way too complicated for the "non-technical public." It was great for tech savvy people, but if he wants to convince the average joe he needs to simplify. We don't need to see 10 different ways the machines can be hacked, just ONE way that is simple, understandable, and presented clearly to the user. Preferably on 1, maybe 2 pages max (before they lose interest).


    Ideally, for the layperson you would simply explain that each pricinct's votes are stored in a small database, and that it can simply be edited with a piece of software commonly included in Microsoft's popular Office suite. Then, show a screenshot of access with the GEMS database opened, highlight the vote tally for some candidate, and explain that you simply click in the box and change the number. Then explain how it would be impossible to know what the vote count could be due to the lack of paper...relate it back to punched ballots (just save the ballots and recount em if necessary), optical scanners (again you have the ballots and usually there is a paper log that prints each vote as it is scanned), etc.


    All of that is understandable to even the layperson. Most people understand what Microsoft Office is. Most people have heard of a database and understand thats how businesses store all their information. Most people have seen a spreadsheet and a screenshot of someone editing an access database looks almost the same.

    1. Re:too complicated by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

      Ideally, for the layperson you would simply explain that each pricinct's votes are stored in a small database, and that it can simply be edited with a piece of software commonly included in Microsoft's popular Office suite.

      This database server, the GEMS machine, is at the central office of the county registrar, the elected official who is running the election. Voters know they have to trust this person, and furthermore there are multiple people in that office, watching each other. Yes, they could all conspire to steal the election, but voters have always known this, and they elect county officials they can trust.

      Now, you can argue that hackers can break into the machine, but usually the registrar will claim that he has up to date protections against that. And hopefully he does.

  44. There's An Easier Way by value_added · · Score: 1

    Just be like most people and don't bother voting.

    The other side will be happy to steal it for you. And they can do it the old fashioned way.

  45. We've been screwed for years, who cares? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Since the implicit acceptance of statism and socialism in America, it really doesn't matter if Democrats or Republicans run the show. We're all screwed. This just eliminates the paper waste, so we're less screwed in the short term.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:We've been screwed for years, who cares? by eobanb · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but...socialism? Of all the things happening to the United States right now, you're most worried about socialism?

      I think you're way off base here. The gap between rich and poor has been the biggest it's ever been in the last several decades, with more and more funding going to the military, and a rapidly diminishing middle class. Education and health care are notoriously expensive in the US compared most industrialised nations. The US is currently witnessing the government's outright rejection of socialism, not the reverse.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

  46. Re:Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the old "Bread and Circuses" tactic has worked for millenia. i see no reason why it will not continue to work. if anything, it might work even better now than in the past...

  47. Email this story to your representative by nuzak · · Score: 5, Informative
    Go IMMEDIATELY to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and send them an email/contact form entitled "How to Steal an Election", with the URL http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s in the body. Vary the title if you prefer (I'm open to suggestions), and please do add something in your own words about how much the unaccountability and lack of transparency concerns you.

    Repeat this process for http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm (the Senate's small enough that they just list them all on one page)

    After about a thousand folks do this, a staffer might actually go print out the story and hand it to their congresscritter in a brief.

    I'd also like to ask the Ars Technica people to make an exception for this story and make the PDF available to non-subscribers, as it would really help to disseminate this story to the right people. I'm not really sure how to go about contacting them.

    Here's my letter (slightly munged of course by slashdot):

    I recently came across "How to Steal an Election" at http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s which lays out in rather devastating detail how flawed the current system of electronic voting is. I am concerned that our election process has effectively been privatized by a small number of companies, some of which are overtly partisan in their politics, and none held accountable for the numerous and easily-exploitable security flaws in their equipment. One of the equipment companies in particular has taken to smear campaigns and litigation against its critics in an attempt to silence them.

    I understand that voting should and must be accessible to the disabled, but this can be done without compromising the security and integrity of our elections. Slot machines in Nevada are subjected to extremely rigorous design standards for security, while voting machines have no such standards at all. This situation cannot go on -- I urge you to secure our elections with appropriate legislation.

    [signature stuff removed]


    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    1. Re:Email this story to your representative by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't they just use that information to their advantage? These are the same guys who raise taxes so they can vote themselves a pay raise each year.

    2. Re:Email this story to your representative by Hannibal_Ars · · Score: 1

      This is a fantastic idea. Look for news on this front tomorrow.

      --
      Senior CPU Editor | Ars Technica | http://arstechnica.com/
    3. Re:Email this story to your representative by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

      Already did it before I even read Slashdot... although my letter actually pointed out that
      millions of computer professionals had already read it (hint, people capable of actually
      doing the hacking) and diebold couldn't possibly provide a patch in time for all possible
      attack vectors. So many people have seen it now that it is statistically improbable for it not
      to happen.

      The timing was awesome. A lot of Republican lawmakers started a trend of leaving DC for the
      weekend on Thursday. Don't expect anything to happen on it until next Monday at best, unless
      they call some sort of emergency session...

      --
      Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
    4. Re:Email this story to your representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be no emergency session. Mickey Mouse will, however, sweep 9 states.

  48. How to make a change by HisTrev · · Score: 1

    I bet if the founding fathers looked at this issue they would suggest that a few slashdotters hack some of these machines and (anonymously) completely fudge the elections in a few districts, just to prove that it can be done. You know, give some 3rd party guy 100 percent of the vote. This would prompt change pretty darn quick.

    1. Re:How to make a change by nizo · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding?? The founding fathers would already be holding the third continental congress, after having organized a militia and booting every elected official years ago.

  49. What should be done. by nrlightfoot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The quickest way to get the system changed is to create a scandal by actually stealing an election. I would suggest making a Libertarian, Green, or other 3rd party win the govenor's race. That should make it pretty obvious. Then the person who hacked the election should send letters detailing what they did to a major newspaper and the state election board. I would also suggest backing up the real results so that no real harm is done. That should get us secure voting machines by the 2008 presidential elections.

    --
    what sig?
    1. Re:What should be done. by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have long argued that what really needs to be done is not just making a major 3rd party like the Libertarians or Greens to win, but get some very very obscure party that is plainly obvious that nobody really supported the candidate, and make it a near landslide victory for that party.

      I've nominated a few suggestions like the Cthulhu Party or the National Fisherman's Party, but either would do the job very well.

      To be honest, if you wanted to avoid spending too much time in jail, I would suggest the student body president of some major university instead as an election to hack instead of U.S. Congressional races or the Presidential election, as you can avoid violating federal election laws in that manner. It could still have the same impact in terms of letting people know what can happen, but the results wouldn't be so disasterous in terms of getting a major investigation and court proceedings to catch the would-be hackers. And publicize the hack in all of its gory detail.

      Last time I made a suggestion I discovered that some university student body elections were indeed hacked like this, but it didn't use the current set of machines by Dibold that have been suggested so far.

    2. Re:What should be done. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about parties, any short, fat, black, and ugly Jewish lesbian would serve the purpose.

    3. Re:What should be done. by sponga · · Score: 1

      Uhh no, the libertarians/greens would be torn apart in the media and public.
      I can see the news stories now
      "Radical libertarians with no sense of reality have tried to steal the election. These group of people are seriously delusional and want to see the destruction of America"

    4. Re:What should be done. by Frostalicious · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would also suggest backing up the real results so that no real harm is done. That should get us secure voting machines by the 2008 presidential elections.

      I think you are going to need to cause actual harm for real change to be implemented. If the real results are backed up, then they will be restored, "proving the reliability of Diebold equipment". You need to leave someone with Wierd Al as governor and no recourse to repair the damage.

    5. Re:What should be done. by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      After reading some of the replies, it is obvious that electing an actual politician, even from an obscure third party would be a bad idea, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. It would probably be best to elect someone who isn't on the ballot, perhaps CowboyNeal or Mickey Mouse. Then they would know that the election was rigged. Leaving a backup might make it too easy as someone pointed out, so forget the backup and make them run a second election. That should get them to fix the problem.

      --
      what sig?
    6. Re:What should be done. by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The quickest way to get the system changed is to create a scandal by actually stealing an election. I would suggest making a Libertarian, Green, or other 3rd party win the govenor's race. That should make it pretty obvious.

      Statistical analysis has already demonstrated fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. There is no doubt whatsoever that significant voting irregularities took place, and that they had the effect of giving the election to Bush rather than his opponent in both cases. There were also, it is worth noting, some anomalies that favoured Democrats, although not by so wide a margin (perhaps they were just playing their cards more closely, or didn't need as big shifts to win in those races.)

      I sincerely hope that some American hero stands up and hacks the upcoming elections in a big way. They will get jailed for some kind of crime, but someone has to stand up and fight, and not say, "Oh, but my career would suffer if I was willing to sacrifice myself for the good of my country." But I have no illusions that such a successful hack would have any immediate effect. It will take many hacks over many elections to convince the idiots who think that election fraud is simply a stick to beat Republicans with, or who dismiss all evidence of fraud as impossible because "they" would never allow such a thing.

      We know Diebold machines can be hacked very easily. We know that they have been hacked in past elections, based on analysis of exit poll anomalies. We know that there is a great deal at stake in the American elections in the next two years.

      If America deserves to survive, there will be at least one person somewhere who is even now implementing a plan that will result in 100% of the votes cast in their county going to third-party candidates. In practical terms it must be third-party, because otherwise the vast majority of voters who cast their ballot for the favoured candidate would simply shrug, spit, and say, "I don't see no problem with that." Nothing short of a third-party landslide victory will put a dent in the partisan complacency of mainstream voters, and even then the lying bastards in power will claim that this was a special-case problem that they know for sure didn't affect any other races. And the complacent sheeple will believe them.

      If no one is willing to take the risk of throwing egregiously throwing the vote in their county then America does not deserve to survive as a functioning democratic republic, and it will not.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:What should be done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another desirable outcome would be if the Republicans won every race. The next morning the December 5th paper based and hand counted Re-Election and national holiday would be announced.

    8. Re:What should be done. by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 1

      I agree, if by "secure voting machines" you mean the innovative new secure voting system that's just about outta beta - produced by a joint venture between Ticonderoga, Epson, International Paper, Master Lock, and US Steel. With multiple security precautions, excellent reliability and enhanced ease of use that Diebold and friends can only dream about, this exciting new election system promises to revolutionize the way elections are held. And if that wasn't enough, it does all of this at a VERY reasonable price point. De-snarking now, but the voters of America must dig in their heels and say "Enough is enough. The very notion of a digital voting machine is a farce - doesn't matter if some countries like India have made it work - the inherent risks are too great. Until we have to deal with votes coming in from our lunar colony, there is no NEED for it. It solves no problems that can't be solved in other, better ways, and creates a host of new ones. Abolish it, now." People can say "B-b-but the Democrats did (fill in the blank)" or "B-b-but the Republicans did (fill in the blank)", and to that I simply reply "shut the fuck up". This is the most non-partisan issue imaginable - do we or do we not want our votes to mean anything? That's not red or blue, that's American. Who stole what election when is an issue for investigators (journalists and otherwise) and the courts. Making sure it doesn't happen again is an issue for us all. The cheapest and simplest way is to take the computers out of the equation. Analog voting is not a guarantee of honest elections... and seatbelts aren't a guarantee of surviving a car crash. But in both cases it sure as shit helps your odds.

      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    9. Re:What should be done. by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1
      How about these election returns for the conservative mostly republican areas around the country:
      • Democrats 86%
      • Communist 6%
      • Libertarian 4%
      • Republicans 3%
      • Greens 1%
      These would be the results from the mostly Democratic inner-city areas:
      • Republican 91%
      • Libertarian 7%
      • Greens 2%
      • Democrats 1%
      Most other parts of the country would get these results:
      • Libertarian 55%
      • Communist 20%
      • Democrat 15%
      • Greens 7%
      • Republicans 3%

      The combined final totals might show a Libertarian president and Libertarians controlling both houses of Congress. Those unexpected results would only occur where computerized voting machines were used, not where paper ballots or older types of voting machines were used.

      A smaller percentage of the voting machines do print out paper stubs which go into a ballot box to allow a manual recount. A manual recount of the printed stubs on those machines would show results that had no resemblance to the electronic totals.

    10. Re:What should be done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few years ago, there was a guy in France that discovered how easy it was to create fake undetectable credit cards ; he called the press, went to the subway, bought a $.5 travel ticket with his fake credit card. There's been an outrage for about a week.
      All newspapers made their headlines with the system flaws and how unacceptable it was.
      After that the rapt(Paris subway company) sued him for stealing a 50cents ticket, the GIE carte banquaire (the joint venture between ALL french banks managing debit/credit card, visa, etc...) sued for hacking.

      Of course he was found guilty (ten month of jail - after all the guy did steal money, and hacked the system)

      Of course, the 200 french, europeean and international banks, represented by the GIE, said he was a lier, trying to scare people off. They even managed to censor tv shows about that.

      Of course they didn't change their system (there are hundreds of thousands of devices in all France, and dozens of millions of debit/credit cards, changing was too expensive).

      Of course, after one week, no one cared.

      see http://humpich.com/ for details

  50. Re:Lack of ethics.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe these http://www.nthtiersolutions.com/ guys can help. Even though the site doesn't say so i know they can fix such things.

  51. 42USC 1983 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody state which by legislation requires electronic voting is clearly trying to deprive its citizens of their civil rights under color of state law. It is that simple!

  52. Yes. by thorholiday · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The premium PDF is an identical copy of the actual article. You aren't missing anything.

  53. Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's my prediction. The control of the House of Representatives in the coming election (which is after all, the most important thing, considering it would give Bush's opponents subpoena power to investigate all the sleazy crap he's pulled), will come down to one extremely close race. This close race will be decided, after a recount, and the Republican candidate will win by less than .01% of the votes.

    It will be a virtual repeat of the 2002 and 2004 elections. You see, all this nail-biting, down to the wire, razor-thin margin bullshit gives the idiots who watch TV the feeling that, well "it MUST be legit because it was so darn close" and "if there was anything crooked going on, they'd win decisively".

    Wednesday, the 8th of November, we will hear how the "values voters" pulled together at the last minute and despite the fact that all the exit polls showed the Dems winning by a huge margin, the Republicans yet again pulled a miracle out of the hat and retained power. Rush Limbaugh will explain that all the prayers of the good Christian Conservatives is what turned the tide.

    Because of the clear crookedness of our electoral system (and did you notice that the regions that the Republicans pulled their upsets in during the last elections were the ones that had Diebold machines?), it is probably too late to expect elections, op-ed columns or clever blogs to make a damn bit of difference.

    No, I'm afraid it's going to take people, lots of people, in the streets, being decidedly ill-behaved if we're going to keep this nation anything like the beautiful experiment that the Founding Fathers produced. If the principles of the Enlightenment are going to survive, we're going to have to act the way the heroes who created this country acted: badly. Civil disobedience and mass demonstrations, general strikes and boycotts. There's going to be some fighting before this power-grab by the Authoritarian Right who have masked themselves as "Conservatives" will end.

    Despite my general laziness and particular enjoyment of online games like Eve-Online, I am prepared to fight, and if necessary, die, for my country. Even if it means that it will be other Americans that I will have to fight to protect the United States of America.

    It's going to take a tamper-proof margin of victory in 11 days if this sleazy little tin-pot dictator in the White House and the crooked pricks who are pulling his strings are going to be stopped. It's the only chance we have to put a little oversight on these bad actors.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      and did you notice that the regions that the Republicans pulled their upsets in during the last elections were the ones that had Diebold machines?),
      Proof please.
      Also, how many upsets did not have diabold machines.
      Finally any dem upsets, mapped the same way.
      Do that and if it looks like proof I'll believe you.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by homer_ca · · Score: 1
      It's going to take a tamper-proof margin of victory in 11 days if this sleazy little tin-pot dictator in the White House and the crooked pricks who are pulling his strings are going to be stopped. It's the only chance we have to put a little oversight on these bad actors.

      This is the reason why people can't stop voting even if they suspect fraud. Run up the score to get a big margin of victory. You can't flip too much of the vote without looking suspicious.
    3. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by qeveren · · Score: 1
      This is the reason why people can't stop voting even if they suspect fraud. Run up the score to get a big margin of victory. You can't flip too much of the vote without looking suspicious.

      What good is a big margin if nobody knows about it? "Exit polls are inaccurate", remember?
      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    4. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by AEton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Despite my general laziness and particular enjoyment of online games like Eve-Online, I am prepared to fight, and if necessary, die, for my country. Even if it means that it will be other Americans that I will have to fight to protect the United States of America.

      With respect, your paranoid delusions and violent fantasies won't do much to change the political climate. Just vote, please.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    5. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you not paying attention? Before Diebold, your individual vote meant squat. With Diebold, it means less than squat, it means absolutely nothing.

    6. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Run up the score to get a big margin of victory. You can't flip too much of the vote without looking suspicious.

      Except:

      1) they only show the final score

      and

      2) nobody knows who cast the individual votes

      All that is really known (to some degree) is the total number of voters entering the booths.

      That makes fudging the numbers extremely trivial.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    7. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Phillup · · Score: 1

      With respect, your paranoid delusions and violent fantasies won't do much to change the political climate.

      History says otherwise.

      Two words:

      Grassy Knoll

      I bet that would have some impact on the political climate!

      (Can you say "civil war"?)

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    8. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by danbeck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You just cant stand the fact that Republicans might just kick the Dem's asses this November, can you?

      It's an intellectually vapid and ridiculous notion that polling data should be the deciding factor in an election and not the actual votes cast. Yet, in favor of the polls, you ignore the fact that the majority of this country on the moderate to conservative side. You ignore the fact that Bush, both fucking times, has garnered more votes than Clinton ever did. You forget the fact that this country continues to vote in Republication houses and senates each election cycle and you forget that our economy is god damned fucking BOOMING.

      You are acting like a petulant child, whining and bitching when you don't get your way and accusing everyone of being out to get you. Yes, it's obvious, with the constant daily barrage by the media telling us how fucked up this country is and how fucked up Iraq is and how angry we are all supposed to be, how could any of us vote for Republicans?

      Something you are missing is that a large number of people in this country see our economy booming, we see the RECORD unemployment and the booming housing sector. We are smart enough to understand how oil is traded on commodities markets and we aren't freaking out when prices fluctuate. We understand that the war in Iraq and the war on terror will take time and that we can't just snap our fingers and wish us all to utopia.

      We also see the democratic political war machine for what it is and see the Foley scandal for what it is. We see the Amendment #2 bullshit in Missouri and we see what our southern border security would be like if the Democrats control the house.

      We do not want what the Democratic party is offering. It's as simple as that.

    9. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by inKubus · · Score: 1

      It's a federal felony to tamper with voting. So we just need someone to come forward from their camp and tell us what they did and we'll be rid of them for a long long time.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    10. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Just vote, please.

      Cause that's worked so well in the past!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by danbeck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Silly me, I forgot that if you don't toe the democratic party line here, you get modded down. Thanks, Mr. Moderator, for making sure any debate here at slashdot is one sided.

    12. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by FirmWarez · · Score: 1
      No, I'm afraid it's going to take people, lots of people, in the streets, being decidedly ill-behaved if we're going to keep this nation anything like the beautiful experiment that the Founding Fathers produced. If the principles of the Enlightenment are going to survive, we're going to have to act the way the heroes who created this country acted: badly. Civil disobedience and mass demonstrations, general strikes and boycotts. There's going to be some fighting before this power-grab by the Authoritarian Right who have masked themselves as "Conservatives" will end.
      Only problem is you're gonna have a hard time being "ill-behaved" since all those who mask themselves as "liberals" have done their best to disarm you.
    13. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      With respect, your paranoid delusions and violent fantasies won't do much to change the political climate. Just vote, please.
      Until they institute Instant Runoff Voting, or include a way to vote "this is all a crock of shit", voting just perpetuates the myth that the system is working. Not voting is presently the only way to protest the system. What do you think would happen if voter turnout dropped below 5%?
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

      Cynic! :)

      But travel to Zimbabwe and ask Government supporters about rigged elections.

      They will tell you that they used tactics not unlike those used in American elections.

      The point is that Bush has not only eroded democracy in America, but he has undermined democracy throughout the world.

      Now you may be a home-lovin', God-fearin', all-american redneck (by which I mean a Republican supporter regardless of the colour of your neck or your religious affiliation), who believes that Bush won those elections fair and square. But the perception in places like Zimbabwe is that George W. Bush used the very same tactics that Robert Gabriel Mugabe currently uses to cow his people into toeing the line.

      Personally, whether Bush used underhand tactics to win the elections is neither here nor there; the perception is that he did. And the fact that the election process is so obviously broken reinforces that perception. Not only is it obviously broken, but that it remains obviously broken, which leads to the question: why hasn't it been repaired? And the conclusion? because it is in the interests of the incumbents that it retains the ability to be manipulated.

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
    15. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by jkauzlar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Voting Irregularities in Ohio which used ES&S and Diebold machines. see pp. 28 & 29[pdf]. The first link is irrelevant as proof, but interesting. The second link contains all of the exit poll discrepencies for each state. It was a report done by the exit polling company to investigate the discrepencies. I can't find any lists of where Diebold or ES&S machines are used, but you'll see in which states the largest discrepencies were found. It's a very interesting study, although they don't point fingers, only describe where the discrepencies may have come from.

    16. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being an asshole can also get you modded down.

    17. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Obviously the best way to protest is to start shooting at random at those poor policemen that might actually agree with you. They will surely not fire back in self-defense, right? Standing up unarmed and protest, protest more, and keeping on protesting is however much more effective. You might eventually get the police and the military on your side and affect a real change, instead of just a blood-bath and the label of terrorist.

    18. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by doom · · Score: 3, Interesting
      networkBoy (774728) wrote:
      and did you notice that the regions that the Republicans pulled their upsets in during the last elections were the ones that had Diebold machines?),
      Proof please. Also, how many upsets did not have diabold machines. Finally any dem upsets, mapped the same way. Do that and if it looks like proof I'll believe you.
      Try reading the Freeman and Bleifuss book: Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?.

      It's actually really striking: there was a pattern of "surprising" results that correlates with the use of electronic voting machines; with the presence of Republican governors, and so on. Where-ever Bush really needed it, he got an upset.

      (Note: Ohio appears to have been stolen also, but with more conventional tactics engineered by a Republican Secretary of State with a lot of balls and no shame.)

    19. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by J053 · · Score: 1
      What do you think would happen if voter turnout dropped below 5%?

      Then, the winner would be elected by 2.5%+1 of the population.

    20. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Petrushka · · Score: 1
      No, I'm afraid it's going to take people, lots of people, in the streets, being decidedly ill-behaved if we're going to keep this nation anything like the beautiful experiment that the Founding Fathers produced.

      I'm not an American so perhaps I shouldn't comment, but looking in from outside it seems to me that mass protests are an extremely unlikely scenario. Far more likely, it looks to me, is that continually decreasing confidence in the electoral system will lead to progressive alienation between the sitting government and other institutions, in turn leading to a military coup d'etat sometime in the next few decades, followed by electoral reform. (Of course that's just me imagining possible futures; reality is generally stranger than fiction.)

    21. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      So, what you are saying is that the election is only valid if YOU win?

    22. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

      Far more likely, it looks to me, is that continually decreasing confidence in the electoral system will lead to progressive alienation between the sitting government and other institutions, in turn leading to a military coup d'etat sometime in the next few decades...

      No way. Americans are the epitome of the Do-It-Yourselfer. Home Depots here in Canada? A few wrenches, one stick welder... oh, and towels in the kitchens and bathrooms department. Home Depots anywhere I've been in the USA? Ten different kinds of MIG welder, flare nut wrenches both Metric and SAE... and I didn't see any towels.

      Wal*Mart Canada: oil change tools and supplies for cars, maybe a few car covers. Wal*Mart in Niagara Falls NY: air conditioning manifold and vacuum pump with little cylinders of R-134a so you can repair your own air conditioning system.

      Sears Canada: small assortment of Craftsman tools. Sears USA: Sears Craftsman NASCAR team.

      My experience was that European hardware stores are even more pathetic than Canadian stores. As a European-born Canadian do-it-yourselfer, I relate very well to Americans because I understand them on an individual level.

      American citizens are self-reliant, individualistic do-it-yourselfers; they'll take care of the problems with the government when they're sufficiently convinced there actually *is* a problem.

      And I pity any government in the peoples' way, what with all the power tools they have.

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    23. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by faolan_devyn_aodfin · · Score: 1
      No, I'm afraid it's going to take people, lots of people, in the streets, being decidedly ill-behaved if we're going to keep this nation anything like the beautiful experiment that the Founding Fathers produced. If the principles of the Enlightenment are going to survive, we're going to have to act the way the heroes who created this country acted: badly. Civil disobedience and mass demonstrations, general strikes and boycotts. There's going to be some fighting before this power-grab by the Authoritarian Right who have masked themselves as "Conservatives" will end. Despite my general laziness and particular enjoyment of online games like Eve-Online, I am prepared to fight, and if necessary, die, for my country. Even if it means that it will be other Americans that I will have to fight to protect the United States of America.
      You sir, have just said perhaps the most beautiful and more inspiring things I've read on Slashdot. How many others out there are truly willing to go out and fight and possibly die for such a wonderful thing as liberty. The fact is that there are not many people in our nation that would do the same. Courage like that is rare and those who have it should be proud, and even prouder shall men like you be when that courage makes them heroes.
      --
      Pagan? Geek? Check out #paganism on Freenode IRC
    24. Re:Ethics? We don't need no stinking ETHICS! by Rohan427 · · Score: 1

      There's going to be some fighting before this power-grab by the Authoritarian Right who have masked themselves as "Conservatives" will end.

      You are quick to put all the blame on the "Conservatives". The blame belongs to three groups: 1) The Democrats who long for and grab power when they can, 2) The Republicans who long for and grab power when they can, 3) The American Public who let it happen and are too clueless to make it stop.

      You all (Reps. and Dems. alike) let it happen by continuing to vote for either of two sides of the same rotten coin. (Then there are those that don't vote at all.)

      PGA

  54. He's crafty, that Stallman. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, you know the old rule: "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"...

    Stallman wouldn't want to execute Raymond too early; it would just precipitate a civil war. You know, BSDers blowing themselves up in LUG meetings, contamination of the Cheetos supply, and caffeinated-beverage shortages. You know, basically all the worst parts of the Bible.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:He's crafty, that Stallman. by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      Thank you sir for one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  55. Hmm... by LifeWithJustin · · Score: 1

    Come on now. Is it really that hard to get a printed card (read: scantron) that I can look over and say: Yep, that's what I voted! Have that card read into a repository (which keeps the card) and at the end of the day have the booths match up with the repository. If the numbers don't match it raises a red flag and they then do some digging? Or better yet just use the repository to send the votes?

  56. White Hat by TranscendentalAnarch · · Score: 1

    Personally I'd like to see a trojan installed that privately monitors the results for tampering, catching manipulation of votes, with sufficient evidence for proof, at any level of the election process.

  57. That's why we banned electronic vote in Quebec by JcMorin · · Score: 1

    Some people were laughing at us because we did ban the electronic vote. I'm not sure that our decision was so ridiculous.

    1. Re:That's why we banned electronic vote in Quebec by bitt3n · · Score: 1
      Some people were laughing at us because we did ban the electronic vote. I'm not sure that our decision was so ridiculous.
      I heard they banned electronic voting unless the binary code is written in French.
  58. Someone else will dumb it down by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's what blogs are for.

    It needs to have enough supporting evidence that someone can blog it as fact. When blogged, it will inevitably get taken out of context and dumbed down to the level that the average Joe will understand, with the substance behind TFA's link.

    Give this a few days to make it around the Internet. I can see this becoming a big stink.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  59. This should be sent to every Governor by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    maybe that will wake the n00bz up.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  60. I know a great way to cause nationwide alarm... by Spatch3 · · Score: 1

    Final vote tally:

    0% Republican
    0% Democrat
    25% Libertarian
    25% Reform
    25% Green
    25% Independent

    I'd really like to see this happen in some state somewhere in this union... It would cause wonderful chaos. :)

    --

    Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch
  61. Security Through Obscurity by Spaceman40 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A commercial, and in some respects a social doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery.

    Rogues knew a good deal about lock-picking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock, let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker, is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is to the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of the knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance.

    It cannot be too earnestly urged that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties. Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear, milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.

            -- From A.C Hobbs (Charles Tomlinson, ed.), Locks and Safes: The Construction of Locks. Published by Virtue & Co., London, 1853 (revised 1868).

    (c/o Matt Blaze)
    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  62. Self-Verified Voting by spoonboy42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with the general consensus among slashdoters that voting machine schematics and source code must be open to the public for inspection. I also think that we can improve election security, while still retaining an anonymous ballot, by allowing voters to check to make sure that their own vote was properly counted. Here's my plan:

    To begin with, the regular voter verification process happens at the door. You go into the polling booth, select all your options, and a confirmation screen comes up for you to check and make sure you selected everything properly. When you confirm, a small piece of paper is printed out that has a serial number and a dynamically generated decryption key on it. Your vote is then sent along to a tabulation server. Your unencrypted vote is added up with the other votes, and the pair of your serial number and your encrypted vote is stored at the same time.

    Later in the day, you can go home, and log onto a special government website. You enter your serial number, along with your decryption key, and the verification server shows your vote back to you. The only identifier attached to each vote is a serial number, and it requires the proper decryption key to view the vote. Nevertheless, it allows individual voters to check to make sure that their vote was counted. As long as source-code can be publicly inspected, we can verify that counting is not being "faked" by saving an individual user's vote for verification purposes but not actually adding it to the overall tabulation, thus preventing fraud by under-voting.

    To prevent fraud by over-voting, the tabulation server will keep track of the total number of votes it receives from each machine. Local election officials will keep a hand-tally of the number of voters who visit each poll. At the end of the day, the hand tally is checked against the server's tally to make sure there is no discrepancy.

    --
    Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
    Andy Grove: "Not Much."
    1. Re:Self-Verified Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and won't it be great when the union boss/priest/thug looks over your shoulder to make sure you voted for the "right" candidate.

      that's why we don't get receipts.

    2. Re:Self-Verified Voting by spitzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that any kind of verification like that allows vote buying. I think this is less of a worry for actually throwing an election nowadays, but it can lead to threats and violence and should not be allowed.

      There are crypto schemes that would allow you to verify that your vote was counted correctly without being able to show how you voted, but they are far too complex for an average voter to understand.

    3. Re:Self-Verified Voting by khallow · · Score: 1

      There are crypto schemes that would allow you to verify that your vote was counted correctly without being able to show how you voted, but they are far too complex for an average voter to understand.

      But they aren't too complex for investigators checking if voter fraud has occured. Something like this needs to happen. Otherwise, it's just another failure mode.
    4. Re:Self-Verified Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this effort to record a vote...

      recording millions of votes is not something that is in any way difficult by todays techinical standards.
      I propose a rewrite of all election law to the following:

      1) Only Us citizens with State Issued ID (or federal) will be allowed to vote. The only way to be barred from voting is if you are currently in prison/jail at the time of the vote. No other exceptions, period.

      2) Your voter ID number is a unique number assigned to you and only you. It is a combination of your ID number and your SS number. Drivers license plus social security number.

      3) To vote, you call 1-888-vote-USA. You enter your SS number, and your DL number. Then you are presented, over the phone with press 1 for gore press 3 for bush Press * to hear again, press # to abstain and move to the next option. /repeats

      4) there is nothing else. Thats all it takes.

      The US government, in a tranparent system controls the servers and modem banks which takes the calls. Any tampering what so ever is considered Treason and the election is tossed out and redone. Until it's done right.

      The most accurate records of any society or time period are tax records. So connect the vote server to the IRS database and you're done.

    5. Re:Self-Verified Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent!

            Too Bad most liberals, leftists and democrats wont support any one of these measures. Why is that, that is because they know that a more accurate method for checking voting accuracy will mean less reliance on historical "methods" for which they have used to "control the vote" and now they know its a new game, one they dont have the skills to control.

    6. Re:Self-Verified Voting by Phillup · · Score: 1

      and won't it be great when the union boss/priest/thug looks over your shoulder to make sure you voted for the "right" candidate.

      Two words:

      Absentee Ballot

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    7. Re:Self-Verified Voting by Ramses0 · · Score: 1

      I need to come up with a "voting checklist" thing:

      Your proposed solution will not work because it fails to account for:

      [x] vote selling

      [x] voter intimidation (vote for FOO or I kill your grandma)

      [x] computers can't be trusted

      [x] physical, visual, human-eyeball recounts are impossible

      --Robert

    8. Re:Self-Verified Voting by RosenSama · · Score: 2, Informative

      Schneier recently wrote up such a proposal using only paper ballots coby Rivest of RSA fame.

    9. Re:Self-Verified Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a bad design, but far too complicated.

      The voting machine should print out an english readable ballot, which the voter then verifies, and puts in the ballot box. The ballots in the box are counted for the official vote count.

      Done. Secure. Recountable. And simple.

      Any sophomore Computer Science major could have come up with this design. Apparently Diebold gave this task to trained monkeys instead of the interns who write the software for their ATMs.

    10. Re:Self-Verified Voting by pacalis · · Score: 1

      This seemed like an obvious solution to me too, but any system where you can after the election demonstrate your vote outside the poll is subject to manipulation (ie. your boss wan't too see your vote or will fire you etc...). You want a system that is publically verifiable/accountable but also completely private and non-retriavable. I think human verifiably printed results at the poll that are turned in, with an ability for the voter to dispute/correct, is a better scheme.

  63. Re:let everybody vote - then worry about the machi by Teancum · · Score: 1

    "Vote early and vote often!"

    Is that your motto?

    So if I am able to vote in 500 precincts in one day, my 500 votes should count over your 200, or the "honest person's" 1 vote?

    Or can I and 10,000 of my friends from Utah go to California and all vote in the primary there, changing the voting tally for the mayor's race in a city that has only 4,000 people living in it?

    How about I bring in 3 million Mexican nationals to vote for the next California Governor's race, paying them a paltry $100 each to do nothing but simply vote that day (presumably for the candidate I have suggested). Do you think it would have an impact?

    The reason for the complex rules about who is able to vote has a very legitimate reason for existing. There has been substantial voting fraud in the past, and there continues to be such fraud right now (and likely to continue), precisely because people who shouldn't be voting are, or are voting more than once.

    Much of the voting fraud with the punch card ballots in Florida was because voting managers of some precincts would take a stack of ballots after they had been cast and stick a wire down the "chosen" candidate. This is where many of the "chad" issues came up, not from any problem with the paper ballot itself in the first place.

    As far as ommitting names from the lists of eligible voters, there are legitimate reasons for doing so. Just ask how JFK was elected with the 10,000 dead people in Illinois who ended up voting anyway, giving the electorial votes of Illinois to JFK instead of Nixon.

  64. A.k.a. how to fuel a conspiracy theory by hakubak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Golly kids, getting worried that your side might now win back control? Let's whisper some more nonsense into the ears of the tinfoil hat crowd. Thanksalot.

  65. The new Democratic strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Make sure everyone knows how easy it is to manipulate an election.

    2. Call any race your guy loses "stolen".

    3. ???

    4. Profit!!!

  66. Most people really do not get this by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    People just do not understand how vulnerable electronic voting machines are to tampering. Maybe the author's dubious guide will help more to understand...but I doubt it. Bright, technically-minded, republican or democrat, people give you the same kind of glassy-eyed look when you say something about voting machine fraud as they do if you talk about a shooter on the grassy knoll. They just will not believe it, whatever the facts are. The electronic voting machines look so high-tech and cool, they must be okay. Everything else is done electronically, why not voting, might go their thinking. My county hadn't moved away from its optical scanning system...until the election in September when the poll-worker invited me to try the new, shiny, electronic voting machine (ostensibly provided for handicapped voters) rather than take my optical-scan ballot to one of the flimsy voting booths to mark with an old-fashioned pen. The electronic voting machines and their associated fraud potential just seem inevitable, now.

  67. Gimmie a break by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    Give me a fucking break.

    Put up a torrent of that PDF if everybody should know it and you don't want to pay for the bandwidth.

    "Feature for Premium Subscribers" for the download makes the writer look like a hypocritcial fool.

    1. Re:Gimmie a break by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      Seriously.
      There isn't even a 'printer friendly' view of the content available.

  68. It's simple! by Beltway+Prophet · · Score: 1

    Make the law require the design of every voting machine in the US include a verifiable and separate voting record (such as a paper tape).

    Then the president of the voting machine company can do whatever he likes, because we'll know it won't affect the outcome of the race in Ohio^H^H^H^Hany election.

  69. Hacked voting machines or not... by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

    There wouldn't be such a crisis if the brains of voters had not already been severely hacked.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:Hacked voting machines or not... by The+Lone+Man · · Score: 1

      Too true. What really needs to be done is for us to spearhead the twisting of some mildly inconsequential election and then submit what's been done to a major newspaper. Throwing this information around on Slashdot is great, but what really needs to be done is for this information to be submitted to a major, widely-known and widely-read newspaper in greatly "dumbed down" language.

      That would get their attention.

    2. Re:Hacked voting machines or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only brains that have been hacked are the brains of those her on /. who have no problem using information technology for the following-

      global commerce
      transporation
      food production
      medicine
      education
      workplace
      entertainment

      to name a few important if not some of the critical aspects of modern life

            But for some (liberals), IT has no place when electing our leaders due to its "hackable" nature as if any system is not "hackable" whether electronic or the older system of manual registration logs, paper ballots, mechanical voting machines etc.

            What I think is going on here is most left of center political types fear electronic voting because they know a signifigant percentage of their constituency put about as much time into undertsanding the topics and candidates as they do in applying and acquiring for the necessary paper trail in order to vote in the first place whether it be older voting systems or e voting.

            Its ironic that here on slashdot, most do not believe in electronic voting but yet collect their paychecks, get medical treatment, fly or ride a plane/train using the same "flawed" technology.

            It just proves to me where YOUR truth really LIES

    3. Re:Hacked voting machines or not... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      People have always been that way.
      Why do you think they wanted only educated voters?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  70. You can buy them from Diebold by caffeine_monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unbelieveably, Diebold actually has an ecommerce site where you can buy all their electronic voting machine products online, including memory cards, security tape, and access keys. I'm really hoping they verify that you're an elections official before they actually ship the stuff to you:

    http://www.diebold.com/nasadmk/cgi-bin/desi_cata log.pl?section=9

    Here you go - buy a dozen keys, for you and your friends:

    http://www.diebold.com/nasadmk/cgi-bin/desi_cata log.pl?section=9&id=163

    On a funny/sad note, the front page of their election products site as a glaring coding error (%=rs("newsdate")%):

    http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/

    1. Re:You can buy them from Diebold by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1
      I'm really hoping they verify that you're an elections official before they actually ship the stuff to you
      I dunno. The shopping cart button seems to indicate that all you need is a valid CC#. Ooh and look! You can even buy the security tape so you can replace it after you put your own hacked card in.
      So here we go...

      Hospital bar key - $0 (but spent $69 for Hotel 6 reservation to nab said key)
      CompactFlash 256MB Memory card - $20
      Stealing an election - Priceless!
      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    2. Re:You can buy them from Diebold by autophile · · Score: 1
      You can only charge to a "Diebold open account", not a credit card.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
  71. What if a write in wins? by glsunder · · Score: 1

    What would legally happen if a fictional write-in such as "scooby doo" wins? That would indicate obvious fraud. Would the runner up win? Would we stick with the current administration until another election could be arranged? Would we end up with Hillary and Condi dressed in a large 2 person dog suit?

  72. They've done that by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Such stories have already been circulated. Many people are dismissive. Of course, most of those who were dismissive then will still be dismissive now. I'm not advocating actually hacking the election, but I believe hacking in a very obvious way might be the only way to get the attention of *most* Americans.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:They've done that by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      "hacking in a very obvious way might be the only way to get the attention of *most* Americans"

      I think George P. Burdell needs to win the election for this to happen. After all he is educated enough to lead our people!

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  73. Near miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol that's supposed to be nontechnical??

    The main idea of the article could have been condensed into one page instead of spanning seven. As it is, its still far too technical and involved to make any sense at all to the average Joe. I applaud the effort, however the article misses what it needs to do most: move the average Joe into taking action, immediate action on the issue.

    People want to read one page and easily get the idea. They don't want to wade through facts and figures.

  74. screamin' weasels won't let me load the PDF by swschrad · · Score: 1

    the Forces of Evil have already stolen the article!

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  75. Cool!! Jon Stewart for President! by cylcyl · · Score: 1

    And every office in the land!! This way he'll be able to re-write the constitution in the Daily Show's image! Huzzah!!

  76. Republicans vs. Iranian intelligence by benhocking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, there's an argument to be made that whether it was the Republicans or Iranian intelligence, the result would still be the Republicans in power. After all, the current administration has been a boon to recruitment. According to our own intelligence estimates, more terrorists are being recruited than are being killed. It does seem that Osama shows up on TV at just the right time to help the Republicans get elected. So, either he's totally clueless about how we react (admittedly, a possibility), or he *wants* Republicans in power (also a real possibility for the reasons just mentioned).

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Republicans vs. Iranian intelligence by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      It does seem that Osama shows up on TV at just the right time to help the Republicans get elected. So, either he's totally clueless about how we react (admittedly, a possibility), or he *wants* Republicans in power (also a real possibility for the reasons just mentioned).

      Or he has no control over when he shows up on TV.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:Republicans vs. Iranian intelligence by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Interesting - you've simplified the whole thing to the point where you think everyone in that part of the world is the same and the Osama wouldn't end up being executed if he was found crossing into Iran, South Lebanon, parts of Saudi Arabia or a lot of other places where people hate his guts. The enemy of your enemy may still be your enemy.

  77. Sorry about the links by caffeine_monkey · · Score: 1

    remove the extraneous space to get them to work:
    Catalog
    access keys

  78. You skirted the main issue! by crhylove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is that we don't have an independent media anymore. Rupert Murdoch is as likely to be a whistle blower as Karl Rove is.

    Unless we have a real free press, with real media outlets (read: TV, radio, internet, magazine, newspaper, etc.), then we don't have a democracy.

    Personally, after watching 911mysteries and other films on related topics, and reviewing the scientific facts for myself, I'm convinced that we already live in 1984, and the only solution is the bloody ugly one that Thomas Jefferson and most of our other founding fathers completely supported.

    You did mention the "liberal" media, so you touched on it, but really, when 3 channels are quoting each other with created facts by obvious pundits who are clearly party members.....

    You don't have freedom of the press anymore, and it's game over for democracy.

    It's been that way since Kennedy got whacked, and on a related issue, that was also our last real election.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:You skirted the main issue! by thrillseeker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have freedom of the press anymore, and it's game over for democracy. It's been that way since Kennedy got whacked, and on a related issue, that was also our last real election : Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley became a nationally known figure during the presidential election of 1960 when he "delivered" Illinois for John F. Kennedy. Charges of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas led to vote recounts in several states as well as to the appointment of at least one special state prosecutor in Illinois. On April 13, 1961, after an investigation that lasted several months, Special Illinois State Prosecutor Morris J. Wexler returned election-related indictments against ... 677 people indicted by Wexler were later acquitted by Acting Judge John M. Karns. Some were acquitted because the judge found that the state had been "unable to make a case." Others were acquitted after the judge ruled that the prosecution had obtained evidence "by unfair and fundamentally illegal means" (Wexler had admitted he had issued grand jury subpoenas to approximately 200 people he later had questioned in the Criminal Courts building instead of the Grand Jury room. Karns called this a "very serious" case of prosecutorial misconduct, one that bordered on "contempt of the Criminal Court of Cook County.")

    2. Re:You skirted the main issue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the other guy said, Kennedy's election was very well-known to have been possibly stolen. Republicans point to it everytime a democrat accuses the republicans of trying to steal elections. 1968, 2000 and 2004 have been the only widely disputed elections since then, as far as I know. And apart from watergate, which was probably one among many similar problems in that election (which people never found out about), I'm not even so sure about '68.

    3. Re:You skirted the main issue! by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Like the other guy said, Kennedy's election was very well-known to have been possibly stolen. Republicans point to it everytime a democrat accuses the republicans of trying to steal elections.

      Too bad we don't get the same results every time it happens...

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    4. Re:You skirted the main issue! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Put down the xfiles DVD and step away from the TV.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:You skirted the main issue! by J053 · · Score: 1
      Like the other guy said, Kennedy's election was very well-known to have been possibly stolen. Republicans point to it everytime a democrat accuses the republicans of trying to steal elections. 1968, 2000 and 2004 have been the only widely disputed elections since then, as far as I know. And apart from watergate, which was probably one among many similar problems in that election (which people never found out about), I'm not even so sure about '68.

      Uhh, d00d - Watergate was in 1972 - Nixon resigned in 1973.

    6. Re:You skirted the main issue! by quokkapox · · Score: 1

      Which is that we don't have an independent media anymore.

      Yes we do. It's called the Internet. You and I and everyone who creates Slashdot content are participants in the new independent media revolution. Have you noticed that (1) many large newspapers are losing money; (2) the major broadcast TV networks have been bleeding viewers for years; (3) even the cable news networks are now bleeding viewers as people watch TV via self-selected clips downloaded from YouTube or BitTorrent. The entire media landscape is changing and users are becoming more capable of generating their own content and exchanging it with like-minded people, as well as debating those with opposing views. As long as net neutrality is maintained (that's a big IF), this process will continue.

      Personally, after watching 911mysteries and other films on related topics, and reviewing the scientific facts for myself, I'm convinced that we already live in 1984...

      You've just certified yourself as just another nitwit conspiracy theorist. Get a clue. At worst 9/11 was LIHOP due to incompetence. Please read this or just learn how to think better. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are about as respected by the vast majority of the scientific community as are intelligent design proponents.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  79. The perfect oppportunity to settle the matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has been an unruly fight going on for too long over who is better than the other, and I think that this situation presents the perfect opportunity to settle the matter.

    I say we use this election to determine who is the ultimate champion: Pirates or ninjas?

    The side receiving the most votes cast nationwide on Nov 7, as reported by mainstream media, is the undisputed winner.

    Only votes cast on electronic voting machines count.

    You think you are the best? Then put up or shut up. Prove it at the voting booth.

  80. My Shopper card will probably work... by Il128 · · Score: 1

    It opens some card reader doors, think I'll try it when I vote.

    --
    Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
  81. Now is the worst time by benhocking · · Score: 1

    I agree completely. An error was just reported in our voting machines in Charlottesville. However, they can't fix the problem before the elections because changes are not allowed this close to the elections. In this case, the (reported) error is relatively small: last names are truncated on the summary page (but not on the voting page). Hopefully, if it was a more serious error there would be other avenues. On the other hand, perhaps the only other avenue (and the one the author desires) is non-electronic voting.

    So, by that reasoning, now is the best time.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  82. Mod Parent Up by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    Satire is not trolling. Mod Parent Up.

  83. Diversity -- our last line of defense... by mi · · Score: 1
    Because of the extraordinary variability of voting technologies and procedures from state to state, the entire country presents a morass of special cases to the writer who would lay out a generally applicable scenario of electronic election theft.

    It is even harder for the would-be perp, who not only has to describe such a scenario in theory (to herself and co-conspirators), but also implement it in practice...

    As particular models (such as the writer-picked Diebold AccuVote TS) get more popular, the diversity diminishes, though.

    For once, I find myself against standartization.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  84. Brazil's eletronic voting machines by felipekk · · Score: 1

    Maybe after October 29 we can borrow you guys our voting machines so that you can use them. I mean, those are not the same, are they? Heck, maybe we can even switch machines BEFORE October 29 and change our election result, becouse re-electing that idiot that Lula is really is something we CANNOT handle!

  85. Email your resumes by 260522603 · · Score: 1

    I'll be accepting resumes for all cabinet level positions immediately....federal judges, too.

  86. The Florida recount... by stankulp · · Score: 1, Troll

    ...had nothing to do with electronic voting machines.

    The Florica recount involved a butterfly ballot designed by a Democrat election commissioner, dimpled chads and a pivotal state election where the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error.

    Al Gore had already conceded defeat when Democrats decided that all they had to do was manufacture a few Democrat votes and invalidate a few Republican votes and they had the Presidency.

    HOW GEORGE W. BUSH STOLE ELECTION 2000

    "Al, this is David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, America's richest trial lawyers. I apologize for calling so late, but this won't wait."

    "Look, I know you've already conceded, but I've been talking to some folks in Florida and they think they can find enough extra votes down there to give you the state in a recount."

    "Just a recount in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties, though."

    "If it goes statewide our people will be spread too thin to keep things under control."

    "Do you want to give it a try? At this point you've got nothing to lose."

    "That's great, Al. I'll give 'em a call and we'll get this show on the road."

    "Call Bush right away to let him know you've changed your mind."

    "On second thought, call a press conference first."

    "Talk to you later, Mr. President."

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    1. Re:The Florida recount... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God! Just because a post doesn't align with someone's political opinion, that doesn't make it a troll! Stokes voiced his opinion on the 2000 election, you'd think a discussion site would be decent enough to treat someone else's opinion on the same subject with the same level of respect. If only it weren't for those damn chads! :)

  87. Ooh la la! by cyberwench · · Score: 1
    "If you've been keeping track of the news in the past few years, with its weekly litany of high-profile breeches"


    The news shows high profile breeches? Wow... I must be watching the wrong news. I thought people stopped wearing those ages ago.
    --
    ~ Leilah
  88. horray!!!! by FIGNUTZZ · · Score: 1

    Now if only Dukakis and his army helmet were running!

  89. Pointless by sycodon · · Score: 0

    The entire premise of TFA is pointless. *ANY* electronic voting system can be compromised by someone with access and knowledge. Hell, paper voting system shave been scammed for well over a hundred years.

    All you can do is to make it much hard to scam, which is done be requiring that more parts be scammed.

    So, here's an idea for slashdotter's to tear apart (assuming they read this because of the screwed up Karma crap)

    1. All workstations are generic PCs running an off the shelf OS, sporting aftermarket touch screens. (for cost reductions)

    2. The voting software itself is generic that loads the roster of candidates the day of the election. This process should include one time encryption pads to authenticate the roster, perhaps unique to each polling place. The poll workers could be given some kind of software that would confirm that the voting software matches the real deal.

    3. Each workstation will record votes to
    A) CD-ROM,
    B) Send it electronically back to the central server(s)
    C) Print a plain paper sheet with the candidates name in plain English, maybe even a picture, and with the information also in machine readable format (using and public, and open format). Each paper would also have a unique number (not identifying the voter, but the vote)

    4. At the polling place, the voter takes their paper and scans it themselves. The workstation/scanner sends that voting information back to the central servers. The voter takes the paper with them.

    5. A valid election is when the numbers on the CD-roms, the transmitting votes from the voter workstation and the transmitted votes from the polling place scanner match. Heck, throw a CD burner on the polling place scanner and include that too. So you would need valid counts from 4 separate collection processes match up.

    If there is a dispute, (It recorded my vote wrong!), the paper ballot can be used to match the vote identification number to the others.

    Combine this with common sense things like using military grade/secure OS and databases on the central servers, IP restricted connections, multiple person authentication procedures, etc. and you have yourself a secure, whiz bang system,

    You could scam this also, but it would require such coordination as to be near impossible

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Pointless by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      The computers are general-purpose and run an off-the-shelf OS. If they are "generic PC workstations", they are x86. They have working network cards installed. They apparently connect to the Internet. This is the weakest link in the security chain.

      1. They run a generic OS and they are connected to the Internet. 100% gaurantee that a virus can be written and will break into them. Release it en-masse.
      2. The virus inserts itself into the system and hides by manipulating the system API. Authentication is useless because the virus controls the OS that starts and runs the authentication program. On E.D., it pulls down a vote-rigging program. At close-time, it writes incorrect but self-consistent data to all ports. Game over.

      And voters absolutely cannot be allowed to take a proof of how they voted with them or vote-buying is opened up.

      You are correct in that elections have always been manipulable. The only problem with voting via computer is that the entire function of a computer is to quickly and efficiently manipulate bits, and this can't be solved or it isn't a computer anymore. Plan B: Bribe an operator at the central vote aggregator.

      And unfortunately, some states (*coughFloridacough*) are rendering a paper trail useless. It's perfectly logical, after all: After a big public FUBAR, the solution is not to address the cause of the disease but ban the recount to hide the symptoms.

  90. Old school hacking the vote by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fill all your public schools with unionized government workers who are not appraised by their result or performance, and who rely on taxation and artificially inflate labor wages. THey pass this "I deserve your money but didnt earn it" mentality on to every kid in the class.

  91. Easier Way by clambake · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here is the simplest way:

    Hi, I am running for president. If I win, I promise to do one single thing. I will create and sign an executive order to split the gold in fort knox equally among the workers, friends and families of those those work at the companies that make the voting machines. Included in the order will be a clause that gives them complete immunity from ALL prosecution for any crimes they ever commit, and also they get first in line for heart/liver transplants, etc.

  92. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new election rigging overlords.

  93. Mod parent up! :) by gknoy · · Score: 1

    As they said, the damage HAS to be complete -- backups would just be found and restored, and the public faith in the broken machines would continue.

  94. Different Diebold Division by homer_ca · · Score: 1

    Diebold makes ATMs too, but their division that makes voting machines was an acquisition of Global Election Systems. There's nothing in common.

    1. Re:Different Diebold Division by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      Except that they both produce closed source products that are extremely important. Of course, the problem with the voting booths is that, in addition to being important, it's also your only choice on the day.

      I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if they provided a paper ballet booth for those of us who think the electronic booths are a problem. It wouldn't solve the underlying problem as most people will probably still use the electronic booths, but it might show that there's a significant number of people who believe that the e-booths are a problem.

      Robin Williams' movie Man Of The Year is a really good (though extremely simplified) example of why black box voting is a bad idea.

  95. 19 year old Diebold technician wins election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  96. IF we only..... by 424f54 · · Score: 1

    If we only ran the vote machines on Linux we wouldn't have this problem.... P.S. Im sry I had to make a Linux comment here ... I just couldn't help myself (Troll)

  97. Possible solution: get an authority in the booth by ericdfields · · Score: 1

    Right to privacy and anonymous ballots and all that are great, but if we're going to insist to use these highly hackable electronic voting machines, then it may be time to think about forgoing this whole annonymous ballot thing. The quick and easy solution: have a real person standing in the booth with you.

    This guy will see thousands of votes during his shift. What is the likelihood that he is going to a) remember any of them, b) care about what you're voting on, c) do something if he does care?

    Having an individual there who could call you out if you're trying to tamper with a machine could alleviate this problem. Knowing that this offers some minor amount of remedy, how do we feel about this?

  98. ...this only matters..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if people really care. I think reality needs to be faced, the bulk of the R party grassroots *doesn't care* if the elections are hacked, as long as their party stays in power. They have total power now and are going to keep it, no matter what it takes. I have heard this too many times off the record from serious capital R people in "the real world" now to think my area is just an aberration. Here are some more tidbits of information: they honestly want to see total genocide in the middle east against all islamics, total. I mean, kill off a billion people, and they worship at the feet of israel/zion. They have this looney end times armageddon theiory that they really believe in. They want to see concentration camps inside the US where people who criticize or "don't support the president" can be sent. They equate "protesting" with "terrorism". Not kidding. NOT KIDDING. Now I don't count what people say on the internet, I mean on the street where it really counts.

    Now, I am not a D supporter either (they have their own set of corruption and rights grabbing and catering to big money interests, etc that is completely bogus), I am an independent and vote mostly third party, and to be fair Ds are rather thin to non existant on the ground around where I live so I don't get to talk to many at all, but the bottom line is that brownshirt-ism in the R party is alive and well and is a clear and present danger to the Republic, it is expanding rapidly, and people who think "it can't happen here" are pretty naieve and are not aware of how very fast society can change. It can and is starting to happen and full bore fascism with machine gun toting party faithful will be on every street corner and purges and pogroms and whatnot are going to happen.

    It is going to get much worse before it gets any better.

    They can and will engage in false flag terrorism operations in order to secure more power and stay in power, judging by their track record so far.

    This vote thing is the tip of the iceberg and won't amount to much at all, the fix is in and it will not be changed. The evidence that the vote has been hacked at least the last two elections if not three is simply overwhelming-and nothing has happened, nor does the media cover it appropriatelyy-because at the top, the media is owned by the same fascists. Orders fall downhill. And look at the pitiful response from the mainstream Ds over the hwacked vote so far-what, a small handful in congress have questioned it and that's it? More evidence that the fix is in, either by ideological loyalty, bribery or blackmail.

    I am rather bummed about it but over the years I have made note of patterns and trends and realites and for the most part my "futurisms" have been proven corrrect too many times for me to ignore my own observations and analyses. So I will repeat, it is going to be sucking a lot harder in the future. Our society is going to become *quite bad*.

  99. ethical analysis by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

    Whenever you consider ethics, you can never take any event out of its context. Take murder, for example. Obviously sticking a knife in someone and letting their life's blood flow all over the pavement is an unethical (perhaps even immoral, but that's another story), thing to do. However, if same said person is getting ready to bash someone's head in with a hammer, and that's the only effective method of stopping them, then we refer to it as self defense.

    The same argument applies here. This has been a danger for a significant time. There is evidence that, not only is it likely that this kind of thing will happen, but it's likely that it already has happened. If the exit polls were as skewed as they were in the 2004 election for any other nation, the U.N. would have been calling for a default on the election process. Too many people are running on autopilot, accepting on faith that our government is capable of watching itself when all evidence points towards that viewpoint being dangerously flawed.

    In essence, those who can see the problem have been backed into a corner by the rest of the population's willingness to take away their right to make their votes count. We have tried the nice approach, we have tried the angry approach. I fully believe that this is a rational and responsible step for escalating the issue, made necessary by the irresponsibility of our legislature and the apathy of the average voting age adult.

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  100. What if a democrat did it? by WolfMansDad · · Score: 1

    You all keep worrying about the republicans stealing an election, but all the people I know with the skill to do it are democrats.

    1. Re:What if a democrat did it? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      ...but they all work for Republicans.

  101. Jesse Ventura by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    Riiight, because a 3rd party will never win an election.

    That is, unless he has action figures....

  102. MOD PARENT UP by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1

    Please mod parent up: he's right if there is a way for a voter to check their vote at home (including a self-made photo of the vote!), there can be vote buying.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  103. I have a Dare for You by flitty · · Score: 1

    Someone after voting yell out "I just hacked this machine!" Hell, enough people do this, and the election results will be suspect, even if nobody did anything. We wouldn't have a way of checking if you had hacked it, which is the scariest part. Un believeable

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  104. What should NOT be done. by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

    Who's going to fall on that sword? And, why would they set themselves up for defeat?

    The suggestion involves committing at least one felony to expose potential fraud, which is neither ethical nor protected by 'whistle-blowing' laws. Actually, even people that qualify for whistle-blowing protection routinely suffer serious hardship anyway, so good luck finding any support after-the-fact here. Basically, exposing fraud so visibly is very risky business, even if done legally.

    Also, the purpose of the suggestion is to teach others about a fragile/broken system. I can guarantee that the reaction will be completely different from what you'd expect. Do you expect the Avg(Joe) will think, "Thank that guy for showing us the light."? A lot of /.ers would understand, but this would be the first time that many non-/.ers will even think about voting authentication systems - and the activity they'd witness is overtly criminal.

    For those directly affected: Do you think the politicians are going to appreciate these antics, or will they work hard at setting an example. For most of them, their day job is to vilify others and they practice a lot (especially in election-mode). Who would want to dig themselves into such a deep hole willingly?

    Oh, and a lot of good your backup will do: who will trust that those aren't also tampered results?

    All in all, it's really a no-win proposal for the perpetrator.

    The most innocuous tampering would be to target a popular candidate running unopposed for a given office. But even that is crossing too many lines, since all the other votes will necessarily be affected.

    BTW, nothing personal (honest). Sadly, I expect someone will try something like it (like the Anti-Santy worm) and the best I can do is to dissuade anyone that may have been inspired by your post (or similar ones) in this discussion.

    --
    This is not my sig.
    1. Re:What should NOT be done. by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. Sometimes people forget that everyone else doesn't think like us, and I would say that most people in America would not think like people visiting a tech news discussion site. Maybe the best legal course of action would be to file a class action lawsuit against Diebold. There aren't very many companies who have sold millions of dollars of useless junk to various government entities accross the US, and they should be held responsible for that.

      --
      what sig?
  105. Make the GOP win by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    If the republicans won every single vote in the country, then it would be clear that the election was rigged and they'd pretty much be forced to acknowledge that the system was flawed.

    1. Re:Make the GOP win by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      If the republicans won every single vote in the country, then it would be clear that the election was rigged and they'd pretty much be forced to acknowledge that the system was flawed.

      I think you seriously underestimate the ability of the GOP to act in their own interests.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  106. Go Jackets! by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Now you're talking. Am I to assume you're a fellow alumnus? (Phys '90, here.)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  107. Another... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    medications-free day?

  108. Let's be bold: internet democracy by emmanuel.charpentier · · Score: 2, Informative

    Using the internet and its almost unlimited capacity to copy data around, I'm designing a system that aims to be simple and trustable.

    It's easy yet disturbing. We can obtain a secure system if we remove anonymity. Then it's almost simple, distribute around the vote database and allow anybody to check the results.

    In that kind of context, verification is mostly a technicality and could rely on consensus.

    To regain some bit of anonymity, there can be a system of reinscription on the electoral list using a pseudo. Simple too, and while the person/pseudo relationship is private, everything else remains public and verifiable.

    There are three basic stones in such a system:
    * P2P servers
    * electoral list
    * PGP signatures

    Simple, basic, strong.

    I'm trying to construct such a system using Ruby on Rails, here is my project: http://leparlement.org/

    You can also come discuss security here: http://leparlement.org/security

    It's a moderated forum *and* a mailing list. Please, come and test it!

    1. Re:Let's be bold: internet democracy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The data where tabulations are calculated can still be compromised.

      The computer can display who you voted for, but actual give the vote to someone else.

      The single best indicator that something is wrong is exit polls. Exit polls have a 1/2% margin of error.

      This alone should have told people that something was wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Let's be bold: internet democracy by emmanuel.charpentier · · Score: 1

      Or you use a P2P apparatus to vote. But this has one major requirement on voters: vigilance (well, democracy always require vigilance!).

      This applies on one rather simple thing: was my vote actually used in the result?

      To do that it's rather simple, you of course see feedback from the server onto which you voted, but you also need to check on at least one other P2P server that it was correctly propagated.

      If you do that properly, you could in fact receive mails displaying the path your vote went through.

      Isn't that better than exit polls? So transparent and verifiable that it would mostly rely on a technical consensus!

      http://leparlement.org/

  109. Ethics by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Well, lets make an analogy. At one point, there was a major problem with kids abusing stimulants (it's still pretty bad). As long as people just sat around moralizing about it like assholes, nothing changed. Once it was pointed out that if you drop by the local health food store and ask for a "weight-loss aid", they'd hand you a bottle of pseudoephedrine, people actually got serious about making a change -- banning the sale of pure pseudoephedrine. And now that it has been pointed out that all you need is some red phosphorous, iodine, cold medication, and a few other things, and you can make crystal meth, legislation is on the way to regulate those things more strongly.

    Sometimes, pointing out exactly how easy it is to commit some crime is what's needed to get authorities to start taking that crime seriously. Perhaps, when -- on election night -- thousands of dumb people get arrested trying to tamper with voting machines after reading this and the elections end up being completely botched and the nation on the verge of civil war over the results, the public will finally have the sense to resolve this issue.
  110. Elections will be clean and open when: by yoder · · Score: 1

    1. Citizens as a whole can stop watching Survivor long enough to get involved in their local government.

    2. Hell freezes.

    3. Slashdot AC trolls are gathered up and given a one way paid vacation via CIA air to an undisclosed location.

    That last one was just wishful thinking.

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
  111. I actually hope it happens.... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

    ....but in a rather inept manner that gets the perpetrators caught with their hands in the cybercookie jar. It will take a major scandal, on the order of Watergate -- one in which a number of people are caught and charged with defrauding the vote and linked with high GOP administration officials -- to wake up the American cattle to the subversion of democracy that is taking place right under their noses. Theory (like this article) means diddly-squat to folks -- a few odd anomalies in a few isolated precincts isn't going to impress anyone -- statistical analyses might as well be written in Swahili or Klingon given the mathematical illiteracy of most Americans. No, ironically, most folks will not believe the vote can be hacked and stolen until the vote IS hacked and stolen -- but in a big way that can be proven in a court of law and not just theorized in a web article. Given the poll numbers, I think it will take a lot of major screwing around in a lot of places for the GOP to be assured of retaining Congress. And the more hacking that has to be done, the greater the liklihood that someone, somewhere will either screw-up big time or get caught by someone who blows the whistle.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  112. PIRATE the damn election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the Pirate Party? THOSE GUYS should steal an election! Someone call those mateys! Tell them to elect Redbeard as the next Senator from Minnesota.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

  113. Exit polls considered harmful by lheal · · Score: 1
    despite the fact that all the exit polls showed

    Have you ever hear of Occam's Razor? It's a very useful tool.

    Exit polls are not a good means of tracking election outcomes, for a number of easily understood reasons:

    • They suffer from bad sampling, because the voters can opt out, and only those willing to participate do so
    • The pollers themselves have a bias, which may be expressed in any number of ways they may not be able to control
    • Exit polls influence turnout in unpredictable ways
    • There are time-of-day differences among voting blocs
    • Exit polls by their nature lack the stringent controls that the voting booths have
    But the main reason exit polls are useless at best is that in an uncorrupt system they are unneeded, while in a corrupt system they will be ignored. As there is no way to tell the two apart, and no logical room between them, exit polls fail to be anything but a waste of time.

    Our elections are not rigged.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by doom · · Score: 1
      lheal (86013) wrote:
      Exit polls are not a good means of tracking election outcomes,

      They certainly aren't "good", they're just one of the only things that we have (or rather "had" because the NEP is not going to be releasing "uncorrected" data ever again, it was too embarrassing in 2004). If exit polls are so terrible, how is it that everyone is happy with the way they were used to expose a corrupt election in the Ukraine?

      Anyone who seriously wants to understand the issues with the 2004 exit polls really needs to read the Freeman and Bliefuss book: Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?

      * They suffer from bad sampling, because the voters can opt out, and only those willing to participate do so

      This was a popular explanation proposed for the 2004 exit-poll discrepancies, the "reluctant bush responder" hypothesis... it is, for example, what the polling companies Edison & Mitofsky claimed probably explained the discrepancies: Freeman and Bleifuss analyze their own data very carefully and throughly show that this just doesn't work. They demonstrate that if anything the bias went in the other direction, Democrats were a little reluctant to talk to the exit-pollsters.

      * There are time-of-day differences among voting blocs

      That was a nice try that came up early in the process: Republicans work for a living, and vote late after they get off work (Democrats you see, are lazy bums living on welfare): The trouble is the data just doesn't show it: there was not shift

      * Exit polls by their nature lack the stringent controls that the voting booths have

      You're not paying attention: DRE machines such as Diebold's enable, wholesale election corruption techniques which makes any "stringent controls" entirely besides the point.

      Given that accusation, how do you check? How can you have any confidence in an election result?

      Looking for polling discrepancies is one of the few things that we've got at the moment.

      But the main reason exit polls are useless at best is that in an uncorrupt system they are unneeded, while in a corrupt system they will be ignored.
      This kind of simple-minded binary logic appeals to computer geeks, but real world systems are rarely so pristine.

      We know things are dirty, we have reason to think they're dirtier than they've ever been: there's no reason to give up hope, and assume the country is so corrupt there's no way it can climb out of the toliet.

    2. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by coredog64 · · Score: 1
      If exit polls are so terrible, how is it that everyone is happy with the way they were used to expose a corrupt election in the Ukraine?

      That's funny --
      And thus we come to an oft-repeated legend: Exit polls "exposed" fraud in Ukraine and elsewhere, so why not here? The biggest problem with that story is that the election monitors in those counties did not depend on exit polls to provide evidence of fraud. In Ukraine, at least, the solid evidence came from eye-witnesses, taped phone conversations, and physical evidence of vote tampering. Review the reports of the most authoritative monitor on the elections in Georgia and Ukraine -- the Office of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) --, and you will find plenty of evidence cited but not a single mention of the phrase "exit poll."

      (Emphasis mine)

      This was a popular explanation proposed for the 2004 exit-poll discrepancies, the "reluctant bush responder" hypothesis... it is, for example, what the polling companies Edison & Mitofsky claimed probably explained the discrepancies: Freeman and Bleifuss analyze their own data very carefully and throughly show that this just doesn't work. They demonstrate that if anything the bias went in the other direction, Democrats were a little reluctant to talk to the exit-pollsters.


      There is reason for a sense of embarrassment and it involves one of the most blatant omissions from the Kennedy article: U.S. exit polls have been wrong before. In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. ...
      Go back and watch the classic political documentary, The War Room -- or easier, go back and read my post from January 2005 -- and you will see that that leaked exit polls on Election Day 1992 provided as distorted a view as those leaked in 2004. The difference was that the leaked exit polls in 1992 were known mostly to insiders and served to exaggerate the size of Bill Clinton's eventual victory. Clinton won by less than those early exit polls suggested, but he still won the election, so there was little lingering outrage.


      In fact, just go read this article (the source for the quotes above):
      http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk _jr_right.html
    3. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by doom · · Score: 1
      In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. ...

      Yes, I know, a persistant small discrepancy, but in 2004, it got larger, and shows the various funny patterns I've been discussing, very much as though the Republicans were using DREs to rig an election.

      As for physical evidence in the Ukraine election: that's excellent -- though for some reasons the physical evidence got ignored in the Ohio irregularities didn't it? -- the trouble with DREs is that they allow wholesale, undetectable fraud. There is no way it can be detected without paying close attention to polling discrepancies: trying to sweep them under the rug with a "It can't happen here" is extremely dangerous.

      (By the way: that persistant discrepancy of the usual "conventional" fraud.)

    4. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by lheal · · Score: 1

      This whole "rigged voting" meme is tiresome, so tell me:

      How are they keeping it a secret? Surely more than one person knows how they're rigging the elections. None of those people ever get disenchanted, greedy, or feel guilty? Just think of the wealth, fame, and status the whistleblower on that scandal would get.

      One more question: who planned 9/11?

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    5. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by doom · · Score: 1
      How are they keeping it a secret?

      They're not, we're talking about it.

      Surely more than one person knows how they're rigging the elections. None of those people ever get disenchanted, greedy, or feel guilty? Just think of the wealth, fame, and status the whistleblower on that scandal would get.

      There have been "whistleblowers", they're just not getting much press.

      Another thing that gets tiresome is the idea that anyone who discusses a "conspiracy" is supposed to have inside knowledge of every details. The "conspiracy theorists" talk that way, actual conspiracies aren't run that way.

      One more question: who planned 9/11?
      Still another thing that gets tiresome, the "you're just a nut like those truthies" smear.

      Sorry, the truthies seem like nuts to me too. At this point I'm supposed to accuse you of "being in denial just like-- ", but I'm not up for constructing a rhetorical analogy at the moment.

    6. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by doom · · Score: 1
      (By the way: that persistant discrepancy of the usual "conventional" fraud.)

      Sorry, some dropped words there. I was going for: (By the way: that persistant discrepancy might be taken as evidence of the usual "conventional" fraud.)

    7. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by lheal · · Score: 1

      >>How are they keeping it a secret?
      >They're not, we're talking about it.

      No, that's not good enough. Which insider says "I have the evidence of vote fraud."

      I'll wait for your response (but I'm sure Sudan will freeze over first).

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    8. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by doom · · Score: 1
      (1) There have indeed been "whistleblowers": (a) a programmer who insists they tried to hire him to develop vote rigging systems, (b) someone at Diebold who says that they know of patches being applied when they weren't supposed to have been. You can look this stuff up, if you haven't seen it yet.

      (2) If we had better than that, we'd be talking about criminal convictions, and we're not.

      (3) It's completely ridiculous to hold everything up to that standard of evidence. You can't get the evidence without an investigation, and if you require the evidence before you begin to investigate, then you've got a neat catch-22.

      (4) The notion that every conspiracy must fall apart instantly is by no means proven. In particular, I'd expect that the instability of a conspiracy would be proportional to the number of conspirators -- the difficultly with DREs is that they at least hypothetically allow wholesale fraud with a relatively small group of "insiders".

    9. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by lheal · · Score: 1

      In other words, you've got nothing, but will continue to believe it until the negative is disproved.

      Thanks for wasting my time.

      (By the way, that catch-22 you're so worried about is called variously "probable cause", or in the instant case, "a reason to investigate".)

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    10. Re:Exit polls considered harmful by doom · · Score: 1
      lheal (86013) wrote:
      In mother words, you've got nothing, but will continue to believe it until the negative is disproved.

      El wrongo! But don't let me get in the way of your rhetorical flourishes.

      Thanks for wasting my time.

      Likewise.

  114. Write your congressperson by cinexero · · Score: 0

    Copy and paste text to your liking (check my spelling)

    Mr./Ms. Representative,

    I would like to bring to your attention the greatest threat to America and the American way of life: election fraud.

    In this article, there are instructions and information detailing the exploitation of our current voting system THAT DID NOT EXIST IN OUR OLD SYSTEM.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s

    The voting machines are not secure and their results should not be trusted.

    Thank you for your time

    -NAME HERE

  115. You're all over-reacting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact of the matter is that there is no "100% tamper proof" method of counting votes. The best defence is to keep doing what we've always done - have both parties monitoring every level of the voting process and tally the votes at each level. If something gets corrupted along the way, it will come out. It doesn't matter if they're hand written, punch cards or computers. I think people just want to make excuses for thier favored candidates loss. Thanks to Al Gore and the DNC, every moderately close election will be contested regardless of the existance of real evidence.

    -Justin

  116. nah by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Pick the easy targets first. Stallman knows Ballmer is just going to shout and throw chairs at him. ESR, on the other hand, would shoot back.

  117. It's the Military-Industrial Complex by gettingbraver · · Score: 1
    The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship between a nation's armed forces, its arms industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply materiel and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for a steady revenue stream.

    the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, whose motivation is profiteering.

    Eisenhower called it.

    OTOH, socialism, more specifically market socialism will bring about a more equitable distribution of property and income, thus benefitting those in society w/limited financial means. Actually was applied (limitedly) in Yugoslavia under Tito.

  118. Cultural Closeness by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    There is another issue though, which is how emotionally connected people feel to the victims.

    Due to a lot of reasons, which we can blame on media coverage, as well as cultural differences and perhaps even plain-old entrenched racism, there's not a whole lot of demand in America to intervene in Darfur. Yeah, people think it's bad, but it's not "send in the Marines" bad. When push comes to shove, and people are asked whether it would be worth spending a lot of money, resources, and potentially American lives to stop it, they say 'no.'

    You can see this pattern repeat over and over. Darfur is just its latest incarnation. We let it happen in Rwanda in the early 1990s, too, and afterwards there was a lot of "never again" chatter, but it was just that -- chatter. Now it's happening again, and the public will to intervene isn't there.

    I've just been watching the behavior of the U.S. electorate for a while, and there are forces at work that we just don't like to talk about in polite society. We prefer to think that we're above anything as crass as holding a white Christian child's life above that of a black Muslim's. However, regardless of what we say to each other, looking only at foreign-policy decisions, it's pretty clear that American interventionism follows a sort of "cultural closeness," in addition to the predictable realpolitik and Machievellian geopolitical advantage-building.

    The closer a would-be exterminee population is to a theoretical "middle American" ideal, the greater chance it has of getting an intervention or support on its behalf. In some cases, such intervention is given even when it is arguably not in the United States' direct strategic interest -- I would argue that a great part of our continuing support of Israel is based on the fact that Americans in general feel a much greater kinship with Israel as an idea, their form of government, and the Israeli people than they do with any of the Arab countries in the region.

    The American public has little tolerance for slaughter when it is a population that looks like themselves, but finds it remarkably easy to ignore when it is of people of a different skin color, language, culture, and religion. The fact that it is perceived as a hopeless, never-ending, tribal conflict also adds to both the sense of foreignness and the disinterest in involving ourselves.

    If the killing in Darfur was happening in Sydney or Tel Aviv, regardless of the state of the U.S. military due to Iraq or anything else, we would respond. But when it's in Africa, happening to Africans, we let it go.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Cultural Closeness by jc42 · · Score: 1

      The American public has little tolerance for slaughter when it is a population that looks like themselves, but finds it remarkably easy to ignore when it is of people of a different skin color, language, culture, and religion.

      Actually, the recent troubles in the Balkans are an effective counter-example. Much of the reason for the slaughter there was that both the UN and the US pretty much ignored it until it was far too late. This was curious, because one thing I thought stood out in the coverage here in the US was how "ordinary" the people and their surroundings seemed. The footage of the Balkans could have been shot in small towns nearly anywhere in the American West. (It would have to be there to match the semi-arid background.) The TV shots generally were done with voice-over, so the strange language wasn't obvious. There was little in the coverage that made these people seem "strange". Yet the American (and European) population and politicians pretty much ignored them.

      An interesting part of this was something that was hardly mentioned in the coverage: Much of the Balkan fighting had a single goal: eradicating Muslims. The terms "Bosnian" and "Kosovar" were in fact euphemisms for "Moslem". The other people were generally called "Serbian" (i.e., Orthodox) or "Croatian" (i.e., Catholic"); "Bosnian" and "Kosovar" usually meant "Moslem". But the only Americans who knew this were the tiny minority with some familiarity with the Balkans, and politicians with advisors with such familiarity. But most Americans didn't ignore it because the victims were a different religion; they didn't know that.

      The real reason that Americans ignored the Balkans for so long was really just that it was some place far away, and therefore uninteresting. Similarly, after several years of war with Iraq, most Americans still can't point to the country on a map. They don't care, because it's far away and thus uninteresting. The media does try to emphasize the strangeness of the people there, but even that isn't very effective. Few Americans can tell you anything, good or bad, about the Iraqi population.

      So it's not that the American public has much or little tolerance for slaughter; it's more like they can't be bothered to pay attention to anything that's happening in the rest of the world. Not even if the people look like Americans and their surrounding looks like Anytown, USA.

      Of course, if people look strange, they're even less interesting. Except to us few weirdos who like hearing about and meeting strangers.

      I don't think Americans are especially unusual in this regard.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Cultural Closeness by aevans · · Score: 1

      No, Darfur isn't anything like Rwanda. It's Muslim Arabs backed by Communist Chinese killing for control of oil. The USA is tied up in another war with Muslim Arabs, but has it's hands ties due to opposition to the war both at home and worldwide. I'm not saying that the Sudanese are directly involved with al Qaeda and Iraq, but the "popular opinion" is not fine grained enough to distinguish, and hence there is insufficient support for intervention in Darfur. Also, opposition elements of the US government desire Darfur to continue in order to the situation it as a point of criticism

    3. Re:Cultural Closeness by aevans · · Score: 1

      Actually, there weren't any Muslims to speak of in the area. Not until NATO psychotherapists and Saudi arms dealers converted them. Their grandparents were Christian, and their parents were atheist. Only a small minority of rulers and courtiers in the Balkans under Ottoman rule were ever Muslim.

    4. Re:Cultural Closeness by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Only a small minority of rulers and courtiers in the Balkans under Ottoman rule were ever Muslim.

      I think you forgot the ;-) ...

      (Either that, or you just moved here from a parallel universe where the Ottoman Empire was very different from the one in this world. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  119. children, retirement, and population by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Japan is currently in the forefront of developed countries with declining population and a huge economic and social problem providing a safety net for its seniors. There are only three solutions, cut benefits to seniors and threaten their quality of life or survival, jack up taxes and bleed the young ever more which hammers economic growth or try to engineer the production of more children through things like tax incentives.

    One town in Italy took that third choice. The town started taxing young adults who were single to convince them to marry. I don't know how many but it actually covinced some to move away.

    In a massively overpopulated planet it would be extremely desirable if we actually did have a big population contraction. Unfortunately population IS contracting among the affluent and well educated and still exploding in the 3rd world among the poor and uneducated which is bad.

    That's part of the "cure", increase education and equality which increases affluence. China and India, the two most populus countries in the world, had high population growth, but now that their economy has dramatically improved their birth rates are dropping. The new affluent don't feel the need to have children to either feel fulfilled or to take care of them when the get old. Though I'm not sure I even heard marriage rates are dropping in both.

    Falcon
    1. Re:children, retirement, and population by demachina · · Score: 1

      " China and India, the two most populus countries in the world, had high population growth, but now that their economy has dramatically improved their birth rates are dropping."

      Do you actually have a reference to support this or did you pluck it out of your....

      The one reference I found in a quick Google search indicated one of the first declines in Chinese population growth occurred in the 70's when they were still Communist and before the boom and was largely due to social engineering efforts by the government. They've also implemented a relatively brutal one child per family policy for a number of years which if it worked would be the main reason for population decline, though the study I read suggested it really hadn't worked that well because the rural poor were defying it at every turn.

      The economic booms in China and India are confined to relatively small regions and populations in both and I seriously doubt they are having a dramatic impact on their overall population growth yet. A big majority in both countries are still rural and poor and are seeing little benefit from the booms in a few booming regions.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:children, retirement, and population by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " China and India, the two most populus countries in the world, had high population growth, but now that their economy has dramatically improved their birth rates are dropping."

      Do you actually have a reference to support this or did you pluck it out of your....

      Amoung others Foreign Policy magazine had an article on this. Unfortunately as their online archives is subscription based and I don't have a subscription I can't provide a link. I have to admit though you pointed out something I left out about China, that China has a one child one couple policy. And while rural areas don't directly feel the economic boom in China more and more people are moving from the countryside to cities. Wish I could find one article from "Foreign Policy" but they had an article on one of the fastest growing cities in central China that said thousands of Chinese are moving to every day. This releases some of the economic pressure on rural areas. As for India, farmers are experiencing hardships with many committing suicide. They don't have open access to the industrial nations such as the US and EU, and the US and EU can import into India agricultural products relatively cheaply. That's a big reason the WTO meetings failed in Europe this summer. Because the EU wouldn't talk about opening their markets to imports and the massive subsidies the EU gives to farmers the Indian representative walked out.

      If China and India weren't benefitting from an economic boom then neither would be able to finance the US national debt, and China and India are the biggest buyers of US Treasury bonds and notes respectively.

      Falcon
    3. Re:children, retirement, and population by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1
      China has a one child one couple policy.


      Common misunderstanding.

      Rural families are allowed two children, the third is subject to a massive tax.

      Most people cannot afford the third child. That doesn't stop them from having them, however, and since they cannot afford to register them due to the cost, many children in rural areas are not enrolled in schools and other programs.
  120. Consitutionally Guaranteed! by gettingbraver · · Score: 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  121. Stop giving away the Technocratic Party secrets by vinn01 · · Score: 1


    Once all those electronic voting machines are in place, our fifth columnTechnocrats will swing into action and rise to power...

    Muhahahahah

    1. Re:Stop giving away the Technocratic Party secrets by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      Heh, no need for faulty voting systems.

      The Fourth Estate has had quite a bit of success being the Fifth Column for a while now...

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  122. I'm not sure what it will take to wake people up.. by rthille · · Score: 1

    When the Governor of California isn't allowed to vote because of a voting machine cockup where 'test data' was still in the system and no one thinks, "Hey, what other bogus data is in there?" I pretty much give up hope...

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  123. Hacking the vote by xamomike · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how technology can be blamed for shifting votes in one direction or another. Wouldn't it be easier to shift the vote by using mis-informed ad campaigns and fake allegations against your opponents? Oh wait... they already use that. I'll wait for Bush to send in his super secret ninja task force of l33t hackers to shift the vote for another term.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world; those who can read binary, and those who can't.
  124. More likely... by benhocking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More likely, if Gore had won, Saddam would still be in control of Iraq, but we'd have captured Osama. There wouldn't have been a "War on Terror", but rather a "War on the Taliban/al Qaeda". Perhaps I'm giving Gore too much credit, but this much I'm sure of: it wouldn't be any worse than it is now.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  125. Re-inventing the wheel by scooter.higher · · Score: 1

    Here's an idea: Why not modify the software in a common cash/bank ATM, and place it on a secure network to be a voting booth? Not an ATM currently in use, obviously.

    Several of these could even dial into a secure center for processing, just like the ATMs we all frequently conduct banking transactions from daily. For the paper-trail that some people are asking for, the ATM is already designed to print receipts... not a large leap there.

    I am making an assumption here, but isn't a large percentage of the voting population already familiar with these machines? And don't we all trust these machines to accurately handle our financial transactions?

    I am not an ATM programmer, but I wouldn't think that it would take much to reprogram an ATM for this task... a new option set for the menus, right?

    --
    Ramen
  126. cornerstone of the American civilization by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization, and to allow same sex marriages would fundamentally damage the institution of marriage, and by extension fundamentally damage American civilization. By that reasoning, it must take priority over any external issue.

    No it ain't, marriage is not the cornerstone of American Civilization, however "american" is defined. If it's means the USA then the cornerstone is Liberty, and liberty demands anyone who wants to to be allowed to marry as long as they aren't harming another. And if they are then they are charged with the harm and get to face their accuser. Nor does it damage the institution of marriage. Througout history different civilizations and societies have had homosexual marriages. Greeks, er Athenians, had it. It was excepted in Asia. And some American Indian tribes excepted homosexual relations. It was only after Christian missionaries showed up and Indian children were forcibly taken from parents and put into missionary boarding schools when homosexuality became frowned upon.

    Oh, and I keep hearing how allowing homosexuals to marry will damage marriage. I have asked before and I again ask, how does allowing homosexuals to marry each other male/male or female/female damage or hurt marriage? Will anyone answer this for me?

    Falcon
  127. What voting machine does my county use? by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Is there a site anywhere that has a database of which voting machines different counties use? How do I find out if my county is using a bad one before the election? If all I see are security warnings for Machine X or Machine Y every week or so, how do I know what to pay attention to?

    In other words, I and others like me who aren't security experts are completely overwhelmed by this whole voting machine thing, and need some sort of clear-cut breakdown. Which machines are good and which are bad? Am I affected by the bad ones? Help!

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    1. Re:What voting machine does my county use? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Go to the election office, ask for a paper ballot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  128. Diebold is teh Evil by Deadplant · · Score: 1

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Diebold is somewhere between criminally negligent and treasonous.
    Ditto for anyone who has signed off on Accuvote orders since '04

  129. liberal media by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You did mention the "liberal" media, so you touched on it, but really, when 3 channels are quoting each other with created facts by obvious pundits who are clearly party members.....

    When I hear or read of the liberal media I ask what liberal media. But nobody bothers to reply. ABC? Disney owns ABC. CBS? It used to be owned by Viacom but after the split it's owned by CBS Corporation. And National Amusements is the majority owner of CBS Corp. NBC? NBC is owned by GE. Fox is owned by Murdock's News Corp. Are Disney, National Amusements, News Corp, and GE liberal? Well there's PBS but as it's government it's controlled by government wich is currently run by Bush. There are others but these are the major media organizations that broadcast over the airwaves.

    Falcon
    1. Re:liberal media by doom · · Score: 1
      PBS but as it's government it's controlled by government wich is currently run by Bush. There are others but these are the major media organizations that broadcast over the airwaves.

      PBS is pretty famous for taking "underwriting" money from oil companies and so on, which is one of the reasons it's programming is so tremendously bland. (The smoking gun on this, for me, is the excellent 80s show "The Sandbaggers" -- you could find it on obscure little UHF stations, but PBS wouldn't touch it.)

      But then, I guess that Bill Moyers is back on PBS now, and I gather he's gunning for Elephant...

  130. Sweet! by sirgoran · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone would notice or complain if Cowboy Neal suddenly won all the political races... Just a thought.

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
  131. Slashdot election by cdrdude · · Score: 1

    CowboyNeal for president! CmdrTaco for VP!

    --
    This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
  132. The question is what do we do? by doom · · Score: 1
    I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information? At what point do you take responsibility for what you post, and NOT diseminate information that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?
    Sure it's ethical, try actually reading the article: the "How To" phrasing is more rhetorical than anything else. The author is just explaining what's know about various DRE exploits, he's not going into enough detail to tell someone how to really do it. And anyway, the guys who you don't want to know this already know it, they had these systems built and have pushed them into use in spite of widespread complaints about their fallibility.

    The real question is where do we go from here? If you know that American elections are suspect, what do you do next?

    The best answer I've got at the moment is to hope that the vote rigging machinery is not that perfect, and that it can only steal a relatively close election. Then there's at least a chance that we can vote the current bastards out, and try to fix the problems working "within the system" as it were. On the congressional level, we can push for the Paper Ballot Act of 2006, and on the state level we can try to elect people to the "Secretary of State" office who will push for sane proceedures.

    Note: if you live in California, you've got to vote for Debra Bowen for Secretary of State. History lesson: Democrat was Sos, he disallowed Diebold; Democrat chased out of office, Republican appointee then allows Diebold; now we have a Democratic candidate running for SoS, and strangely enough she understands the importances of paper trails for election integrity.

  133. Exit polls? by gettingbraver · · Score: 1

    In 2004, exit polls showed Kerry ahead, and projected him as the winner!

  134. terrorists rigging elections for libertarian wins by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, what do you think it would do to American politics and the respectability of the American president if the terrorists could cause the election to go to a Libertarian? First off, it would show the election to be a sham, secondly, if we honored the results, the Libertarian would probably leave them the hell alone, stop supporting the despots we love to hate, etc

    Hey any terrorists who rig an election so libertarians win need to be supported.

    Falcon
  135. Pressing issue, indeed by doom · · Score: 1
    I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans,

    Correct. So could we actually talk about it, instead of going off into odd digressions about whether it's okay to reveal the tricks the bad guys know already?

  136. But exit polls are fine in other countries, eh? by doom · · Score: 1
    danbeck (5706) wrote:
    It's an intellectually vapid and ridiculous notion that polling data should be the deciding factor in an election and not the actual votes cast.

    Strangely enough, in 2004, everyone was overjoyed at the way exit polls were used to expose a corrupt election in the Ukraine. And in the same year, everyone ignored that the pattern of exit-poll discrepancies in Bush's rather dirty win. Pretty amazing. One might even say "Orwellian".

    Speaking of dirt: have you seen any of the video of the the 2004 elections in Ohio? Democratic districts were shorted on voting machines so badly that people were lined up down the hall, up the stairs out the door and around the block, in the middle of a cold, rainey night. I've never seen or heard of anything like that in the United States before. Truly amazing.

  137. Moderates vs. the Hard Right by doom · · Score: 1
    danbeck (5706) wrote:
    Yet, in favor of the polls, you ignore the fact that the majority of this country on the moderate to conservative side.
    And you're sweeping under the rug that the Bush regime has taken the Republican party way far to the right, it's just been taking the moderates a little while to notice this.

    Post election polls in 2004 showed that the people who actually voted for Bush were remarkably ignorant about his actual positions -- e.g. they figure he must be in favor of the Kyoto agreement, because it only makes sense that he'd be trying to work on the global warming problem.

  138. It's not the economy, stupid. by doom · · Score: 1
    danbeck (5706) wrote:
    [...] and you forget that our economy is god damned fucking BOOMING.

    We're not the only ones: This Time, It's Not the Economy

    Yes, it's obvious, with the constant daily barrage by the media telling us how fucked up this country is and how fucked up Iraq is and how angry we are all supposed to be, how could any of us vote for Republicans?

    Ha, ha, ha. It's the liberal media again. Heh. Heh.

    Something you are missing is that a large number of people in this country see our economy booming, we see the RECORD unemployment and the booming housing sector.

    Hm, well maybe war really is good for the economy. Let's see, casualties this month are pushing 100, for how long can we continue to ritually sacrifice 100 servicemen every month? Maybe we should bring back the draft.

    We are smart enough to understand how oil is traded on commodities markets and we aren't freaking out when prices fluctuate.

    Ah, you mean the way they hit the ceiling to maintain the oil companies record profits, and then dive back down just in time for the election?

  139. Abstentee Ballots for re-counting by jakupovic · · Score: 1

    If the election officials were to require every, lets say, 10th voter to use an absentee ballot to record their vote. Now since the electronic machines without paper ballots cannot really be re-counted, the absentee ballots could be used to asses the validity of the election, providing an inexpensive method to at least try and provide some way to verify the results.

    What do ya think?

    --
    You always point your finger at the bad guy, but what if the bad guy points his finger at you?
  140. Why is electronic voting such a hard concept? by oppy2k · · Score: 1

    Of course the elections are going to be hacked/rigged, that is the only explanation that there can be for such a non-redundant and holy system. You can not tell me that all the engineers at these companies can not come up with a better way to do the electronic voting. All they need to make it secure is a checks and balance system with a PAPER record.

    My idea, machines loaded up with a read only version of the voting software, and generate a checksum. Print the check sum on all the voter cards. Voter inserts card into machine, machine verifies checksum. If checksum dose not match alarm goes off or something. If checksum matches then user is allowed to vote. They mark there choices, get a chance to review there options then submits there vote. Computer prints out users vote on to the paper card. Once card is printed then the vote is electronically stored. End of the night the votes and activity/security log is burned onto some read only media then taken to be electronically counted. At the same time the paper ballets are also counted as a check. This way you have the speed of the electronic voting plus the paper audit trail of the paper ballets.

    As for the over all software, open source v. closed source each pose there own sets of risks and rewards. My though is closed source, only so people can not get information on it; however, it should be reviled by a team of security experts who are both republican, democrat and maybe even some of those other parties as well. Having a bipartisan team of experts review the code should make things more secure and less likely to be influenced by out side politics.

    While no voting system is perfect, there are things you can do to make it safer. I am sure my way is far from perfect but, I do think it is better than what is out there currently. And the only conclusion that I can come up with to why these systems were designed with no checks and balances is because they were designed to be able to be rigged.

  141. Election Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    L0pht Heavy Industries, by exactly 268,435,456 votes.

  142. Re:terrorists rigging elections for libertarian wi by rynoski · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points. ;)

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: 1) those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.
  143. You're connecting those dots, not me by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Reread what I said. I never claimed, nor implied, that Osama was friends with the Iranians. All I said is exactly what you said - they're both "enemies" of the US. So if Osama benefits from having Bush in power, so might Iran. In no way does that imply those two enemies of ours are friends to each other. It does not even imply deliberate cooperation.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:You're connecting those dots, not me by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      I actually don't think it matters to bin Laden who is in power, but the ability to disrupt the American elections would be a good show of al Qaeda's power. Iranian intelligence might have more of an interest in the outcome, however.

  144. Two glass ceilings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's still no reason to try to endorse behavior like homosexuality. It's one thing to have acceptance and compassion for all people regardless of their problems, it's another completely to embrace and foster the problems.

    Look at the Foley scandal and the other homosexual scandals in congress going back decades. Sociologists, primatologists, psychologists and even "rabid feminists" concur that a strong component of power and control in sexual relations. Do you really want to be participating in creating a second glass ceiling at work or in government, one for the woman and another just above it for her husband?