A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency

Verified Voting is reporting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act (S. 3212). While having many commendable features, this bill also has a few stinkers, including language that would exempt from any verification requirement those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless electronic machines for years to come. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow, so if you have an opinion, now is the time to make yourself heard. Rush Holt has a much better bill.

Comments

Stinkers

[baffled]

That's cute, TFS calls them 'stinkers'. I might call them 'all-too-common evidence of corruption in Congress'.

Re:Stinkers

[philspear]

You're missing a link. How does it prove their corrupt? It is also possible they are just ignorant or haven't thought it through. To show corruption you would have to prove that they knew about the problems but ignored them to instead focus on campaign contributions the makers of the machines gave them.

Re:Stinkers

[clang_jangle]

It is also possible they are just ignorant or haven't thought it through.

It's their job to be informed, and to "think it through". Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now? What will it take for the people of this nation to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding government shenanigans?

Re:Stinkers

[digitrev]

Exactly. This is why I think that all legislation should be read aloud. Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote. If a certain percentage of congresscritters fail the test, the bill is scrapped. If the people voting for it can't understand it, it should not be made into law. Period. Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional. I want my politicians thinking about law, not politics.

Re:Stinkers

[billcopc]

Intention ignorance amounts to treason, IMHO. The nation has been fucked over via unverifiable elections the last time, and congress is effectively turning a blind eye to the defective system, in order to "save a few bucks" because they did spend a shitload of money on that white elephant. I mean, Diebold isn't exactly in the poorhouse.

Re:Stinkers

[philspear]

I cannot belive I did that! I know full damn well the correct use of "they're, their, and there." Honestly what may have happened is I changed that sentence at the last minute and didn't read closely. ... and just now I initially wrote "sentance" instead of sentence, so, uh, I've lost faith in myself.

Anyway, I think "Please, for the sake of everyone's welfare, especially our children's welfare..." is overstating it a bit, especially given my assurances it was a typo (edit-o?), not a grammar abuse.

Re:Stinkers

[philspear]

Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now?

Treason? Again I'd argue that treason implies intent, or should anyway. So it excuses it in the same way that "I did not mean to kill him" "excuses" murder.

In both cases it doesn't mean it's okay. Manslaughter is still bad. Failing to do your homework and consequently making elections less fair is also bad. Nonetheless, this isn't corruption or treason, and it is an important distinction. For one thing, accusing congress of treason and corruption when it's really just usual stupidity makes you sound like you're either wearing a tinfoil hat.

What will it take for the people of this nation to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding government shenanigans?

When and where have people ever done that? There are plenty of cases where people wouldn't stand for the government they had, but no cases I can think of where they turned that into the perfect government system, where their officials make perfect decisions, considering all aspects of their actions.

Re:Stinkers

[elnico]

Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now?

We all appreciate your enthusiasm, but ignorance of the exact contents of a bill is by no means treason, nor does it "amount" to treason. You know that.

And have you considered that there might be a reason the bill has this exception? Perhaps it's just not feasible to get machines that are both accessible and verifiable before 2009, so they chose to just go with accessible. Your immediate jump to corruption is rather silly and paranoid.

Re:Stinkers

[oGMo]

Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional.

Hell send 'em to jail. They broke the Constitution---the highest law in the land. If that's not worth some jail time, what is? What, it'll cause lawmaking to grind to a halt and only the most well-considered and constitutionally-sound laws to be passed? Awww... ;-)

Re:Stinkers

[BCW2]

Test the bill not the corrupt drunks. Simple software program scans each bill, if it contains one word not in a tenth grade dictionary it is shitcanned!
Plain English only, no legaleze allowed. Why should the lawyers in Congress be allowed to write indecipherable crap to guarantee perpetual employment for themselves and their peers?

Re:Stinkers

[elnico]

Or this would just have the unintended consequence of making judges very reluctant to declare laws unconstitutional, because they don't want to send a legislature to jail.

Re:Stinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason? Again I'd argue that treason implies intent, or should anyway. So it excuses it in the same way that "I did not mean to kill him" "excuses" murder.

Epic fail. Politicians are in charge of running the country, and thus should definitely be held fully accountable for the results of their actions (and lack thereof). So, yes, treason is the correct word, at least for anyone who has at least an adequate sense of responsibility (sadly, that excludes a great many of "us", I know).

Re:Stinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

We all appreciate your enthusiasm, but ignorance of the exact contents of a bill is by no means treason, nor does it "amount" to treason. You know that.

It is dereliction of duty. The duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to serve the people of the U.S. You ought to know that, and if you don't, shame on you. I know evading responsibility is very fashionable nowadays, but it is still shady, unethical, and in this case it is certainly illegal according to the spirit of the law. WTF do you think the oath every elected official and civil servant has to take is supposed to mean?
 
Heh, the CAPTCHA says "righter".

Re:Stinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least have them automatically thrown from office without chance for appeal. They swore to uphold the law of the land, so if they pass unconstitutional laws, they have reneged on their oaths. Period.

Re:Stinkers

[moosesocks]

Well, it all depends on how blatant of a violation it is.

The DC gun ban was considered vaguely constitutional for decades. I wouldn't send the people who instituted it to jail.

On the other hand, warrantless wiretapping is blatantly unconstitutional. It'll be overturned as soon as (if) it hits the Supreme Court, as long as the justices have an ounce of sense left in them (and I'm pretty sure that they do)

Re:Stinkers

[elnico]

Even accepting the stretch that "failure to know contents of a bill" = "dereliction of duty", it's quite obvious that "dereliction of duty" != "treason".

In fact, even if a congressperson is willfully corrupt, taking bribes and rigging elections, it's still not treason until they willingly act to overthrow the government. There's really no debating this definition (but just in case you try, please provide sources).

Re:Stinkers

[ruin20]

we'd be holding elections every three days to replace imprisoned officials and there'd be three bills passed a year.

Re:Stinkers

[Red Flayer]

What, it'll cause lawmaking to grind to a halt and only the most well-considered and constitutionally-sound laws to be passed?

No, it'll just expand the bribery to the judges who rule on Constitutionality, or, as it is now, keep it with the people who put those Judges on the bench.

Seriously, our judicial branch, while more resistant to the corporate smegma that rule this country, is slowly becoming part of the corporatocracy.

Re:Stinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO your interpretation of the definition is absurdly permissive. According to this, "The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I argue that there is indeed a war being waged by private interests against the people of the United States. All it would take is a panel of judges to agree. There is no factual stretch, other than the fact that finding honest government officials who are not already guilty of treason would be pretty freaking rare. Probably you will call this "tin foil hattery". If so, that just makes you one of the many who find denial more comfortable than truth. I'm just not wired that way, myself.

Re:Stinkers

[philspear]

Politicians are in charge of running the country, and thus should definitely be held fully accountable for the results of their actions (and lack thereof).

Fine, great, yes. Accountability and resposibility and all that, I agree. It's not treason though.

This is not treason: they don't realize it's going to be bad for the country, or they don't think it will.

Once again, treason is intentional, this is not.

Not for nothing, "epic fail"? Can we keep the internet memes on 4chan?

Re:Stinkers

[gd2shoe]

...Supreme Court, as long as the justices have an ounce of sense left in them (and I'm pretty sure that they do)

Not the ones who threw us the eminent domain curve ball (yes, the court has changed a few members since.)

Re:Stinkers

[AySz88]

This isn't a good idea at all; funny, not insightful. It would throw the current checks and balances totally out of kilter. The Supreme Court would effectively become a third house of the legislature, with veto power, except appointed and holding office for life, plus allowed to throw any legislators into jail they wanted (or at least make them afraid to show up, lest that happen). Allow any one party to hold onto the other two branches for a decade or two (or an unlucky term where a majority of the justices die), and they'll be able to hold onto legislative power for a generation. And I'm sure an actual government scholar can poke more holes in this than I can.

Re:Stinkers

[gd2shoe]

Good, as long as one of them is a balanced budget. (I can dream, at least.)

Re:Stinkers

[PopeRatzo]

On the other hand, warrantless wiretapping is blatantly unconstitutional. It'll be overturned as soon as (if) it hits the Supreme Court

Not with the current Supreme Court makeup. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts love the idea of the "unitary" executive and are purely partisan actors. As long as there is a Republican president (or confidence in enough Republicans in the Justice Dep't or federal court), they will grant the President whatever powers of arrest and surveillance he wants. Warrantless wiretapping would sail through the current Supreme Court. I was shocked that they gave the Guantanimo guys the right to federal court access, but I think there were too many honest JAGs to guarantee they would get a full set of convictions. This way, when they find that many of the Guantanamo detainees are innocent, they can blame the radical "liberal" justices in the Federal Court.

Believe me, we have reached a point where the Bush Administration does not believe they have to listen to the Supreme Court even. Just look at how they are gaming the ruling from last year about the EPA having the authority (and are required actually) to regulate emissions. Bush basically is telling them to fuck themselves. After all, what are they gonna do? The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce anything. It's like the subpoenas of the Bush lawyers by Congress. You think that a prick with ears like Atty Gen'l Mukasey is going to disobey his boss and enforce the law? Again, what is Congress gonna do about it?

There is a Constitutional crisis of the most serious proportions going on in our government right now, and the media is absolutely unwilling to cover it. Wexler and Conyers are trying to lay the groundwork for a case against the White House, and the report from the Justice Dept about Monica Goodling is just the president throwing a little fish under the bus.

I can't write any more about this now. My wife says she can tell when I'm writing about the Bush Administration because I grind my teeth, and I have to stop right now and go out in the garden with her.

Anyway, you're a bright bunch. Go read this stuff for yourself.

Re:Stinkers

[daemonburrito]

Playing the devil's advocate, what you call "legaleze" appears indecipherable because it uses specialized forms to eliminate (or try to) ambiguity.

This is almost a meme on slashdot now: Legal language is similar to code, in that both must use arcane structures to be unambiguous; ideally, any machine will interpret code the same way every time according to the rules of the language, and, ideally, an interpretation of a legal document will be similarly consistent.

That's often not the case, of course. But when it is abused, it is not the language that is at fault but the obfuscation. Banning legal language would be like banning C because it can be so spectacularly obfuscated.

Re:Stinkers

[arth1]

Politicians are always informed and have thought things through, per job description. With great privileges come great responsibilities, and they are responsible for keeping themselves informed.
If they're uninformed or don't think things through, they collect a salary for a job they're not doing. Which isn't much better than corruption -- at least you can buy a corrupt politician, but you can't educate an ignoramus.

Re:Stinkers

[Prof.Phreak]

Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional.

Also reward (possibly using that same fine money) anyone who kills a bill. Year by year, we should strive to have -less- laws than the year before---not more.

It seems we're upto a point where nobody can possibly even skim over all the laws in their entire lifetime, much less understand a small fraction of them. And it's only getting worse year after year. Sorta like the tax code.

Re:Stinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

>This would leave millions of voters (particularly
>those with disabilities) dependent on insecure
>paperless electronic machines for years to come.

Of course, since a paper ballot is a magic talisman that prevents vote fraud.

Just ask "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson.

Re:Stinkers

[fugue]

Why just senators/congressmen?

Re:Stinkers

[mpe]

Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote.

The problem is voting for bills they don't understand. In some cases havn't even bothered to read. Nothing wrong with someone voting against (or abstaining on) a bill they don't understand, this might be an indication that the bill in question is pure bovine excrement.

If a certain percentage of congresscritters fail the test, the bill is scrapped. If the people voting for it can't understand it, it should not be made into law. Period. Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional. I want my politicians thinking about law, not politics.

You can't eliminate politics without eliminating people. What is also a good idea with a legislature would be to have a meme of "quality rather than quantity" (either in respect of number of bills or even size of bills) with respect to passing legislation together with one that repealing old laws is at least as important as passing new laws.

Re:Stinkers

[mpe]

we'd be holding elections every three days to replace imprisoned officials

How many years would it take at that rate to get honest officials?

and there'd be three bills passed a year.

So in the worst case you'd get a new stupid law every 4 months...

Re:Stinkers

[mpe]

Test the bill not the corrupt drunks. Simple software program scans each bill, if it contains one word not in a tenth grade dictionary it is shitcanned!

If it passes this test submit it to a random jury of people aged between 9 and 90. Have them attempt to both understand it and find loopholes.

Re:Stinkers

[BCW2]

Then figure out a way to ban lawyers from Congress or Legislatures since it's a conflict of interest.

Re:Stinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, you're forgiven :)

Re:Stinkers

[ivan256]

The fact that the bill exists is evidence enough that they were wrong about the purchase of the last round of electronic voting machines. The exemption from replacement for those machines is corrupt. Not because it was added in due to campaign contributions; after all, those companies would probably love to sell the government brand new machines all over again. It's corrupt because it is a blatant act to avoid responsibility for their past (expensive) mistake.

Re:Stinkers

[narthollis]

Hrmmm... If this is the case, then someone should relay think about standardizing 'legaleze' - As it is it has seemingly different result depending on the interpreter.

Last time I check, gcc and visual c compiled code that returned the same result...

Step #1: Organize Observers....

[mikelieman]

I'm not convinced the votes are even being *counted* in the first place, so I think we need to have spotters at every step of the process to ensure it's fairness in the first place.

Once we have the ability to actually tell what is going on, *THEN* we can start patching the bugs.

SENATORS introduced the bill

[moosesocks]

Hold up.

I thought it was the House's job to introduce new legislation.

Re:SENATORS introduced the bill

[AuMatar]

Only budget legislation. Other types can be started in either branch of congress.

Re:SENATORS introduced the bill

[will_die]

The House is the only place where bills to raise revenue can originate. The Senate can originate any other type of bill

Expected result.

[Anonymous Coward]

Curious, but expected.

Apparently the democrats who in the past hated e-vote machines for the potential it offered the republicans to rig the vote are discovering that it can be turned to their own advantage.

I wonder how long it will be until we start seeing republicans touting how evil the e-vote boxes are?

Perhaps they will figure it out before November, perhaps not.

Re:Expected result.

[GungaDan]

It's somewhat of a stretch to call Dianne Finkstein a "democrat." Sure, she caucuses with them, but she also knows that her bread is buttered by her war-profiteering military-industrial-complex-supporting husband. She's one of the more whorish "democrats" out there.

We need end to end verification

[linzeal]

We need E2E (End to End) voting systems period. Note the period.

Re:We need end to end verification

[Vectronic]

No no dipshit, the period before the period prior to the statement "Note the Period." period before the period.

Re:We need end to end verification

[Anonymous Coward]

My sleep patterns have periods.

Re:We need end to end verification

[PapayaSF]

Except that the article you link to seems to assume that the voting process starts with the ballot. It doesn't, because the ballot may be cast fraudulently. It doesn't stop dead people from voting (see the history of Chicago). It doesn't stop illegal aliens from voting. It doesn't stop college students and Florida snowbirds from voting in two places. It doesn't stop groups like ACORN from registering fictitious voters. It doesn't stop corrupt jurisdictions from just stuffing the ballot box.

I know the topic of electronic vote fraud is a natural for Slashdot, but the discussions tend to focus on technical aspects of potential fraud, and totally ignore the good old-fashioned methods of vote fraud, of which there are many, many documented instances.

I need to wrap up this post so I don't have the references, but there are numerous instances of big cities (like Philadelphia) that have reported more votes than there are voting-age adults living in the city! Sometimes these votes come in oddly late in state-wide and national elections, and are just enough to tip the election.

Re:We need end to end verification

[daemonburrito]

It doesn't stop illegal aliens from voting. It doesn't stop college students and Florida snowbirds from voting in two places. It doesn't stop groups like ACORN from registering fictitious voters.

You do know that these examples are red herrings, right? The ACORN example in particular was onerous enough to warrant a congressional hearing, as announcing indictments on the eve of an election is against Justice Dept procedure. In addition, the indictments were announced by interim AUSA Bradley Schlozman, who replaced Todd Graves, who was pushed out for refusing to play ball.

There is election manipulation, but it is pretty much the exactly the opposite of your suspicions. The problem is definitely not "illegals" voting for liberals. Sorry.

Also, there's no way you can use John Fund as a reference with a straight face.

Re:We need end to end verification

[PapayaSF]

No, a red herring is something fake. These are real examples of vote fraud: for example, four ACORN people pled guilty in the case you are eager to dismiss. So there are numerous proven instances of old-fashioned vote fraud, which continue to this day. In contrast, the electronic type that many around here are excited about is still theoretical, AFAIK: no hard-to-argue proof like actual convictions in a court of law.

But hey, I'm not arguing against top-quality security for electronic voting systems. I just want the same level of security applied to all levels of the process: voter registration, requiring photo ID at the polls, etc.

Re:We need end to end verification

[daemonburrito]

I believe your intentions are good. But the ACORN case is indeed a red herring. You may think it pedantic, but the acorn volunteers didn't commit vote fraud, they committed registration fraud, individually, while canvassing. And what the DoJ and Schlozman did was definitely against protocol and possibly illegal.

And, fwiw, I think you are misguided in looking for more security in the form of voter id laws. It is too close to poll taxes and literacy tests. Like the latter two examples from the bad old days, states and DoJ have been very selective in the way they enforce voting law.

John Fund is a partisan hack, I'm afraid. The crisis he describes doesn't exist, and the solutions to these non-problems reliably skews voter rolls in favor of his party. YMMV, but I think you will find much more useful information about the incident in the transcripts from the Senate hearings. But, again, YMMV.

Re:We need end to end verification

[PapayaSF]

Yes, I think you're quibbling. Registration fraud can certainly facilitate vote fraud: lots of vote fraud happens when people vote multiple times under other's names. If there are fake people registered, then fraudsters can vote as the fake registrants without worry that a real person will contradict them. If you don't like the ACORN example, though, I can point to Chicago in 1960, Lyndon Johnson in 1948, and many more examples of fraud that are far more established than anything involving Diebold, etc. And if Fund's solutions "skews voter rolls in favor of his party" because it eliminates partisan voter fraud, well, I thought we were all in favor of fair elections? I'm in favor of eliminating all ways to fix elections, regardless of which party it helps or hurts.

I think are defining the problem as "making sure every vote is counted accurately," which is certainly a worthy goal. I agree, but just want to make sure it's every legal vote. Otherwise, you are ignoring a proven, fundamental, commonly-exploited hole in election security. It's as if you want to protect yourself from burglars, but focus on a narrow technical issue like the type of locks on your front door, while leaving your windows open. Even though every time burglars have struck, they've come in through your windows.

No, not the same as poll taxes or literacy tests. Proving a legal identity as a citizen is trivial 98%+ of the time. There can be plenty of ways to help poor people get ID if they don't have it. And if we require ID to buy a beer or rent a DVD, it's not a lot to ask to require it for something as important as voting.

Re:We need end to end verification

[daemonburrito]

You raise fair points, except for this one, and I suspect it may be a misunderstanding:

And if Fund's solutions "skews voter rolls in favor of his party" because it eliminates partisan voter fraud, well, I thought we were all in favor of fair elections?

My contention was that voter ID laws intimidate the poor and disenfranchised, of course.

No, not the same as poll taxes or literacy tests. Proving a legal identity as a citizen is trivial 98%+ of the time.

You might be surprised by how relative the term "trivial" can be. And 2% would be problematic.

I'm not arguing for registration anarchy, of course. And really, you should consider your problem solved since Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, right? John Fund, et al, won. But you probably won't convince me that it was fair elections that Mr. Fund was concerned about.

Looks like we're just going to disagree on this one.

Re:We need end to end verification

[Khisanth Magus]

As someone from Illinois, I'm proud of the dead people who were willing to return from the grave to vote! If you continue to go vote even after you are dead you are obviously a very civic minded person.

Re:We need end to end verification

[eredin]

The "people voting multiple times" issue is easily solved with a bottle of ink. I bet the ink is cheaper than all those "I voted" stickers, too.

It Doesn't Matter

[johnshirley]

What does it matter who gets to vote? The only thing that matters is who gets to count the votes.

In related news...

[gmuslera]

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

What saddens me is that there was a similar post about the same incident from a previous story.

And it was modded informative.

Re:Step #1: Organize Observers....

[FatdogHaiku]

We can watch all we want, the Electoral College will do it's thing and decide who rules...

Bipartisan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act

Bipartisan? I see the names of two republicans.

More and Better Than Feinstein

[Doc Ruby]

Dianne Feinstein is an excellent argument for not just more, but better Democrats in Congress.

I'd say the same about Republicans, but they seem incurably hellbent on "more", and never the possibility of "better". Which has sent them spiraling towards minor party status.

Re:More and Better Than Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say she's a better argument for a new, truly progressive party to replace the Democrats /looks at Greens

Feinstein Link

[Doc Ruby]

That's a funny glitch.

Here's the link to Dianne Feinstein's Senate legislative record.

Re:Feinstein Link

[warriorpostman]

I am reading and crying simultaneously.

Re:Feinstein Link

[CMF Risk]

Wow.

Is it typical for a senator to introduce so many do-nothing bills?

" A resolution designating the week beginning March 16, 2008, as "National Safe Place Week". "

Re:Feinstein Link

[dgatwood]

Is it typical for a senator to introduce so many do-nothing bills?

Which would you rather have, bills designating a "National Safe Place Week" or bills like FISA? I, for one, would much rather have our government wasting its time passing the former than screwing the American public and wiping their backsides with the Constitution by passing the latter. The best possible government, at least judging from what I've seen thus far, is a government so completely embroiled in a state of gridlock that they can do no further harm.

Re:Feinstein Link

[belmolis]

There is a lot of that junk, isn't there? I think that Feinstein does a lot of that because she comes form a big state with a lot of major sports teams and headquarters of organizations that want things sponsored, plus she's at this point pretty senior and so good at getting things done. She'll do some so as to stay in the good graces of her constituents, and people in her district will come to her, other things being equal (unless, say, there is a Senator particularly tied to their cause).

Re:Feinstein Link

[Doc Ruby]

Feinstein used her seats on both Judiciary and Intelligence to force through telco amnesty in the screwed up FISA she voted for.

Government does quite a lot of good. Your inability to realize how much government does that protects you is a measure of how good it is, and how good it is at staying out of your way. But Republicans have indeed proven their ideology that "government always fails", whenever Republicans have controlled it.

Democrats are not by any means immune from incompetence or malfeasance. But theirs is usually sustainable. An inefficient government that is better than either no government or a perfectly efficient government abusing us. Republicans are the ones that misgovern as a rule, not the exception.

Re:Feinstein Link

[CMF Risk]

FYI - I am in California and Im pretty sure I could care less about these kinds of "sponsorships", but then again, maybe it's because Im not part of these groups?

Im pretty sure the Berkeley men's water polo team, doesn't care that the US senate congratulated them on winning - I think the act of winning, and the trophy takes care of that.

Im fairly confidant that most Californians(at least around the major cities) don't care about things like that, and care more about her screw ups on FISA, obsession with video game violence, and the rest of her poor record.

IMO Boxer > Feinstein and I really hope we can replace Feinstein soon enough. Seeing this list influences my opinion even more

Re:Feinstein Link

[belmolis]

The Berkeley men's water polo team probably doesn't really care, but the board of trustees and the alumni organization probably do. Maybe not a lot, but politicians at least seem to think that this kind of thing is good for them.

I've never been much of a fan of Feinstein, but for reasons other than sponsoring a lot of silly resolutions.

Re:Feinstein Link

[dgatwood]

I'm well aware of Feinstein being complicit in the FISA nightmare. My point was that I'd rather have her doing useless stuff than doing that.

Re:Feinstein Link

[Doc Ruby]

Evidently, the strategy you prefer doesn't work. Feinstein can walk badly and chew gum catastrophically at the same time.

Re:Feinstein Link

[dgatwood]

Ah, but think about how much worse the walking could have been had she not been preoccupied with the gum.

Re:Feinstein Link

[ivan256]

Democrats are not by any means immune from incompetence or malfeasance. But theirs is usually sustainable. An inefficient government that is better than either no government or a perfectly efficient government abusing us. Republicans are the ones that misgovern as a rule, not the exception.

Pull the wool back....

They're both *exactly* as bad. Sustainable? You mean like farm subsidies and social security? At least most of the stuff the Republicans have done is un-doable. (The crap our current so-called Republican president has pushed through excepted)

Re:Feinstein Link

[Doc Ruby]

They're not "exactly as bad". Democrats didn't give us the Iraq War, or the mortgage/credit debacle, or torture. Some few Democrats in the minority had some hand, but you've got to be crazy to think that Democrats are as bad as what we've had under Republicans. Democrats' problems have all been sustainable. Another few years of Republican rule, and we'd be a smoking hole in the ground. The Democratic changing of the guard at least offers the chance that we'll return to mere inefficiency, instead of catastrophe at every quarter.

BTW, calling Bush a "so-called Republican" just blew your cover. You are Republican. You voted for Bush twice, and for Republican congressmembers and governors and other representatives who knows how many times. Now that your boys have ruined everything they've touched, suddenly "they're not really Republicans". Oh, and you're probably not either, now that the damage is done - you're a "Libertarian", right?

Social Security is one of the most successful programmes, public or private, ever undertaken. It's extremely popular. You Republicans courted disaster when you blurted out your plans to privateer it into yet another stock scam. But you're still clinging to it. Libertarians love old people starving in the dark. Real Americans don't.

Re:Step #1: Organize Observers....

[dougisfunny]

I would love to see them implement the e-voting, and then see some districts get hacked without a paper trail, and have a few times the number of registered voters have votes. And have it be widespread enough to not be able to be swept under the rug.

Maybe I'm just too passive aggressive and like the 'I told you so' attitude.

Make myself heard?

[Alien Being]

Seriously? If those *expletive deleted*s in congress cared to hear from us they wouldn't be considering such a move in the first place.

The U.S. is literally sick in the head. It's about time we chop it off and grow a new one.

We should start by holding Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes and punishing them appropriately, i.e. execute them.

How's this for transparency?

[r_jensen11]

All in favor?

 

Party A: Aye!

All opposed?

 

Party B: NAY!

Re:How's this for transparency?

[myspace-cn]

Spelling Correction ...

Party B: Bob Ney

WASHINGTON - A top House Republican on Tuesday called for Rep. Bob Ney to resign, days after the six-term GOP lawmaker agreed to plead guilty to federal corruption charges.

"He betrayed his constituents, he betrayed the body and there's no place for him in the Congress," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House.

Last week, Ney admitted improperly accepting tens of thousands of dollars worth of trips, meals, sports tickets and casino chips while trying to win favors for a disgraced Washington lobbyist and a foreign aviation company.

The Ohio congressman had defiantly denied any wrongdoing for months, but he reversed course and agreed to plead guilty in court papers filed Friday. Prosecutors will recommend he serve 27 months in prison.

Ney, who is under treatment for alcohol dependency, was expected to formally plead guilty in court Oct. 13.

Oh did I mention Bob Ney or Robert Ney (more accurately) introduced the Help America Vote Act of 2002, e.g. the still failed HAVA.

I'd like to believe what I told them mattered

[Nimey]

But after the effort we all went to on FISA, I know better.

Re:Step #1: Organize Observers....

[elnico]

You seem like a civic-minded individual. Have you ever considered volunteering in an election? Please, I'd like to know.

Another editorial mascaraing as news

[Schnoodledorfer]

Yeah, that's nothing new around here. My main gripe is that this isn't even a well-written editorial! They never support their claim. How is S. 3212 a "step backward"? How is the current situation better than it will be if S. 3212 passes? Don't answer with Holt's bill. That was in 2007, and it went nowhere, so it's not the current situation. Maybe some state has better requirements now, but if so the editorial never says so. Furthermore, the editorial would need to explain how this law law would override the state law. I don't think it could, given the US Constitution. So, what then? It never says.

Maybe the conclusion is correct, but I doubt it is after reading this piece. So how was this worth reading?

Wow, what happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when it seemed like for a while there we couldn't have a law unless its name could be a cool acronym?

Well now we've got the BEVR Act. Yes, the Beaver Act.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!

Paper trail/backup does not help

[GodWasAnAlien]

The whole paper trail effort was a waste of time, effort, and ... paper.

For vote-buying reasons, a person voting cannot have a traceable vote.

So what they can do is print it out and have you look at it.

Many places just skipped that an de-evolved back to a 4 page paper hand written ballot.

It comes from a "computers are scary" fear. Handwritten ballots are more error prone than paper backed up e-voting, and obviously other backup methods are better than a spool of paper.
(Instead of printing and showing the result, you could have multiple remote servers that you write to and verify with (but never read from)).

The core problem was never paper. The core problem was lack of transparency in the voting software, and bugs in software.

The only way e-voting can really work is with open source.

Even with 4 page paper ballots, the software problem is still there. Some software counts the ballots, and possibly scans the ballots as well.

Re:Paper trail/backup does not help

[pluther]

Paper trails can do more than "print it out and have you look at it."

And dismissing it as a "computers are scary" mentality is just silly when you're talking about the majority of Slashdot users.

The point of a paper trail is that the paper is kept. It is available. If, for example, pre-vote polling was showing candidates A, B, and C getting about 45%, 45%, and 5% of the votes respectively in one county, but the machines registered A=45%, B=5% and c=45% instead, you could, in theory, ask for a recount. If there's a paper trail, you can look at it to see what actually happened there (Database error? Or did all the Republicans really suddenly decide to vote for the Socialist candidate instead?) Without one, you will never know.

Open source is certainly a step in the right direction. But that alone isn't enough.

Re:Paper trail/backup does not help

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that instead of printing out to paper, for use in a possible recount, you could just as easily write to 10 remote machines.

The human read error from a paper printout would be be significant. Sure, you could also print and use a barcode, but then you have invented fancy paper tape storage.

Everything you can do with paper, you can do without paper. On disk, you can store the digital vote, along with a human readable vote (a png), and show the user the human readable vote. The disk could be append-write only (DVD R).

The 'computers are scary' comment was not about Slashdot users. I do not know where the desire for paper backups comes from here.

Why would any Republican partner with Feinstein?

[tjstork]

The Republican Party sucks. Diane Feinstein is the worst and here we have some supposed Republican guy caving into her left wing fantasies about the need for a manual paper record when no other way of tracking information has the same requirement. It's just absurd.

The Republican rank and file does not want to sit and watch its leaders hide in the shadows and take crap from these traitors. If there was to be any sort of a Republican bill on voting and vote counting, and any sort of compromise, then we should add clauses that benefit Republican concerns as well as Democrat ones and have a real compromise. For example, people that receive federal aid or federal workers should not be allowed to vote because the conflict of interest is terrible.

We should do this with voting as well.

[tjstork]

WE should repeal the constitutional amendment prohibiting poll taxes and tests, so that, states would be allowed to ensure that only intelligent, responsible, people were allowed to vote.

Re:We should do this with voting as well.

[randyleepublic]

Hellz yeah!!! You fuckin' a right on that one, bra!

You just can't win.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your voting machine has no paper printout, how does the voter know that his vote was recorded as cast? So we add paper printout.

BUT...

If you have printed paper proof of how you voted, you can sell your vote. You can tell people - I'll give you $50 when you show me that you voted for me. Or if you are a 3rd world dictator: I'll kill you if you don't prove that you voted for me.

The WHOLE POINT of secret ballots is that no matter what, you can vote your conscience. If someone tries to buy your vote, vote whatever way you like then lie about how you voted to get your money.

Giving people a piece of paper defeats the whole purpose of secrecy.

So...how do you want to play this? You clearly can't have it both ways.

Re:You just can't win.

[myspace-cn]

A cyber troll like you can win though by spreading fascist propaganda and completely confusing the issue.

Fact. The software has been manipulated to rig elections. (open source ain't going to help)

Fact. The hardware can be specially crafted to rig elections. (open source ain't going to help)

Fact. Paper ballots with an unbroken chain of custody and public oversight are secure. While ANY "electronic vote tabulation device" programmed by some fascist corporate programmer in secret is not.

We have been playing it your way.

Your way has destroyed America, it's Constitution, bill of rights, balance of power, economy and deaths of our military.

the Holt Bill HR 811 SUCKS DONKEY DICK.

Re:You just can't win.

[spitzak]

This is probably a troll, but:

The voter gets the paper record, looks at it, then puts it into a locked ballot box. The ballots in that box are counted later for the official count, with discrepencies with any electronic count triggering a careful audit. The voter does not take anything with them out of the election area.

There have been proposals for systems by which a voter can take something with them that proves that their vote was counted exactly once but cannot show how they voted, but all of them are complex and impossible for average voters to understand.

Re:You just can't win.

[Khisanth Magus]

The dead voters in Chicago would like to challenge your statement that paper ballots are completely secure.

not surprising

[stanjam]

The goal is to steal elections. It is not surprising that they do not want verifiable voting. It is EASY to make a reliable, verifiable, computerized, voting machine. Why then, do we not require that? The answer is simple. They do not want the votes verified, because they are not the actual votes! The only reason to NOT support the verifiable machines is because you want to manipulate the vote, plain and simple. Voting machines should have a paper trail, and should be OPEN SOURCE! The source code should be open to anyone who wants to investigate it! We should know EXACTLY what these machines are doing! Yet now no one knows. No one in government even knows what these systems are actually doing! That is just wrong. It is unAmerican, and undemocratic. Welcome to the new age of America. We are losing our country.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

There's no such thing as a verifiable "electronic vote tabulation device" and never will be.

It's impossible because the public (as in public oversight and chain of custody) can not validate electrons. They can not validate electrons because they can not see electrons.

So your not only WRONG about it being EASY, your wrong because it is IMPOSSIBLE because of PHYSICS.

Open source is great, but electronic vote tabulation devices DO NOT BELONG IN ELECTIONS, it is ABUSIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN NEVER BE SECURE.

Re:not surprising

[stanjam]

First, I wasn't talking about electrons. Second, verifiable electronic voting is indeed possible. I have done a lot of research on the subject. You are assuming that the whole process must be electronic, but this is not the case. There are several systems that have been proposed that will work, and can be verified first by the voter, and then by hand count if necessary, We are not talking physics here, we are talking about voting. There are some very easy ways to do it. As far as security, this is why we need verification. Sure, no system can ever be completely secure. I know this, as I do have my MSIA. However we can create verification systems that would make the voting process at least as secure as any other process used, and probably a whole lot more. Security is not about making something 100% foolproof. That is impossible. It is, however, about making the system reliably safe from fraud. This includes the ability to know if the system has been violated. Right now this is near impossible. However by using Open Source in combination with verifiable (by both the voter and the audit team) paper trails, we can ensure an accurate counting of votes, and would have a process to check the results to ensure that CIA is ensured. Right now CIA is not a part of the system. In fact, it would seem that drastic efforts have been made to ensure that CIA is not even part of the process.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

WRONG.

You love to use the noun "electronic voting."

I use the noun "electronic vote tabulation device."

BIG DIFFERENCE.

And Paper Trail is pure fucking nonsense.

It's NEVER EVER EVER BEEN COUNTED 100%! EVER. And it might as well be TOILET PAPER because with an "electronic vote tabulation device" can tell the printer to print anything the fascist programmer wants.

Let's not forget that it's TOO LATE to roll what your talking about out for 2008.

Your simply dreaming.

If you really want to be an open source advocate, design one box for each polling precinct that "assists the disabled to print a paper ballot."
Paper ballots that then follow an 100% unbroken chain of custody with public oversight 100%.

In case you forgot clarify, HAVA, 'The help America Vote Act of 2002' was authored by Bob Ney
(you remember Bob don't ya? WASHINGTON â" A top House Republican on Tuesday called for Rep. Bob Ney to resign, days after the six-term GOP lawmaker agreed to plead guilty to federal corruption charges. Small world huh..)

Continuing... HAVA, Never specified that we all needed to have "electronic vote tabulation devices." e.g. all these Optical Scanners are a cover for rigging the vote. And again I remind you that NEVER EVER HAVE PAPER BALLOTS been COUNTED 100% when there is some failure.

Where failure= glitch, burp, human error, burned up device

Problem is even to this day DRE's that assist the voter to mark a ballot are fucked up, even the Automark failed. Ask Brad Friedman about how they fucked up four votes for him.

Okay, so now you rant troll shit about the CIA? The CIA shouldn't have a fucking thing to do with PUBLIC OVERSIGHT!!!
I call your bluff, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

I bet you don't even know basic electronics, programming, or common sense physics, because if you DO, then you are spreading fascist propaganda. I've listed *some* resources, you say you did a lot of research on the subject. BULLSHIT. otherwise you'd come to the same conclusion as myself. You probably don't even know Basic LOGIC.

You don't use the right language when describing specific parts of a system, or hierarchy, next larger assembly is all you preach. Your fucking MSIA doesn't mean shit. I don't have ANY FUCKING DEGREE yet I have been working with, testing, designing and repairing electronics and furthermore programming for more than 10 years. Your degree doesn't mean a fucking thing.

I'll say it again, if you really want to help, then fight against "electronic vote tabulation devices" and instead if your so open source (I don't see how with an MSIA) advocate then design a device that assists the disabled to PRINT A FUCKING PAPER BALLOT that get's hand counted, 100% chain of custody, 100% public oversight.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

MSIA from http://www.graduate.norwich.edu/infoassurance/
# Complete the program online without interrupting your personal or professional life
# Earn your degree in as few as 18 months
# Experience a learning model that combines relevant theory with real-world application for immediate results
# Learn from an institution whose core values - challenge, rigor, structure and discipline - derive from the influence of a long and proud military history

18 MONTHS?

Fuck man I been working with electronics since the 1970's, this degree didn't even exist when I first started working on shit.

Well the good thing is you probably learned English better than me. But you know I could give a flying fuck. I want my country back.

Try working with hardware for years and years. Try spending a few years de-soldering the parts you need to build the shit you designed (not in a book) with a propane torch and choking on the fucking smoke. Try coming to a hardware system you never seen before and being able to fix it with no manual. Try fabricating chips, and learning that you can dope in back doors.

24 of 26 posts most nothing to do with electronic vote tabulation devices.

I say your a troll, a plant, propaganda to deceive.

I'll eat your MSIA for breakfast. You've already probably brought me your broken shit to get fixed!

Re:not surprising

[stanjam]

Wow, now we degenerate into name calling and swearing. Incredible. My degree is worth nothing, eh? At least I know what CIA IS. I don't mean the agency. But then again if you had gotten a degree you might know that. You have been working with systems for years, yes? I know many people in your shoes that have been doing it WRONG for years. I assume you may very well fall into that category, since you can not come up with a way to make a system like this work effectively. You see, what my degree dis do was teach me to do things CORRECTLY. How to do an electronic, or computerized voting machine that prints a paper ballot that works? That is pretty easy actually. You state that a programmer can make it say whatever they want, right? That is why the ballot needs to be verifiable by both the VOTER and the auditing system. The voter casts their votes on a touch screen. A ballot is then printed and produced behind a tamper-proof glass screen. The voter is asked to verify that ballot visually to make sure it is correct, then the ballot is scanned. You now have the scanner that will check the computerized vote, and if need be, the paper ballots, which are accurate because they have been validated BY THE VOTER, can be hand counted if necessary. Guess you hadn't thought of that. I have done my research on the subject. I don't need to resort to name calling and swears to make my point. I also guess you do not realize that making the program Open Source also protects against tampering. Since the code is open, it can be validated. If it is written to violate the election, that can be seen, instead of now, where it can't. Yet I guess you think it is somehow simpler to avoid the use of technologies altogether and do everything by hand. I guess humans can't make mistakes or be biased, or worse, bribed into making counts come off differently. And why is Open Source and the MSIA degree not compatible? Do you KNOW what MSIA is? Do you know what CIA stands for? Some of the best security tools out there are Open Source. Some of the most secure systems out there are Open Source. Open Source and Information Assurance are not opposed to each other. In fact I believe it is exactly the opposite. If and when I go for my doctorate, that may even be my thesis. I do indeed have my MSIA. You do not need to believe me, so it doesn't matter. I graduated cum laude from Norwich University with my MSIA. I hold several other degrees as well. You see, just because someone has been doing something for years, does not mean they have been doing it CORRECTLY. This is why we have educational institutions: to teach people how to do things correctly. At least, that is the goal. So please stop with the insults and foul language. If you wish to have a debate with me about computerized voting I will gladly debate you, but I will not debate with someone who thinks flaming is an appropriate means of discourse. Computerized voting is the topic here. There is a way to make computerized voting relatively safe and effective. There is a way to validate the voting process to be reasonably assured you have an accurate vote count. In fact, by using proper methods, and that includes consideration of CIA, we can gain a higher level of confidence than by simply using the antiquated paper ballot method alone. To say that it is impossible is an exercise in ignorance. Will it be 100% secure and be impossible to manipulate? No. No more than any computer system can be called 100% secure. Security is a relative term. First you must decide what you want to be secure against, and then devise an acceptable level of security. Additionally, electronic vote tabulation devices can be designed to also deliver a more than adequate level of security, and again, I believe that Open Source is part of the solution. What I have described is both a tabulation device and a computerized voting machine, since it also counts votes, and checks against itself. There are also methods of policy and procedure that can help assure the vote is counted accurately. It isn't productive to simply abandon a technology that can help us. The problem is that existing devices are not secure, and are easily manipulated. It CAN be done, but not with existing machines and proprietary software.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

in the 19th century there was no need of fucking un-validatable electronics. A paper ballot with 100 Chain of Custody, and Public Oversight is all that was needed.

Fuck your fucking MSIA, and the drugged up CIA White Van it rode in on.

Your problem is that all you've been taught is from a book. Yet you still refuse to read the links I posted, therefore no honeypot is necessary to identify you. Your TROLL ACCOUNT is compromised. We already know who you are by your actions.

Fuck your Optical Scanners, DRE's, and electronic vote tabulation devices, and your bullshit. Ever since they were used they failed. EVERY TIME.

And if you did work for "the company" you shouldn't be anymore after admitting it publicly. Your compromised. Which also means your not learning from them anymore. And if you are you are a fucking MOLE!

I wouldn't hire you to design a fucking telemarketing network!

IDIOT.

And again, even if you do hold even one of the degrees you say you do, your not only corrupt your compromised.

Not the kind of "Oath" swearer I want around.

Oh "PLEASE STOP WITH THE BAD LANGUAGE" Wahh Wahh Wahh. Shut the fuck up and grow up motherfucker.

You really want to know what I want to be secure against? Motherfuckers like you who abuse electronics and technology to destroy the United States and it Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I want to secure against electronic signals being intercepted via hardware or software in our elections by ELIMINATING THAT SHIT IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

The only thing that will make me confident is that some dimwit like you who compromised them self, is removed from ever working with anything our Government ever does ever again.

Yeah I bet you designed the electronic voter registration book too huh motherfucker!?

Better get your supervisor to bail your ass out on this thread.

Oh that's right YOU CAN'T!

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

First, you already blew off CIA as CIA, so now you want to change it to Computer Information Assurance or some such nonsense, but you already gave the impression "The Company."

Either way, anyone with a head on their shoulders can decide who is right and who is wrong.

Computerized Voting is NOT the topic here, loss of your right to vote because of electronic vote tabulation devices is. Good luck showing us all how GRANDMA WHO VOLUNTEERS AS A POLL WORKER CAN SEE ELECTRONS. Let alone poll watchers.

IT PHYSICALLY CAN NOT BE DONE.

Regarding your "Policies and Procedures" is that where the White Van shows up and swaps the harddrives out or where they mail the fucking EEPROMS USPS and they disappear?

Quit dwelling on SOFTWARE, and go work with HARDWARE. Go make some chips. Go under the electron microscope and get back to me when you come to your senses.

Counting by hand worked pretty fucking well for 200 years!

The only place I see open source being used is for a device that prints a paper ballot to be hand counted.

Why you have to add on to that shit and tabulate electronically is because you are corrupt. There is no other explanation, knowing what you know.
Even if the code was open the hardware is NOT VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE, AND NEITHER IS THE ELECTRONIC SIGNAL.

The only school I graduated from was the school of hard knocks.

You language continually leaves a CRACK.

e.g. "and if need be, the paper ballots, which are accurate because they have been validated BY THE VOTER, can be hand counted if necessary."

Blagh... Voters don't validate shit most of the time.

And second, a ballot marking device isn't needed for folks that have two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears. It should only be used for the disabled to assist them to PRINT A GOD DAMN BALLOT.

I'm done wasting my posts on you.

YOUR WRONG. AND ANYONE READING THIS THREAD CAN SEE YOUR WRONG. Cum Laud all Ye Faithful

Go spend some time with fravia mammon etc. Get a grip on reality. I ain't here to fuck you around, I am here to put a stop to the BOHICA of our elections. Tell me you Grandma or a Poll watcher can see 1's and 0's and make sense of it and I got bridge you should invest in. Maybe you want to bid on my old textronix off eBay instead.

The difference between you and I is that I have NEVER had a complaint about the work I do. And I don't have a supervisor. I don't have rooms filled with technical manuals, chips, and parts for my publicity shot. I have them cause I know what the fuck I am talking about.

One more thing: You say, "I also guess you do not realize that making the program Open Source also protects against tampering. Since the code is open, it can be validated."

You still can't validate the DATA. And especially when someone in a White Van drives up and yanks the chip!

Re:not surprising

[stanjam]

Wow, you really are simple, aren't you? I have been in the fight against the current electronic voting machine for years. You have apparently been working with conspiracy theories and smoking pot by the bushel full for years, because you can not understand simple logic. I never said I worked for the CIA. I even said I was not referring to the Central INtelligence Agency. I was referring to the CIA principle in INformation Assurance. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. You really could not understand that, can you? You really thought that I worked for the government? LMAO that is funny! I am compromised? JUst who do you think I am? ANd who do you think you are? WHat, am I supposed to be scared of you like you are some master hacker? YOu say you "know who I am." That is nice, though I doubt very much that you know who I am. Even if you did, it will not change the fact that my arguments are quite correct. You are apparently a technophobe, so scared of technology you can not see that it can be used legitimately for our good. Our country is in trouble. If the elections haven't been being stolen for years then they certainly could have been. I want to prevent that, You apparently want to swear at people and flex your epeen from your mother's basement. Go back to World of Warcraft, it is safer. Oh, and yes, those types of elections DID work in the 1800s. THen again, horses worked for us then too, but I do not soo you suggesting that we start all riding horses and using the telegraph again. YOu see, there are some big problems with using that system. The first is the population is a LOT larger than it was then. Counting those votes accurately is a problem, especially with our current educational system, as you have nicely demonstrated. Also, the chances of corruption increase greatly in such a system. The chances of someone stealing an election actually increase when you add in the human element to that extreme, especially in large population environments. A GOOD computerized voting system, with adequate checks and balances, is safer, and more effective. Now take your medication and/or put your tin foil hat back on.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

I have been in the fight against the current electronic voting machine for years.

Then name yourself. Show us your website, or contact, or some work. If you can't do that, you are clearly the fascist propagandist I say you are

I never said I worked for the CIA.

No, but you did give the initial appearance that you were. You tossed out an acronym that you didn't specify on first use, I have already figured out one out of two of your acronyms -- the MSIA. You spout off saying you have a MSIA, quickly tracking that acronym down points to a website that is "military oriented" and has a fucking "nsa approved" emblem on it, furthermore the actual class is only 18 months. So yeah I missed that. Unlike you I admit when I am wrong. But if you hadn't thrown deceptive acronyms in without defining that we wouldn't be off topic discussing this nonsense.

I don't have a degree, I never claimed one. Not that I didn't go to college.

You might have several degrees but don't know what the fuck your talking about when it comes to electronic vote tabulation devices.

You are apparently a technophobe, so scared of technology you can not see that it can be used legitimately for our good.

Technology by itself, isn't good or bad, how it's used makes it good or abusive.

Microwaving crowds is abusive
Counting ballots electronically in secret without public oversight is abusive. (And No, watching the outside of a sheetmetal box with electronic tabulation devices inside is not public oversight)
Wiretapping without a warrant is abusive.
Loosing millions of people's personal information in databases is an abusive use.

A GOOD computerized voting system, with adequate checks and balances, is safer, and more effective.

Right, so how is 99 percent of the votes counted in secret on computers controlled by government insiders and vendors safer? It might be more effective, granted, if your stealing the election.

Instead of smoking your bushel of pot and playing World or Warcraft in YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT, you should watch the following video.

Furthermore, you jam your shit into one giant un-formatted junk thread, without the slightest intent of emphasis, completely ignoring points I bring up. If it were not for the fact that some people actually believe your fascist propaganda you wouldn't be worth me wasting my time.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

In the above change
You love to use the noun "electronic voting."
to
You love to use the verb "electronic voting."

Re:not surprising

[stanjam]

Hmm, MY fascist propaganda? If you stop and look for a minute you will realize that I agree with you on a lot of points. The current system is set up for only one purpose, and that is to manipulate the vote. How could it be otherwise, especially when they refuse to fix it? The CEO of Diebold himself said he was committed to delivering the vote for the Republicans. Sorry you didn't know what I meant by CIA. It was late and I was tired, but I immediately stated it wasn't the CIA you were thinking of. Yes, I received my MSIA from a private military institution. Yes, it is an 18 month course. 36 credits, accredited. Six ten week seminars. It also has been declared a center for academic excellence by the NSA and the DoD. I don't see why that makes me a fascist. You are a bit too paranoid that they are out to get you. I have been fighting and spreading the word. I teach. I don't work for the government, though I wouldn't mind a govt. job. Heck, I would probably be looking for one right now if I didn't want to teach so badly. How is it that I can not be a liberal and progressive AND go to a military institution, or even working for the government? A lot of my class was as liberal minded as myself. I would love to talk about the good points you bring up, and you do have them, but that is hard when you spend so much time insulting me. Your point that the current system is not, and can not possibly be secure is dead on. I would take it one step further and say that the current system has not only the potential for abuse, it was designed for abuse, and has been used to alter the outcomes in elections for years now. This is part of the reason that the UN won't even certify our last election as accurate. There is simply no way to do it! However the answer you advise is no good. We can not go off the deep end and start calling for a return to hand ballots and hand counting. First off, it sounds crazy, and therefore the public will not go for it. Second off the population is too high to count that many votes. We are a much more populous nation than we were. That is why I offer up the system I have. Some of the system has been proffered before, and I am working on ideas to ensure the program stays intact during transmission to the voting booths, and shuts down if mucked with. Where I am stuck is, I am wondering who I take my ideas to to get them done. You can call me whatever you want. The fact is I am against the current system, and I want to help make it work. You don't like the fact that I have my degree, and that is ok. I deal with security, and I get the feeling you deal with the other side of things. Just because I believe that data should be secured does not mean I am a fascist. You should realize that in this world there are no absolutes. The media would like you to think that. You are either one of them or one of the bad people. The truth is most people are somewhere in the middle. I am done now. This discussion is getting nowhere, and is not productive at all. You seem to think I am one of the bad guys, when I am not. You are very paranoid. Perhaps you have need to be, You have nothing to fear from me, at least not on this subject, because we agree on the main issue, just not its solution. From what I gather of your messages, there are probably other issues where we would have bigger problems with each other, so let's not go there. So, to sum up: We both agree, the current system is horrible, and is ripe with problems. I believe it is probably being used to steal elections. You seem to want to return to a paper ballot system, completely hand counted, which you say would be 100% secure. I say that no system, including that one, is 100% secure. Hand counted ballot votes are corrupted ALL THE TIME. Due to the population, it is also unrealistic. I suggest a system that is computerized, produces a paper ballot that is verified by the voter, is scanned to check the computerized tabulation, and can be hand counted if needed for further validation. THAT is where we differ. That

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

1.) Look up Brad Friedman and the Automark. (In my opinion the automark was the best implementation of HAVA's requirement, but if it can't be programmed correctly by normal people it should be ditched.)

2.) You say you've been in the fight against the current voting machine for years. (I ask you for references and you repeatedly ignored this request.)

3.) you call me paranoid.
I ain't paranoid, I am pissed off. There's a big difference.

4.) as someone who grew up without calculators, computers, using paper and pencil, and not many people more exist in the United States since that time, I say your full of crap when you say that "Due to the population, it is also unrealistic."
You simply do not know what the fuck your talking about.

5.) you can keep pushing corrupt electronic vote tabulation devices, and I really don't give a fuck what system or hardware you use, I can still fuck it up in one second flat on election day -- if you allow me legally to fuck with it.

6.) your done now, because you are done now. Your TOASTED.

7.) If the shit doesn't get fixed. e.g. the removal of all electronic vote tabulation devices and the corruption is allowed to continue and another president is not elected by the people, you can bet your ass that all hell is going to break loose this time. (Personally, I've had enough of this shit, I know who the domestic terrorists are and it ain't fucking ME!)

8.) Don't tell me about the fucking media.
I PRODUCE FUCKING MEDIA!

9.) I don't give a fuck about your fucking education, I want to know WHO YOU ARE, and WHAT THE FUCK YOU HAVE DONE FOR ELECTIONS.

10.) Calling for hand counted paper ballots, (notice how you always fucking SKIP the CHAIN OF CUSTODY, AND PUBLIC OVERSIGHT!) is not going off the deep end! And yet STILL YOU FUCK UP BY SKIPPING, THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES I SAY.. (e.g. Chain of custody and public oversight.)

11.) You don't deal with security, you deal with psyop disinformation.

12.) If you offer up the system you have, then offer the motherfucker up, quit saying it and post a motherfucking URL. LIAR.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

Since you still refuse to publish a URL of your supposed YEARS of fighting the voting machine.

We'll start you off nice and slow this morning.

Your homework consists simply reading several articles. Then removing your foot from your mouth.

Hunt for the (backdoor)kill switch in microchips.

US reveals plans to hit back at cyber threats (note the part about CHIPS)

Investigating Machine Identification Code Technology in Color Laser Printers (if you can do this you can do anything)

The Hunt for the Kill Switch (This is the best of the articles in my opinion)

So your idea of "computerized tabulation" will work only if the public John Doe/ Jane Doe/ You/ Me/ Slashdot Readers/ "We The People" and anyone else is allowed to destructively reverse engineer every electronic voting machine component under an electron microscope looking for backdoor logic (Which is NOT allowed), and any network, hub, switch, vault, radio transmitter, Radio receiver, or memory device that might have been used in conjunction with the election (Again the public is NOT allowed to, not to mention it would be physically impossible and too costly at the expense of bringing down the entire communications infrastructure.), and monitor the whole spectrum 24/7 at all geographic locations during an election. (ain't going to happen) And monitor the power supply for rogue signals, or frequency or voltage anomalies.

So really what your saying is it's okay for someone to walk in on election day, reach into their pocket, activate their hidden transmitter, and flip the vote, by a plethora of methods.

And that's just the HARDWARE.

Shall we wait until you digest all that before we talk about the SOFTWARE and WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN FOUND?

hint #1
Top To Bottom Review

hint #2
Federal Vote-Counting Accuracy Mandate Is Ignored
Violations abound, but no federal action is taken

And again I remind you that 100% hand counts of ballots that have 100% chain of custody (even that is broken) with 100% public oversight (currently the public is denied access and ballots have been illegally destroyed) have never been compared to the 100% machine tabulation.

Furthermore your continued publicizing of the myth that "hand counted paper ballots are unrealistic due to population." Is just that. A MYTH!

If your ideas are so open source, show them right here right now. Quit saying you don't know where to take these ideas, I'm telling you right now.

Publish it! Publish it right here, right now.

Get a free frigging yahoo/geocities account, and publish it. Make a god damned blog and publish it. Rar the shit up and upload it to Rapidshare. Create an account at sourceforge and PUBLISH IT!

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

Almost forgot the FIRMWARE

Maybe we should shift gears and talk about the revolving door or corruption on election equipment manufactures and the elected officials that keep buying and using the crap.

Re:not surprising

[stanjam]

As I said, I am done here. I have given you the basics of my idea, ok? Even if you could count all the ballots, and perhaps you can, you are missing my point. PUBLIC PERCEPTION. You must convince the public that it is necessary to take such a drastic step away from technology. You won't be able to do that. I am trying to make a system that will be ACCEPTED by the public. And you keep missing the major points I talk about, ok? I don't care WHAT hardware hacks you claim to have. The machine is available for a brief time on an encrypted channel. If the program doesn't match the hash, it locks. There are very few resources running on these machines, and almost no access. You would either need to gain access during the downstream transmission, and figure out the encryption, or you would have to have physical access to the machine. Since the voters aren't even in contact with the machine (except for the touchscreen) there isn't much you can do. Even if you DID get in at that point, you won't have permission to do much of anything. Even if someone did violate the machines, it would become evident, because the VOTERS THEMSELVES validate their votes. If something funny is going on, a CSERT team would be dispatched, and a maual count conducted to validate teh score. Also there will be audit teams sent to various (potential) trouble areas. THey will test the machines, the hash's, to make sure everything is in order. So even if you COULD get in, the worst you could do is shut down a machine. I am also toying with the idea of this being a live boot program. I think this may add even more functionality. The machine will be completely blank, and the program and safeguards and OS are all on disc, while data is saved on a smart card (which is wiped when it it inserted for use ). That way, if you, or anyone else did get in and try to manipulate the vote, we would know more or less immediately because of the tripwires and multiple checks, and we could save the system with a quick reboot. Hmm, that would also reduce the need for downloads. We could just send a new cd to the election centers, and they could check the cd against a hash to make sure no one intercepted and changed it. That would eliminate the nees to network it to anything except its own system, thereby reducing greatly any "backdoor" threats. To use the back door, you first need some sort of access. You give me some good ideas for a hacker that knows terrorists.

Re:not surprising

[myspace-cn]

As I said, I am done here. I have given you the basics of my idea, ok?

No, you haven't given shit, you've said you have been working on some project for years, but don't know where to publish it, I gave you three places, a blog, sourceforge, and rapidshare (if your work is large) Yet, still you refuse. It gives the impression you are completely full of lies and shit.

Even if you could count all the ballots, and perhaps you can, you are missing my point. PUBLIC PERCEPTION. You must convince the public that it is necessary to take such a drastic step away from technology. You won't be able to do that.

Pure fascist propaganda. Mixed with brainwashed corporate fascist MYTH. You give the impression your selling e-vote equipment. The only reason the public hasn't gone completely ape shit is because the fascist media has a complete blackout on the topic.

I am trying to make a system that will be ACCEPTED by the public. And you keep missing the major points I talk about, ok?

No, you failed to prove HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, FIRMWARE, and NETWORKS are not all exploitable. While I have given you example after example of fuckups, failures, and outright election fraud. And suggested that hand counted paper ballots, with an unbroken chain of custody, and full public oversight, in the light of day is a much safer system.

I don't care WHAT hardware hacks you claim to have. The machine is available for a brief time on an encrypted channel. If the program doesn't match the hash, it locks. There are very few resources running on these machines, and almost no access. You would either need to gain
access during the downstream transmission, and figure out the encryption, or you would have to have physical access to the machine.

No, in this theoretical crappy system, I would simply DoS you. Fuck with your power, fuck with your encrypted channel. Jam your RF signal. The fucker shuts down and voting stops. Another way is with a paid mole insider. Nobody can be trusted when it comes to elections, that's why there MUST BE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.

Since the voters aren't even in contact with the machine (except for the touchscreen) there isn't much you can do.

Wrong, There is when there is hidden logic from a specially crafted chip, or software. There's many avenues of attack, the right combination of screen press's, fucking with the power supply, insider programming, poll worker/election official administration override, specially crafted memory devices and human error. All will fuck up the election, or put it in an unvalidatable state.

Even if you DID get in at that point, you won't have permission to do much of anything. Even if someone did violate the machines, it would become evident, because the VOTERS THEMSELVES validate their votes.

No, You don't need permission to transmit an infra-red signal, or cut power or press key combinations, even if evident it's questionable that it won't just be treated as a glitch, and a glitch is a failure.

If something funny is going on, a CSERT team would be dispatched, and a maual count conducted to validate teh score.

No, a CSERT team isn't public oversight. Grandma doesn't know what the fuck they are doing. And a CSERT team denies public access as well as shutting down the election. If that's the case, Grandma should call the cops and have the team arrested.

Also there will be audit teams sent to various (potential) trouble areas. THey will test the machines, the hash's, to make sure everything is in order. So even if you COULD get in, the worst you could do is shut down a machine.

And who provides public oversight and accountability of these (undescribed/undefined) "audit teams?" Grandma gonna tell em, get the fuck out when they start repl

Re:not surprising

[stanjam]

You are the on who said you knew who the domestic terrorists were, not me. Sorry if I hit a sore spot. I said I was trying to help a system. All you can do to combat it is come up with series of unlikely events, some of which would be impossible in this system. Insiders are a threat, but even more so in your system. In fact, that is the most likely method to throw an election of that type. Then there are a number of other ways, including voter impersonation, denying voting rights, change or addition of ballots by insiders. Using public oversight groups to overrun the chain and make it forensically unsound. Is my way fool proof? Nope. If I ever get it up and running don't worry, I will be offering a prize for the first person to change the outcome of a test election. I wouldn't want a bad machine to hit the public. At any rate, I am bored with this discussion. You seem to know a little bit about some of the things you talk about. Like I said, I don't have time to waste with hackers, we will just have to agree to disagree. We both want th current system gone, but you won't even recognize that point we both have. You are so determined to paint me as "fascist" and the enemy. You obviously have no CLUE who I am, or more importantly, who I WAS. Have a good life. WHen you go off on someone dude, make sure you go off on someone who deserves it.

The way things are happening, we might as well

[davidsyes]

have a "crawl forward against apathy system opacity" .... or, even "crawl forward for apathy system opacity"

Rush Holt's HR 811 Bill was CRAP what changed?

[myspace-cn]

The last time I checked on HR 811, it had gaping holes in it. So maybe the Slashdot submitter can tell us all what's changed? Or is the original submitter just doing a propaganda spin test bubble for the uninitiated?

Holes, that allowed electronic tabulation devices to manipulate votes in secret. Holes that prevent public oversight.

But, I've noticed on Slashdot, that everyone's so god damn pro OPEN SOURCE (which I like opensource don't get me wrong.), that they don't have their heads screwed on right when it comes to elections, and are too easily manipulated by suggestion of test bubble fascist propaganda.

Using electronic vote tabulation devices

--REGARDLESS OF THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM IS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK.

The HARDWARE can be SPECIALLY CRAFTED!

And as has already been SHOWN, THE SOFTWARE WAS MANIPULATED TO RIG ELECTIONS. (hit http://bradblog.com/ and http://blackboxvoting.org/ for you with the SHORT MEMORY SPAN)

And you word and punctuation nazi's...Don't talk to me about shouting in all caps, I typed it that way on purpose fucking READ IT! Start fucking listening! Even the USAF is worried about specially crafted chips (at the doping level.) We no longer have time to teach idiots about this shit we need to get rid of it by outlawing it. I fucking been shouting about this for several fucking years now, and watched the whole Constitution, Economy, and DEATHS because of these MOTHERFUCKING ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES. These manufactures of this shit are domestic terrorists by proxy!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Electronic vote tabulation devices do not belong in elections, it is an abusive use of technology. If you can't understand that then you are corrupt. Especially if you call yourself a technician, sysad, programmer, or hardware manufacture. The only possible way you would disagree is if you are a troll for the fascist corporations who have stolen our motherfucking right to vote!

Re:Rush Holt's HR 811 Bill was CRAP what changed?

[cdrguru]

OK, but with this sort of outlook we also need to line the TV news (network, cable, all of 'em) up against the wall and execute them. For treason. Why? Because they are well on their way to overthrowing the country.

What happened in in 2000 was pretty simple. Sure, you can focus on Florida and such but pause a moment and remember how the results where announced. CBS announced that Gore won. Not "looking good for Gore", not "perhaps Mr. Gore has won", it was just "the next president is Al Gore."

People went to bed knowing that Gore won. They got up the next morning and found out the election went a little differently. Many of these people haven't gotten over the idea that because of this the election was obviously stolen. After all, their trusted news people SAID GORE WON.

Paper ballots simply cannot be counted in time for the midnight deadline for the news folks to announce the winner. They have to announce by then or their entire election coverate is pointless and nobody will watch. If nobody watches, they lose millions (or tens of millions or hundreds of millions) of dollars in ad revenue. This will not happen. Therefore, they will clearly announce a winner in order to remain relevent.

They might get lucky. After all, there is a 50/50 chance of them being right. With today's split of voters, I don't see it being much closer than that unless the results are really in. Otherwise the results announced will be based on exit polls and other information like surveys. Accurate? Probably not. But the ad revenue will remain.

If the 2008 election is announced incorrectly (again), my guess is we will see an uprising like hasn't been seen since 1917.

Re:Rush Holt's HR 811 Bill was CRAP what changed?

[myspace-cn]

Absolutely agreed.
You get it 100%
Blood on their hands.

Meanwhile, Hit your local fascist tv station's public file with your comments. (Make an appointment if you need to.)

Protest at the NETWORK STATION. Not at the Whitehouse.

Write the FCC and complain.

Support Greg Palast's effort.

Support Public Access TV.

Produce your own show.

Defend the NET against data caps, port locks, packet manipulation, censorship, bad TOS/AUP's, TOR, and crappy ISP's that dump newsgroups.
(This is definitely the next target!)

Sorry guys...

[iamacat]

But I don't see a problem with a disabled voter getting assistance to do an infrequent task like voting rather than having a special purpose automated machine for that purpose. You can choose a volunteer from any organization of your choice for assistance, making the possibility that your vote will be tampered with or inappropriately disclosed rather remote. Lets spend those tax millions on optic nerve regeneration research rather than a machine that a blind person might use twice a year.

Online voting

[johndmartiniii]

If this is the road we are trudging down, we might as well just add online voting to complicate things. Then maybe the need for security through transparency will be more apparent.

Re:Step #1: Organize Observers....

[Khisanth Magus]

You mean like dead people voting, which is already happening?

"Bipartisan"

[Anonymous Coward]

As Grover Norquist said, "Bipartisan" is just another word for date rape. And him and other conservative extremists are in a position to know that for a fact, since they are the ones making it so.

Conservatives in government is the problem. Vote em all out!

Re:Step #1: Organize Observers....

[dougisfunny]

I assume the dead people, are registered regardless of their status of mortality. So say a town had 3000 live people registered, 2000 dead people, and they came back with 15000 votes. That's what I meant.