Judge Suppresses Report On Voting Systems

Irvu writes "A New Jersey Superior Court Judge has prohibited the release of an analysis conducted on the Sequoia AVC Advantage voting system. This report arose out of a lawsuit challenging on constitutional grounds the use of these systems. The study was conducted by Andrew Appel on behalf of the plaintiffs, after the judge in the case ordered the company to permit it. That same judge has now withheld it indefinitely from the public record on a verbal order."

Comments

Wikileaks?

[wraithguard01]

Hmm... This looks like a job for wikileaks. Couldn't be too hard to find. Has it been posted at all? If so, could a quick google archive search prove useful? I would be very interested to see the results of this study, and would be even more interested to know this judge's reasoning behind withholding it.

Re:Wikileaks?

[mdmkolbe]

The restraining order is temporary until arguments can be heard. If we weren't so close to the election a better strategy would be to wait and argue it in court. No need to make the judge angry or risk a contempt of court charge by leaking it.

With it so close to the election though, those arguments may not be heard soon enough. (OTOH, it may already be to close for the report to make any difference anyway.)

Re:Wikileaks?

[RAMMS EIN]

I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that the consideration here shouldn't be "what do we do about these issues, given the date of the election?" but "what do we do with the date of the election, given these issues?"

Re:Wikileaks?

[MoldySpore]

Reasoning behind withholding it? Have any government or judiciary authority needed a reason to withhold information lately? I wouldn't be surprised if we never find out. If Wikileaks can get it, I'd be very surprised. I'd love to know what that report says, but if it wasn't bad I highly doubt they would be withholding it from the general public.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... given that this report has extremely limited distribution (the 6 people who worked on it, plus the judge and the two attorneys), if it suddenly showed up on wikileaks... well, I'll let you figure out what would happen next to Mr Appel and the court case.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Geoffrey.landis]

Wraithguard01 wrote:

Hmm... This looks like a job for wikileaks. Couldn't be too hard to find. Has it been posted at all? If so, could a quick google archive search prove useful? I would be very interested to see the results of this study, and would be even more interested to know this judge's reasoning behind withholding it.

Violating the court order and posting the report to Wikileaks might soun good, but would be very counterproductive in the end.

First. it is very likely that the order may be lifted after arguments are heard. Violating a direct court order is going to extremely annoy the judge; judges do not take well to people disobeying direct court orders. The correct way to deal with it is to contest the order, and argue it out.

Second, Appel has been given access to the source code. The only way he was given this access was by the court having guaranteed to the vendor that they would not release trade secrets to the public. If Appel demonstrates that he does not consider himself bound by the court orders, do you think that he will ever be given the chance to examine source code, from any vendor, ever again? Do you think that anybody will ever be given the opportunity to examine source code? Consider the following conversation sometime in the future

"Your honor, you tell me that if we give the plaintiffs access to the source code of our voting machines, it will remain sealed under court order. However, in the case 'New Jersey versus Sequoia AVC' the court gave the vendor exactly that guarantee, but the plaintiffs recklessly disobeyed the court order. Why should you believe their promises, when they have demonstrated that they do not consider bound by promises they make in a court of law?"

The correct answer is, argue it out. Don't piss the judge off. Make it clear that the good guys are the ones who obey the rule of law, and the bad guys are the ones who are contemptuous of it.

Re:Wikileaks?

[cHiphead]

Easy, you throw out the voting machines and manually tabulate votes, its real fucking easy, you have a written/typed ballot, the poll monitor records the vote on a running vote list as the votes are handed in, then the votes are hand counted later that evening, totals on the poll working tabulation are compared to hand count totals, recounts conducted as necessary.

All handcounts are done under public video surveillance from multiple angles done by multiple sources (eg. web based camera, cspan camera, government run camera, 2 LOCAL news station cameras, and 2 national news station cameras.)

Hows that sound? (Yeah, theres a few more details and possible steps to shore up security of the votes, but its just a first outline)

Cheers.

Re:Wikileaks?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that the consideration here shouldn't be "what do we do about these issues, given the date of the election?" but "what do we do with the date of the election, given these issues?"

I've somewhere read a quote, "For a tyrant, any excuse is sufficient." Do we really want to give elected officials any plausible excuse for delaying elections? Delaying elections is a favorite tactic of autocrats that want to stay in power while pretending to support democracy.

Re:Wikileaks?

[kadehje]

what do we do with the date of the election, given these issues?

It's better to have a flawed election rather than none at all. There are mechanisms already in place where a candidate take court action to have an election voided if evidence is presented indicating that malfunctioning equipment and/or fraud significantly altered the results. If a judge voids an election, he or she will order a new one and perhaps specify conditions to better assure a clean revote. Such conditions can involve exclusion of questionable equipment or mandate tried-and-true voting techniques.

Postponing an election for any reason with the possible exception of a weather emergency opens the door to new abuses. Would you want the presidential election delayed because a shipment of paper ballots some small town got lost or ruined, considering how easy it would be to intentionally cause such a situation, and that there's no way to guarantee that the election couldn't be delayed again at the new date?

Re:Wikileaks?

[Zcar]

Maybe so, but a New Jersey judge has no authority to do so. Article I Section 4 and Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution give ultimate authority over the time of elections to Congress. The Congressional and Presidential elections must occur the Tuesday after the first Monday in November according to 2 USC 1, 2 USC 7 and 3 USC 1 (3 USC 2 seems to give a little wriggle room, but only for Electors).

Re:Wikileaks?

[Tubal-Cain]

I doubt we want the election date to be movable. Would we want a President that can keep forestalling an election that would get him out of office?

Re:Wikileaks?

[try_anything]

Limiting the release of information from a court case can be appropriate. According to Appel, the judge suppressed the report after Sequoia "grossly mischaracterized" the report, which I bet means they claimed it gratuitously revealed trade secrets. If lawsuits could be used to fish for information about trade secrets, that would be very bad news for small companies trying to compete with rich ones like Microsoft and IBM.

Hopefully the judge only suppressed the report to give herself time to examine the merit of Sequoia's claim. (Also, hopefully she rejects their claim and releases the report quickly enough to make a difference in this election.)

Re:Wikileaks?

[0xABADC0DA]

All handcounts are done under public video surveillance from multiple angles done by multiple sources (eg. web based camera, cspan camera, government run camera, 2 LOCAL news station cameras, and 2 national news station cameras.)

What you are talking about is a centrally tallied vote. That's totally unnecessary and inefficient, and opens the door for fraud as the votes are moved.

Hand counts should be done independently at each polling location. Anybody that voted at that location can stay around to monitor the count in person. The total vote is then printed later by the state with breakdown of each polling location's total. Totally foolproof counting... everybody can verify their own location, everybody knows that the other locations are correct because there are people in those locations verifying the totals.

You COULD have a cctv of the count if a lot of people show up to watch, but that's not likely.

Re:Wikileaks?

[RAMMS EIN]

Butbutbut...we want to use technology to make simple things complicated!!

Re:Wikileaks?

[kharchenko]

>If Appel demonstrates that he does not consider himself bound by the court orders, do you think that he will ever be given the chance to examine source code, from any vendor, ever again? Do you think that anybody will ever be given the opportunity to examine source code?

The whole question should be irrelevant - you should not be able to run something as vital as election using a piece of proprietary software. If they don't want to show the code - they should have no chance at getting the contract in a first place. But thanks to narrow-minded (at best) choices made by politicians we are now in a position where we have to choose between due process and fair election. Disgraceful!

Re:Wikileaks?

[cHiphead]

Not quite, the votes ARE tallied onsite, and tallied AGAIN centrally. Security of ballots should be handled by State Police and under the observation of a state judge. GPS tracking of state police trucks picking up and transferring ballots, along with physical, live video broadcasts would cover that. Its a bit excessive but it could work.

Theres only so much one can do to protect the vote, the logistics of poll site based final ballot tallying and recounts are a real pita to manage. Nothing is going to be fullproof.

Cheers.

Re:Wikileaks?

[michrech]

HUSH, you! We have kids to feed and a mortgage/car payment to pay!

--
Sequoia Voting Systems

Butbutbut...we want to use technology to make simple things complicated!!

Re:Wikileaks?

[fugue]

The fact that it's so close to an election is due to massive incompetence by the government in not doing comprehensive studies sooner. It's not as if there hasn't been plenty of evidence that such a study needed to be done since 2000 or so. I'm frankly a bit surprised that Bush hasn't publicised this and declared a national emergency in order to address it, suspending the elections for a couple of years.

If this study provides evidence that the election could easily be a sham, what exactly is the point of having the election?

Re:Wikileaks?

[Foobar of Borg]

Maybe so, but a New Jersey judge has no authority to do so. Article I Section 4 and Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution give ultimate authority over the time of elections to Congress. The Congressional and Presidential elections must occur the Tuesday after the first Monday in November according to 2 USC 1, 2 USC 7 and 3 USC 1 (3 USC 2 seems to give a little wriggle room, but only for Electors).

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" - George W. Bush

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

and what of the men and women that wrote the doc in the first place?

Re:Wikileaks?

[Windows_NT]

no, you have a piece of paper thats has "Obama" on one side and "McCain" on the other, and some old lady watches to make sure oyu only put one tally, and after four tallies you put a line through to show five, and do this in groups so its easy to count. If she cant count past 5, tell her to take her shoes off and use her toes.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Geoffrey.landis]

The whole question should be irrelevant - you should not be able to run something as vital as election using a piece of proprietary software. If they don't want to show the code - they should have no chance at getting the contract in a first place. But thanks to narrow-minded (at best) choices made by politicians we are now in a position where we have to choose between due process and fair election. Disgraceful!

Yes, I agree with that completely. Source code for vote counting should be available for any citizen to inspect, at any time, for any reason, without a court order.

Addition is not a trade secret.

However, given that we don't live in a world where the source code can be inspected without a court order, having an expert witness violate an explicit court order would, almost certainly, result in a world where the source code wouldn't be available for inspection even with a court order.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I feel they could delay it as long as they wish, as long as we are all able to get our votes in and counted in enough time for them to GTFO of office by 1/20/2009 so the new critters can enter.

Re:Wikileaks?

[afabbro]

All handcounts are done under public video surveillance from multiple angles done by multiple sources (eg. web based camera, cspan camera, government run camera, 2 LOCAL news station cameras, and 2 national news station cameras.)

7 cameras per precinct * number of precincts in the nation (1,000?) + camera operators, storage, access rules, someone to manage the archies...are you offering to pay for this?

Re:Wikileaks?

[uncqual]

Opening up ballot boxes and handling the individual ballots at the polling places seems unwise. In many parts of the U.S., it's very difficult to get poll workers at all -- and, based on my observations, getting pre-senility poll workers seems to be even more difficult.

Polling locations are very diverse - people's garages, community rooms at apartment/condo complexes, schools etc. These locations lack amenities such as backup power sources. If the power fails (as it is certain to do at some percentage of the polling places due to a building level "problem" or a legitimate local area power outage) while the ballot box is open and ballots are being counted, the conspiracy theorists will claim that the power outage was intentional and that in the ensuing confusion, the ballots were tampered with. It's unreasonable to expect that poorly trained poll workers would be able to implement procedures (and technology) to prevent such confusion and doubt.

As well, in our contentious partisan environment, distributing resolution of the challenge process among poorly trained, even if well intentioned, poll workers and (possibly ill-intentioned) watchers is prone to confusion. Every neighborhood seems to have at least one nut and, in some places, this nut will go down to the polling place at counting time and challenge every ballot - these nuts are much easier to deal with at a central location when higher level election officials can deal with the problem (and, these nuts are less likely to misbehave at a central location where they are more outnumbered by rational people).

Tallying preliminary counts by machine scanning as ballots are fed into a box would be fine to help satisfy the "need to know 10 minutes after the polls close" crowd, but the official counts should be done on centrally located (and maintained/calibrated/monitored) machines or, if necessary, by central hand counting.

Re:Wikileaks?

[LordHaart]

While a technological voting system is indeed requisite in this day and age, once can't help but wonder about the possibility of errors, especially given how close some elections have been. As such, it would appear that there are two possible answers: (i) A secondary voting system which can be used as a rough measurement of how accurate the electronic system is. (ii) Rather than requiring a simple majority vote, if the election results are within, say, 5% of each other, then a manual vote can be called. In Australia, voting is compulsory (though it's simple to cast an invalid vote should you wish to abstain). It's also done completely by hand, everyone writes their votes on paper. Of course, Australia has under 10% of the population of the USA, but it does mean that it's possible, if expensive. Our candidates are also generally so similar that noone _really_ cares who gets in, anyway. :P (aside from said candidates).

Re:Wikileaks?

[0xABADC0DA]

Not quite, the votes ARE tallied onsite, and tallied AGAIN centrally.

The central tally is irrelevant. It can be done by a 3rd grader as long as the per-location totals are published.

Nothing is going to be fullproof.

Quite a different statement from 'nothing can be foolproof'. We can have foolproof counting in our elections, with negligible cost, if we want it.

Re:Wikileaks?

[TehZorroness]

It's not like these companies have anything to loose from showing the code either if they are selling HARDWARE. This software shouldn't be much more then ++candidateVotes[i]; can it? Bullshit is among us.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess we know now that that system is absolutely fraud penetrated trash and that the jedge is bought and paid for lackey. Why else would he do this just before maybe an election where this junk could be a factor. And, oh yeah, after the election in which the crrooks win, the ballots in 'storage' are 'just gone' and no one knows where!

Re:Wikileaks?

[zippthorne]

And.. How would releasing the report at any time between now and the election have a positive effect on the election?

It's only a month away, you know. There isn't enough time (aparantly) to print up new ballots and set up a whole new system. Even if you go with the obvious fallback: 100% "absentee" ballots, now you've gotta train a whole lot more volunteers in the new system. And you'll have less than a month to do it.

This case should've been started early enough to conclude in enough time to actually do something. The only favorable outcome *now* is that suit be meritless, and found thusly. Anything else, and disenfranchisement is all but guaranteed.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom line, the "establishment" is there to serve the people. It does not serve them by with holding information that they think the American people are not able to handle. It is not up to them to make that decision. it is the American people's decision what to do with the information they are given. Unfortunately they are not routinely given misleading and corrupted information, and distracted by the big media circus so they have no idea - most of them - what is actually going on, and what the actual consequences of things are. NO DOUBT the judge is with holding this information on dubious grounds and for unconstitutional reasons. There is so much manipulation of the system and interpretation of a very straight forward constitution that it is just being corrupted beyond belief. Hence murders occur in foreign nations for wars that were unnecessary, counterproductive and should never have been started. The voting machines are clearly a scam. Clearly.

Has anyone else seen that video from cspan on youtube where one of the designers admits that he was instructed - and carried out that instruction - to insert code into the machines that would allow voting tampering. He was testifying under oath before the supreme court I think.

How else could bush get in. The man is a monkey.

Ask ANY architect, any structural engineer, if the twin towers were brought down by planes, burning kerosine, or demolition explosives just merely from a first sign of the video footage we all saw, and they will tell you it could not have been planes, and that the official explanation, just like the Kennedy assassination - where if you actually READ the official report it deems that bullets can turn corners - and as the writer of that report said later "It doesn't matter - Americans don't read" - the 911 report on file is an official white wash, that has led America to war ONCE AGAIN.

700 bases around the world, 40 billion a day spent on building bases in Iraq, a us embassy in Iraq bigger than the vatican, and they say they want a strategic withdrawal. What a LIE. They don't plan to EVER leave. And the Iraqi people? IN THE WAY!! they just want the oil, and the base of operations in that area of the world. America should stick to being America and setting the good example it once did instead of being a war mongering, murderous fascist dictatorship of elitists that is became around the 1900's, and has gone down hill from there.

This financial crisis, in the USA and also in Britain now, is engineered by the Rockefellers and the Bank of England that in effect loans all the money in circulation to the united states. The civil war is not and was not ever over. It is still going but it is not Britain that is the enemy it is the bankers all along, and I'm not talking about Jews. Why else were the Rothchilds recently publicly advising the government in the UK about the financial crisis and how they need to bail people out there as well.

What nonsense. All of this is to devalue and print money and create credit out of thin air for money they DO NOT HAVE IN THEIR BANKS TO BORROW TO ANYONE - yet the corrupt governments have given them this almighty power so that they may charge us interest and loan us not even air, not even paper, but digits on a computer. Emptiness, nothingness, just the thought of a value is attached. They are given this right not because God has done it but because of corruption.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

a) If you expect the power to fail... as an observer, bring a flashlight.

b) you don't 'deal with' crazy nuts at a central location, they just keep them away from the counting and don't let them monitor the ballot boxes 24/7 -- just like they do for 'normal' people now. If a nut makes trouble at a poll then they get arrested and aren't back next year; problem solved.

c) if a person can't monitor the ballot boxes 24/7 until counted then there is NO GUARANTEE that they haven't been tampered with before counting.

Trivial problems like power are insignificant compared to the problems of monitoring the ballot boxes 24/7 in multiple locations until fully counted.

Re:Wikileaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry $40 million a day spent building bases in iraq not $40 Billion.

this does not look good for the judge.

[DragonTHC]

With things the way they are right now, this judge should think again.

We already know that e-voting systems suffer from ridiculous flaws that were in-built.

This report might show that. The judge is seriously playing for the wrong team here.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. A 1 man "expert witness" review of source code? Determining (in large part) the legal validity of one such machine responsible for elections? Right.

Maybe in error, the Judge finally recognized the need for better "expert" peer review. More, in fact. Who knows. Otherwise, more litigation follows, and lingers in future limbo in appellate courts anyways. Either way, one simple solution. When the electorate become inconvenienced by punching a paper or pulling a lever in favor of automation, maybe we should fast track the barcode on the forehead or hand first, to alleviate the "cumbersome" financial walk down the grocery store checkout aisle.

Some things shouldn't be rushed; the American diet, government financial bailout legislation, love making, and slashdot posts.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

The report does not say he's not allowing the findings to be used in the court room, he's just making sure the findings are not public record.

It's likely clear that not only a fault was identified, but a relatively easy to exploit one, and in the light of the short time between now and the election, he's basically got to place a gag order to avoid any potential for abuse of the voting systems 4 weeks from now.

He's playing on the right team here. It's far too late to fix it, we have to ride this election through. Preventing this information from getting out, while allowing the court case to continue, is in everone's best interests. He can release the information after NJ has successfully replaced the machines, after the court case is over, after the fine is issued and they have time to fix it.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Spy der Mann]

It's likely clear that not only a fault was identified, but a relatively easy to exploit one, and in the light of the short time between now and the election, he's basically got to place a gag order to avoid any potential for abuse of the voting systems 4 weeks from now.

Oh noes! The emperor has no clothes! :-/

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[MadKeithV]

That's great logic... Limit the exploitation of the fault to the people that put the fault there in the first place, but lets not let the other team know about it!
If this information comes out after the election and it does turn out there was a really simple-to-exploit flaw, it should void the results of all these machines.
I'm not holding my breath for that though (and why would I, it's none of *my* business, I'm not an American citizen.)

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Mr. Slippery]

He's playing on the right team here. It's far too late to fix it, we have to ride this election through.

Nonsense. It's far to important to "ride it through". Decertify the machines, print a bunch of paper ballots, and hire a bunch of people to count them. Expensive? Yes. Worth it? If accurate elections aren't worth spending government money on, nothing is.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

It would void the results only if we know the explotation occured, which is a certainty if we release, and only a chance if we don't.

The "other side" aka the authorities responsible for certifying the election, are not the public, and DO have access to this data. ALL parties involved in the case will have these results, just not joe public, who has not reason to have it.

The judge is only keeping it from public record, not from court documents and proceedings. You clearly didn't read the ruing... This is NOT preventing the suit from continuing, and will not be saving the company from potential fines if they did in fact fail to deliver as contracted by NJ.

The results of this election will be highly scrutinized. Any dramatic deviation from pre-election polling, or from the norm established by other voting districts that use validatable outpus, will be spotted. Further, once the results are in, it should be possible to inspect the machines for tampering now that we know the ways it could be done, and since this case is STILL IN PROCESS, technically the election results in NJ could be added as evidence in this existing case, using it as the avenue to validat the results by experts instead of by the election comittee. This is actually the best possible scenario as it prevents other courts from getting involved in deciding wether ot not to recount.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[jean-guy69]

1 man "expert witness" review of source code ?

If you cared to read the article, you would have learn that Andrew appel led an examination team including himself and 5 other computer scientists (Maia Ginsburg, Harri Hursti, Brian Kernighan, Chris Richards, and Gang Tan).

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

OK, so where do you plan to get enough money to 1) print all the ballots, on machines we don;t have to print them on, and get them to all the polling centers. Then, we'd have to manually recount all those ballots, twice.

Much easier if we know the machines faults, can take the elction on existing equipment, then cross check the machine's security and only invalidate the specific polling locations effected and revote at those locations (and even then only if it would actually have an election impact)

If we find 5% of the machines are effected by tampering after the election, but based on the number of votes effected, the winning candidate had a greater margin the the value of the error, then a revote is pointless and simply wastes taxpeyer money.

If we mind massive tampering, then we have a major national issue, and the federal government has to get involved (finally) in the voting machine issue, which to this point has been strictly a state matter.

It;s WAY to late. Even if we had the equipment and special papers ready to go, printing and distributing 20 million blank ballots, incliding specializations for each individual voting district, different names and parties on each individual ballot for the different seats in different counties, and each individual refferendum... no, even if we started 30 days ago it still likely would not have happened in time. Besides, there's not enough certified election officials to handle it, and we could not get enough volunteers in time trained and ready to handle the counting.

The costs would be massive, and in the end, since the potential for hacking the machines exists, but since no citizens have actually ever had access to one, the likelyhood of someone knowing how, and having access to a machine at voting time to actually hack is is extremely slim.

These machines are not centrally networked, so to have en effect on even 5% of the election total, someone would have to hacke dozens of machines each at hundreds of polling sites. That would take THOUSANDS OF HACKERS, and something most people tend to forget. The effort to tamper with these machines on a massive scale would take the actions of one of the largest organized terrorist groups ever operating, and all that without us even having a hint as to it;s existance, and a group that would need inside information on how to hack the machines...

The rist is really so small it;s meaningless. We can easily validate the machine operation after the results are in and decertify it later at 1/1000th the cost and eleimante the tiny risk that does exist.

Paper ballots are easy to screw up, easy to miss count, easy to have logistics issues with (wrong countie's ballots get distributed, now noone there can vote, etc). The older voting systems are gone, they can't be re-used.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Alwin Henseler]

Right, that would be 6 experts, and btw: none of the other names ring a bell for me, but is that Brian Kernighan of Awk/C/Unix fame?

Also from the GP:

Maybe in error, the Judge finally recognized the need for better "expert" peer review.

Maybe I missed it, but where in the article does it say the judge wants more, or better review? All I'm reading is the judge stopped release of this report. Even if it weren't a solid review, sometimes a little info is better than no info at all.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rtfa moron, both sides have access, just not the public.

I'm glad you're not an american citizen, we have too many know it all reactionary ignoramuses like you already.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[whoever57]

It's likely clear that not only a fault was identified, but a relatively easy to exploit one, and in the light of the short time between now and the election, he's basically got to place a gag order to avoid any potential for abuse of the voting systems 4 weeks from now.

An unfortunate situation that we are in now - in no small part because the majority of election officials have been playing the three wise monkeys over issues with voting systems.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[pilgrim23]

I have a simple question: In that state, are Judges elected and, was it conducted via E-Vote?

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Zordak]

Yeah, but can we trust a review by a bunch of nobodies? I mean, it's not like they had a Brian Kernighan on the team ... oh, wait.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Hatta]

We can easily validate the machine operation after the results are in and decertify it later at 1/1000th the cost and eleimante the tiny risk that does exist.

How? The entire point of this lawsuit is that the results of these machines are impossible to verify.

None of those DREs can be audited: they do not produce a voter verified paper ballot that permit each voter to create a durable paper record of her electoral choices before casting her ballot electronically on a DRE. The legal basis for the lawsuit is quite simple: because there is no way to know whether the DRE voting computer is actually counting votes as cast, there is no proof that the voting computers comply with the constitution or with statutory law that require that all votes be counted as cast.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Mr. Slippery]

OK, so where do you plan to get enough money

Same way governments get money for anything else: taxes.

I know those on the far right like to believe that somehow if we keep cutting taxes we'll raise government revenue - sort of like how internet bubble entrepreneurs would lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume. But it doesn't work that way.

Now, later, maybe some of that expense can be made up with lawsuits against the companies that provided the defective voting machines. And maybe money will have to be moved out of other expenditures to balance the books. But right now, in the next month New Jersey must take on this expense of replacing those defective machines; hand-counted paper ballots are the cheapest way to do so.

The Constitution guarantees each state a republican (small-r!) form of government; accurate balloting is a necessary precondition for that. If necessary, then, the federal government must provide emergency funding (probably in the form of a loan).

Reliable voting is not an option, it is a necessity. The money can be raised.

to 1) print all the ballots, on machines we don;t have to print them on

What, the state government doesn't have fscking laser printers? Or couldn't get a rush order done at a commercial printer? C'mon.

and get them to all the polling centers.

What, the state government doesn't have fscking cars and trucks? Or couldn't get FedEx to do the deliveries? C'mon.

Then, we'd have to manually recount all those ballots, twice.

So? Canada does it; if a nation of 33 million can do it, a state of 8 1/2 million can too.

Of course, all this is what what happen in a sane and democratic society. In our crazy corporate plutocracy, I expect that New Jersey will somehow end up giving more money to the vendors and will go ahead and conduct a meaningless, unreliable election.

Much easier if we know the machines faults, can take the elction on existing equipment, then cross check the machine's security

Cross-check them against what? If we had verifiable receipts to validate the machines against, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Besides, there's not enough certified election officials to handle it, and we could not get enough volunteers in time trained and ready to handle the counting.

Nonsense. Counting ballots hardly requires extensive training. Hire a bunch of teenagers at a bit above minimum wage. Or, does NJ have a "volunteer" hour requirement for high school students? I'm opposed to them, but if it's in place, this would be a great opportunity for the kids to burn that off.

These machines are not centrally networked, so to have en effect on even 5% of the election total, someone would have to hacke dozens of machines each at hundreds of polling sites.

The problem is not, or at least not just, "hackers" messing with these machines. The problem is that they are broken when they leave the factory, as New Jersey's past experience with them shows.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[pipatron]

it's none of *my* business, I'm not an American citizen.

You will have to suffer the consequences of a maniac in the white house though...

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[hesaigo999ca]

Of course he is, his own team, which profits from the makers who somehow filtered some money his way, and make all of this hush hush till after the elections where oh behold, we were not using good machines, we'll know for next time, now I guess we are stuck with the president as is for now till next time.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[praxis]

The costs would be massive, and in the end, since the potential for hacking the machines exists, but since no citizens have actually ever had access to one, the likelyhood of someone knowing how, and having access to a machine at voting time to actually hack is is extremely slim.

1) Citizens have had access to *all* the machines at some point in their life: those who were part of their creation process.
2) If the report is correct, the likely-hood of someone knowing how to tamper with the machine is 1.

As Mr. Slippery said "If accurate elections aren't worth spending government money on, nothing is." I agree with that. We can then use this major cost as an argument that proprietary voting machines are too costly and perhaps enact some regulation that voting machines must be verifiable. I think we should do that for the sake of democracy, but not everyone will buy that argument. They might buy a "this cost us X millions of dollars to validate because it was proprietary" argument.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This is security through obscurity, which doesn't work on any timescale. If there is an exploit in the machines and no way to fix them in time for the elections, then they need to go with the back-up plan: Paper, people, and a lot of bandages for all those papercuts.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[sketerpot]

The USA is such a big power in the world that our elections affect everyone. We at least ought to give Canada some electoral votes.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[kosty]

Wonderful. We can't disclose any information to the public -- which may well / should become very pissed off or at least aware -- due to the "ongoing investigation" [= court case in this context]. And, of course, after the election what good is a win in this case? The effects will likely be similar to what we've gotten over the last few years: very similar to Antonin Scalia saying: "Get over it. It's so old by now."

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4041229n

Then, fat Tony lies claiming the decision wasn't even close; that it was seven to two??? C'mon ya' partisan prick...

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He's on the wrong side. There are exploits. People know them. You'll see them in November. Therefore they should be taken out of service and paper ballots should be used. Perhaps the company should be punished by the contract holder for making a crappy product.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

The information is only witheld pending this one election. Who's to say the judge won;t make it public as soon as it's over, forcing these machines to be replaced before next november...

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

The machines WILL have evidence of penetration. We may not be able to audit a paper trail of the votes, but we can certainly confirm if the machine's code or vote tally has been altered, which is enough to decertify the election results from that machine.

We also have exit polling, and regional metrics to validate against, combines with other machines in the same polling location. Based on how these machines ARE verified, since each one is individual and not centrally connected to another computer, each individual machine in a precinct would have to be altered, requiring dozens of hackers just to effect a single precinct, and even if they did, if that vote mismatched from the exit poll or nearby polling centers by even 3 or 4%, we'd be investigating the machines and the staff. We'd need to swing the entire state by 11% to change the current preducted outcome, meaining this would have to happen in HUNDREDS of polling centers.

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

OK, so where do you plan to get enough money

Same way governments get money for anything else: taxes.

I know those on the far right like to believe that somehow if we keep cutting taxes we'll raise government revenue - sort of like how internet bubble entrepreneurs would lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume. But it doesn't work that way.

Now, later, maybe some of that expense can be made up with lawsuits against the companies that provided the defective voting machines. And maybe money will have to be moved out of other expenditures to balance the books. But right now, in the next month New Jersey must take on this expense of replacing those defective machines; hand-counted paper ballots are the cheapest way to do so.

The Constitution guarantees each state a republican (small-r!) form of government; accurate balloting is a necessary precondition for that. If necessary, then, the federal government must provide emergency funding (probably in the form of a loan).

Reliable voting is not an option, it is a necessity. The money can be raised.

to 1) print all the ballots, on machines we don;t have to print them on

What, the state government doesn't have fscking laser printers? Or couldn't get a rush order done at a commercial printer? C'mon.

and get them to all the polling centers.

What, the state government doesn't have fscking cars and trucks? Or couldn't get FedEx to do the deliveries? C'mon.

Then, we'd have to manually recount all those ballots, twice.

So? Canada does it; if a nation of 33 million can do it, a state of 8 1/2 million can too.

Of course, all this is what what happen in a sane and democratic society. In our crazy corporate plutocracy, I expect that New Jersey will somehow end up giving more money to the vendors and will go ahead and conduct a meaningless, unreliable election.

Much easier if we know the machines faults, can take the elction on existing equipment, then cross check the machine's security

Cross-check them against what? If we had verifiable receipts to validate the machines against, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Besides, there's not enough certified election officials to handle it, and we could not get enough volunteers in time trained and ready to handle the counting.

Nonsense. Counting ballots hardly requires extensive training. Hire a bunch of teenagers at a bit above minimum wage. Or, does NJ have a "volunteer" hour requirement for high school students? I'm opposed to them, but if it's in place, this would be a great opportunity for the kids to burn that off.

These machines are not centrally networked, so to have en effect on even 5% of the election total, someone would have to hacke dozens of machines each at hundreds of polling sites.

The problem is not, or at least not just, "hackers" messing with these machines. The problem is that they are broken when they leave the factory, as New Jersey's past experience with them shows.

The money can not be raised. You do not understand not only the costs, but the logistics involved. You also don;t understand taxes. They have to HAVE the money to spend it. We can pass a bill to collect this money and spend it later, but if it's not in the budget, they can't do it. Not in NJ anyway. They'd need to get approved for disaster releif, for which elections do not qualify.

Ballots require not only special printers to provide authenticity certifications (lest you think paper is more secure than a computer,

Re:this does not look good for the judge.

[Sandbags]

I completely agree these machines are crap. I completely agree that there needs to be verifyable, per vote, printed responses, including re-reading an entire election electronically, giving each person a receipt they can take home validating their vote, and on screen plus printed verification of voting.

In this case however, we do not currently have that.

Accuracy in a vote is not disputable, but "accuracy" is not defined as each individual vote must be perfect. It;s described as the accuracy of the system must be finer than the margin of error in the system.

Do you know they don;t actually count write-in ballots? When you register an absentee vote, your vote is ONLY counted if the election results are "possibly" adjusted by doing so. Lets say the vote is within 1000 votes, and the ratio of 49% to 51%. If there are 4,000 write-in ballots, they WON'T count them. Statistically, 3000 or the 4000 would have to have voted for the other side. This is so unlikely in a 49/51 split, that even the politicians agree it;s not worth the money to count.

We don;t have to verify each vote, we only have to verify enough votes to show there is no reasonable statistical probability of the other party being the victor. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the statistical prediction. This has been gone over in courts, with those votes being mandated to be counted, and each time they wasted states money to actually count, guess what, the estimates were right, and the absentee vote was no impact, not even a slight one.

Yea, I'd love for every single vote to count, sure. Do I wish to spend a few dozen million dollars ensuring the accuracy of my elections switches from 0.05% to 0.01%? no. Waste of time and taxpayer money, especially when a "close" election is 1%...

These machines may be at risk to tampering, but they have to be tampered one at a time, and over 10,000 machines are in use. To sway just 1%, and to do so in such a way as it;s subtle, an noone suspects and anaylizes the machines (you can't have a machine vote 100% for one guy, if it's off from the exit polls by 5% or more, the'll be an investigation), more than 5% of the machines would likely have to be hacked. Since that means we need 500 hackers, since a single person only gets to touch 1 machine (1 vote, 1 machine). Each of those 500 people would be part of the largest ever terorist action, and how likely is it just one of those 500 would talk?

It;'s much more likely tampering will happen by actual election officials. I don;t care what kind of system you use (especially paper ballots), there's room for tampering. We do not yet have a polling system that is truly secure. Even with the best measures, and double paper verified trails, it;s still possible the results can be augmented. You see, elections are often swayed by more than 1% at a polling location just by altering how many machines they have, or by changing how long people wait, or the temperature of the air in the poling center. (old people don;t like to wait long, swinging to democrats, young people don;t like viting in polkice stations or fire houses, swinging to republicans, even the local media gets involved and tells voters too early that one candidate has won and lts of people simply skip voting altogether, especially those that work late, even the weather has been known to cost a candidate a local election).

No matter how good the system is, unless we force every single person to register a vote, it will never be accurate. As long as only a percentage of people vote, the statistical anomolies just in that outweight any potential for organized state or national election tampering. It;s simly not as big of an issue as people are led to believe.

This is a job for...

[TheRedSeven]

Sounds like the right time for WikiLeaks, if ever there was one.

So...

[uberlinuxguy]

Wow, first he orders the company to allow the study, then he orders the results withheld from public record. Now either the results are just that bad that it would tank the company, and honestly hasn't there been enough of that lately?

Or somehow the company got in the judge's pocket.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

Re:So...

[I cant believe its n]

Wow, first he orders... then he orders...

And if "the company" did get into the judges pocket they would soon find out that Judge Linda Feinberg is a she.

Re:So...

[MollyB]

I actually read TFA. The questions you raise are answered (implied, really) there, and in addition you'd find that Judge Linda Feinberg is not a "he".

But that would spoil the fun of random speculation! :)

Re:So...

[falcon5768]

actually what the judge did was completely right even though we dont like it publicly. She is temporarily withholding the findings until they meet in court to prevent a slew of issues that could crop up where it to be released prematurely. This happens all the time in the legal world but people often dont know it unless they are directly involved in the trial.

The findings WILL be made public, but only when the trial actually starts.

But then that isnt as sensational is it?

Re:So...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Give the guy a break! The first result in a Google Image Search reveals this guy.

Re:So...

[Dunbal]

Companies that deserve to tank deserve to be tank. There's no special god-given "right" to profitability. Oh it's a shame when people lose their jobs, and god knows I've lost enough money these past months on certain banks that have tanked, but this protectionism only encourages a sloppy attitude in a company insomuch as they feel they don't have to work anymore, they've "arrived", and now the "system" will protect them from anything.

      Oh government, please bail us out because we've scammed our shareholders with creative accounting and billions of dollars worth of assets we've had on the books and borrowed money against aren't actually worth anything. Oh government, please hush up our "trade secrets" because our code is so simple even a 4 year old could reproduce it/any grandmother could debug it and point out how bad it is.

      Businesses existed and were successful before the lawyers started bouncing around the concept of "intellectual property". It was about being first, being fastest, producing more product or higher quality, and actually competing. Coke has their "secret formula" - but that never stopped Pepsi or any other "cola" variety from existing. But people buy more Coke because of the marketing, not the "secret" formula. All intellectual property does is make money for lawyers. I suppose I should be thankful that every IP lawyer is one less ambulance chaser...

Re:So...

[Captain Sarcastic]

But that would spoil the fun of random speculation! :)

"Random speculation? That's what slashdotters does best!"

Re:So...

[Hatta]

She is temporarily withholding the findings until they meet in court to prevent a slew of issues that could crop up where it to be released prematurely.

If the report is factual, we ought to hear it, and deal with those issues. Hiding the truth doesn't make it go away.

Re:So...

[conureman]

Another case of the judge protecting a report from public scrutiny. I don't know about justice, but decorum must be preserved.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it not be convenient if the trial is after the November election. Even though NJ is guaranteed for Obama I worry about swing states in which Sequoyia has deployed similar units. This definately an issue that surpasses local court jurisdiction. I implore someone from the court to whistle blow this one. If not start with a hack on Arpel, easier yet will be the Plaintiffs law firm. The Defense law firm probably has not digitized the case evidence yet.

Re:So...

[volxdragon]

If the report is factual, we ought to hear it, and deal with those issues. Hiding the truth doesn't make it go away.

Do you have standing in this lawsuit or are you in any way directly involved or cited in the lawsuit? If not, YOU aren't owed anything until the judge decides it should be made public. The judge isn't "hiding" anything, she is proceeding with the lawsuit in an appropriate manner...

Re:So...

[TheSpoom]

The problem here is that Sequoia will have them withheld until just after the election, and then in four years nobody will remember.

Re:So...

[Hatta]

We all have a duty to the truth, this judge is failing hers. Just because she has this discretion doesn't mean it's always right to use it.

If there are serious flaws in these voting machines, she owes it to the entire country to publish these results before the election, when something can be done about it. As we learned in 2000, and again in 2004, the voting system of any one precinct can affect the entire country. Therefore we all have a legitimate interest in it.

Re:So...

[devnullkac]

The defendants had 30 days to review the report and make formal motions. They chose instead to make an unchallenged assertion of harm and ask for a stay without giving the plaintiffs a chance to refute the assertion. If 30 days is too short to make formal motions, the defendants should not have agreed to such a short timetable. Perhaps their intention all along was to suppress the report through "grossly mischaracteriz[ing]" it if it wasn't to their liking.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no special god-given "right" to profitability.

Perhaps you just chose the wrong god!

Re:So...

[Artraze]

> If the report is factual...

So, like, that's kinda the point of the trial... Determining if the plaintiff is right and all that.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every US citizen has standing in this suit, even Republicans. This hurts us all.

Re:So...

[digitig]

Now either the results are just that bad that it would tank the company, and honestly hasn't there been enough of that lately?

Or somehow the company got in the judge's pocket.

Or the report contains trade secrets, the non-release of which was a condition of the original study? I can easily imagine that it might be necessary to include trade secrets in the report in order to clearly explain issues that were discovered. In that case, the judge would have to prohibit its release to the public, but may allow it to be used in the hearings. Not unlike what has happened.

Re:So...

[compro01]

TRADE SECRET?! It's integer addition!

bool voting()
{
          string vote;
          cout << "Please enter the candidate you wish to vote for : ";
          cin >> vote;
          if (vote="mccain")
                    mccain++;
          else if (vote="obama")
                    obama++;
          else if (vote="barr")
                    barr++; //add more cases for the other candidates
          else
                    {
                              cout << "error : not a valid selection. Please re-enter.";
                              return(1);
                    }
          cout << "Thank you for voting.";

          return(0);
}

What kind of fucking insane system do you have that this should be able to be considered a trade secret?

Re:So...

[digitig]

Yeah. Now wrap that in a bit of security code to make sure that nobody can tamper with it, and that nobody can find out how you voted, and that you can't prove to anybody else how you voted (one little issue with prinouts for voters: "Wouldn't like anything to happen to you kids, would you? Bring along the slip that shows you voted for Capone and everything should be ok"), and that transfers the data to the central counting station without the possibility of tampering, and everything should be fine.

I've looked at specs for voting macines (bidded for a contract to validate them, but didn't get it), and there's a heck of a lot more than integer addition.

Elected or appointed?

[jcr]

How are judges hired in NJ? Is this guy answerable to the voters?

-jcr

Re:Elected or appointed?

[Lehk228]

if he collaborates with companies producing manipulatable voting machines i don't think he'll need to worry about that.

Re:Elected or appointed?

[falcon5768]

He is a she and if your read the article and not the summery you would find out SHE isnt collaborating with anyone but following proper legal procedure. The summery is a bunch of sensationalistic New York Post/Faux News like bullshit.

Re:Elected or appointed?

[I'm not really here]

I think she would have to worry more about how she suddenly became a man.

4759 is a prime number

[ibirman]

The analysis concluded that there were 4759 votes cast (http://www.dcboee.org/pdf_files/nr_172.pdf) 326 were correct. 4759 is a PRIME number!! If that's not a conspiracy, what is? Furthermore, 4759-326=4433. 4433 is also an interesting number - it is the product of 11x13x31 - 4 ones and two 3s. I am pretty sure this is someone's idea of a joke. Can anyone figure out what the hidden message is?

Re:4759 is a prime number

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, let's see 4 = D, right?

There 3 4's.

There are 4 1's and 4 > 3, so subtract 10 from the 31 factor and you get 21. 21=U

The first two digits of 326 are 3 and 2, the sum of which is 5. 5=E

So our first word is DUDE.

And I'm pretty sure the rest of the message has to do with thinking, because 4433 makes you think.

So, the message is:

"Dude, you are SOOOO overthinking this."

Re:4759 is a prime number

[L4t3r4lu5]

Epic, EPIC win.

Re:4759 is a prime number

[Mr. Slippery]

The analysis concluded that there were 4759 votes cast...Can anyone figure out what the hidden message is?

4 + 7 + 5 + 9 = 25, which of course is the square of 5. It's just the Law of Fives in action.

Remember, the harder you look, the more you will see the Law of Fives!

Re:4759 is a prime number

[CastrTroy]

4+4+3+3 = 14
1+4 = 5
5 = 2+3
2+3 -> 23

It all leads back to The Number 23

Re:4759 is a prime number

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the law of eights. It makes more sense of ALL of this.

Re:4759 is a prime number

[KDR_11k]

What kind of geek are you, referencing a Hollywood movie when you could use the Principia Discordia or Illuminatus! instead?

Re:4759 is a prime number

[Mr. Slippery]

That movie does not exist! My fingers are in my ears, I can't hear you! LA LA LA LA LA!

I don't recall any law of eights in David Brin's excellent novel The Postman.

Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad press

[morgan_greywolf]

According to TFA the judge was reluctant to suppress the report. The lawyers for Sequoia Voting Systems, which was not a party to the lawsuit, basically told the Court some BS about the report, and the judge, wanting to be fair to Sequoia, reluctantly agreed to suppress it for now. My guess is that a redacted version, which strikes out Sequoia's trade secret information, will eventually be released.

Conspiracy theorists need to put away their tinfoil hats on this one. It's pretty obvious what's going on here.

Trade Secrets

[MosesJones]

Come on, we all know why this hasn't been released. Its because Sequoia will be claiming trade secrets based on their proprietary code. Now in a normal case this would make sense. If you made an aircraft engine control system that was 20% more efficient that the market average and someone in a court case claimed you used some of their code then you'd be pretty annoyed if your internal secrets were then published.

The issue here however is that this is about democracy and the counting of votes. There are no trade secrets in the counting of votes, it is a public process and it should be, indeed is required to be, publicly auditable. The problem here is that the Judge has applied commercial thinking to a public interest case, understandable but wrong.

There is a fundamental problem in the US right now around the audit and accountability of the democratic process. To borrow a phrase from the justice arena, Democracy mustn't just be done, it must seen to be done. A closed and proprietary voting system with no external verification does not enable this to happen. No-one in the US system (with its 98% re-elect rates) appears to care about this.

Now personally though the guy referenced here has done a good job in the write up I was personally more impressed that Brian Kernighan was part of the review team.

Re:Trade Secrets

[hey!]

Well, if it is trade secrets, this will make an interesting case.

A trade secret is supposed to be something that gives you an advantage. It's not supposed to be something that keeps you out of trouble.

I have a hard time believing that there any "secret sauce" in these kinds of systems, and if there could be it is well known in computer security that secret methods are actually really bad from a security standpoint, as illustrated by the safety of the gold in Fort Knox and the cash stuffed in grandpa's mattress.

Re:Trade Secrets

[poetmatt]

Yes, but everyone in court has abused trade secrets so often that if I had a penny for every time I'd certainly be a billionaire. Remember the radar guns were claiming "trade secrets" too.

Re:Trade Secrets

[Dunbal]

Its because Sequoia will be claiming trade secrets based on their proprietary code.

      Yeah, it's a voting machine - how hard can it be? Oh I forgot. It takes some really creative code to not even be able to tally votes properly.

Re:Trade Secrets

[Necroman]

Sure it's a public process, but there is a lot of money to be made with each and every vote that states have. It could possibly give their competitors an advantage, so it seems someone reasonable. Until State or Federal Congress passes a law requiring voting systems to be open, I would expect judges to rule the way we saw in this case.

Re:Trade Secrets

[Sandbags]

The gag order is to prevent an actual hacking event. These machines are in use in places outside NJ. By making this information available to the public prior the the election he'd be virtually ensuring tat there's be a breach, especially if as we suspect it's easy to crack the system.

This has little to do with trade secrets, which are often published, and which are protected by patents.

Re:Trade Secrets

[GuyverDH]

You mean this proprietary code? (well, I'll use pseudo-code to not violate copyright)...

check super-triple-secret-probationary-website, see which candidates have paid the most, swing percentage of votes equal to percentage of payment over that of the alternate candidate, whoever pays the most, wins....

not saying that's really the code... but hell, something to that effect *could* be in there...

Re:Trade Secrets

[Nathanbp]

The gag order is to prevent an actual hacking event. These machines are in use in places outside NJ. By making this information available to the public prior the the election he'd be virtually ensuring tat there's be a breach, especially if as we suspect it's easy to crack the system.

This has little to do with trade secrets, which are often published, and which are protected by patents.

If the information in the report is enough for an actual hacking event to happen, then it should be released and every district using one of the machines should have to deal with it (go back to pen and paper). There is no excuse for allowing votes to be "counted" by machines you know are hackable. (Or for allowing machines to count votes without voter-verified paper ballots being the real count, but that's another topic.)

Re:Trade Secrets

[jefu]

So this judge thinks that "security by obscurity" works? (I wonder if there's a nice Latin phrase for that.)

It doesn't, and going this route means that the bad guys still have an opportunity to exploit any problems.

Re:Trade Secrets

[Just Some Guy]

The gag order is to prevent an actual hacking event.

The gag order is to hide actual hacking events.

"There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage."

Ironic, since you'd have us unprepared to conduct a fair election.

Re:Trade Secrets

[rgviza]

The issue here however is that this is about democracy and the counting of votes. There are no trade secrets in the counting of votes, it is a public process and it should be, indeed is required to be, publicly auditable. The problem here is that the Judge has applied commercial thinking to a public interest case, understandable but wrong.

QFT. Voters have a right to know what every line of code does and how it works. We also have the right build our own voting machines if they won't do it right.

If they don't like it, tough shit. Go sell your broken machines somewhere else.

-Viz

Re:Trade Secrets

[Alwin Henseler]

In this context, the "secret sauce"/advantage isn't about security, but refers to a competitive advantage over other vendors of electronic voting systems.

If you protect trade secrets for electronic voting systems, then basically you're saying that having commercial competition in a market for electronic voting systems (and companies making money selling these), is more important than having fair and verifiable election results. Excuse me, but that only makes sense in a land where the almighty $$ means everything.

Re:Trade Secrets

[bill_mcgonigle]

So this judge thinks that "security by obscurity" works? (I wonder if there's a nice Latin phrase for that.)

cui bono

Re:Trade Secrets

[Sandbags]

No, generally it doesn't. Hoiwever, if it;s released, the hacking will almost certainly happen. Failing to release it publically, but advising key authorities to the vulnerability, meansd that the chance is mitigated as much as possible.

We are NOT suggesting this go unfixed. However, du ethe the late arival of these specifics, and the ongoing court case, it was not POSSIBLE to replace the machines. It is also of REDICULOUS cost to go to pen and paper, a system which itself has a higher probability of tampering than these machines!

Here's a fact: these machines are NOT networked. It;s not like a single hacker could compromise the entire election... Each person gets to go into a polling center and access a SINGLE machine. Each station has dozens of machines, and there are thousands of polling centers. Even if a hundred or so machines were somehow compromised, it would not likely have a stastisical impact on the election.

This ruling is a balance of costs and probability vs the potential for damage. It was the right decision.

If there was a 1:1,000 chance that your bank might cause a transaction issue which would effect your account balance by $30, but you could pay $1,000 to prevent this issue, would you? The statastical scale is pretty close to that here...

Re:Trade Secrets

[Sandbags]

The information is only hidden from the public, not representitives of either side of the casee. There is no part of this order that prevents the state from taking actions here.

We ARE prepared for this election. The statistical chance of a single machine even being compromised is virtually nil, since no person in joe public has had access to one to hack it. Second, it would take over 1000 hackers in a coordinated strike to even effect 1% of the machines in use here, and potentially shift the vote maybe by 10-20,000 votes, less than 1% of the expected voter base. Also, if certain machines seemed inconsistent with the others at the same poling location, or at multiple poliing locations throughout the state, these could be cross checked by these KNOWN vulnerabilities, and the vote ruled out in small scale without effecting the remaining outcome.

You MORONS are treating this like it;s a single system that can be compromised, and the vote could be shifted by percentages sufficient to alter the outcome of this election. Estimates in this case are that Obama will already take the state by 11%... It would take a MIRACLE effort of the largest ever operating terrorist cell to offset this by even 3 or 4%, which statistically still means nothing for the outcome.

You do NOT understand the technology. You do NOT understand the controls in place. You do NOT understand the runing.

This is NOT a case of the judge refusing to allow the testimony. This is closing that testimony to only the approved witnesses in the case (about 90 people!) This is NOT a cover up.

Re:Trade Secrets

[Just Some Guy]

One of us thinks computer voting is largely tamperproof and the other sees it as dangerously untested. Somehow, I'm the moron? Listen, kid: I know that a bit of VB hacking can make you feel pretty knowledgeable, but come back after a couple of decades of actual experience and we'll have this conversation again.

Re:Trade Secrets

[Sandbags]

Well, see, I'm not a kid. In fact, likely, I'm older than you, and have been working in IT for more than 23 years, not including all the time I spend working on DOS and pre-DOS systems before I ever went to college. I was probably writing ForTRAN and COBOL before you knew what a keyboard was.

This has nothing to do with hacking, it has to do with ACCESSIBILITY. It is impossible for a single hacker to effect more than a single machine unless we're talking about an inside job.

Since the method to hack it is not published, since it uses a proprietary OS you can't tinker with unless you have physical access to one of these machines (which are under armed guard at all times even when not in use), since the machine does not even have an accessible port to connect to without removing screws, and since any access to the machines at all, even by pollsters, will be in groups, with people never being left alone with access to the machines, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to hack one, even if they KNEW how, without having inside access.

Even if a polling center gets hacked from the inside, we're talking about 20 or 30 machines that could potentially be compromised, out of nearly 10,000 in new Jersey alone.

Statistically, if the machines differ by more than a few percentage from other precincts in the same area, or from exit polls, someone will take notice. If the screws are tampered with, someone will take notice. Election officials will be awars of how to spot the signs of a hack attempt on the machines. You simply can't make all the machines in a location give all the votes to one candidate, it;s too obvios. They may be able to swing the vote a few percent at their location and get away with it. For 1 location, even if they hacked every machine at it by 5%, we're talking about less than 0.005% deviation in the vote, in a state where the margin is 10%. That would mean even if EVERY polling center was hacked, it would STILL have no effect on who NJ is picking for president...

The possibility, statistically, that a hacking event on these machines could alter the outcome of the election is so small that it is considdered a non-issue.

Also remember this: paper ballots? thay are NOT all counted. Each prcinct counts in batches of 250 - 500 votes when hand counting, and reports that to election officials. As soon as a statistical probability reaches predefined threasholds, they stop counting anyway. In hand counted elections, typically less than 60% of ballots are even counted.

If these were network connected systems, I'd have a completely different opinion. Since we'd need over 1000 hackers to effect the outcome of this election, just in NJ, and since any efforts to distribute a how-to to such a force, and remain unnoticed, and ensure not one of those 1000 people squeals, well, basically that's impossible.

Are ther machines tamper proof? no.
Is hand counting tamper proof? NO!
Which has a higher statistical probability of tampering? hand counting.
Which has fewer votes as a percentage of all tallied counted at all? hand counting.
Which costs more? hand counting.
Which has issues with logistics that might cause entire polling stations to not vote at all, due to missing or incorrect ballots? hand counting.
There are a dozen more reasons why hand counting is LESS SECURE and LESS ACCURATE than even these machines that COULD be tampered with...

This is the right decision for the judge, weighing all factors. Should this decision have been prevented through better advanced testing: YES! We do not argue this whole debackle could have been prevented, but it was not. Those responsible for the cost to NJ and it's voting public will certainly pay for it, likely with bankruptcy, and possibly some of the key executive could see prisin time for it.

once again...

[i.r.id10t]

I find myself posting this particular comment a lot in regards to voting issues...

Strangely enough, the last armed revolt against the government in the US was in Athens, Tn. in *1946*. The cause? Voting issues...

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml [americanheritage.com]

Not that I am advocating it, but it will be interesting to see just how PO'd folks will get...

Re:once again...

[SatanicPuppy]

Yea, but in Athens Tennessee angry gun-toting rednecks outnumber normal people by 20 to 1. The previous week there was an armed revolt because of a chewing tobacco shortage.

Joking aside, in a postwar culture in Tennessee they would absolutely come out in armed force against a perceived attempt to take away their liberty. Given the lack of quick information during the time period, they would have acted on little info and word of mouth.

Transition that to today, and it would be extremely difficult to get the same situation going. Information would be all over the place; the sense of us against them would be dilluted by a difficult to define "them." It's just hard to get up the same level of xenophobia...Even in Tennesee.

//Born & raised in TN; can still sing all verses of "Rocky Top"

Re:once again...

[conureman]

Transition that to today, the second amendment enshrines our privilege to hunt squirrels, rather than defend against our criminal government. Nowadays,such a terrorist attack on legal government would probably end in an air strike. Born & raised in CA; my clan live in the Osborne's hometown though.

Re:once again...

[i.r.id10t]

Ok... so lets imagine a little scenario. Not to be racist, but lets assume that most of the black population votes for Obama. Lets also assume that McCain wins in a landslide, or if not a landslide, by more that "just a little bit", especially getting the electorate in areas heavily populated by blacks. What are the chances that there wouldn't be mass riots, etc. in areas largely populated by blacks, who "just know" that "everyone voted for Obama" and he should've won? A little organization, and instead of cars burning and tvs being stolen, and you've got cars burning and an armed populace headed towards their local voting precincts, elections office, etc. Now mix well with Jackson and Sharpton....

Hopefully the elections will be smoooooth and issue free (yeah right!) but I am talking about the bigger picture. Will elections issues be enough to push a group of folks over the edge and into riot or revolt?

Re:once again...

[T.E.D.]

Technically that was against the *county* government.

I believe the last armed revolt against the Federal government was the Green Corn Rebellion in 1917. It happened in that old reliable hotbed of left-wing activity, Oklahoma.

Re:once again...

[Eil]

Not that I am advocating it, but it will be interesting to see just how PO'd folks will get...

With only 30% of the U.S. population actually getting off the couch to vote, I'm betting not much.

Gee... I wonder if

[ryzynforce]

This might have something to do with that fact that the voting system is plagued with the same issues as the Diebold version. It sure appears as though this system and all the others have something against the public at large. I mean seriously! What is wrong with letting the people actually vote? Do these companies have that much disgust for the American people that so much effort would be put into screwing them and then not making any effort to deny that probles exist in their systems? That my friends, is truly dad indeed

Same reason they surpress UFO reports

[Ohmaar]

The judge had to suppress the information. Same reason the government suppresses UFO information: the American public just isn't ready for The Truth.

Convenience

[conureman]

I sort of envy all the Jersey voters, it sounds like they don't have to bother to go to the polls this year.

assume the worst

[j0nb0y]

The security must be pretty shoddy if the company doesn't want this report released.

Re:assume the worst

[Tuoqui]

Guilty until proven innocent. If it's good enough to apply to American Citizens, its good enough to apply to American Corporations.

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[Shakrai]

If you become President, do you intend to let your Democrat colleagues in Congress do for the health care industry what they did for the home mortgage industry via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Because those problems had nothing at all to do with the last thirty years of deregulation, going all the way back to Reagan and mostly instituted by Republicans.

Will you be coming to us with manufactured surprise and outrage and with your hands out asking for $1T or more?

Funny, cuz the last time I checked, GWB was a Republican.

Mind you, I don't think the Democrats are totally blame free here. Fannie and Freddie were equally opportunity bribers^Wcampaign contributors. That doesn't change the fact that you are a partisan shrill though.

Supressing information - for what reason?

[digitaldc]

The voting system in this country is inherently flawed, there are no standards or best methods for counting votes in the 'greatest democracy in the world.'

Why is everything so damn confusing, backwards and inefficient?

Really makes you wonder why noone in Congress is very concerned about voting integrity, is this by choice? or by sheer negligence? or both?

move discussion to REPUBLICANS?

[Anonymous Coward]

When somebody digs up dirt like this you know it's Karl Rove and the GOP

Re:move discussion to REPUBLICANS?

[Anonymous Coward]

more slashdot lefty bias. GO BACK TO RUSSIA!!!

Fanboys...

[MageWyn]

Man...

This site is just full of Appel fanboys.

Just wrong

[mlwmohawk]

This country has a serious mental problem in government. "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not just a slogan, it is supposed to be the core value of the law.

I understand what the judge is doing, and in some circles it will be seen as a "responsible" thing to do. In a democracy, especially in a country that is supposed to be "for the people," it rings as cynical protection for an entity that actually harms "we the people" and our rights.

Re:Just wrong

[AnalPerfume]

This country has a serious mental problem in government. "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not just a slogan, it is supposed to be the core value of the law.

Those who made that famous ideology intentionally let people believe "the people" meant the average Joe. It served their ego's and reputations well. There has always been a government of the people, by the people by for the people......the difference is that their "people" are like them.....the elite.

The sooner people wake up to the fact that an election and possible change of government only gives the average Joe the illusion that they have some say in things the better. The elite don't take risks, they make sure both sides are attached by puppet strings so it's business as usual regardless of who the common rabble choose to sit at the top seat.

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[Dog-Cow]

Trade secrets in a voting machine? I know you aren't speaking from particular knowledge, but the very idea just reinforces my decision not to vote.

Trade secrets are by definition never published!

[Z-MaxX]

This has little to do with trade secrets, which are often published, and which are protected by patents.

You are completely and totally wrong on this.

FACTS

1. Trade secrets are never published. In fact the holder of a trade secret fails to protect it well enough and it is discovered, then it becomes public domain information.

2. Trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive concepts. You either (a) choose to make something a trade secret and keep it secret, or (b) choose to publish information and patent the thing.

The reason patents were introduced is to create an incentive for companies to knowledge of an invention with the world around, and in exchange for that, the government gives the inventor exclusive rights to make money from that invention for a reasonable and limited time.

References

Patent or trade secret?
  Patent, Trademark, and Trade Secret

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because those problems had nothing at all to do with the last thirty years of deregulation, going all the way back to Reagan and mostly instituted by Republicans."

Because that had nothing AT ALL to do with Democrats fighting tooth and nail to block needed reforms to oversight of Fannie and Freddie at every turn. Bush was complaining about the need for reform in 2001, but Maxine Waters and a slew of other "shills" (the word is shill, dumbass) testified before Congress that there was no problem at either Fannie Mae under the excellent leadership of Franklin Raines. Nice try, but you have no concept of history or the facts, so you fail. I recommend turning off your GWB derangement syndrome filter.

Re:Gee... I wonder if

[Dog-Cow]

That my friends, is truly dad indeed

You must have had a pretty bad childchood.

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[Shakrai]

I recommend turning off your GWB derangement syndrome filter.

I recommend reading my post history before making assumptions about my motivations. I've recently defended GWB on a number of issues (the Paulson plan being one of them) and don't hold any particular hatred towards the man (unlike some of my friends on the left).

I only brought him up because it seemed rather amusing that you were implying that it was the Democrats coming to Congress with their "hands out". Hmm, what party is this administration from?

A broken democrazy? Nah...

[Koraq]

Welcome to America! Here we let big business dictate what can be said in public. Imaginary Property is more important than a working democracy, we have already bought the votes we need. No need letting anyone debate that, is there?

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[morgan_greywolf]

I know you aren't speaking from particular knowledge,

Just the particular knowledge contained in TFA, which states that the original reason Sequoia gave to block the report from being created in the first place was that the requested information contained trade secrets.

Why not...

[deblau]

Just pass a law that says there shall be no patent or trade secret protection in the design, implementation, or use of voting machines? Leave trademark protection -- that doesn't hurt anyone, and helps states choose between competing vendors. Leave copyright protection -- that allows vendors to prevent competitors from ripping off their code outright, or designing something 'substantially similar', and open source developers can still code alternatives. But there shouldn't be governmental protection for the ideas or machines behind the vote counting, because that sort of intervention is contrary to the public interest in having open and transparent elections and election systems.

Re:Why not...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Leave trademark protection -- that doesn't hurt anyone, and helps states choose between competing vendors.

Leave trademark protection -- it makes it easier to figure out who to blame...

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[JAZ]

You're right, it goes go back 30 years easily, which also includes Carter (D) and Senator Proxmire (D) - you've read up on DIDMCA, right?

And it goes back further than that too... Nixon (R) ended the fixed price for gold...

And further back... Roosevelt (D) in 1933 set up Nixon to end gold standards by outlawing private gold ownership...

Even further - Salmon P. Chance (R), Secretary to Treasury under Lincoln (R), started nationalized currency, putting the new, post-civil war, centralized, federal government in position to control the economy and effectively ending federalism in the United States. (...and the coup de grÃce - in 1864, Lincoln moved Chase to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, at that point, there was little to no possibility of challenging federal control of legal tender.)

What I'm sayin' is that trying to put this on either party is just wrong. The state of the nation (war, economy, environmental impacts, degradation of liberties) belongs to both parties, and really it's on us citizens that keep electing the same idiots over and over.

And of course, the US has done many good thing too, but we're not talking about our success right now, are we?

if you are a poll worker or observer this election

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are forced to "verify" the count from any of these blackbox devices-refuse to do so at the end of the day. File a complaint/don't sign off on the count, whatever it is in your area if no source code is available. Get a thousand geeks to do that across the nation, we'll get this "the elites and insiders hack the vote" shit squared away pronto.

Author just another Dem Activist

[RenderSeven]

Andy Appel donated $4000 to Kerry http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/13/news/10683.shtml and originally complained that his voting machine had an extra vote for Obama. Now that the primary is over his conspiracy theory has switched to focusing on an extra vote for Republicans. Andy would probably like the machine just fine if it had an extra vote for Clinton.

Donating $4000 to Democrats hardly gives me a warm 'n fuzzy that Andy Appel's report or blog can be trusted to be objective. Since he is basically the plaintif as well, he has no reason to be objective either. That's fine I guess, but the media reports and his own blog suggest he is some kind of independant expert retained by the court, which is absolutely untrue and misleading.

And screw our objective /. editors that immediately tagged the story with "onemorevoteformccain", although a recent check says they thought better of it.

Re:Author just another Dem Activist

[Geoffrey.landis]

...originally complained that his voting machine had an extra vote for Obama. Now that the primary is over his conspiracy theory has switched to focusing on an extra vote for Republicans. Andy would probably like the machine just fine if it had an extra vote for Clinton.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who the extra vote is for or against. An extra vote for any candidate is unacceptable. The issue is not Democrats versus Republicans, it's having a balloting system that accurately and verifiably counts the votes.

Whether the Democrats win, and the Republicans complain that the voting was flawed, or the Republicans win, and the Democrats complain that the voting was flawed, either one is bad. The voting should be accurate and verifiable. It should count every vote, and count every vote accurately, count no votes that weren't case, and should be capable of being verified that it counted every vote accurately. Anything else is unacceptable.

Re:Author just another Dem Activist

[RenderSeven]

I agree. Completely! So if we all agree why the hell does every discussion about voting machines end up blaming Republicans for yet another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC (tm))? Why, when a clearly biased and self-interested plaintiff bitches on a blog about what is very possibly his political manifesto get gagged by the court that ordered an independent review, does slashdot whip itself into a frenzy of moral outrage. Front page news with no corroboration except one guys blog rant, and every comment screaming GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY is modded +200 insightful. If we're supposed to be the best and brightest, society is effing doomed.

Re:Author just another Dem Activist

[Geoffrey.landis]

I agree. Completely! So if we all agree why the hell does every discussion about voting machines end up blaming Republicans for yet another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC (tm))? Why, when a clearly biased and self-interested plaintiff bitches on a blog about what is very possibly his political manifesto get gagged by the court that ordered an independent review, does slashdot whip itself into a frenzy of moral outrage.

If, as you claim, the court gagged him because he was a biased and self-interested plaintiff with a "political manifesto," moral outrage is appropriate. If that were true, then the judge had forsworn his oath to uphold the constitution-- which incorporates a first amendment right to free speech-- and the judge should be reprimanded strongly and removed from the bench.

In America, courts do not have the right to put gag orders on political manifestos.

However, I actually did read the original article, and first, he's not the plaintiff; he's the expert witness; and second, nowhere in the article are Republicans blamed (nor even mentioned), nor is a "Vast Right Wind Conspiracy" discussed (or even mentioned), and third, the judge very likely did not order the gag order because it's a "political manifesto," but much more likely because the vendor is claiming that the report contains information that the vendor claims is trade secret. (Knowing a little bit about what corporations want to keep secret, this "trade secret" is most likely the fact that the code is filled with bugs and with poorly-worked-out patches.)

So, frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what you're commenting about.

Nevertheless, oddly enough, we both seem to agree on the basics; that voting machines should be accurate and verifiable. So I will quit bitching at this point, and say "yes, I agree with that, as well."

Re:Author just another Dem Activist

[RenderSeven]

I thought it was clear from the get-go I object to the treatment of the topic by the /. editor that tagged it "onemorevoteformccain" and the general timbre of the discussion board.

While I agree that courts may not put gag orders on political manifestos, they can do so when they are presented as, say, works for hire by the court, or if they contain (as you yourself suggest) trade secrets, unsubstantiated libel, or such. I cannot find any references that say if Andy was hired by the court as an independent expert, or if simply filed an amicus birief as he did in prior cases. Most of what I read about Andy is written by Andy, and that I find that a little suspicious as well. Note too that "his fellow researchers" are actually his students, so no credit for objectivity there either. That Andy even said "fellow researchers" instead of "students" shows, if not bias, then at least a lil' spin on his part. Im also noting that Andy, while not the plaintif per se, certainly does not have an arms-length disinterest from the plaintiffs, nor is he politically objective. I would prefer that the expert testimony before a court not come from someone with political bias; not that there is necessarily a willful intent to deceive but that its very difficult to see issues clearly through the lens of one's personal passions. I would argue that Andy has to be a *little* passionate to kick in $4000 on a teachers salary.

I can get behind the idea that Andy's work is in the public interest, but his blog writings are a little self-important and this one seems a little fit of pique. It's not Andy but Slashdot that took the post and made a Saint and Saviour of him, took up the call for a lynching, and front-page news over this non-story. Just /. being /. I guess ...

Re:Author just another Dem Activist

[Geoffrey.landis]

Slashdot is a place that is strongly in favor of open software, open government, and full disclosure of software vulnerabilities. Haven't you noticed? It's no surprise that slashdotters will be outraged a gag order preventing disclosure of voting-machine vulnerabilities.

And, as it happens, when it comes to voting, I agree.

Voting counting should be verifiable. There is no room for "trade secret" software, and in particular there is no room for "trade secret" software in voting machines that have already demonstrated errors. If you can't inspect and verify that it counts votes without any secret manipulation, it should not be used in elections.

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[Shakrai]

Even further - Salmon P. Chance (R), Secretary to Treasury under Lincoln (R), started nationalized currency, putting the new, post-civil war, centralized, federal government in position to control the economy and effectively ending federalism in the United States. (...and the coup de grÃfce - in 1864, Lincoln moved Chase to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, at that point, there was little to no possibility of challenging federal control of legal tender.)

How would you have challenged Federal control of legal tender in any event? Congress has the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin"

Moderators...

[conureman]

apparently as qualified as the average voter. RTFA.

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[JAZ]

Coining (or even printing) isn't quite the same as controlling.

I guess I should have been more specific, when Salmon Chase introduced national currency, they also started taxing all other currency. So individual state or bank currencies were unable to complete.

Obviously, many would argue that money shouldn't subject to the same market forces as any other commodity. Clearly, there has been great economic, social, and technological progress since 1860, and perhaps consistent currency is more than partially responsible for that. But it is still a commodity and commodity regulation has it's downsides. (if you don't think it's a commodity look that the currency exchange markets)

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[pla]

Conspiracy theorists need to put away their tinfoil hats on this one. It's pretty obvious what's going on here.

Obvious, yes - Sequoia's systems suck, and the judge has decided to protect them because commerce takes precedence over such petty little concerns as "fair elections".

Not sure where the tinfoil hat comes into this... Unless you mean to imply that those of us who took Diebold's promise to deliver 2004 to Bush (and did so) at face value somehow count as conspiracy theorists.

Re:Trade secrets are by definition never published

[Geoffrey.landis]

Z-MaxX wrote:

Trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive concepts.

This is correct, and worth emphasizing.

Trade secrets and patents are opposites. A patent is, in essence, a contract with the government that, in exchange for the inventor disclosing the details of the invention in sufficient detail that an ordinary practicioner of the art could replicate it, the government agrees to a limited period in which the inventor (or assignee) has exclusive rights to liscence the invention.

In other words, the key element of a patent is disclosure, not secrecy.

Isn't this a tacit admission that...

[Kazoo the Clown]

the system is VULNERABLE?

Bullshit

[voraciousreader]

"We all have a duty to the truth, this judge is failing hers..."

That's such sanctimonious hogwash, she's protecting the integrity of the trial, and as a result, doing her "duty to the truth".

I love how you bend over backwards to try and violate this defendant's rights, and couch it in a claim of "duty to the truth".

Sorry you don't like it, but the right to a fair trial trumps your imaginary "right to know the intimate details of a court case that tangentially effectd me".

         

Re:Bullshit

[Hatta]

How exactly would an honest airing of the findings violate the defendent's rights? We don't even know what the findings are, so we have no way of knowing who they would help.

The findings of this expert witness should be released to the public. If the defendants don't like it, they can get their own expert witness to publish their own analysis of the source code. You can't have justice without openness.

We have a good idea what is in the report

[grandpa-geek]

It probably doesn't make the machines look any better than the report on Sequoia machines done by the California Secretary of State (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm) or the recent followup done by UCSB, including a video showing how even a paper trail version can be compromised (http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~seclab/projects/voting/).

We know these machines are garbage, are easily manipulated, compromise the determination of the "consent of the governed", and thereby are threats to our democracy.

Tampering with voting machines and voting result reporting has been the basis of George Bush's presidency and has led to Republican victories in senate and governorship elections. For example, look at
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html
  and
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Documents_reveal_Georgia_was_warned_of_0730.html
  and

http://web6.duc.auburn.edu/~gundljh/Baldwin.pdf

It will probably take many years to discover the scope of Republican election fraud. Eventually, history will record that banking deregulation, unaffordable tax cuts for the wealthy, failure to pursue alternative energy development (as a favor to the oil and gas industry), and many other of our nation's problems had their roots in voting machine manipulation.

Re:We have a good idea what is in the report

[penguin_dance]

That's okay--the dead people voting for the democrats make up for it!

Re:Wikileaks? I Agree, but I don't vote anymore...

[OldHawk777]

If a Puppet-POTUS/POTUS can be purchased, then they are bought and sold.
If a politician can be purchased, then they are bought and sold.
If a DoJ AG can be purchased, then they are bought and sold.
If a judge can be purchased, then they are bought and sold.

It ain't democracy, but what is good for a Czar, is good for a PPOTUS....

Folks, it is just politics for US. Democracy with word-spin, says we vote for selected politicians that support trickle-up (nothing trickles2US) economics for the wealthy. It puts less folks to work and more folks into bankruptcy, but all the money-changers in Washington know how to lovingly squeeze US all to death. It ain't treason ... it is the American Banana Republic (US, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela...) way of life.

The $1US of ten years ago now has the international purchase value of about $0.25US. The PPOTUS's and leaders of the last 20+ years presided over the fall of US telecom, medical, auto, education, life quality.... Lets not blame the terrorist ... like me they don't even vote (they never did).

I gave up voting after Ronnie's election, and politicians are always happy to lose a voted, but never election. Our separate-but-equal medicine, education, food, shelter, safety, income... is a cast culture with the wealthy few taking more every day ... next nepotist payroll is $700B ... it won't be the last; So, don't FUS is not a possible reality for US children ... expect the same that their parents and grand-parents will get the next few+ decades.

!HAVEFUN!

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[Shakrai]

Oh, money is definitely a commodity. I guess this is what I don't understand though:

So individual state or bank currencies were unable to complete.

Are state currencies even constitutional? "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" I realize it says "coin" and not "print" but I would think that the intent is still the same.

As far as the bank currencies goes.... that's an interesting point. Dunno how to respond to that.

and commodity regulation has it's downsides

All regulation has downsides and imposes an extra cost of doing business. At the end of the day one has to look at the benefits of said regulation to see if it outweighs the drawbacks. A unified currency would seem to be beneficial, though I'd be the first one to admit that I'm not a big fan of having my savings devalued by inflation.....

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[operagost]

Unless you mean to imply that those of us who took Diebold's promise to deliver 2004 to Bush (and did so) at face value somehow count as conspiracy theorists.

The exact quote was, "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[pla]

The exact quote was, "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

At a Republican fundraiser, and with "the president" not in the future tense.

Yes, he phrased it such that an out-of-context, text-only quoting doesn't sound quite so bad. In-context, it leaves so little ambiguity as to make those of us who actually care about the ideals of fair and democratic elections (terms I don't use as buzzwords for "kill iraqis") stand dumbfounded that O'Dell didn't find himself up on charges of election fraud. Oh, wait, Bush won.

And for the record, I don't consider myself a Democrat, either. Both parties suck, but at least we usually have a fair chance to pick between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

God you're thick

[voraciousreader]

There's no way we can know if it would violate their rights untilwe read it, at which point it'ms too late.

Hence, a judge makes that determination, like she did here.

I suggest you learn how legal system works, you seem to be oblivious at the moment.

Re:God you're thick

[Hatta]

Hypothetically, what sort of rights violation is even possible here? If the report is factual, people need to hear it for the good of the country. If the report is not factual, they have every ability to have their own expert witness refute any false claims.

What situation could possibly justify the prior restraint of this speech?

Re:God you're thick

[voraciousreader]

I don't deal in hpyotheticals. Sorry.

I suggested you learn about the legal system. I was serious, because if you did you'd be able to answer your own very basic questions.

Last, this isn't prior restraint, you're apparently ignorant of what that term actually means. However, the answer to that question is out there as well.

I have no intention of answering questions you should have had the answers to already if you'd educated yourself on the subject.

Finally, all I've seen you put forward as arguments are your opinions, which in light of your demonstrated ignorance of the legal system, don't hold much weight.

In other words "i want it i want it i want it" isn't any kind of argument, no matter how many times you say it, and that'ms really all you've said.

Re:God you're thick

[Hatta]

So you'd rather insult me than support your argument with examples, that's fine. I didn't expect you to be able to come up with any examples anyway.

Re:God you're thick

[RenderSeven]

Thats not fair. Id rather insult you too and Im not even arguing with you. Parent is right, you're clueless. The rule of law is about being fair and consistent, not caving to your silly needs for gratification

If you want to pass judgement on court documents, Im afraid that you'll either have to become a judge, or move somewhere that no one gives a shit about defendents' rights.

Oh, about your sig, been meaning to tell you that "Patriotism" isnt akin to racism, that would be "Nationalism", which incidentally I agree with.

Re:God you're thick

[Hatta]

The rule of law is about being fair and consistent, not caving to your silly needs for gratification

How would it be unfair or inconsistent to allow the public to see the reports of experts on both sides?

If you want to pass judgement on court documents, Im afraid that you'll either have to become a judge, or move somewhere that no one gives a shit about defendents' rights.

I don't think I ever said this judges actions were illegal but that is said in TFA, so it's not just me. Besides, you don't need to be a judge to know injustice when you see it.

Oh, about your sig, been meaning to tell you that "Patriotism" isnt akin to racism, that would be "Nationalism", which incidentally I agree with.

First, what exactly is the difference? Second, someone needs to tell all these nationalists to stop calling themselves patriots. As far as I can tell, in common usage "patriotism" is no different than "nationalism" or "jingoism".

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[morgan_greywolf]

And for the record, I don't consider myself a Democrat, either. Both parties suck, but at least we usually have a fair chance to pick between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[randyest]

Why should a voting machine contain any secrets whatsoever?

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[randyest]

Since when do nouns have tense?

Trustworthy - NOT

[theEddieCurrents]

I managed our county network for the Supervisor Of Elections for 5 years. I am also a contract coder. It has been pointed out how painfully simple the code to perform a simple voting function can be, Windows, Linux, Mac - doesn't matter really. Voting boils down to, once verified, selecting from a short list of options, recording that result and moving on. A paper printout of each voters choices would be simplicity itself. What IS the big deal here? I can not imagine how this even became a subject for Slashdot except that corporate greed and payola seem to be at work once again. From a programmers standpoint, voting is bonehead simple. Is there no honest corner of our government system anymore?? I can't seem to find one. Perhaps one exists somewhere but it seems that we've got only self-serving assholes and liars running the show. How can we EVER trust anything we hear from government or it's various agencies? I for one am sick of this crap and you should be too (IMO).

This is simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

All electronic devices used to count votes should ONLY use OPEN SOURCE software to count said votes.

This is completely obvious.

What 'trace secret' could there possibly be to incrementing counters? This looks like another fine example of courtroom and government incompetence.

Re:Sounds like Sequoia is trying to avoid bad pres

[T.E.D.]

the very idea just reinforces my decision not to vote

Nice logic. If I told you I was going to try to rob your house, would you just walk up to me and hand me all your money too?

Re:Gag order vs. date of election

[bwcbwc]

Not to mention that changing the date of the (presidential) election would require a constitutional amendment.

The only benign explanation I can think of is that the study describes ways to exploit the voting machines for election fraud, and in the view of the court there is no way to remedy the vulnerabilities before the election. Frankly, I'd prefer that wikileaks leave this one alone for a few weeks. As a short-term solution, sometimes security through obscurity is your only option.

I didn't insult you

[voraciousreader]

I didn't insult you. you are ignorant, there's no pejorative connotation, you simply don't know much about the subject.

As to supporting my arguiment with examples, how about you actually do some legwork and educate yourself so you're not asking for very basic information?

Last, I can't tellyou how tired I am of people like you who use my unwillingness to bend over backwards to educate you on a subject as some proof that I can't provide examples.

I see it so often from people like you who browbeat others then pretend you've disproven them because they don't dance exactly when and how you like.

That is such a ridiculous, childish, trollish comment that you be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Last, you yourself have also provided no "examples" (as an aside, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EXAMPLES? I've made no assertions that require examples, genius so that troll of yours is silly) so, frankly, you're just a hypocrite with an opinion and a loud mouth.

Go troll someone else, thanks.

Re:I didn't insult you

[Hatta]

Ok, sure, I'll just go get a law degree in my spare time. Your encouragement to educate myself isn't exactly helpful unless you tell me where my knowledge is lacking. I'm not even sure where I made a point that required complex knowledge of the legal system. I even conceded that the judge certainly has the power to issue such a stay.

What I am arguing is that this is unjust. You don't need a knowledge of the law to know what is just and unjust. In a free country we err on the side of freedom, we don't restrict speech unless it's absolutely necessary. I am unable to come up with any reasons that would justify this sort of gag order. So I asked you, since you seem to know so much, and you refused to give any. (These were the examples I was referring to). In the absence of any such reason, I can only conclude that this action is unjust.

Your argument that the judge has the discretion to do this, and so we should just shut up about it is legally correct. But that doesn't make it morally correct, and it doesn't make this decision less harmful to the country.

Re:I didn't insult you

[voraciousreader]

You don't need a law degree, just a willingness to read up on the subject.

So, honestly, you have no excuse for your ignorance.

I called you a troll, and you keep proving it true.

Re:I didn't insult you

[Hatta]

Which subject? This is like the 3rd time I've asked...

You keep calling me ignorant, a troll, and a hypocrite. All the while refusing to explain your argument and merely asserting your correctness. I think it's pretty clear who the real troll is here.

Re:I didn't insult you

[voraciousreader]

Yes, it IS clear, that you are in fact the troll.

I made my argument clrear from the start, your fgailure to understand it is a result of your reading comprehension issues.

Last, if you expected me to kow tow to your desires for how this discussion progresses, maybe you should have avoided relying on nice sounding but useless logical fallacies and statements like "you didn't present evidence I asked for so you obviously don't have it".

I'm not your fucking mother, I don't respond to stupid attempts to reroute the discussion, and the time for you to address you ignorance of the subject was BEFORE you shared your opinion, not halfway through a discussion you knew you were losing.

The worst part is you really think you're making an intelligent argument.

"he" is male only recently

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is the commenter supposed to do if they don't dig to find out the EXACT name of the judge (note: it doesn't change a fucking thing about the decision)?

"Wow, first it orders ... then it orders..."?

Yeah, that sound good.

Fuck off.

Multiple layers of insecurity

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that it doesn't matter if the voting machines tabulate the votes accurately, as the ability to fudge the results exists across several levels. Had the votes been counted accurately, there is still the opportunity for mass media conglomerate organizations to misrepresent or outright misreport the numbers. And why wouldn't they, being the ones taking in a yearly combined revenue of over a trillion dollars which is most directly dependent on the information fed to the consumers? Don't forget board members of these corporations also sit on politically appointed civilian committees such as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board which is cited as influential to policy.

Assuming the media does accurately report accurately tabulated votes, the election is still nonetheless decided by the electoral college, which has absolutely no obligation to reflect the public opinion. Supposing that they do vote in accordance to public opinion, the long established (likely long corrupted, look at the family history of powerful government officials: JFK's money came from bootlegging during prohibition, John Forbes Kerry's family money from opium trade with China) two party system fronting meticulously crafted candidates that are effectively the exact same when examined by core policy guarantee that the results of the election are irrelevant! The whole election, it could be well argued, is structured so as to give the illusion of control to the population while imparting no control whatsoever.

The fact that the government in its current manifestation is almost entirely for the interest of corporations is practically explicit. Look only to the emergency bailout bill (though one amongst countless other examples), for which votes were won by the addition of clauses benefiting large corporations residing within nay voting officials' districts, the implication being that the constituents of these representatives are not the people but rather the wealthiest businesses. This too on top of the great majority of the US population who oppose the bill, which well reinforces the previously stated notion.

I dare say if you're not angry yet, you're simply not paying attention.

So vote absentee!

[Anonymous Coward]

> the very idea just reinforces my decision not to vote.

How will that make things better? You've gone from a chance of getting your vote counted down to none at all!

Besides, a great many states allow you to vote early or "absentee" and these all give you paper ballots. I mailed in my vote this morning, actually, and there's no way a computer glitch will make that piece of paper vanish.

So don't just complain, do something. I did!

Re:Wikileaks? I Agree, but I don't vote anymore...

[jkirby]

If you do not vote, then do not fucking compalin!

Re:Dear Barry Soetoro,

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, money is definitely a commodity. I guess this is what I don't understand though:

So individual state or bank currencies were unable to complete.

Money is a fixed-supply commodity (though the amount of supply can be controlled by the Fed). The cost of producing money is close to zero, compared to its value. The value of money arises from the centralisation of it.

Re:Wikileaks? I Agree, but I don't vote anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

It might interest you to know that several of the 9/11 terrorists were indeed registered to vote. No they were not US citizens, you can thank ACORN and the Democrats.

In the US it is very easy to fake a vote, you need a paper bag and a pen.

I've always thought this argument was stupid.

[hellop2]

"Wouldn't like anything to happen to you kids, would you? Bring along the slip that shows you voted for Capone and everything should be ok"

Whenever someone produces this example they always use the "mafia". Well, guess what? It's not the 1930's anymore. This could already be done these days... just force the person to bring a video camera with them into the voting booth. So, you argument against print-outs doesn't hold water.

In order to influence an election like that you would have to influence a lot of votes. So, if you are a single mom with kids, you don't report the extortionist, but the single guy next door will.

Another way to mitigate voter extortion is to make it a very serious crime.

To re-iterate, extortion is not a valid reason not to have a verifiable paper printout, in an age where practically every single voter is walking around with a video camera.

Re:I've always thought this argument was stupid.

[digitig]

"Wouldn't like anything to happen to you kids, would you? Bring along the slip that shows you voted for Capone and everything should be ok"

Whenever someone produces this example they always use the "mafia". Well, guess what? It's not the 1930's anymore. This could already be done these days... just force the person to bring a video camera with them into the voting booth. So, you argument against print-outs doesn't hold water.

I'm basing that on an actual recent specification for actual voting machines for actual national elections in a real country (not the USA, but a country with a relatively recent history of internal violence and electoral irregularities). So I think it's fair to say that it's still a concern for some election authorities. The mafia was just an illustration I thought people would understand.

Re:I've always thought this argument was stupid.

[hellop2]

"So I think it's fair to say that it's still a concern for some election authorities."

But, is it a valid concern? What is the difference between, "Show me your printout," and "Show me your cellfone-cam"?

I'm just saying, that the argument against having a printout, isn't valid these days.

Re:I've always thought this argument was stupid.

[digitig]

It probably has a lot to do with the voting environment. Here in the UK the booths are not fully closed in, and the returning officer would be able to see if anybody were openly videoing. If it has to be covert, getting good, clear shots is a lot harder.

Re:Wikileaks? I Agree, but I don't vote anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Did you give up on spelling and grammar when you gave up on voting?

Re:Wikileaks? I Agree, but I don't vote anymore...

[OldHawk777]

Abstain is a legitimate vote against the evil policy and the lesser of two evil policies.

You damn fool, I abstain from legitimizing the master2slave relationship of FUS (Fuck US) politics.

We need a real government that represents "The People" not corporate/religious/dogma BS institutions.

Corporate/religious/dogma politicians are happy that I (and most others) don't vote. My ethics won't allow me to float most politicians' boat of pseudo-legitimacy with a vote for more lies and deceptions.