The only result of that would be another "hacker" locked up in solitary confinement for 9 years.
They'd portray him as some sort of computer whiz-kid, say he bypassed the "best electronic protection ever invented for a voting system", "defeated the best minds in computer security with just a handheld PDA and a memory card", and then rake him over the coals for Diebold's mistake.
What I don't understand is why nobody listened to experts in the field of computer security and electronic voting. For two years prior to the election, geeks were pointing out the flaws in the Diebold machines. Likewise, the infamous (and usually misquoted) "we will deliver [lots] of votes" line was paraded around on a near weekly basis.
However, we weren't listened to. And when we were listened to, we were treated in a "fair and balanced" way.
The problem is, of course, that fair and balanced only applies well to perfectly political questions. Essentially, it is an axiom designed to preserve all views in a purely abstract argument (i.e. "is abortion wrong?"). It has no bearing in an argument of fact. In science, even computer science, there are people who are incorrect. Disproving an algorithm mathematically is a proof that the algorithm is flawed, and its author is incorrect. Showing that there are vulnerabilities in an electronic voting machine is a statement of fact, a proof that it is true, not an opinion.
Now, those of us who understand the scientific method know there's more to it than that--methodologies can render an inductive/statistical proof meaningless, unconscious biases on the experimenter's part can affect outcomes, and simple mistakes can happen. However, this sort of thing is usually very rapidly caught. That's what peer review is about. You get people who understand the topic to sign off on what you've said, correct your mistakes, poke holes in your arguments. After a thing has been through peer review, it can be considered not-incorrect.
This is the source media should be tapping from: peer reviewed journals. Not the manufacturer, not politicians. In the former case, there is a conflict of interests. In the latter case, there is a lack of knowledge. It's like asking a fox and a field mouse to evaluate the security of a chicken coop.
So, listen up media! If 95% of the field is screaming "NO!", and you have to go to the manufacturer or dig around to find someone saying "YES", it's not because we're opressing them. It's because they're INCORRECT!
Having worked as office manager and IT geek in a spice warehouse that's been around since 1930-something, with records going back that far, I'm really fairly sure that # is called "pound" because it's used as an abbreviation for "pounds".
As in, "45# oregano to Giovanni's @ 2.40/#", which was a fairly normal statement in the records I looked at.
Slashdot Mirror
"keep_driving" on a WPA-secured, non-broadcast AP. Very apt.
They'd portray him as some sort of computer whiz-kid, say he bypassed the "best electronic protection ever invented for a voting system", "defeated the best minds in computer security with just a handheld PDA and a memory card", and then rake him over the coals for Diebold's mistake.
However, we weren't listened to. And when we were listened to, we were treated in a "fair and balanced" way.
The problem is, of course, that fair and balanced only applies well to perfectly political questions. Essentially, it is an axiom designed to preserve all views in a purely abstract argument (i.e. "is abortion wrong?"). It has no bearing in an argument of fact. In science, even computer science, there are people who are incorrect. Disproving an algorithm mathematically is a proof that the algorithm is flawed, and its author is incorrect. Showing that there are vulnerabilities in an electronic voting machine is a statement of fact, a proof that it is true, not an opinion.
Now, those of us who understand the scientific method know there's more to it than that--methodologies can render an inductive/statistical proof meaningless, unconscious biases on the experimenter's part can affect outcomes, and simple mistakes can happen. However, this sort of thing is usually very rapidly caught. That's what peer review is about. You get people who understand the topic to sign off on what you've said, correct your mistakes, poke holes in your arguments. After a thing has been through peer review, it can be considered not-incorrect.
This is the source media should be tapping from: peer reviewed journals. Not the manufacturer, not politicians. In the former case, there is a conflict of interests. In the latter case, there is a lack of knowledge. It's like asking a fox and a field mouse to evaluate the security of a chicken coop.
So, listen up media! If 95% of the field is screaming "NO!", and you have to go to the manufacturer or dig around to find someone saying "YES", it's not because we're opressing them. It's because they're INCORRECT!
(Bah dum bink)
As in, "45# oregano to Giovanni's @ 2.40/#", which was a fairly normal statement in the records I looked at.
They're naming their OS after a text-only web browser?