UNDISPUTED - HURSTI HACK IS BOTH NEW MATERIAL AND TOTALLY DEVASTATING

The purpose of this thread is to first correct the record because Dr. Jones and Harri Hursti were drug through the mud here on DU and they didn't deserve that. Then I hope we can all move on to cooperation so we can achieve an emergency solution by the November elections. I hope this thread will be used to discuss solutions and I have some info on that below after setting the record straight. I commend the individual for apologizing and I hope that the report will now be used to make changes happen as soon as possible.

From Blackboxvoting.com Update:I received an email from Prof. Doug Jones that he felt his comments were being misread, in view of my editorial remarks. I wish to make it quite plain that all remarks outside the specific quotation are mine, and my views must not in any way be construed to represent Prof. Jones' views. I offer this space to him to further clarify his views and I sincerely apologize to him that my comments have caused him distress. -- David Allen

link to this apology: http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/121-Diebold-security-hole-old-news,-but-ramifications-serious.html

Dr. Jones himself emphasizes in letters to Russell Michaels of Votergate that the Hursti findings are devastating. He says the three-level architecture with a separate back door in each level, which can be used separately or combined, has not been reported before.

(Dr. Doug Jones) Hursti and I appear to be in pretty clear agreement about this interpretation. It appears, however, that there are spin-mongers (spinsters?) who are out there to put another spin on this. Oh, they say, Hursti didn't report anything new. This appears to be an effort to discredit Hursti and those of us who consider his report important.

Dr. Jones goes on to say that Hursti "gets credit for exposing the fact that Diebold made not one vulnerability of this type, but three separate ones, each of which, in isolation, is sufficiently bad to allow an outsider to take over the system, and which can, indeed, be combined."

Dr. Jones elaborates in response to this question by Russell Michaels:

RUSS: The "offense in depth" attack Harri identifies which could be used to conceal the contamination by an attacker and which could 're-infect the system also seems an important new discovery. Is there any evidence that this deep penetration attack has been properly documented before by anyone?

PROF. DOUG JONES: No, Hursti gets credit here.

The BBV site posts part of another email by Dr. Jones, this one written to Bev Harris:

Dr. Jones: They've pushed several new versions of the TSx firmware through certification since then, so they can't claim that they didn't have the opportunity to correct anything yet. David Allen's editorial comment that he appended to what I'd said fails to capture this. I don't understand why he feels inclined to add such a putdown, because it's certainly not how I read what he quoted of my E-mail response to him.

Link to this: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/27675.htm...

http://www.utahcountvotes.org/BBV-Diebold-images.php

To put any doubts to rest as to whether Harri Hursti exists, I found a photograph of Harri Hursti with Bruce Funk in Emery County Utah, these photographs can be found at Kathy Dopp's UtahCountVotes site, http://www.utahcountvotes.org :



Harri Hursti (left) and Bruce Funk (right)

larger photos are available at top link.

SOLUTIONS! ACTION!

I and at least one other activist that I know of from Colorado have been invited to participate in a series of conference calls this week to get to work on solutions that can be implemented before November's election.

We are in a hurry to get going on fixing the problem in time for the federal election. I don't have infomration on what proposals are on the table but I know there are some and we'll be working nationwide on them this week with 45 different leaders who are self starters with positive attitudes. People from different parts of the country and different voting groups are participating including the hand counted paper ballots people and technologists and people from other political parties. If you would like to work in cooperation toward an emergency solution you can e-mail me at FixitByNovember@aol.com and I'll make sure you get the information on what everyone comes up with!

Thank you,
Marcus Miller

My only advice is that the Democrats stage an election strike.

We simply all agree to not vote. Not until the machines are taken out, and paper ballots are brought in.

You're serious???

the idea of an election strike by dems strikes me as comically hair-brained.

I think publicity, lawsuits and massive letter-writing campaigns offer the best chance of getting these machines replaced w/ something we can trust.

voting counting software--serious as that is. Our problem is that we now--as the result of legislation engineered by the biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, in 2002--have a completely non-transparent election system, controlled mainly by three corporations, Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, with very close ties the Republican Party and far rightwing causes, and which are using "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY vote tabulation programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--with virtually no audit/recount controls.

The problem is NOT JUST DIEBOLD OR OTHER TOUCHSCREEN voting machines. Diebold and other optiscans are also penetrable, insecure and hackable, as are the CENTRAL ELECTRONIC TABULATORS, which may be the worst problem of all. ALL BALLOTS, including what paper ballot options we have--like absentee ballots--are scanned into computers, and the data fed to machines under the control of these corporations. The audit/recount controls are so minimal--in some cases, non-existent--that the voting data could be easily changed with a few lines of code, and no one would ever know.

The entire system is NON-TRANSPARENT, UNVERIFIABLE and FRAUDULENT, on its face. What kind of election system do you think Tom Delay, Bob Ney and Bush's "pod people" in Congress WOULD CREATE? Transparent elections are a no-brainer. Transparent elections were NOT WANTED, in 2004, nor ever again.

The question is, what do we do about it--especially since the upper echelons of our own party don't seem to give a crap that Bushite corporations are now "counting" all our votes under a veil of secrecy?

----------

Here are some practical suggestions for the immediate future, info on activist groups and projects, and some news items that can help with the "what do we do now?" part. Without strong Dem Party backing, there is little hope for a large-scale solution for the '06 elections. There are 50 state jurisdictions, and thousands of local jurisdictions, and NO federal authority that is not in control of Bush regime. As for Bush's Congress, they are not about to give us back our right to vote; it is they who took it away. So, what do we do?

Practical suggestions:

1. Request absentee ballots. At least they provide a tangible paper record for challenges, recounts and investigations. (Absentee ballots were a great help to investigators in 2004.) Absentee ballot voting is a form of protest against the machines. It is burgeoning phenomenon. A lot of people are starting to do it because they DON'T TRUST THE MACHINES. And, if enough people do it, the machines will be obsolete, and then we can work on getting rid of the central tabulators.

2. Join with others to closely monitor the elections and gather and document evidence. See UScountvotes.org, below. They need donations!

3. Request that the Democratic Party fund INDEPENDENT EXIT POLLS. Exit polls are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud. The war profiteering corporate news monopoly exit polls cannot be trusted (they are doctored to match the results from the voting machines' secret programming code; rather than being used to verify elections, they are used to confirm NON-TRANSPARENT results). The Democratic Party owes us, big time, for their lack of vigilance--and in some cases corruption--on electronic voting. This is one critically needed thing that they can do to help.

4. Think long term. Saving our democracy promises be a long hard struggle--and the fight for election transparency needs to take place in every state/local jurisdiction in the country, which will take time. We obviously can't get rid of these machines before the '06 elections, so focus on doing our best with the Diebold/ES&S handicap (a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites and warmongers), and getting rid of them afterward, for '08, with a well organized, fired up, peoples' election reform movement. These machines are DEATH to our democracy. They ARE the problem. Without them, Bush and his "pod people" Congress would be long gone. It's not going to be easy. Be tough! Be persistent! Resist demoralization and disempowerment!

5. Tell people the truth. They NEED to know it. Engage them in the fight. Bumper sticker: "Help Us Beat the Machines--VOTE!" There is nothing more demoralizing or disempowering than constantly losing and not knowing WHY. The machines CAN be beaten by massive turnout--and can be heaped with ridicule, for their fraudulence, by massive absentee ballot voting. Get people involved! Help them to SEE what's happening! THEY will solve the problem, ultimately--if they can only IDENTIFY what it is!

Never give up on our right to vote! NEVER!

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


SOME RESOURCES FOR AMERICAN REVOLUTION II:

Hopeful signs - latest news:

California voters sue the state over Diebold:
www.VoterAction.org is suing the state of California and 18 Calif county registrars on behalf of 25 California voter/plaintiffs, on the illegal Diebold "certification" by Schwarzenegger appointee Bruce McPherson.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2180496
Seven of these counties just promised the judge they would use PAPER BALLOTS, and were dismissed from this lawsuit (4/27/06).
http://kcbs.com/pages/29285.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2249205

Maryland rejects Diebold:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x418263

Florida - anti-trust accusations against Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, re: heroic Florida election official Ion Sancho:
(FLA AG subpoenas the companies)
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,110192,00.html
http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/MGBKSY8W8LE.html
(info & discussion)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2183630

Utah county clerk fights back!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x419226

(Tide turning?) New York Times: "New Fears of Security Risks in Electronic Voting Systems" (5/12/06)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2278829

-----

More resources for American Revolution II:

www.votersunite.org (MythBreakers - easy primer on electronic voting--one of the myths is that HAVA requires electronic voting; it does not.)
www.UScountvotes.org (statistical monitoring of '06 and '08 elections--they need donations)


(Activist sites with links to state activist groups or info)
www.votetrustusa.org (news of this great movement from around the country)
www.votersunited.org (good general info, and state links)
www.verifiedvoting.org (great activist site)
www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml (fab compendium of all election info)

www.freepress.org (devoted to election reform)
www.bradblog.com (also great, and devoted to election reform)
www.TruthIsAll.net (analysis of the 2004 election)* :patriot: :applause: :patriot:
www.votepa.us (well-organized local group of citizen activists in Pennsylvania, where important legal issues are at stake, including state's rights over election systems)
Provisions of the PA lawsuit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x423739

The Voter Confidence Resolution
http://tinyurl.com/rlnr2 (“We Do Not Consent”)
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com (GuvWurld blog main page)
http://tinyurl.com/amryg (Voter Confidence Resolution

www.debrabowen.com (Calif Senator running for Sec of State to reform election system)
www.johnbonifaz.com (running for Massachusetts Sec of State on strong election reform and antiwar platform)

*Some tributes to TruthIsAll, who is very ill:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x417007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x417231
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x675477

Congressional bills:

Russ Holt's HR 550 requires a real paper ballot, bans secret software in "voting machines", and has more than 170 co-sponsors, but the audit required is too weak, it promotes electronic voting and centralized power, and the secret software might be permitted to continue in the central tabulators (the bill is not clear). To sign the HR 550 petition: http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html
At lot of discussion at DU of the loopholes/pitfalls in HR 550:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x422926
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x421136
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=422967&mesg_id=422967
(Note: Senate Bill-SB 330 and House-HR704 simply require a "voter verified paper audit trail" (VVPAT), which may be best for the moment.)


Also of interest:

Michael Collins (Autorank)'s searing election reform article for New Zealand's Scoop.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x971363

Bob Koehler (-- four recent election reform initiatives in Ohio, predicted to win by 60/40 votes, flipped over, on election day, into 60/40 LOSSES!--the biggest flipover we've seen yet; the election theft machines and their masters are now dictating election policy! Title: "Poll Shock" 11/24/05)
http://commonwonders.com/archives/col321.htm

Bob Koehler's latest: "Trust us: Take this box and stuff it" (3/16/06)
http://commonwonders.com/archives/col337.htm
More Koehler:
www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051124ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk

Amaryllis (Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia lavish lobbying of election officials - Beverly Hilton, Aug. '05)
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

HOWARD DEAN remarks on electronic voting machines 04/06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x994507

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

Throw Diebold, ES&S and ALL election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

:think: :patriot: :woohoo: :patriot: :think:

-----------

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." --Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

Any ideas on how to organize alternative exit polls?

Jonathan Simon has done some work on what that would entail, including--I believe--a budget for same.

I don't see how we can ask the Dems to do "independent" exit polling, because I don't think it would be. But I do think it would be useful both to try to get the Dems to do exit polling and to have truly independent, alternative exit polls.

-- public interest organization, that is trustworthy, to do alternative exit polls.

I would suggest the League of Women Voters, but I'm not so sure about them anymore. Maybe a coalition of election-reform groups and medium watchdogs. Maybe with funding from some foundations that are interested in preserving democracy.

When I suggested these last year I kept getting shot down, because it's too expensive, but there must be a way, and if we don't do it, I am afraid it is all over.

This next election, we will never have access to the data. It will never appear on the internet. No matter how many people vote against the Repubs, they will win, the media will keep mum, and things will just keep going the way they are.

It really hurts to see it coming, but it's coming, and gee, I guess they are expensive, but what else can we do? We have to get some media, and we have to have independent exit polls.

Oh, the other thing, maybe parallel elections through universities? Is that what you replied to? I don't even remember. But I think a lot of the election-reform folks are statisticians and such that are university faculty in different places. They might be able to organize parallel elections. They may be already on it.

Thanks for replying.

Well done P, thanks for the links. I, for one, appreciate your work on this very important issue.

Both sides of the "debate" in Part One and Part Two, followed by a conclusion of a couple paragraphs. Secret message to Harri Hursti in between Part One and Part Two. (Shhhhh!)

PART ONE (THE HURSTI/BBV side): The Hursti II report is VERY important, in part because it establishes that easy rigs can occur at a level immune from certification and testing, that can reinfect even if known about, and that can override even open source software placed in such an operating environment/platform. In one respect a supporting fact may have been left out/exaggerated by BBV if it was even remembered by BBV (but Avi Rubin and Doug Jones didn't remember it), but that still takes nothing away from Finnish Computer scientist Harri Hursti and everyone that supported him. I personally don't think the omission of citation to the RABA report was intentional by anyone, but it's very much worth saying this: The report with the omission of the RABA report IS MORE LIKLEY TO CREATE AN ACCURATE IMPRESSION IN THE MIND OF THE LAY READER OR REPORTER than the dustup or debate that followed would because of the likelihood of misunderstanding the debate as "nothing new here."

A message to Harri Hursti in Finnish:



PART TWO (the folks supporting RABA/criticizing BBV): Also, making the connection to the RABA report is important, as well as promoting that connection to amplify the persistent nature of Diebold's apparently intentionally placed holes, or intentionally unplugged holes. However, there was an exaggeration here too whenever this case took the form of "this is just recycling RABA for effect." That turned out not to be true, and also was a very dangerous exaggeration in that it threatened to keep the story out of where it belongs: Newsweek, New York Times, WA Post, NPR and everywhere else. Still, it is critical to have smart, informed, knowledgeable people out there making connections and saying "hey, there's a similarity to RABA here" and then not keeping that information to themselves, but instead shouting it from the mountaintops. That's a good job and a good deed done here. In effect, the community is contributing new value to things like Hursti as they come out, adding some value.

COMMENT IN CONCLUSION: (My comment starts from the above but then goes beyond it to more general points.)

Though the community is contributing value, we're not of one mind but rather a bit of a split personality. There may be no other options in conditions of freedom and passion than regular disagreement, who knows. We're all contributing what we can, but hot war is another matter. If we respond to the information in a post, but keep out the flames and emotional responses, we'll all be well served. There's also the necessity of not letting the critique that we add dominate the value of the rest or of the original opinion-maker unless that's truly the point and you've really rebutted EVERY WORD of the original.

Certainly, with a $3.8 billion dollar market at stake with HAVA funds we should expect that it's worth it for vendors to pay more than even a few folks to come in and try to disrupt the movement. However, specifically calling people out as "trolls", disrupters, paid agents of the other side, or whatever, or even just calling them 'crazy' is not productive, and just makes the disruption worse. All of us may fall down on rare occasion due to emotion if we are personally attacked or for some other reason, but we should not let that become our STYLE or a regular happening. Such a style over a period of time is a good way to isolate one's self.

If disruption, emotion or generally raising the noise level on something other than the actual merits of our work becomes a frequent or regular thing with someone, I personally will conclude that the person is either immature, or a paid disrupter, or just has way too much stress in their life and they will maybe be better six months from now.... I'm not going to attempt to try to say in most cases which class someone falls in, of the three classes mentioned. But it does mean in all cases that I am going to ignore the emotion or the attempt to bait me or someone else.

Regarding paid disrupters. I don't know of any names, but I'd be very surprised it it could be proven that they Did NOT exist at all. After all, trade secrecy = "you're not entitled to know about this stuff" and if you're not entitled to know about it according to someone, they will (sure as shootin') object to you TALKING about it, too. Paying someone to tend to these boards or even to attend conferences and work within the movement in order to protect the truly key points of interest for vendors or just to report back to HQ would be considered a form of PUBLIC RELATIONS WORK. Public relations work for vendors is managing the news, which corporations do all the time. They even manufacture the news in finished form and mail it on video to TV stations. NOTE HOWEVER: Even knowing what the corporate spin is going to be helps to strengthen the argument, so here again it's doubtful that purges or calling out anyone publicly is really ever necessary.

So, I definitely expect disruption I expect paid disruption. I won't try to accuse anyone publicly or on a board, if at all it is private with friends if the subject comes up at all. No one is above suspicion. I am not above suspicion. You are not either. However, what we are doing is, at the end of the day, so right and proper that if we just focus on the mission and the core arguments there is nothing to fear in sharing the truth with a vendor "operative". Maybe they too will someday see the light. UNLESS, that what you're sharing with that vendor operative is dirt on others (some limited exceptions should apply for private conversations about who to associate with on projects, etc., but publicity is what we're talking about here)

One test is ultimately whether the costs of a certain "debate" begin to exceed the benefits of the critique. Those who persist past that point of negative returns are the ones that fall into one of the above three classes. It does not mean that corrections can not be made, or critiques made. It does mean however that the spirit in which it is done and the context in which it is made are important. It is true, I think, that whether someone has personally authored a scientific study, personally sued, and personally contributed in some ways affects somewhat the amount of "slack" one should get just a bit, because a total newcomer who shows up and starts with an emotional critique is probably not to be indulged with a free pass like a well known veteran activist. But nobody can do that *emotional* critique or inflammatory critique regularly. That's when the line is crossed also with regularity, in addition to pushing past the point of positive returns and well into the damaging zone.

The above may seem slightly self-serving since I cut myself a little more slack than a newbie. But the rule applies to all (at least in my mind) and not just to me. I feel that if we were to all follow the rule and keep our own restraint, PM friends to chill out if they seem to be losing their cool, and consider EVERYONE a potential vendor PR person yet not let that affect our work, the movement will maximize it's progress. But the emotion as well as the published attitude of "we're cool, you drool ya troll" doesn't work well. There's a way to say just about anything without flaming. We should all strive for that, even if we don't meet that goal every single time, the effort being made by everyone to minimize will help with the tone overall.

Given that lots have spoken outside DU about the tone recently, I'm anxious to see who will "call me out" on this post! : )

On edit: K&R #5!

And say I agree, almost totally.

An aside - is the ER the best place for members to come to, to get tombstoned, or what? We're Number 1.

:thumbsup:

disruptors among us. it's not very difficult to figure out who they are. just look for people who are spending all their time trying to discount and nitpick the hardwork of others. Jesus said "you shall know them by their fruits," I say, you shall know them by their posts.

onward
g

And Hurst is a consistent producer. How is it that all the "testing" labs run by NASED and now someone else equally uninspiring failed to catch this problem. Go figure.

Months ago, I ran a joke post on why there are no Americans doing this work, suggesting the infamous "Jeff K" of www.somethingawful.com be given a chance. Jeff is a multimillionaire former "haxor" turned game author who can hack anything. There are probably a lot of Jeff K's out there taking a shot at machines...but then again, how would we know, nobody is watching.

GREAT POST. K&R

In either case, Hursti's work is exceptional and aids us all.

I'm glad he's here and I hope he falls in love with a lovely American citizen and
gets naturalized. We could use more like him.

on film, no less.

they wouldn't see the hacks on or before election day.

and if someone would look at their email, they'd see something interesting;)

I'm thinking they did, and that they are just trying to avoid the conversation at best, and covering for it, at worst.

Howard Stanislevic was at that again today, writing about the Voluntary Voting System Standards being written to excuse the flaws.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x429187

But if they knew that means someone should go to jail. I don't want the good old boy network to politely shuffle them away to Buffalo because if they knew they should be exposed on national TV. There should definitly be investigative hearings. That would also get a lot more MSM. It would get a lot more people committed to the cause.

It's the demented-but-loveable alter ego of Rich "Lowtax", who never actually hacked "anything" (except with the website's collusion a la Andy Kaufman). But maybe you were joking, it's hard to tell on teh internets.

Thanks for cleaning up my post and giving it exposure.

My conference call is on Tuesday, I'll report back here about the proposed solutions or you can email me at FixitByNovember@aol.com for a report. I'm not sure what parts of the action call will be confidential (if any) but I think we need as many people as we can to capitalize on the leverage we've got now. The timeline is crazy when you'd have to get the touchscreens pulled and still have an election in November. I'm strapping on my helmet and preparing for battle.

This is just great. Nothing like field resrearch, well done, and well reported. I know it's an ongoing process and I look forward to more results. This is the only major political forum where discussions are possible on election fraud (so far as I know, DKOS banned "fraudsters" months ago).

Cheers.

Welcome to the DU and Thank you for creating the thread. I thought your original thread was just perfect. :thumbsup:

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think the mechanisms were in place to steal at least 20 million votes.

Documentation, in the form of internal machine audits and copies of polling place tapes, along with other kinds of data like documents that the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters by very significant amounts, along with documentation that indicates remote access security features were disabled for the specific systems that counted around 40 million votes (number is mushy as we are pulling in the docs showing who used modems and who pulled the plug on them) -- well, this documentation is proof...of something.

We don't have a shortcut at the moment, and need to keep collecting those documents as they come in. We've ordered about 100,000 pages and have two more nationwide, 3,000-jurisdiction Freedom of Information actions to go. (You can request only documents that already exist, which means all documents that are created in connection with the canvass had to be requested after they exist).

We are also doing specific follow-up FOIAs customized for the anomalies. I hope to have some of those on the Black Box Voting (.ORG) this weekend. It's been pretty crazy, and you absolutely can't imagine how much new evidence is pouring in.

I'll post more as we get a chance.

Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2602324

Reliving those painful days again.

The title of that particular post (#53 in the thread) was actually: "What I think and what we can prove are not quite the same."

Granted, that seems to have been a considerable understatement. Still, I wish more people would make that distinction.

I think the board is arriving at a sort of sloshy consensus that the Hursti report is neither All New nor All Old, but is a useful combination of old and new. I hope you can live with that.

Deal?

on edit:

And speaking of the truth, Bev Harris proved what about the 2004 election?

The answer is - ZERO.

Now that's a meme and a concept even I can grasp and remember. Or am I getting something wrong here?

I'd spread that one around. I'd love to hear it as often as I had to hear that damned "You're either with us, or against us" goofery.

Does anyone have a technical answer to someone who would counter with: "but those entryways are put there for upgrades"?

All I can come up with is "Then unfortunately for Diebold, my vote is just too valuable to be compromised--even if the chances are slim, the chance still exists and is far too much of a temptation for the dishonest."

At least with old time voter fraud you have many more people involved, a better chance to prosecute, and the theft is not as easy as a keystroke to convert a million votes.

I'm not defending Diebold, just telling it like it is.

OK, let's talk about the computer you and I are visiting DU with.

If you're a Microsoft user, you do "field updates" on your operating system all the time. With XP, you do them online.

However, if you're using one of the MS Operating Systems below XP (2000, NT, 98, 95, etc.) you do a "field update" to your operating system from a CD or a floppy disk.

In fact, anyone who has ever done an operating system update (or a software program update) has likely had to put the disk or CD in the drive, and turn the machine on to perform the update.

Basically, this is exactly the same thing.

Let's go a step further. My daughter has an old Toshiba laptop. Last week, we flashed the BIOS. This procedure is EXACTLY the same thing they are doing to the voting machines. We downloaded the update from the internet, we created a "bootable disk" and then shut down the machine and brought it back up. The BIOS was updated immediately and automatically.

Frankly, there's not a thing unusual about this behavior. Consumers have been doing the same thing to their home and office computers for years.

To equate computer voting with the average home computer in any manner at all will make converts of every average pc owner.

I exaggerate somewhat, but I mean it.

What the hell did you THINK these machines were? It's a "laptop" PC with a touchscreen.

Our system of elections are "as vulnerable as your cranky pc".

If you ask many voters to vote online instead of going to the polling place, they'd cheer the idea.

They wouldn't mind voting on their "cranky pc" one damned bit.

Is there a link to the evidence? I remember nine or so years ago when it was first discussed. I haven't heard much lately.

At any rate, Many people say many things. And then, after receiving information on a matter, (or after further consideration) say altogether different things.

Here's a poll question: "do you want to trust your vote to virus-plagued, crashing computers over the internet?"

did several studies on the voting machines, including that question.

Fall 2003

In your opinion, should we be striving toward a system by which Georgians can vote from home over the Internet?

Yes 43%
No 49%
It depends (vol.) 5%
DK/refused 2%

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/peachpoll/2004-01-23data.php

Pretty vague. Is there a sharper one?

Probably posting at the same time.

Questions answered already. thanks.

.

:-)

Here's one (pretty stale) I just poached from pollingreport.com:

ABC News.com Poll. July 14-18, 1999. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If it could be made secure from fraud, would you support or oppose a system allowing people to cast their vote for president and other political offices over the Internet?"

Support 42%
Oppose 52%
No opinion 5%


"Do you think an Internet voting system could be made secure from fraud any time in the near future, or do you think it will be many years before that's possible?"

In the near future 24%
Many years 62%
Never (vol.) 7%
No opinion 7%

http://www.pollingreport.com/politics2.htm

Haven't looked for a more recent one.

"Allowing voters the option of voting on the Internet"

20% strongly support
16% mildly support
15% mildly oppose
46% strongly oppose
2% not sure / no opinion / refused

Compare the 71% who supported adding a paper record to the voting machines.

(For convenience of others, this is from the Winter 2005 Peach State Poll following Btd's link, http://www.cviog.uga.edu/peachpoll/2005-03-10data.php )

Scares the hell outta me!

I can't afford to be terrified of all of them. I get too little sleep as it is. ;)

I've watched the fossilheads dump a lot of money trying to convince Americans that global warming is a hoax or a boon or (insert line of the week here), and while they have had more success than they deserve, they have never been able to win that argument -- partly because the weight of expert opinion is against them. I think Internet voting is similar: a hard argument to win. If it happens, it probably won't be because they convinced most people it was a good idea, but because they could do it without convincing most people.

It's always helpful to see others dismiss them out of hand :sarcasm:

I guess you never saw Mark Radke of Diebold use these very polls in testimony before the EAC.......

I did not dismiss the poll out of hand. Rather, you failed to engage the substance of what I actually wrote.

I'm among the least likely people on the board to dismiss polls out of hand: I spend a lot of my time analyzing survey results.

Are you saying that Mark Radke is bragging to the EAC about the fact that only 61% of Georgians oppose Internet voting? If not, what are you saying?

Diebold continues their pattern of deception at the Election Assistance Commission Hearing, May 5, 2004 as follows:
Comments of Mark Radke, Diebold Director of Marketing

"I have to applaud the State of Georgia because we did a statewide implementation deployment there for the 2002 gubenatorial election and they spent an additional, I think 4 to 4.5 million on voter outreach and because of that after the election they did a voter survey and found that 97-98% of all voters had absolutely no problem using the system...."
Transcribed from the video at cspan.org at the following link:
http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&Page=4
at 02:49:03 of the video

(the link may not be valid anymore)

on edit:
I believe you can search the CSpan archives for this video

Actually I imagine that is referring to a voter experience survey actually conducted by the state, not by the Vinson gang. Whether or not I am right about that, the larger point stands: yes, Diebold and the rest are very likely to cite any polling results that make them look good, no matter how soft they are.

But your post and my response were specifically about Internet voting.

No, Radke was speaking of the poll conducted by CVI FOR THE STATE.

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/peachpoll/2003-02-27.pdf

It's boggles my mind to see someone who is supposed to be capable of stastical review and research jump to conclusions and assumptions so rapidly.

Then you probably noticed that I said: "Whether or not I am right about that...." I did not bother to find out, because it was irrelevant. Because you commented on Internet voting, and then I replied about Internet voting, and then you smacked me on a different topic. Hey, go wild.

Nor am I scared that someone -- no matter whom -- conducted a poll that found that not many Georgians reported having trouble voting on electronic voting machines. It's just a datum. And yes, the manufacturers will spin and twist data any which way they can. So it goes.

Almost like asking "If it could be made secure from fraud, would you support or oppose a system allowing people to cast their vote for president and other political offices over the Internet?" :-)

"Secure from fraud", theres the rub. So what would the respondents say if you can't make it secure? that's where my poll question comes in.

What do you think is the greatest problem with the new electronic voting machines?

Accuracy (potentially inaccurate) 4%

Computers/programers make mistakes & rely on power grid 11%

Potential for fraud or cheating 12%

Some people are not comfortable using technology 11%

No means for audit/recounts will be tricky/no paper trail 9%

Difficult to use 4%

Other 5%

There are no problems 29%

No opinion / Don't know 16%

Total Unweighted Count 800

If it is, they didn't specify that they polled registered voters, just residents of Georgia. I'm not sure that it matters, other than my own fuss-budgetry that people who actually vote should be the ones deciding such things

It looks pretty good with only 29% trusting that everything's hunkey-dorey. Say, isn't 29% considered the "backwash"? ;-)

I think it's supposed to be registered voters, but if you look at that poll, something like 26% said they didn't vote in 2004 because they weren't registered.

However, the idea of 29% who think there's absolutely nothing wrong with the machines is troubling. What's worse is the number of people who think the machines are susceptible to fraud!!!!!!! Only 12%.

Last Aug, when the Lt. Gov. of my state was going from county to county making a sales pitch to our county councils to force these Diebold TSx machines on us statewide, he stated to one of those county councils that "These are not computers. The public might think they are, but they are not."

When I asked him afterward why he'd said that (and to the very people who had to decide whether to purchase these machines or not) his explanation was that "the touch-screens are simple one function machines -- they are not like personal computers that can perform functions like word processing."

If our Lt. Gov. (who likely gets his talking points from Diebold) didn't want the public nor our county council members thinking that the Diebold TSx machines are like PCs, then Kurovski is probably on the right track in equating them with our vulnerable, cranky PCs.

JD

So?

thanks for posting

for the Truth!