Touch screens innocent, but already convicted

Last week, the most in-depth, unbiased review of the District 13 race, in which Republican Vern Buchanan beat Democrat Christine Jennings by 369 votes, exonerated the machines. The bipartisan General Accountability Office, after a study that included examination of the machines' electronic brain - which a judge would not allow Ms. Jennings' experts to review - found no evidence that any of the machines worked improperly.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/02/12/s20a_leadedit_district13_0212.html?cxntlid=inform

the first DREs hit Palm Beach County. You can look me up ...

So, before you deride that fine paper, which is always second to the regional Sun Sentinel (find their profile on me, if you $$$ for the archive - but wait, both papers covered my programs "kids, cops and computers cut crime") ... know that they are well informed on the subject.

Pushing your creds and name dropping won't alter the reputation established with your posts.

A tireless advocate of electronic vote counting, a defender of Diebold, and an admirer of Brit Williams is all one needs to know.

And many, it appears, do.

sources who assert otherwise. Advocate? Hell, no ... I left that arena long ago to Luddites who won't learn electronics or programming but think they can judge those who do. Would DU tolerate such dismissal of doctors and lawyers? I've seen where they have not.

So duly note yourself. This is the Palm Beach Post's well informed editorial - I helped inform them myself.

That's the difference between talk and action. Kinda sums up the primary, don't it?

"This is the Palm Beach Post's well informed editorial - I helped inform them myself."

You ought to be paid for your tireless service.

but I got to work @ home and do the hospice thing for a parent. Couldn't ask for more.

Then I was paid by the foundation that funded Unprecedented ... got their website and PR campaigns going.

And now, I'm back doing this on a strictly voluntary basis. Clears things up enormously ... back in the Bev Harris days, trying to raise funds for my own investigative journalism foundation ... never again.

They just know more about computer security than you do.

And I think I speak for many of us HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=497483&mesg_id=497484

Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x497404

There were some weaknesses to the GAO study. And even if the machines work flawlessly in the study, this would not show that they weren't maliciously programed or tampered with or hacked or patched at the time of the voting. It merely takes one line of programming in any set of instructions inserted into the machine, "Delete this line and the above line at such and such a time" and the whole thing is completely undetectable.

The study misses the point: it's ths potential for secret programming that's the issue not whether the voting machine under consideration is capable of running properly.

"... not whether the voting machine under consideration is capable of running properly."

True, it is a subject that is anything but funny, but your identification of the scam is so succinct and so devastatingly accurate, it doubled me up.

the experts' work every day in the e-commerce systems I develop. You do every time you trust an ATM.

was the substitution of a test for potential fraud with a test for potential accuracy.

And I'll happily correspond privately as best I can. I can certainly share whatever's been published ... but shouldn't do it here.

asking the wrong question. It's not rocket science requiring an expert opinion.

Where is your grasp of the most elementary assumptions? Experts are a byword for missing the big picture, but I would suggest that your casting this as a matter requiring an expert's input is rather shameful.

As for your demurrals on the grounds that computer security is too "hush-hush" for you to address in any shape or form on a public forum, that's been an evergreen stand-by in law(less) enforcement in police states up to the present day. Did you think we needed to know any of the technicalities of computer security?

avoided another cameo in Unprecedented, I've been determined to get rid of those DREs for the general public, however appealing they are at the bank. Unless we're willing to be video taped while voting and take home a receipt that can always be traced back to the ballot we cast, there will be complications.

I'm sooooo glad I didn't respond to NYS's RFP for voting systems. I couldn't be objective otherwise, however tempting the revenue stream. In this environment, they have my natural sympathy.

Also, "If it ain't busted, don't fix it", is not Luddism. It's common sense.

Many of the advanced countries throughout the world have been using pencil and paper for many years with what for Americans would constitute a magically enviable record of success.

And you may take my understatement as humor, though the topic is serious. I call those who oppose optical scan counting Luddites because the technology is fundamental to our modern civilization. As long as the process is auditable and gives reproducible results, I'll relax when the professionals do their thing.

It's just when the conspiracy extends to academic faculty, like the Diebold debacle in Georgia, that the tone becomes personal. I learned the hard way there's no refuge from baseless accusations and once made, they're awfully hard to outlive.

Still, the debate stays "within the family", so to speak. It's only when the headlines get outrageous ... then it's my battle to wage, again ... only now, it's the other side. Call 'em whatever ... I think Luddites is mild, but to quote a wag, I could be wrong.

test of the touch-screen machine was to ask the wrong question, and hence your ATM-related expertise is wholly redundant in relation to it. I cannot understand why you appear unable to grasp the singificance of that.

As for your stricture that "the technology is fundamental to our civilisation", I wonder what you can mean here by "our civilisation"? I'm reminded of Ghandi's reply to Churchill, when he was asked by the latter what he thought of civilisation: that he thought it would be a good idea. Anglo-US capitalism is anything but civilised in any moral senses, but rather a significant engine for turning the world in the direction of a fascistic world order.

I don't think mankind needs a highly advanced Brave New World, governed by spiritually bankrupt technocrats. You have to take on board that worldly wisdom, what we normally call "intelligence", is not synomymous wth virtue or morality by any stretch of the imagination. It may or not be associated with morality, but when independent of it, is counter-productive to the common weal. Tehcnological progress is not inevitably a factor for human(e) progress, when weighed aginst other more important factors, such as the moral order.

You must be aware that currently machine audits are exercises in self-replication, like having an examinee mark his own exam papers.

and I don't *have* to. It gives me paper money and a paper receipt.

w/a particular deposit later in case of disputes. But for a secret vote, there's no simple mechanism. There are public papers on the subject - but they're popular literature, if you know what I mean.

So, how far should we take the discussion? I know what you want, but we have to design something functional.

I know exactly what I want. Paper ballots, that are the official record. Hand counted at the precinct level, with video cameras watching, posted to the internet. Results posted on the door, also recorded and posted to the internet. Election day a national holiday, so anyone can vote without worrying about getting to work on time, and anyone can work the polling places if they wish.

Thank you for asking.

And, BTW, I have worked in the computer field since 1984, and I DO NOT TRUST THE MACHINES! No, I take that back. I do not trust people, and shouldn't have to. There should be safeguards in place. First safeguard - a PAPER RECORD!

for inventory and soon would sell the first CP/M machines in Brooklyn. Let's not try to match credentials.

As for counting, if you have a problem with counting machines then you won't make a living in our field. As long as you get reproducible results, we rely on the method.

Since we agree on the need for paper records, why continue with capitalization for emphasis? When does this become a reasoned discussion with mutual values?

>>Let's not try to match credentials.
>>then you won't make a living in our field
>>why continue with capitalization for emphasis

To answer the question in the subject, oh, about the time the condescension stops, which I suspect might be never.... ;)

(I'm outta this conversation, having discovered the uses of "ignore.")

When you've got the creds, we can talk technical. Else, stick to your area of expertise before verbally jousting w/me in public.

--and to any particular transaction. They have billions of hours of real world use, unlike voting machines used only a couple of times a year.

Diebold proudly advertises open source software for its ATMs, and would not dare to tell a bank that they owned the bank's financial data. Elections departments do not act like normal businesses--they act like credulous saps.

I've done network consulting for FDNY, so they value my opinion. I'm not at liberty to discuss what is or is not possible in public ... except to point out that the fact that you do so impeaches your sources.

unless it's just sarcastic

been following this for years. You simply make your claim, appealing to no authority whateversoever, but expect to be taken seriously?

if you think there's no court order, do your research and win your points by proving this wrong. But it's fairly well known among people who followed this issue.

so therefore the plaintiffs could not look at the evidence. Pretty weird logic when the usual standard for discovery of information is whether it may LEAD TO admissible evidence. Which, of course it could....

on edit, case briefs and summary located here: http://www.voteraction.org/case/feddervgallagher

it says:

Last week, the most in-depth, unbiased review of the District 13 race, in which Republican Vern Buchanan beat Democrat Christine Jennings by 369 votes, exonerated the machines. The bipartisan General Accountability Office, after a study that included examination of the machines' electronic brain - which a judge would not allow Ms. Jennings' experts to review - found no evidence that any of the machines worked improperly.

"found no evidence that any of the machines worked improperly."

Of course, they wouldn't...
if the thieves remembered to close the doors behind themselves!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

proper procedure is, as noted in the editorial, "a study that included examination of the machines' electronic brain"

Do you understand when they state it so plainly?

The teller puts a stack of twenties into a bill counting machine. Then, the machine counts out 50 twenty dollar bills, the teller takes the bills and hand counts them in front of the customer, and the customer takes the bills and hand counts the bills again in front of the teller.

Why two hand counts?

Doesn't anyone trust the machine count?

OF COURSE NOT, and anyone that would try and convince people to put their trust in the machine count is off their rocker.

Demand Hand Counted Paper Elections, for obvious reasons.

...then they pushed the 'back' button and re-voted for Christine Jennings, and then saw that their vote had not
registered on the Summary Page again. According to computer scientists I know this problem could only be caused
by software malfunction.

How would the Palm Beach Post or the GAO explain that away?

Oh, and the very careful quote from the GAO Report below does not exonerate the ES&S machines, instead the GAO merely concludes the reduced possibility the machines are guilty. As so called journalists the Palm Beach Post should be ashamed of their misleading article title "Touch screens innocent, but already convicted"....


"...GAO believes that these test results, combined with other reviews that have conducted by the State of Florida, GAO, and others, have significantly reduced the possibility that the iVotronic DREs were the cause of the under vote.”