T-Bone wrote:

Defendario wrote:

T-Bone wrote:

Defendario wrote:

T-Bone wrote:

Jeff wrote:

T-Bone wrote:

Harry Hope wrote:

From The Associated Press, 3/4/06:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/04/State/Voting_machine_securi.shtml

Voting machine security alert sent

A state advisory to all counties acknowledges that tests show some
machines are vulnerable to hacking.

By Associated Press


TALLAHASSEE -

The state recommended on Friday that elections officials across
Florida enhance security safeguards for all voting systems after tests
in California and Tallahassee exposed weaknesses.

Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho called the technical
advisory a vindication of his findings last year that some Diebold
optical scan voting machines can be hacked by election office insiders
to change results.

"In other words, you could steal the election and no one would ever
know," Sancho said.

________________________________________________________

Encouraging, eh?

Harry

"As long as I count the votes what are you going to do about it?"

William Marcy Tweed

It IS encouraging since Dems have only mastered the art of paper ballot
fraud, the fact that they are crying about Diebold machines

The software that runs these is incredibly poor, with more than just one
security hole.

The fact that you think this is good amazes me. Whether Dielbold is a
major Republican contributor is besides the point. The software needs to
be fixed and verified. This really should be a competence issue not a
partisan one, although your side has been struggling with that.

Do you have something against patching bad software?

Jeff

No Jeff, I have no problem with patching bad software, in fact I highly
recommend it. And I also agree that it should be a competence issue.
I also know that these Diebold machines are not connected to the
Internet, therefore someone would have to be on site to "hack" the
system. As bad as the software is I'm absolutely positive that there
is NOT an administrator function that allows one to manually override
the vote count or remap which candidates get votes (ie. person selects
Candidate A on the screen and the vote goes to Candidate B). The
system would never pass the sniff test. This leaves that for someone
to hack the system and commit voter fraud they would have have alot of
programming experience and more than likely had some time alone with
one of the systems. This does not fit the norm of what you see at
voting precincts (usually Women's Auxilary and VFW types).

The Leon County demonstration showed that the Diebold vote machines are
hackable at the memory card level. The zero-test was run, and showed no
votes on the card, but the results had been preprogrammed. Without a
manual recount, the fraud would go unnoticed.

When we are talking about the memory are we talking about RAM or flash.

It is a programmable memory card, like something from the ancient Atari
days, I think. These cards are how Diebold counts votes, and hacks 'em,
from what the Finnish guy showed.

And now we come to it. The problem isn't that the machines are
vulnerable to outside influence such as hackers. It is because Diebold
is a Republican contributor. Sounds like these Diebold machines are
the latest incarnation of the "hanging chad" i.e. Democrat excuses for
losing elections.

That is not what I'm saying, asshat. The Finnish programmer provided a
memory card, just like a Diebold corporation support guy would, and the
zero-test failed to detect that it *DID* have votes programmed on it.

The remainer of you silly ***** is ignored.

Don't put words in my mouth
-- last warning.

Here's the problem, the ancient Atari cards are only programmable once,
i.e. they are hard coded and would have to come out of the factory like
that and could not be changed. The only way to do it is to have a
replacement card. Don't you think someone would pick up on that?

How could they? If the zero-test can't detect the hack, then it's home
free.

Also, why won't Diebold release it's source code?

More here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/30/diebold_hides_source/

<SNIP POINTLESS GAINSAYING>

Google Diebold+Leon County, Bonehead. The story speaks for itself.

Wow, you got bonehead out of TBone, that's awesome, you win a cookie.

I got it from you argumentation style. You are pathetically dense.

In fact it is easier to commit fraud WITH paper
ballots.

Now that is a laugher. If you have a group of folks, who are neighbors
and friends socially, Democrats and Republicans, gathered together to
have a vote-counting session, I doubt you'll be off by much. Maybe not
perfect, but damned sure not off by nearly 10% swings, like the Ohio
Diebold counties were.

Yeah that's a laugher. I mean whoever heard of paper based forgery.

Boss Tweed? Joe Stalin?

You know counterfeiting things like currency, passports and uhhh
ballots? It's unheard of.

That is a pure red-herring. Got more logical fallacies to toss out?
I got links:
http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm

At least it's on-topic. :-)

Most of my previous post is in a smartass tone for Harry's benefit.

Really? I thought it was because you *ARE* a smartass.

Could be that too :)

Trouble is, most folks don't like smartasses.

AWwwww, you have no sense of humor and that's sad.

I don't think that the subversion of our Democracy is a joke. If you
do, pack your ***** and go to the People's Republic of China. They don't
think much of voting there either.

Because what he is alluding to is that simply because Diebold gives
money to Republicans means that they have to be corrupt and have built
a back door into the system that allows Republican henchmen to
infiltrate the voting precincts and access the systems. It's the
fucking "grassy knoll" all over again. Not everyone that gives money
to politics is a corrupt goon, I know that and you know that. What
Harry is proposing is a textbook example of the "Slippery Slope
Fallacy".

When the tabulated vote count is not within a one in 10 million
probability from the standard deviations of the exit polls, and all lean
one way, only shills ignore the obvious conclusion.

In reality, the vote count was closer to the exit polling in the
Ukraine, you know, the fraudulent count that sent the people of Kiev
into the streets.

;D

This is obviously a rehash of the wannabe exit polling scandal from the
2004 election. I'm sure you know that any kind of polling can be
manipulated to show the desired results.

No, I don't. Please elaborate on how exit polling can be manipulated,
without detection. How many conspirators would *THAT* take?
:-\

It's all in selectively polling desire populations. It's not that hard
to figure out.

Then show me. I bet you can't, because you are a common usenet asshat.
;-)

The hoopla in the 2004 exit
polling was "why did the exit polls show Kerry leading but the election
went to Bush? Must be fraud! *GASP*" The truth of the matter is that
exit polls were manipulated. Not that the numbers in the polls were
falsified, it was manipulated based on where the polls were taken.

Please demonstrate. Until you do, I am taking this argument with a
large chunk of Himalayan salt crystal.

Let's say you do exit polling in Florida, you poll 3,000 people in
Miami and 500 from the rest of the state. What is the poll going to
reflect? The opinions of the people in Miami.

That is not at all how polling is done, and to say that is merely an
affirmation of my suspicions about you. To Wit: You are an ignoramus
and a shill.

kiss my *****.

I'm not gay -- sorry. I will put my rhetorical foot there, no problem.
:-D

In closing to the exit polling system, do you really want to rely on a
system that *by design* does not count everyones vote?

WTF are you on about now? I want a verifiable system to count votes --
thereby safeguarding the one-man one-vote prinicple on which Democracy
is based. You also have an unfortunate habit of putting words into the
mouths of others. I will not stand for this dishonest tactic.

No one is putting anything in anyone's mouth. You asserted that the
exit polls were more reliable than the actual election.

AT IT AGAIN, EH FUCKHEAD! >:o

The exit poll is an independent verification technique for vote
tabulation. As such, it is a traditional way of verifying the accuracy
of vote-counting in bannana republics. Comprende?

In other words
your faith is in the system that specifically DOES NOT count everyone's
vote, but only estimates based on a supposedly random sample of a small
percentage of the population. You're the one that cited the Ukrainian
election and exit polling.

Yep. And so did Colin Powell, and many others. They cited the
discrepancy between the exit polls and the official vote count (~7%) as
a clear indication of vote fraud. And it was, IMO.

If you want one man one vote then a computer system is the way to go.

Only if the code is open-source and there is a paper-verification by the
voter. Anything else is like going thru a checkout line, being told
what you owe, and not getting a receipt. I wanna be your grocer!
O:-)

I thought the
purpose of having elections was to get as many people as possible to
vote and count *all the votes*. I know that there are problems with
our current electoral system, but come on!

Seems to me that all the Repug initiatives lately (past 10 years at
least) have been geared towards getting *FEWER* voters and counted by
*PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS* thereby ensuring a cloak of secrecy over the whole
process. I cannot imagine anything more dangerous to our Republic.

Really? Can you prove that?

Sure. But the issue of 'Pug intimidation is not directly related to
vote fraud. Heard about the new requirements for registration in Ohio?

It's a perfect case in point.
<CRAP DELETED>

If you don't see this, try reading this link:
http://commonwonders.com/archives/col290.htm

I'm not impressed.

Why am I not surprised? :-\

You really confirmed it for me, you guys are so ***** about this
because it nulls out your normal fraud tricks. Now if we can figure
out how to keep you guys from slashing our tires on election day.

Horesshit. Tires on the one hand, phone zappers on the other. That
kind of petty ***** doesn't turn Presidential elections, but Kathrine
Harris deregistration of future felons might, as would the many
documented examples of computer generated voting irregularities in the
past six years. Heard of "Rob Georgia"? Google that.

indicates

that they will not be 1337 enough to hack the Diebold machines for
quite sometime.

Dems consider the fact that Diebold machines prevent them from illegaly
voting with dead people, convicts or just good old fashion fakery
"unfair" and "cheating".

Awwww booooo hooooo.