Washington Post, "A single person could swing an election."

:party: :bounce: :hippie: :hi: :party: :bounce: :hippie: :hi: :party: :bounce: :hippie: :hi:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701451.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

Welcome to the party Washington Post. Might want to slap on your tin foil hat and come on out to Ohio.
Bottom Line THE MACHINES ARE PROGRAMMED AND BUILT SO AS TO ALLOW MANIPULATION OF THE DATA
THE MACHINES DID NOT WIRE THEMSELVES ..... THIS IS WHY HB 3 WAS PASSED IN OHIO .... NO LOOKING @ THE
MACHINES OR TABULATOR'S HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE ..... THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THEY ARE CHEATING ....
END OF STORY.

A Single Person Could Swing an Election
Electronic Systems' Weaknesses May Be Countered With Audits, Report Suggests
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; Page A07

To determine what it would take to hack a U.S. election, a team of cybersecurity experts turned to a fictional battleground state called Pennasota and a fictional gubernatorial race between Tom Jefferson and Johnny Adams. It's the year 2007, and the state uses electronic voting machines.

Jefferson was forecast to win the race by about 80,000 votes, or 2.3 percent of the vote. Adams's conspirators thought, "How easily can we manipulate the election results?"

The experts thought about all the ways to do it. And they concluded in a report issued yesterday that it would take only one person, with a sophisticated technical knowledge and timely access to the software that runs the voting machines, to change the outcome.

snip

"It's not a question of 'if,' it's a question of 'when,' " Davis said of an attempt to manipulate election results.

The last line is killer .... like nothing has happen yet ..... Volusia County Florida 2000
1 Diebold machine gave Al Gore a negative 16,000 votes ...... after the race was called in his
favor ...... later it was attributed to a "faulty memory chip."

:bounce:

They'll never call us. My hacker's better than your hacker! K&R

The big newspapers are showing that they can hurt the administration more than the administration can hurt them. Boston Globe (NYT owned newspaper) had an editorial 2-26 calling for full investigation into Election Theft 2004.

Any talk about election fraud hurts GOP campaign contribution raising efforts, because election fraud is their only hope for victory and potential donors know it.

:toast:
and recommended

About fucking time!

K+R for andy, he'd be so happy to read this, in the WaPo no less....

How would we know elections "have not been successfully attacked" when we don't know what caused all these election "glitches" across the country. "Programming error" or "memory card error" isn't satisfactory. We should be demanding all these "glitches" be investigated to set the precedence that election officials have the right to analyze software and that a set of code has to be put into escrow immediately before every election for that purpose. There's no way to know what happens inside these machines without a documented chain of custody for the actual code.

.... propriety information and they wouldn't do anything "bad."

We are the only country in the world that lets private, partisan, for profit
companies run large sections of our elections.

HAVA is just a way to funnel 80% + of the vote through diebold and EES
tabulators.

I think the real conspiracy freaks are the ones who can look at the mountain
of evidence and glitches all benefiting one person in 04 and say nothing happened.

to their stories, and it has nothing to do with gullibility, and everything to do with complicity.

some don't want to know .... some know and pretend that they don't ...... and some
know but stick their cover stories ...... some really think that Fox is news and that
Saddam was plotting to nuke Iowa.

Now the Republicans in Ohio who are in Government they know .... no doubt.

keep a secret forever without someone spilling the beans? Human nature. Someone will come forward.....sometime. Let's just hope it's before 2008....October 2006 would be good.

Just a few, well placed technical people and a bunch of gullible ones. (Who are the poll watchers where YOU vote?)

We don't have any problems and I don't anticipate any. However, I was referring to those "in the know" who might break down some day and brag about it or admit they pulled some tricks. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork on other political matters. We can hope.

Check with your local electoral board and see if you can work the next election. "They" can't do anything sinister with the public watching. If you are working at the polls, you get trained, and you would know if someone was doing something they shouldn't.

And those glitches didn't just benefit Democrats. The glitches in 04 weren't just at the Presidential level either.

I still say we're short-sighted to let this thing get lost in stolen election and we should take the approach the media is taking now, it's the machines stupid. They are hackable, we've already had unexplained glitches, we need more oversight including the ability to analyze code whenever an election is challenged. The code has to have a documented chain of custody.

And I really don't care what people call me, I've researched that "mountain of evidence" myself, and at least half of it doesn't amount to a bean, let alone a hill of beans. There are a lot more problems in the registration and machine distribution process than in the actual vote counting.

ETA: K & R!!! :toast:

"This report is based on speculation rather than an examination of the record. To date, voting systems have not been successfully attacked in a live election," said Bob Cohen, a spokesman for the Election Technology Council, a voting machine vendors' trade group. "The purported vulnerabilities presented in this study, while interesting in theory, would be extremely difficult to exploit."

Boy - they made sure they got that "it hasn't happened" in there, didn't they?

they're still setting the wrong frame. They're framing the issue as "vulnerabilities exist that should be fixed" when it should be about PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE ELECTIONS. Elections are PUBLIC proceedings and should be transparent to the PUBLIC. Privatizing them in any way is insane.

I especially love this part of the article:



They're asking the former chief of security at MICROSOFT? :rofl:

You'll be amazed. Their fixes include vvpb plus audits plus lots of other mechanisms being in place, which they do not say will totally guarantee the elections aren't hacked, AND basically show just how vulnerable and hard to secure the use of electronic voting is. That's not going to go over well with all the SOS's and election directors who loved evoting because they didn't want to have to work so hard.

But I will read the report when I get home.

night? Why wasn't he just watching like everyone else? He had a ton of computers around him and he was monitoring very closely.

by not providing voting machines in the Dem precincts. This sort of ham-handed stuff from Rove is a MUCH bigger threat than computer hacking.

This article is linked all over the place. No one ever comments at the obvious glaring gap. How does Adams win and how do you make that blend logically with the other races and historical results?

If it's a presidential result, how does it logically mesh with results from other states? Don't just give me blather that someone with sophisticated technical knowledge and timely access to software would have no trouble at all. That figure of 80,000 vote margin and 2.3% means this is a HUGE race in a big state, since almost 3.5 million votes were cast. Don't throw around numbers like that unless further details are provided.

I've mentioned this in other threads but it's worth repeating here. A fixed sporting event does not fall close to the pointspread. If you're planning and purchasing a conspiracy of that magnitude then naturally you want a guarantee it will succeed. A comfy ride down the stretch. Likewise, an election that is rigged shouldn't come down the the last state and sweating out a thousand votes or a swing of 60,000 votes.

Just because the forecast was 2.3 points the other way doesn't mean that's how the vote comes in. What if it's actually 4.3 points, and the fixers only decided to steal 3.3%? That means the morons still lose by 1%. It's real cute and pristine to look at this after the fact or with numbers plucked out of your ass. I want to know how they do it in this real world we're inventing.