quade 3 #1 November 13, 2004 I'm not saying this is the way it went down, but when you first hear the conspiracy you think, "nawww, it's impossible". However . . . First look at this. http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults Then, consider that the ONE state that could have flipped the entire election is Ohio with it's 20 electoral votes. Then . . . take a look at this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer from August 28, 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm Now . . . read this from November 11, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6418513/ So, lemme ask ya . . . is it a wacko conspiracy theory or . . . is it -just- possible that somehow, somewhere, somebody fooled around with the system just enough to give Ohio to GWB and therefore the rest of the country as well? Lemme take it one step further . . . Suppose you where the guy in charge of the voting machines and found out there had been something fishy going on . . . would you say anything?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkF 0 #2 November 13, 2004 I'm not saying anything - one way or the other but you aren't a RISKS Digest reader are youDiebold seem to have little problem in getting "mentioned" have a search of comp.risks for Diebold and have a read of what turns up. The complete RISKS archives can be found here. Ooroo Mark F... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #3 November 13, 2004 I understand that the manufacturers of the voting machines have categorically ststed that tampering would be completely impossible.Unfortunately I can't find the exact quote from "The Halliburton (voting-Machine) Mfg. Co." of London, Moscow & Kabul. But I'm sure that's what was said.... Something like: "Our voting machines are engineered to be 100% reliable and are guaranteed to give the proper result." So there you are. Seriously, without the benefit of hindsight, how would you REALLY know which voting machines to rig? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 November 13, 2004 Quote Seriously, without the benefit of hindsight, how would you REALLY know which voting machines to rig? Well, if I was going to rig only certain machines (presumably to limit the risk of getting caught), I'd pick the ones in the states with the highest number of electoral votes that were "close". It doesn't make any sense to rig a state like Utah where you only have 5 electoral votes and it's a landslide state anyway. So, you pick a state with a good number of votes that's close and you only rig enough machines to give your candidate a couple of percentage points advantage. A few votes here and a few votes there (maybe just a few on each machine) probably aren't going to get noticed. And again, I'm not saying this is what actually happened, but it certainly seems like it could -- especially when there's no paper trail to check.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #5 November 13, 2004 Do you really think just one person could screw with enough places to really affect even one significant state? Without witnesses? Without tracks? etc, etc, etcwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 November 13, 2004 Quote So, lemme ask ya . . . is it a wacko conspiracy theory or . . . is it -just- possible that somehow, somewhere, somebody fooled around with the system just enough to give Ohio to GWB and therefore the rest of the country as well? It's really hard to know what "just enough" is in advance. And when you pick a value that is certainly enough, it stands out. Simpler explanation - he lost a close race - makes more sense. Mind you, I think touch screens should be required to spit out a confirmation receipt that indicates the votes, at least for the representative races. Can be coded if they need to compress the information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #7 November 13, 2004 On a computer? Yes. You can hide anything you want within a computer - it can be programmed anywhere you want (on a software or hardware level)within the product and you can also program it to erase any history of wrong doing. Computers do not make mistakes, the people that program them do. I found it interesting that many of these machines produced no proof of the votes cast. I have yet to see a neutral party fully exam any of the eVoting machines out there. Most of the tests were done either by the company that made them or the local voting officials in test runs. There are more standards/laws and examinations on electronic slot machines than there are for voting machines. I've beta tested a bunch of different software over the years. I'd love to get my hands on one of these machines and see how easy it would be to produce irregularities in vote counts. Long before this election came along I mentioned the issues I had with the Diebold company and how ODell had promised to bring votes to Bush. I thought it was a conflict of interests. It wasn't until early 2004 that ODell promised he would stop campaigning for GW when it was mentioned he could lose the contract to provide the machines. There have been enough stories on voting machine errors to issue an examination. I'm sure some Bush supporter will come in and say "get over it" or some bs like that. Whatever. If you are that confident that nothing was wrong, then you should push even harder than anyone else to make sure these machines were not doing something illegal._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #8 November 13, 2004 loop If $Vote = "Bush" $Bush = $Bush+1; Endif If $Vote = Kerry $Kerry = $Kerry+1; If $Date=$ElectionDate $Bush = $Bush+1; Endif Endif end loop We would need some serious reverse engineering to detect something like this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #9 November 13, 2004 Quoteloop If $Vote = "Bush" $Bush = $Bush+1; Endif If $Vote = Kerry $Kerry = $Kerry+1; If $Date=$ElectionDate $Bush = $Bush+1; Endif Endif end loop We would need some serious reverse engineering to detect something like this. haha! Does it make me a geek if a programming joke made me laugh? Yup, a small sub-routine that would replace every third vote (for example) could be very easy to hide in thousands of lines of code. But I'm all for a third party neutral line-by-line examination of the code to prove me wrong._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #10 November 13, 2004 Ohio - the new Florida?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 November 13, 2004 Quote I have yet to see a neutral party fully exam any of the eVoting machines out there. Most of the tests were done either by the company that made them or the local voting officials in test runs. There are more standards/laws and examinations on electronic slot machines than there are for voting machines. People are examing the data output, but it's not a 2 week job. Obvious irregularities would be in the total votes cast, and then a big divergence of the vote from party registrations, or from votes for the other offices on the ballot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #12 November 13, 2004 QuoteDo you really think just one person could screw with enough places to really affect even one significant state? Without witnesses? Without tracks? etc, etc, etc Many many years ago, when the Apple II was King of the Hill, Apple Logo was the latest greatest programming language (!!) for schoolkids to learn on, one Apple programmer inserted a political message in the code (don't remember what it was now, something like "Nuclear Disarmament Now!"). It went totally undetected until a hacker who went by the handle of "Long John Silver" was trying to break the copy protection and noticed it, and wrote it up for BYTE magazine, along with a Logo program to print out the message. Writing here as a reformed hacker, I can assure you that this is not hearsay.So yes, I do think a single programmer can do stuff like this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #13 November 13, 2004 QuotePeople are examing the data output, but it's not a 2 week job. What good is it to exam the output if the process to produce it is flawed or corrupted? QuoteObvious irregularities would be in the total votes cast, and then a big divergence of the vote from party registrations, or from votes for the other offices on the ballot. Yes, obvious irregularities would stick out. But that process produces an error margin, maybe 3-5%. A smart coder could use that error margin to produce enough votes across an entire state to generate quite a few extra votes. Now the real question is - could that be done in such a way that it couldn't be traced?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #14 November 13, 2004 QuoteSo yes, I do think a single programmer can do stuff like this. Indeed, any new system or software that gets released has hackers picking it apart within minutes in most cases. That's why if there was one who picked it apart, there would be 20 right behind him/her doing the same thing. Back when the Apple II was king, hackers were an outcast-type-anomoly. That's not really the case anymore.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 November 13, 2004 Quote Yes, obvious irregularities would stick out. But that process produces an error margin, maybe 3-5%. A smart coder could use that error margin to produce enough votes across an entire state to generate quite a few extra votes. Now the real question is - could that be done in such a way that it couldn't be traced? With great difficulty. It's very difficult to throw in enough errors to help you, but not show up. The one plus is the lack of a paper trail. If you do it properly, no one even suspects. But if the manipulation is done on a machine by machine basis, no way can you alter enough of them without being caught. It's not like the code has the variables "Bush" and "Kerry" to make things simple. And many states randomize the ordering of all the candidates, so you don't have a fixed slot. The concern is legitimate, but in application to this election smacks more of sour grapes. We've had frequent protests in San Francisco since the election. It's a bit unsettling when you see signs suggesting that 51% of the people are wrong. This is how democracy works. Same to talk about suceeding from the union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #16 November 13, 2004 QuoteWith great difficulty. It's very difficult to throw in enough errors to help you, but not show up. The one plus is the lack of a paper trail. If you do it properly, no one even suspects. But if the manipulation is done on a machine by machine basis, no way can you alter enough of them without being caught. If all of the machines were affected by someone within Diebold it would be easy enough to get access to all machines since they would be coding the OS it runs on. A typical hacker working from outside the company would certainly have a difficult time making any impact on a larger scale. QuoteIt's not like the code has the variables "Bush" and "Kerry" to make things simple. And many states randomize the ordering of all the candidates, so you don't have a fixed slot. It's hard to say what variables the manufacture used at the plant. Most machines (from my understanding) arrived onsite to the voting judges ready to be used. QuoteThe concern is legitimate, but in application to this election smacks more of sour grapes. To a certain extent, I agree with that. Quote It's a bit unsettling when you see signs suggesting that 51% of the people are wrong. This is how democracy works. Same to talk about suceeding from the union. Attacking those that voted for Bush is the wrong way to go. Half of this population is fed up and has very little trust in Bush as a leader. Many of us feel, with good reasons, that he is a cheat, liar and dangerous to this country. Also, we do feel that he did manipulate both of his elections. Transference of that anger/frustration comes out in many ways and it sounds like those folks out there have wrongly pointed their anger at those that voted for Bush._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #17 November 13, 2004 I dont buy it. Corporate directors are completely corruptable, for sure, but corporate directors are not the one's writing the programming code. A project of this size would involve more than a handful of geeky techies at the bottom of the corporate ladder who write and test the code, assemble the machines and perfom QA, etc. It's extremely difficult, in my opinion, to contain a scam as big as this amongst several low-level employees. Small "salary bonuses" would not be enough to make them conspire to a federal crime and large bonuses would raise too many flags elsewhere in the company. -No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #18 November 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo yes, I do think a single programmer can do stuff like this. Indeed, any new system or software that gets released has hackers picking it apart within minutes in most cases. That's why if there was one who picked it apart, there would be 20 right behind him/her doing the same thing. Back when the Apple II was king, hackers were an outcast-type-anomoly. That's not really the case anymore. Hacking has gotten harder over the years due the increasing complexity of the hardware and software._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #19 November 13, 2004 Speaking as one thats involved in computer security as his job, no hacker has been able to get access to the voting machines to see what they are really made of. The machines were only allowed out of storage for election day and to have the voting data keyed into them via a flash upgrade. The rest of the time they are stored locked away. The same electronic voting machines turned up large republican votes in at least 7 heavly registered democratic districts in FL also. I used to sneak in seperate subroutines in my code to do things like tell me how many times did people change their choices or to change their answers if they took too long in answering things.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #20 November 13, 2004 the bigger the lie the more peole believe it......hang on, this could be a fun ride._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 November 13, 2004 QuoteBack when the Apple II was king, hackers were an outcast-type-anomoly. That's not really the case anymore. Sure it is, when you're talking about real hackers, anyway. All the idiots out there now with hAk3rz T00Lz, phreakz and crackz they download off the internet don't count. Whoopie, they can hack completely unsecured software and systems. Show me a guy with a laptop running a packet sniffer and who has no clue why in the hell anyone would want a GUI, and that's a hacker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 November 13, 2004 Kerry lost, get over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #23 November 13, 2004 QuoteKerry lost, get over it. Can we just make that a sticky?--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #24 November 13, 2004 Quote Can we just make that a sticky? No and here's why . . . that's not actually what this thread is about. Right up until this point we've been having a fairly interesting and somewhat intelligent conversation on the subject, but if you reduce everything to "Kerry lost, get over it." -- how lame is that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 November 13, 2004 QuoteQuote Can we just make that a sticky? No and here's why . . . that's not actually what this thread is about. Right up until this point we've been having a fairly interesting and somewhat intelligent conversation on the subject, but if you reduce everything to "Kerry lost, get over it." -- how lame is that? We've had several discussions that have basically come down to "Bush cheated" - how lame is THAT?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
