full-disclosure - University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: sutpen at gmail.com (Thomas Sutpen)
Subject: University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:04:27 +0000 GMT, Jason Coombs <jasonc@...ence.org> wrote:
> As for source code or other security vulnerabilities in closed- or open-soure vote tabulators, there is little point in rigging such schemes, and less point in exploiting them. Good old fashion statistical abberations exploited for the benefit of the party that finds them first will win every time.
> 
> In principle, all voters have roughly the same risk of their vote not being counted under any electoral system. This is called 'equitable risk'.
> 
> If, through testing of electronic voting machines, statistical anomalies can be detected that favor the candidate that is entered into the database third (or whatever, take your pick, and it would be different for different voting machines and maybe in different regions, say, because Florida is full of elderly) then you can 'rig' an election in your favor simply by having a non-random selection for the order in which the candidates get listed, and a failure to properly distribute that randomness across precincts.
> 
> If anything, that is what I believe is most likely to have happened in 2004. Bush elected through the (fair ?) exploitation of statistical anomalies tied to misbehaving or ill-conceived electronic voting equipment. Teamed with the fact that partisan, interested voters are in charge of the process this is very plausible...

Any sort of impartiality and vested interest in the actual security of
the whole process that you might have claimed to had was pissed away
in your very first post on the subject.  The one where you came out
waving the Kerry flag.  Remember?

It is my observation that your thinly veiled concern for the process
is merely out of self-interest, if not sour grapes.  Your fixation and
continued posting on the subject does nothing to add to your
credibility.  And further, it helps perpetuate the stereotype that
liberals are wackos, nut-jobs, conspiracy theorists, and underground
members of the peoples' tin-foil hat militia.

At least your previous email wasn't one of your six-page, vaguely
coherent, pedantic and almost meaningless rants that make you sound
stoned.

Shut up about it, already.