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
| ||
|
From: security at brvenik.com (Jason) Subject: waa waa (was Finally the truth slips out) Barry Fitzgerald wrote: > Security List wrote: > >> Appointed? If you do not believe in the U.S. >> constitution and the supreme court then I could see >> how one might suggest that Mr. Bush was appointed. If >> you do believe in it then you must know that his >> "appointment" was the only legal solution to the >> issue. Many major papers investigated the vote >> counting in FL and they all concluded that Mr. Bush >> did win if the votes were counted correctly. Never >> mind the thousands of military votes the Dems had >> thrown out which were legal. Come on people. Do your >> research if you are going to try and make a point. >> >> >> >> >> > > To bring this back to a security issue, your statement hinges on your > operational definition of "counted correctly". I can guarantee you that > many informed people are going to disagree with your personal > operational definition of "counted correctly". So, the key here is what > is the baseline for counting and verifying votes? > > This is the single largest issue with touch-screen voting and the > security of modern elections: verifying the integrity and authenticity > of the vote. > Many of the so-called "legal military votes" were given the soldiers > already filled out. Some (a significant portion) did not have the valid > authentication requirements (SSN, full name, etc). Some soldiers > reported that absentee ballots were never actually sent by them, but > rather filled out by commanders and sent unsigned. > > The litmus test for verification is always the completion of the shared > secret, whatever form that takes. > > A properly functional login system doesn't say "well, the person may not > have put in their password, but I'll let them in anyway!". That's a > sign of a flawed system. > > And if this were not a controversial subject that most people can't > seperate emotion fromn logic on, you'd agree with me on this. > > There are terrible flaws in the electoral system and these issues have > to be validly addressed. These issues will continue to shed doubt on > elections, regardless of the outcome. > > -Barry For an in depth understanding of electronic voting and the issues surrounding it visit http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ Some interesting links like open source voting software being used in parts of the world. I believe there is even an open challenge with a 10K reward for anyone that can modify the votes tracked by an electronic voting machine, I will have to track that article down again if anyone is interested. random thoughts below: So my whole point in responding to this thread in the first place was to remind people how much technology can ultimately have an impact on the world, while getting a dig in on the governor of course. Seems a few have taken the time to learn a little about the process, some have embarked on a flame war. The flames were a much lower volume than I expected however I did get the expected number of people with little interest in understanding or the requisite clue to get it even of they want to. In all I am impressed that many skipped right over the troll portions. There are many questions that come of it still like are people just not interested. Now I wonder if our collective understanding of technology can successfully meet the needs of the real world and actually make a difference...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists