Message-ID: <4119A70E.8080701@brvenik.com>
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