full-disclosure - Will a vote for John Kerry be counted by a Hart InterCivic eSlate3000 in Honolulu?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: Will a vote for John Kerry be counted by a
 Hart InterCivic eSlate3000 in Honolulu?

Jason Coombs PivX Solutions wrote:

>
>If we're going to allow these electronic voting devices in our elections, then we the people must be empowered to become the all volunteer quality assurance army that validates the data output.
>
>  
>

Hey there Jason,

    I share similar concerns.  If we trace the "why" of this issue back 
to it's root (and discard conspiracy theories - which, given the 
attitude of a certain voting machine company that begins with a 'D's 
executives, would be impossible to discard) is that it comes down to the 
fact that our (s)elected officials are more and more often coming from 
the corporate power-base.  There are two facts about corporate 
leadership: a) Negate your responsibility and liability and b) the 
appearence of legitimacy is all you need.

    Using that filter, you can explain all of the actions and 
perspectives of the current government.  Of course, this isn't a 
statesmanly thing.

     This is why I support removing the right to run for office from 
anyone who has served as an executive in a company.  Having served in 
that capacity produces a mindset that is poisonous to the democratic 
process.  This is not a "discriminatory" practice in the sense that 
being elected is a right.  That's the first argument people throw at me. 
However, it's an argument that is not grounded in reality.  The criteria 
for serving in public office already includes discriminatory criteria 
that discludes people who don't meet it's guidelines because those 
guidelines have been determined to weed out those who would not make 
appropriate statesmen.  This, of course, isn't a wholesale solution - 
but it is a start.  Furthermore, being an executive is a choice. 

     That's all you need to know about this situation.  Actual 
legitimacy is not important to those in power and those producing these 
voting boxes, implied legitimacy is.

                -Barry