Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Trusted Computing/DMCA vs. Diebold Pentagon Paper 290

Posted by simoniker from the controversy dept.
The Importance of writes "Diebold's ill-fated e-voting machines have gotten a lot of coverage recently. Of particular interest is the fact that some of the most damning documents are legal memos leaked from Diebold's law firm, Jones Day. The memos were leaked to the Oakland Tribune. Now Diebold's lawyers are trying to suppress their publication. The judge has ordered the documents returned, except for those already published on the internet. Hopefully, the First Amendment will protect the newspaper's rights to hold onto the documents. However, EFF's Jason Schultz points out a very real and very scary scenario in which trusted computing combined with the DMCA makes such leaks illegal, regardless of the First Amendment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trusted Computing/DMCA vs. Diebold Pentagon Paper More

Trusted Computing/DMCA vs. Diebold Pentagon Paper

Comments Filter:

  • This is just not good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Analog Kid ( 565327 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:24PM (#8956558)
    Now the government is going to allow suppression of freedom of speach, this is not good. America is becoming another Soviet Union, something they were actually trying to avoid. I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it.
    • Nope. They've already been published on the internet, which means that Diebold can try all they like, but odds are since the document has been published,, can be republished.

      Worst case scenario, they can't publish the report verbatim, but they can summarize it. Mark my words.
      • I believe that not *all* of the documents have been published.

        The Oakland Tribune could just *leak* them again to another paper.

        I hope they have not complied with the court order, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

    • Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I am seeing a revolution sometime in the near future, it's going to happen, I just know it.

      Now you've done it! Prepare for Ashcroft to land a black helicopter in your lawn ...

      • To tell you the truth, I've always thought about something like that when I post something like that, that I'll be put on the terrorist list by the government for speaking of it. I suppose though if I did get hauled in, it would cause enough unrest in the country to be the spark which ignites the flame.

        • Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Draknor ( 745036 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:07PM (#8956790) Homepage
          'Tis a noble thought.

          Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on /. or other tech-sites, but the spin that the mass-media public hears (assuming it hears anything at all, which is a big assumption) is that you were just another computer hacker-terrorist making threats & advocating "evil things on the interweb".

          That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general - in a perfect world, people would be fully informed. But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide. It's not total control, but it works well enough for the majority of the people that it takes mountains moving before John Q Public hears and seriously considers alternate viewpoints.

    • Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by S.Lemmon ( 147743 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:33PM (#8956612) Homepage
      Actually, using the DMCA to suppress this kind of information might, in a round-about way, be a good thing. It would make for an idea court case to have the DMCA's constitutionality challenged.
    • While the US is on the road towards totalitarianism, it is hardly alone, or even leading the pack!

    • Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Informative)

      by Eccles ( 932 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:41PM (#8956659) Journal
      Now the government is going to allow suppression of freedom of speach, this is not good.

      Oh c'mon, the U.S. government? That'll never happen. [usatoday.com]

    • Revolution? I doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:52PM (#8956701)
      Even back in Washington's day he could seldom rally more than 5,000 troops, out of a population even then numbering in the millions.

      Americans are too busy watching reruns of Celebrity Treasure Island or American Idol to care about boring shit like abuse of the Constitution.

      We harp on and on about being the Land of the Free(tm) and Home of the Brave(tm) but we meekly rolled over and pissed on ourselves the second we were told to by President Rumsfeld.

      Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.
      • > Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's
        > going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.

        Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Starr.

        Lifetime appointments last longer than 4 years.

    • Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cthugha ( 185672 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:29PM (#8956895)

      Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship. To illustrate, let me pose a hypothetical.

      You're the accused in a high-profile case on some new, egregious law, a la the DMCA or PATRIOT Act. You're not certain about whether you're guilty or not given the novelty of the provision under which you're charged, so you seek legal advice, making full and frank disclosure of what you've done so your lawyer can give you the best advice possible. Somewhere along the way a "concerned citizen" gets ahold of the memos generated in the course of obtaining this advice and passes it to the prosecution, or, better yet, the press, who throw it into the public domain so it loses its quality of confidentiality.

      Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech? Granted, Diebold is a corporation and nobody's liberty is at stake, but Diebold is a vessel for the economic interests of its shareholders, so property (another important right) is at stake and ought to be protected, no?

      • Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by agrippa_cash ( 590103 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:21AM (#8957069) Homepage
        I think you already see they key differences. Perhaps (almost certainly) these documents shouldn't be admissible in a trial. However, there is an matter of the public welfare to consider here. There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in. *By voteS I meant those of the citizenry. I have never voted twice in an election (though that may change with these machines.)

        • There is no public good that could come of people knowing my dirty secrets, but it is very much in the public's interest for citizens to know exactly what hands we're placing our votes* in.

          That seems to be a nice example of the general position, "I trust myself implicitly so I don't need oversight, but you, sir, are another matter". Your point on public interest is taken, but public interest is a very slippery concept, especially when you're using it to try and define the scope of important basic rights.

          • To me it seems pretty cut and dry actually. The person that leaked the memos did something wrong. The newspaper that repoted them did nothing wrong. As we slashdotters like to say from time to time: once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back. Why are the newspapers having the corrective burden placed upon them? If they have valuable news and they are being forced not to report it then they are suffering sanctions when those sanctions should rightfully be placed upon whoever broke the confide
      • Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech?

        This is all the fault of the defendant and his lawyers.

        The whole point of there being an attorney-client privilege is that both the attorney and the client have to keep the information private.

        Apparently, someone at Jones Day has committed malpractice. That is not the newspaper's fault. It is Jones Day's fault, and it is Diebold's fa

        • The decision you referred to is a somewhat faulty analogy: recieving information you know to have been obtained by breach of confidence or you know is being given to you in breach of confidence is different from picking up a report on display in a room which essentially anyone can access. In any event, the statute forbidding the publication of sexual assault victims' identity under any circumstances was shot down because it was far too broad, and couldn't cover situations where the newspaper came by informa

          • Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Informative)

            by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:43AM (#8957355)
            It's a perfectly appropriate and applicable case. The newspaper in this case DID receive the information lawfully.

            Do a google for "bob novak" and "valerie plame" if you want some examples of a journalist receiving information that was provided to him illegally. The provider of the information broke the law (much like the leak at Jones Day). But Mr. Novak did not break the law in receiving the information... he merely listened. The press has no obligation to shut its eyes or hang up the phone merely because it knows that the person communicating with it has broken the law.

            The fact that the informant broke the law does not follow the information in order to somehow make the newspaper guilty.

      • Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship.

        Except that the linked article is not about the attorney-client privilege. That's a separate right that exists with or without DMCA, and applies to the government. IANAL, but I believe any evidence obtained by prosecution that violates attorney-client privilege will not be admissible in court.

        The linked article [corante.com], however, discusses something else. This does not only apply to lawyers' doc

    • REALITY CHECK (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <SatanicpuppyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:46PM (#8956945) Journal
      The DMCA does not supercede the constitution. So, until it becomes a consitutional amendment, newspapers and TV stations and anyone else has the right to file a freedom of information request.

  • Regardless? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:25PM (#8956562) Journal
    WTF? When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition? I'll tell you: legally, NOT EVER. The Constitution trumps anything Congress might try to do. The Constitution is the guidelines by which Congress is able to pass laws. To quote the Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the exact citation): "Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

    • Re:Regardless? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:29PM (#8956587) Homepage
      When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition?

      Anytime. Or more specifically, whenever the Supreme Court says they can and law enforcement, guns and all (beginning with the Justice Dept.), sides with government. Who appoints justices and cabinet-level law enforcement? The President.

      This is why presidential elections matter, even though it's supposedly congress that makes laws... the existence of checks and balances is not foreordained by the nature of the universe; it depends on a populace who votes carefully to keep these checks and balances in place and to keep the power-hungry or purchasable out of office.

      • Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Informative)

        by triclipse ( 702209 )
        But don't believe for a second that the liberal end of the court will be more protective of your rights. One need only read Kyllo v. United States [cornell.edu] to recognize that Scalia and Thomas are two of the strongest defenders of liberty on the court. The same can be said for free speech.

      • Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Templaris ( 754690 )
        Actually there are instances where the law simply just fails. Remember when Andrew Jackson was President? I believe it was the Cherokee who were trying to hold onto their valuable land. They pleaded their case to the supreme court and ended up winning. They still had to abandon their homes anyways. Why? Because the govt wouldnt enforce the courts judgement. "They've made their decision, now lets see them enforce it." - Andrew Jackson

    • Re:Regardless? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dr Reducto ( 665121 ) * on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:31PM (#8956595) Journal
      WTF? When can anything be done regardless of the Constutition? I'll tell you: legally, NOT EVER. The Constitution trumps anything Congress might try to do. The Constitution is the guidelines by which Congress is able to pass laws. To quote the Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the exact citation): "Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

      That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court, and the courts have a sense of justice and haven't sold out. Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary. Unfortunately, the apathy of the average American (spoken as a young American who is disenchanted by the rights we have lost so far, and the rights we will come to liose) makes me fear the future.

      • Re:Regardless? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by taped2thedesk ( 614051 ) * on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:01PM (#8956753)
        That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court

        Yep. And assuming that someone is so passionate about our RIGHTS that they have the balls to disobey the DMCA so that it can be challenged.

        Until someone stops complaining about it and gets it to the Supreme Court, nothing is going to change. So the question is, is anyone ready to take the leap? I'm hoping that the Tribune goes and publishes anyway. Someone needs to take this risk, maybe it will be them.

        I'm know I'd buy a subscription if they went through with it - probably not of much consequence to them if they lose the case, of course.

        Here's to the digital millenium.

      • Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by demachina ( 71715 )
        "Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary."

        You aren't going to topple the U.S. government with arms anytime soon. Nonviolence, think Ghandi is the only viable approach to defeating the monster that has taken control of America. Study Ghandi's tactics, for example his march to the sea to make salt to defy Britain's colonial tax on salt. Peaceful protests, legal but on the edge and sure to provoke an excessive
    • Your new to America arent you?

  • Posting (Score:5, Funny)

    by aePrime ( 469226 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:25PM (#8956564)
    If my comments get moderated poorly, it's not my fault; I'm pretty sure Slashdot is using Diebold software to tally the moderations.

  • Time to re-write the Star Spangled Banner (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...o'er the land of the controlled...and the home of the oppressed.

  • So... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Doi? I'm confused... the reason this is might not be protected under the First Amendment is because the documents might have been obtained unlawfully, right?

    • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dfn5 ( 524972 )
      That's what it sounds like to me. Maybe everyone's private medical records should be "accidentally" published on the 'net and we'll see how long people scream first amendment. No, I think people here would instead be yelling about their privacy first. Doctor-patient privilege is no different than the attorney-client privilege. IMHO, the press shouldn't be allowed to print it, and the person who leaked it should be thrown in jail.

      • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:02AM (#8957001)
        If a corporation was hiding information regarding its misdoings which were at best harmful to the public good but not technically illegal, and at worst amounted to downright fraud and deceit, would you care how that information was obtained?

        We're talking greater good here. It is in the interest of the public to know that Diebold's voting machines are downright dangerous to the freedom and security of American elections, DMCA and other laws on information be damned.
        • If a corporation was hiding information regarding its misdoings which were at best harmful to the public good but not technically illegal, and at worst amounted to downright fraud and deceit, would you care how that information was obtained?

          Is it in the public's interest to know the identities of everyone who is HIV-positive? I mean, greater good and all...

          It *is* important whether or not the information was obtained legally. These laws protect *everyone*, even the bad guys. If we stop respecting them

          • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by arkanes ( 521690 )
            Greater good can (and has) been used to trump privacy in the past. It's a very, very hard sell to most courts, which is a good thing. In other cases, it's not so hard - we don't publish AIDs victims, but we publish sex offenders.

            Think about if right to privacy trumped free speech in ALL cases - there wouldn't be _any_ leaked memos. I think that, in this case, a newspaper might very well win the case, but it's not a forgone conclusion, nor should it be.

            Illegally obtained information is not specially prote

      • Doctor-patient privilege is no different than the attorney-client privilege.

        I wouldn't agree with that statement at all. Sure, they serve similar roles, and perhaps have similar importance, though I tend to think that there's even still a difference between criminal and civil matters for attorney-client privilege. Criminal is more like doctor-patient, because you're talking about liberty, which ranks right after life. Pursuit of happiness might encompass civil matters, but that's a stretch.

        But they're

  • lets get diebold, monster style.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by negacao ( 522115 ) * <dfgdsfg@asdasdasd.net> on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:29PM (#8956589)
    I'll bring the pitchforks.

    Who can pitch in for the torches?

    <g>
  • Not only did I post [slashdot.org] about this yesterday, but I've also submitted stories about the issues with Diebold and the actions of Alameda County officials (Oakland is in Alameda County)

  • Corporate America.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TypoNAM ( 695420 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:32PM (#8956603)
    Hey welcome to Corporate America and you're no longer free thanks to those who are in the house senate for voting our freedoms away.

    And I strongly believe it could get a lot worse which it will, history tells us that.

  • Not exactly an obscure scenario... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:32PM (#8956605) Homepage
    Anyone who didn't see this distinct possibility as the result of DMCA et. al. either has forcefully inserted their head in the sand or hasn't been paying attention.

    Information wants to be free isn't just a hacker hippie value. It's the foundation of western society, from acadamia through government. The sharing of information is fundamental to the stable and just growth of any society.
    • the DMCA is the greatest weapon against freedom of information ever, yes. its horribly bad, yes.

      however, by esposing the value of 'freedom of information' in such absolute form, you risk your crusade ruining your support.

      patents are a form of information control. our military needs information control. there is a place for the control of information. however, the point of the DMCA 'evil' is that it should not be the corporations who control every bit of information at all related to them.

      take everyth
  • Osama Bin Laden said after 9/11 that he wanted to destroy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. G.W. Bush is working as hard and fast as he can to fulfill Osama's every wish! Who is the real terrorist?

  • I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:36PM (#8956627)
    I wonder how people can defend these kinds of actions? What I mean is, Diebold's CEO is obviously in the back pocket of the Prez of the US. He has said he would give Ohio to the Prez in 2004 (I dunno, maybe as a bday gift). And this happens in California. I know that people are not that dumb. They have to see the connection, be it in Florida, California or even Ohio. Yet the backers of Bush and Co don't care. Are they so blind to the fact that they want only their party in power, that they can't see the road these actions are taking the nation?

    Like the 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle. Is it so bad to admit the man you support is an asshat, and needs to be thrown out of power, and taken up on criminal charges? God people, take some responsibility, and quit listening to Rush and attacking anyone who doesn't think like you do.

    In the immortal words of George Carlin:
    I say live and let live. Anyone who can't accept that should be executed.
    • I wonder how people can defend these kinds of actions? What I mean is, Diebold's CEO is obviously in the back pocket of the Prez of the US. He has said he would give Ohio to the Prez in 2004 (I dunno, maybe as a bday gift). And this happens in California. I know that people are not that dumb. They have to see the connection, be it in Florida, California or even Ohio. Yet the backers of Bush and Co don't care. Are they so blind to the fact that they want only their party in power, that they can't see the roa
  • 1st amendment=part of Constitution which is the highest law. DMCA federal law, which unless it gets into the constitution (not even a treaty, which is the 2nd highest), is inferior to the Constitution, and any place where the 1st amendment & the DMCA overlap, the 1st amendment wins.

    At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

    • (not even a treaty, which is the 2nd highest)

      Um, actually, treaties trump the Constitution. It's a clever loophole: Article VI lists them second, but Supreme Court precedent in Japan Line, Ltd., et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. finds that the Supremacy Clause can actually trump states' rights, if something "prevents the United States from 'speaking with one voice' in regulating foreign trade." This gives Congress the right to enter into treaties that govern activities they are normally forbidden f

  • Breach of trust! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:39PM (#8956649)
    Diebold is going to be drummed out of the voting machine business very quickly now...

    In California, the process of revoking their license for their transgressions has already started. The software that ran on election day wasn't the software version that was "locked down" and approved. That's just a basic outright fraud, and not something that a company in a position of trust should be trying to cover up.

    Game over. Their word is no good anymore... if your anywhere in your state these machines are scheduled to be used, write your state election officials. Even if you're not going to vote on one of those machines, errant tallies from elsewhere in the state could tip the balance in your state's popular vote because it's looking to be a very tight presidential election yet again this year.
    • Diebold is going to be drummed out of the voting machine business very quickly now...

      Perhaps you haven't heard... Diebold is a huge supporter of the Republican party, and I'm sure they have more than enough friends in office right now (including Dubya, to whom Diebold's CEO has promised to deliver the state of Ohio). I'd be surprised if anything actually comes of this in anywhere besides California (if anything even happens there).

      The Republicans are SET on making sure that our votes are "counted" by goi

  • I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by speedfreak_5 ( 546044 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:41PM (#8956660) Homepage Journal
    The fact that they are a for-profit company (with a record of donating to the Republican party) in control of voting for some parts of the country seems a bit off. I don't believe these memos should have been leaked. They should have been publicly accessible. Hell, anything tied to their voting division should be publicly accessible to protect the voting process. And Diebold should be held accountable for having plans to screw voters over.
    • They have a record of donating to both parties. Let's not get into this so very tired "donating to the Republicans" bullshit.
      • Do they have a record of their executives promising to deliver a state's electoral votes to both parties, too? In any case, the post you're replying to is correct--the voting process must be transparent, not hidden with a smokescreen of freedom of information loopholes resulting from intellectual "property" and government contracts with private corporations.
        • But this is all a side point. Even if Diebold did happen to be politically neutral, so what? Is the next voting machine manufacturer going to be as politically pure? We shouldn't even have to be worrying about Diebold's political affiliation. The mere fact that we are, and that we have to, is all the proof you need that this new process for counting votes is really, really fucked.

          A common rule of legal ethics states that the appearance of a conflict of interest (like a judge going on a duck hunting trip w

      • Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:5, Informative)

        by speedfreak_5 ( 546044 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:48PM (#8956953) Homepage Journal
        Well, according to opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org], for the 2002 [opensecrets.org] and 2000 [opensecrets.org] election cycles, it doesn't look like too much went to the Democratic party. Diebold could have been donating heavily to the democratic party and I still would be pissed because they are biased (not to mention secretive) and in control of the voting process in many places.

        Anyways...

        Where did you see records of them donating to the democratic party?

  • This is a great thing! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:44PM (#8956672) Homepage
    When the first amendment is threatened by the DMCA, that's yet more people who will rally against the DMCA. The more people the DMCA hurts, the closer be come to removing it as law... once removed, it becomes less likely that laws more serious would be passed as well.

  • Remember the bill of rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Metuchen ( 23254 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:44PM (#8956674) Homepage
    Are there any other US Citizens out there that are pissed off that the government continues trampling on the bill of rights?

    1. freedom of the press...just look at this story
    2. the freedom to bear firearms...has been restricted.
    3. the right to a speedy and public trial...citizens can now be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and major trials are often closed.
    4. property can now be seized without due process of law.
    5. wiretaps, which used to require a warrant, now can be performed with no proof and just a hint of suspicion.

    The examples go on and on, and I would argue that while it may be justified in some instances, the slope is a slippery one, and I believe that we, as US citizens must stand up and tell our government that this is *not* okay!
    • Your my friend...

      I posted on this earlier, and got slammed for my stance against gun control/registration. Thank you for telling it like it is.
    • Totally agree.

      1. The press has become so lopsided, so Democrat, that they are so eager to demean the current administration that they can't even bother to check [spaceref.com] the validity of the images of "Soldiers killed in Iraqi combat".

      2. And the current administration is the strongest proponent of lifting those restrictions on gun control.

      3. The counter-party is blocking the appointment [nytimes.com] of new judges to replace retiring officials. Sounds like being against speedy trials to me.

      4. Thank you Clinton [capmag.com] for using e
      • Right on the money.

        But in truth we need to replace all members of Congress. Remember any of the who have served more than 2 terms are working for those who line their pockets. Never forget that anyone who makes less than $135,000/year has no representation. They represent their own tax bracket and the ones they aspire to.

        The founding fathers wanted a citizen legislature to come in do the job and go home to real jobs, not an overpaid permanet ruling class.
      • 1. The press has become so lopsided, so Democrat, that they are so eager to demean the current administration that they can't even bother to check the validity of the images of "Soldiers killed in Iraqi combat".

        The press is using images obtained by The Memory Hole [thememoryhole.org] under a Freedom of Information Act request.

        The request was for any photos of soldiers killed in Iraq. The Department of Defense, in response to the request gave a CD of photos The Memory Hole.

        The Memory Hole made those photos available to the

    • Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Poeir ( 637508 ) <poeir@geo.yahoo@com> on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:37PM (#8956920) Journal
      But at least soldiers aren't being quartered in private houses.

  • My experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by du -Lhcs ( 772468 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @10:44PM (#8956676)
    I live in Brasil. We have had voting machines in the last 12-14 years (yes, twelve to fourteen -- it depends the size of the city you are in). For the Brazilians here: the first election here in Belo Horizonte to use the machines were the mayoral (and city council, state representation, governor, house and senate) before FHC was elected (as I count it, 2 years + 8 years + 1 1/2 = 11,5 years). I know it, because I was "mesário" (election "table" official? election "clerk"? what is a good English translation?) in the previous election, and in the two subsequent elections). IIRC, there were electronic ballot boxes in Rio and Sao Paulo in the election before that (the only two cities larger than Belo Horizonte).
    Our voting machines are mainly of three different (internally) models: (a) the old ones, that use VirtuOS (*) as the OS, (b) the new ones, that use WinCE as the OS, and (c) the newest and deprecated ones that have the second printer to print your vote, show it to you inside a clear acrilic case, and mix it with others inside the machine.
    Externally, all of them look roughly the same: a box similar to the old "portables" of the eighties, with a 5-6" diagonal LCD and a big numerical keypad in the right side of the screen, that has, besides 0-9 keys, "confirma" (ok), "erro" (cancel), and "branco" (white).
    The electoral process (from the point of view of the voter) begins ... when you get your first job. If you are a mandatory voter (literate person from 18 to 65) you have to go to Electoral Court and register to vote. In the process of registering, you receive the "Título de Eleitor" (voter id), in which you have the number of you voting section. To change jobs, and specially to get a government job, you have to prove you are a registered *and* *regularized* voter (you voted in the last election, or regularized your voting situation after it).
    In the election day, you scan the newspapers (or the Superior Electoral Court website), search for the address of your section, and go there. No, there is no transit vote, you can only vote at that address. If you can't get there, you'll have to "justify" your absence.
    At the section, you will present your voter id to one the "mesários", and if you don't have it on you, you can still vote (you can show other valid id), but will be delayed. The mesário will search for your name in the vote-ticket sheet, and annex it to your id while you vote. You will sign a receipt in a sheet, and proceed to the voting "booth". Another "mesário" will type your voter id # in a remotely connected keypad, setting the machine in the "ready to vote" mode.
    The voting "booth" is really a desk with the voting machine over it, facing nobody else in the room, and sometimes with a cardboard "cover" around it. You will "dial" the numbers of the candidates, in order. when you dial all the digits of one candidate, a star-trek-like chime rings, his/her face will show up in the screen, and if you digited it right, you hit "ok". otherwise, you hit "cancel" and start over. After typing all the candidates, you hit "ok" one last time, the machine chimes again, and goes to "stand by" mode. You have voted. If you don't want to vote for nobody, you can hit "white" instead of the candidate ## (accounted as a "white vote", or "none of the above" -- this is the equivalent of putting your paper ballot in the box without marking anything), or if you really want to protest you can type 9999 or other non-existent-candidate-#, and your vote will be accounted as a "null vote", or "I'm really pissed of" (the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing "improper expletives" in a paper ballot)
    Then, you get your id back, your ticket (keep it together with your voter id!!), and you go home. Ah, bars do not open (theoretically) in the election day, so hope you have bought your beer in the day before).
    From the point of view of election officials, things are more complicated. The machines arrive to the Electoral Judge (yes, a Judge of Law) pre-prepared one to two months
    • or "I'm really pissed of" (the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing "improper expletives" in a paper ballot)

      So... do this on a paper ballot, and its a protest of your rights being trampled. But do it on slashdot, Modded -1, troll.

      Well, at least this post has no link to http://goat.cx/...

  • Diebold is asserting attorney-client privilege and attorney work papers.

    What a joke, if the Federal government can violate attorney-client privilege by listening in on the phone calls of accused persons with their attorney, the Tribune can publish internal memos. All gloves are off, so to speak.

    Just my 2 cents.

  • Is This the America I Love? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:13PM (#8956824) Homepage Journal
    A couple of years ago I wrote an essay called Is This the America I Love? [goingware.com] Maybe it's pertinent here, seeing how our next election is well on its way to getting even more fixed than the last one was.

    I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

    I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

    In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

    I loved America for what it stood for.

    I was told that things like political persecution, detainment without trial, and beating of prisoners were things that happened in other countries, that they would never happen in America. I was told that we fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution specifically to ensure such things would never again happen in America.

    But today I see the ugly face of repression rising in America. And it is brought to you by the United States Government.

  • Trusted Computing!?!?! What are Deibold and Trusted Computing doing in the same sentence????

  • Technology Dependance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:14PM (#8956826)

    There are times when it is worth the (ahem) "extra cost" of not using computers. I think this is one of them, and you have to know when to put the foot down. Insert appropriate Monty Python imagery here.

    I don't think I'm alone when I say that managers (and elected politicians are just that, popularly-chosen managers) tend to not be the sharpest bricks in the bag of hammers when it comes to technology.

  • Diebold PHB's == EVIL what about the developers? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sirrube ( 622137 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:18PM (#8956854) Homepage
    Ok the Diebold PHB's may be evil - but there has to be a few decent honest developers working at that company.
    Lets hear from you -
    Since I am from San Diego I know for certain you were not working on your software.
    I am assuming that you must have been reading /. at work like the rest of us do.
    I find it hard to believe that everyone including the developers are evil at that company. I can only assume the PHB's are not writing the code so if something dishonest was happening I am sure we would hear from an honest developer. Besides you can always vote with paper by using a mail in ballot.
    Internet Explorer - The crack ho of the internet.

  • Don't lose sleep in this case... (Score:3, Funny)

    by YouHaveSnail ( 202852 ) on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:51PM (#8956967)
    I don't think we need to worry too much about Diebold setting up any sort of trusted computing platform correctly.

  • The Best Of The Documents Posted Thus Far.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by althecat ( 620595 ) * on Friday April 23, 2004 @11:54PM (#8956975)
    It is interesting to have a look at what these guys want back... So far the Tribune has only touched the surface of these documents.

    Included in the set of links at the Bev Harris story linked in the original post [scoop.co.nz] is a particularly damning memo

    This One [scoop.co.nz]

    Unfortunately you can't cut and paste the content out of these memos - it turns to garbage... but this one deals with advice to Diebold on how to deal with the State of California's request to produce documents.

    It is more than clear from this document that Diebold's lawyers were doing all they could to obstruct this discovery process. The memo states among other things that they want to figure out what the state already has via the original FTP site screw up [scoop.co.nz] so as not to get caught out.

    They also talk about the "smoking gun" request, opining that their client "may need to obtain emails, if possible, regarding state certification of uncertified software. We need to devise a plan to locate responsive documents to this request."

    What do you reckon this means...
  • Diebold screwed up, and they admit it.
    Trusted computing is M$ FUD.
    The DMCA was written by technology and entertainment companies to protect a dying business model. Then enacted by a techonlogicaly illiterate Congress.

    In short, none of these groups really know what they are doing. The Supreme Court will have to rule on the DMCA/Free press issue. Nothing can be settled till then.
    • While I agree with your sentiments...

      Diebold screwed up, and they admit it.

      It'd be very difficult for them to do anything else at this point.

      Trusted computing is M$ FUD.

      FUD != BS. FUD is spreading unfounded and vague worries about something. FUD is a very specific subset of BS. Trusted computing as an idea is not only pushed by MS, but by all those random little companies that keep popping up with ideas to control content that don't work. It's a useful tool to extract money from media companies.
  • Bruce Willis and Jeremy Irons go head to head in...

    "DIE BOLD, with a Vengeance."

    A Jerry Bruckhiemer Production

  • The US government is us.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:42AM (#8957350)
    ...and whenever we say the government is eroding our freedoms, we need to remember that we are not asserting our rights to prevent that erosion. Yep, most elected officials are crooked. Can't get away from that until we remove the huge sums of money from the election process (donations and such). Diebold may or may not be a company seeking to have an unusual influence on elections. More likely, like so many other companies, they are merely seeking to have an unusual hold on some contracts to supply equipment and services.

    As far as the Pres and Co. goes, how do you think he got elected. Any president at some point is merely a puppet to certain private powers that be.

    Think about it, why do we even need Tort law? Why do we even need contract law? Why do we even need freedom of press laws? Because people as a whole have some pretty sick individuals. And, those individuals (enough of them) tend to gravitate towards positions of power. Once they get some power, then tend to amplify it without regard for who it hurts.

    Another way to understand what is happening is to look at the slow poisoning of the planet. What other effect do you think dumping mercury and lead into the atmosphere and rivers could have? What other effect do you think smog could have? What other effect could adding a grossly increased amount of heat trapping gasses into our atmosphere have? The majority of people do not care. If it kills their grandchildren, they will lament, but they will not care until then.

    The reason the freedoms are being eroded and that companies get away with what they do is that most people do not want to give up their TV or their computer games. Most people will sit right in the path of that freight train until they get hit (and then cry foul).

    The alternative? Fighting back is expensive and counter to the normal persons goal of having a nice quiet life. Another article on /. today mentioned a memo at Microsoft talking about the reason so many people did not abandon MS's poor products was the "lock-in" of people unwilling to put forth the energy to go to a better product.

    Most people are like water, they choose the path of least resistance to arrive at the lowest standard of life. Not to be confused with the highest standards of consumerism. Heck, even I do not exert enough energy in the direction of preserving freedoms. I am too busy trying to ensure food is on the table, and my kids have a chance at college. Until we get past some rather serious social issues, the part where we clean up government is not likely to happen, as those in power will be able to keep it by keeping us divided amongst ourselves.

    Innereb

  • Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @03:50AM (#8957690) Homepage
    Here's Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 quality certification [worldpreferred.com], issued by BVQI [bvqina.com] in October 2000. From what's been published about this election technology fiasco, their certification should be revoked. In any case, their certificate may have expired. They're supposed to be re-audited every three years, but their certificate dates from 2000.

    This episode casts some doubts on BVQI's validity as a certification service. Their site has no indication that they've ever revoked a certification. Their pitch to companies has no indication that a company can be refused certification. They don't even seem to pull expired certificates.

    The auto industry takes ISO 9000 certification of their suppliers seriously. See these standards. [aiag.org] Note all the discussion of "revocation", "probation", "non-compliance", and "re-audit". In that world, quality standards violations lose companies the ability to sell to auto companies.

    • Having at one point had the dubious distinction of guiding a company that I worked for through the ISO 9001 certification process, then acting as the "quality manager", perhaps I can shed a bit of light. First of all, for all its reputation, ISO 9001 basically certifies that you follow your own processes, if they are bad processes and you can show that you follow them, then you are in compliance with the standard. Even if you are getting customer complaints, if you have and follow procedures to deal with

  • I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @04:14AM (#8957744)

    That in the case of a conflict between law and the constituion that the constitution over-rode law. So actually it would be the case that the DMCA would get declared unconstituional- or at least not applicable in 1st amendment issues.

    So why are the EFF getting their knickers in a twist- sounds like an opportunity to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close