Feds to Open BlackBoxVoting User Logs? 286
Doc Ruby writes "Investigating a crack of eVoting company VoteHere, the FBI is said to be issuing a subpoena for the traffic logs of journalist Beverly Harris' BlackBoxVoting website. The FBI is pursuing Harris on the theory that her site is the connection between incriminating memos leaked from (VoteHere competitor) Diebold and the intrusion into VoteHere's servers. Are you on the list?"
No Logs. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm surprised they don't do this already.
Re:No Logs. (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before the feds make it a requirement (via some law similiar to PATRTIOT) to keep logs?
Re:No Logs. (Score:5, Interesting)
And along those lines, would US hosting companies shift servers and other infrastructure (potentially some staff) overseas to allow them to retain certain sites?
Re:No Logs. (Score:2)
Re:No Logs. (Score:4, Interesting)
If that's what they want it, then they can pay for all the costs involved in doing it.
Re:No Logs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Logs. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Logs. (Score:5, Interesting)
As for forums without registration, they allow people to post under whatever name they want. Each posting is tagged with either "registered" and "unregistered". And might I add they have some pretty talented trolls there too. Think of "-1" on /. as the shallow end of the pool and fc as the deep end.
Re:No Logs. (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll specify "all electronics and papers pertaining to logging", and they'll take everything. The only reason they aren't already gone is because we're here and if they go after em', it'll look aufuly suspicious now won't it? A website exposing the republicans' (the guys who are in power right now) connections to fixing voting machines all of a sudden gets raided by the FBI because the FBI thought they might have logs pertaining to the theft of logs at Diebold, a corporation republicans have a lot of dealings with.
Of course, it won't be spun that way in the mainstream media. No mention will be made to the connection between Diebold and republicans, and Diebold will be spun as a nice corporation that had some critical documents stolen by nefarious kniving hackers. Not to mention the humiliating defeat in california the company had, this'd just begin to really get the ball rolling at the top of the snow hill, so to speak.
Now, if you l33t haxors really want to do something useful, MIRROR THE WEBSITE! Think about it this way; Blackboxvoting.org goes down due to an FBI raid, an organized mirror is available. The main mirroring page has a nice paragraph or two explaining the websites position. The blackboxvoting owner then requests the website be redirected to the mirror site. The news hits mainstream media the day after the raid, whammo, everyone's typing blackboxvoting.org into their web browser and checking the website out, as well as reading their position on the whole thing. I'll leave the rest upto your imagination, but I think people will begin to get even more uneasy knowing congress is screwing around with their right to vote.
Of course, the ensuing media debacle will be, as always, phased out in a blast of confusion, but at least a couple thousand more Americans know their voting system is going down the toilet.
Got Gestapo?
This is probably not needed, but WTH (Score:5, Informative)
Lazy, paranoid and helpfull.
wget -m http://www.blackboxvoting.org ; chmod -R a+rx *
At your service. [stud.ntnu.no] As we speak. Univeristy-class hosting.
You might notice a slight glitch, but I'll have that corrected.
I am now. (Score:4, Funny)
Gotta trust the system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tampering with the election companies is a great way to prove that they're insecure, but it's still illegal...
Not judge. Grand Jury. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not judge. Grand Jury.
"Just a bunch of citizens" meeting in secret and nosing into anything a prosecurot thinks might be a sign that a crime might have been committed.
Because their proceedings are (allegedly) secret and the details of their deliberations do NOT become either public record or evidence usable at a trial, claims of privilege and immunity to search do not pull much weight.
Re:Not judge. Grand Jury. (Score:4, Informative)
Grand Juries aren't about doing whatever the Prosecutor wants. Usually, they're about doing whatever the citizens want - the Prosecutor can ask them to investigate something, but there is no requirement that they do so. The Prosecutor can present all sorts of evidence that a crime has occurred, and the Grand Jury can vote not to indict (we did, in one case), and the Prosecutor can tell the Grand Jury not to indict someone, and have them indicted anyway (we did that too).
The reason Grand Juries are secret is that there are no Fifth Amendment protections when facing a Grand Jury. Yes, a Grand Jury can require you to answer a question you'd rather not (like, "Did you kill your wife?"). That said, testifying before a Grand Jury grants immunity to prosecution for any crimes discussed in your testimony. So, we had to be VERY careful about who we "invited" to talk to us. Wouldn't do at all to accidently invite the murderer to testify, thinking he was just a material witness....
It should further be noted that the Grand Jury concept came about to protect people from abuses by the government. No matter what the government says, the Grand Jury can indict or not at its whim - and if it refuses to indict, the Prosecutor/DA is just SOL, no matter how bad he wants a trial.
And finally, even if this person whose logs are being subpoena'd is considered "one of the good guys", and even if Diebold and the Republicans are "bad guys", stealing things is still illegal, so the Grand Jury investigation may be warranted.
And even more finally, why are you people whinging about this? The lady is a journalist, which means she can invoke Source Protection laws, if applicable, and refuse to turn over any information....
Re:Not judge. Grand Jury. (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a friend who while serving as
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:2)
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:5, Insightful)
"A judge somewhere"... Exactly the problem, here. Thanks to the lack of clear jurisdictions containing a given website, the FBI can pretty much take their pick of every judge in the country to find one willing to issue a warrant on this. Consider me not exactly inspired with confidence on the justification for the issue of this warrant.
Gotta trust the system
No, we don't. Hear that sound? The founding fathers just broke mach-1 turning over in thier graves at your suggestion. A significant portion of the US constitution describes how to properly replace it when, not if, we need to overthrow an overly oppressive government. We cannot, and should not, trust the system. The system exists to extract real labor from you in exchange for purely token compensation. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you still trust the system, I hope you've enjoyed coming out of your coma. But I have to tell you, things have changed. The "system" allows you your freedom only because you haven't become a visible enough target yet, not because you haven't committed any crimes (and trust me, we've all committed crimes, breaking laws we don't even know exist, ones that include mutually exclusive (and thus impossible to comply with) terms. The "system" leaves us alone until it needs us to vanish, then it simply has to pick a crime with which to charge us.
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:3, Funny)
How do you go mach -1? Backwards?
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. You're thinking of the Declaration of Indepenence [indiana.edu]. Which, in fact, is not a part of the oppressive, monolithic "system" as you described it (the Constitution, the U.S. Code, and the laws of the several States is what I think you were referring to). In fact, the Declaration of Independence has no legal basis in our system whatsoever-- it was just a self-justification published by a bunch of guerillas revolting against an overseas colonizer (granted, it was a very well-written one). The fact that some of those same guerillas went on to establish a central government over the previously independent colonies is inconsequential. Nothing within the "system" as you call it provides for its own overthrow-- that's to be taken up by brave patriots like yourselves. (Do you really think you could make a better one?)
The "system" allows you your freedom only because you haven't become a visible enough target yet, not because you haven't committed any crimes
Wrong. The "system" allows you your freedom because you haven't been convicted by a jury of your peers of a crime that requires you be remanded into custody of the state. (You do realize that trial by jury is still in effect, right?)
You seem to have skipped a few stages on your way to 1984, my friend:
If you're concerned about the activities of a particular branch of the government, I suggest your first step should be to look up who's on that particular oversight commitee.
Your significantly less paranoid friend (who works at one of those overseen government thingies),
-d
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also remember that the standards for obtaining a warrant (and presumably a subpoena) have been lowered. What must be done now is just the assertion that the investigation relates to terrorism, something which is defined quite broadly now.
Lastly, how do you defend practices suc
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the guys at Guantanamo, or the largy body of "material witnesses," suspected terrorists, and other U.S. citizens being held without trial or conviction by the US government.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:3, Interesting)
I seem to remember that the vast majority of US Citizens think the internment camps of WWII were and are bad ideas.
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm... your point being? Indefinite detention of non-soldiers was DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL [slashdot.org] during the Civil War. Although the WW2 internment camps were allowed to stand at the time, they were officially designated a "great injustice" [google.com] in hindsight.
Sooner or later, the same will be said of our abuses in the War on Freedom^H^H^HTerror. The only question is whether the denunciation will be accompanied by applause or explosion
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically more like 120. The first anti-narcotics ordinance was against opium parlors in San Francisco shortly after the civil war.
I for one can't see why anyone would think declaring war on some social problem can possibly be a good idea. I mean, war is all about killing your enemy to achieve some goal. While the implementation has been atrocious, having a War on Terrorist is actually logical, if rather
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:5, Insightful)
But what if they don't need [stim.com] a subpoena?
and perhaps most significantly, you seem unaware that the activities of the FBI are overseen by Senators and Representatives that you and I vote for
Oh sure, I trust the other branches of the Gov't to oversee the FBI [textbookx.com].
The problem is that Congressional and Court oversight usually waits until things have gotten so far out of control that they can't duck their responsibility. By which time many innocent people have been hurt. I call the current stupidity in Iraq (ICRC pdf - sorry) [guardian.co.uk] as my first witness and Frank Church [schoolnet.co.uk] as my second.
Your significantly more paranoid friend (who has worked for two out of three branches of the Federal Gov't).
trust, but verify (Score:4, Insightful)
"Ours is a government built not on trust, but suspicion."
- Thomas Jefferson (paraphrase)
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast majority of prisoners copped a plea rather than risk going to trial on a more serious charge represented by a public defender.
If a majority of suspects went through a jury trial the system would collapse from overload.
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no. First of all, the jury selection process has become the jury tampering process. A jury of peers should be a randomly-selected group of eligible people, but it's more or less handpicked nowadays. The verdict is often decided by which lawyer is craftiest in "disqualifying" potential jurors. Jurors in the pool should not be asked any questions aside from:
Do you personally know the plaintiff or defendant?
Do you have any hearsay knowled
Re:Gotta trust the system... (Score:3)
Is this what Southern juries did in the 1960s when they aquitted KKK members of murder charges involving lynchings of African-Americans? Jury nullification sounds good as a check on tyranny until you realize that it is just as likely
It's not a warrant, it's a subpoena. (Score:2, Funny)
Awwww fsck (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess here's one of those instances where it pays NOT to RTFA. Like we ever do anyway.
Re:Awwww fsck (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Awwww fsck (Score:5, Informative)
Unlike discovery in a trial, "fishing" warrants are perfectly legit, assuming you've got a sufficently friendly judge.
Perhaps you slept through "TIA" i.e., Big Brother? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Awwww fsck (Score:2)
Find The Real Culprits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Find The Real Culprits (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Interesting)
This post will be modded down just for saying it. Any pro linux or anti microsoft sentiment expressed on slashdot anymore is modded down. Any post which reflects negatively on the security of closed source is modded down.
Hell I'm starting to believe that the rumors that Microsoft has bought a chunk of Slashdot are true (90% of the ads on the site are Microsoft AD's, some are even TCO FUD links).
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you considered the possibility that the
On the other hand, I could be wrong and MS could own OSDN wholly, the shares are cheap enough...
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
Throughout the day I don't have time to read slashdot and browse the comments at work (yes I actually have to *work* at work, the nerve of those people). But I certainly load up the page and scan for vulnerability/worm/etc headlines because slashdot is the one place that generally covers all the majors fairly fast (using an open source type method so to speak) which will point me to the individual site covering the issue. Or make me aware of said issue so I can hunt out more information.
For blaster for instance, this was extremely useful, I knew about blaster right away, and although there wasn't a fix out yet when it first hit until about noon that day, because I'd found out that this beast existed on slashdot we didn't spend hours trying to fix these issues before realizing it was a new worm.
The same is true for the linux systems we have out there. Granted I've never had a linux update break anything yet, but the Windows world has me paranoid enough that I haven't set automatic update downloading. And although I update routinely if I hear about a certainly especially critical issue I make it a point to update the systems affected IMMEDIATELY.
Throughout the day I generally have 2 or 3 30second windows in which I can check a site for information about current issues, that means I have time to check ONE site. I imagine alot of people are in this boat.
Either slashdot covers vulnerabilities or it doesn't, either it covers worms or it doesn't. Perhaps not on the main page for every single one... but I have EVERYTHING turned on for what is supposed to come up on my slashdot page, so if a legitimate vulnerability/virus/worm/trojan/spyware/activatio
That said, I think your mistaken though. I still find it suspicious that this started occuring right about the time the volume was seriously cranked up on the Microsoft ads (not when Microsoft ads first started appearing, there used to be some, now almost all the ads are).
Jon Katz works for Microsoft now - no joke (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
You need a significant new Microsoft vulnerability to make it news.
An Open Source vulnerability generally is news.
The Microsoft ads indicate that Micrsoft is feeling pressure. Be aware that ads are targeted not to the customers of the product but to the management of the company that approves the ad. The TCO ad just means that Microsoft found somebody who could figure out that a mainframe was more expensive than a dual Xeon Intel box. I'm sure an extended cab pickup is cheaper than an 85-ton earthmover.
All software has bugs. But you knew that already.
We found another one. This not the first. It won't be the last.
You need to update to keep your system secure.
If there ever will be a hole, your system is not secure.
Not knowing of any insecurities is not equivalent to being secure.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
For those of us who have taken such a step, such discussions are doubly boring, as invariably some yahoo will berate us for leaving before microsoft released NT, or 2001, or XR.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Oh, I dunno.
1) Slashdot is a very effective early warning system for Microsoft malware.
2) You can rename/delete the programs that are necessary to run the walware.
Note: 2) doesn't work with the later versions of Microsoft Windows which require that you enable viruses.
As for leaving before Microsoft released blah blah. the newer ones are more gizmo happy, which means more places for holes, which means the holes become a required part of the infrastructure. Mic
Release of a competitor's documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Release of a competitor's documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lent (Score:4, Funny)
Needs a silly answer (Score:2)
Heh... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heh... (Score:2)
I on the other hand believe the feds will ask for any information they have an excuse to get and add absolutely everything they get their hands on to their own private databases.
Re:Heh... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think so. Now that it's public, they're going to be looking for the ones who panic because they feel they have something to hide. Those people will be the first to be nabbed if it comes to that, I bet. The way they see it, the most suspicious activity you can take part in is panicking in front of law enforcement.
That being said, a slashdotting of user creations could put a crimp on them finding who panics, but the
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Funny)
Shameful... (Score:5, Insightful)
This administration is easily outpacing the chicanery of Harding, Fillmore, and Tyler combined.
Re:Shameful... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shameful... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go RTFA [seattleweekly.com]. It may make you worry more than you seem to be from your reaction.
Re:Shameful... (Score:2, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:Shameful... (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget conspiricies, it's in the intrest of Hollywood to not draw government attention and piss the government of the day off. After all, they may have to actually pay the correct amount of tax (Hollywood blockbusters LOSE money on paper for tax reasons), and they want to continue to lobby for special copyright laws, weird things like DVD region zoning, DMCA etc.
The voting problem is related but different, a fragmente
Fascism closer than it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Traditional Republicans yes, but the neo-cons in power are anything but traiditional Republicans. And thanks to them, the USA is a lot closer to fascism than we think:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
OK, the control is there, the suppression of opposition through terror and censorship is growing, belligerent nationalism is very evident, racism has always been there and now is more prominent in the "war" against terror. The only thing lacking is the true centralization of authority, although the way the President was given a free hand to declare war it's not too far off. We're just one more major attack, followed by a declaration of martial law, away from fascism.
Furthermore, as Mussolini said, fascism should more properly be called corporatism. Corporatism. Ring a bell in today's USA?
Re:Fascism closer than it seems (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's start with Mussolini's comment: corporatism, in Mussolini's sense of the word, wasn't related to corporations in the current sense of the term, but rather was an enforced arrangement where the state stepped in to enforce 'national consensus', where all players - business, labour and the state - act in unison for the 'national interest'. Thus the symbolism of the fascis (bundl
Re:Shameful... (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA resembles Sweden or Finland more than that - a central nanny-state trying to get their hands into everything to "help".
Re:Shameful... (Score:2)
They make Clinton look honest.
Unmasking the AnonCows... (Score:4, Interesting)
Jesus H Christ, RTFA and weep (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so wrong. We're talking about electronic voting, something which demands security (and transparency, but never mind the apparent paradox just now) and they're not concerned that someone has broken into their network? That's like the police not being worried that someone has been wandering around the evidence room.
Next, "A crime is a crime is a crime". Not only is that redundant but unless you're speaking algebraically it's a bunch of bullshit. In court, your method, your motive, and whether or not your hair is neatly parted and whether or not you've flossed that morning all have a profound effect upon the results of your trial. Furthermore there is a big difference between (say) accessing someone's network for monetary gain, accessing someone's network for the purposes of just defacing it, or accessing someone's network in the pursuit of liberty. Today, that sounds cheesy and fake, which makes me sad. There are valid reasons to break the law. Sometimes when you break the law for a valid reason you are punished anyway, and sometimes not, which is a risk you take - but please allow me to remind you or inform you all (as appropriate) that here in the US of A evidence gathered during the comission of a crime by a private party is admissable in court, but evidence gathered by a police officer which he has to commit a crime to collect is not (typically) so clearly society recognizes some cases in which it might be a good idea to allow selective enforcement of the law.
Maybe I just rant too readily, but I don't like this guy already.
Especially given the recently discovered CVS hole (Score:2)
Especially given the recent news about the heap overflow in CVS [com.com] that is being discussed in the immediately previous slashdot article [slashdot.org].
Read the whole story from Bev Harris here. (Score:5, Informative)
Bev Harris Speaks on Secret Service Issue [democratic...ground.com]
Re:Read the whole story from Bev Harris here. (Score:4, Insightful)
This wasn't done by a government agency acting alone, it was done under a Grand Jury approved warrant.
And you can't investigate leaks to journalists by going in and grabbing the reporter's computer.
Journalists love to claim "journalistic privledge". To bad that's not valid in any court I know of. They've gotta co-operate in an investigation just like everybody else, or at least take the punishment for Obstruction of Justice.
I started getting solicited to accept VoteHere software. I didn't bite, because it was obvious that this was an entrapment attempt.
Not good enough. She should have reported those e-mails to authorities so that they'd investigate them. Claiming to have those e-mails but not turning them over headers and all is one way to be sure a warrant with your name on it is coming.
Okay, a word about VoteHere: This is the company that has no visible means of support.
A lot of companies develop and release free software so that they can frost their own widget later. Come on, how many
And (you know who you are) -- consider this a heads up: If you start bumbling around in my house with U.S. marshalls, the very first thing that will happen is mainstream news coverage that you are misusing the Patriot Act to get at membership lists and private correspondence for a fishing expedition on stuff that isn't even the subject of a legitimate investigation.
You can only hope, Bev. You don't control which side the media's going to take... and you don't exactly have journalist credentials that the "mainstream media" are going to accept.
If she really thinks she's the subject of an investigation, anything she publishes should be going through her lawyers before coming out. Clearly this wasn't, because she just dug the hole deeper.
You don't really get to claim "unfair subpeona" when you clearly had evidence that you should have reported as soon as you got it.
Bzzt. Thanks for playing. (Score:5, Insightful)
If journalistic privilege didn't exist, would Novak really have been able to get away with publishing the identity of a CIA operative, and been able to shield the source of the leak by claiming journalistic privilege?
There are dozens, if not hundreds of pieces of caselaw which point to a journalistic privilege existing. However, this journalistic privilege is not absolute. (Then again, no privilege is absolute! Even before USA PATRIOT was passed, attorney-client privilege wasn't absolute. Doctor-client privilege isn't absolute. Priest-penitent privilege isn't absolute.) This means that, under very specific circumstances, a court can order a journalist to cough up a source, evidence, etc.
But it's an uphill battle and it usually ends very, very poorly for prosecutors. It's a lose-lose situation. If they lose, then they look like jackasses in public and they don't want that. If they win, then the next time they're up for re-election every newspaper will endorse the other guy, and they don't want that.
Re:Read the whole story from Bev Harris here. (Score:2)
California has "shield law" legislation protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. So does New Jersey. So does Oregon. So does New York. So does Colorado. So do Kentucky and North Carolina. So do Arkansas, Lousiana and New Mexico. Minnesota's got overturned by the state Supreme Court but as far ask I know Nevada's, Georgia's and Montana's are still in effect. Then there's Oklahoma a
unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
And they want us to put our democracy in their hands??? Yikes!
Bring back paper ballots, pencils (Score:2, Insightful)
I think young people might get more engaged in the political process if they worked as scrutineers and staff at polling booths, but automating everything down
Re:Bring back paper ballots, pencils (Score:2)
Re:Bring back paper ballots, pencils (Score:5, Informative)
You are right that taking hardcopies home would be a stupid idea, but I have honestly not heard a single person suggest that. Unfortunately, someone started calling them reciepts, and it caught on and now everyone is all confused because they think these hardcopies are used the same way as a normal reciept. Damn it, I knew this was going to happen the first time I saw that word in a major article.
Re:Bring back paper ballots, pencils (Score:4, Insightful)
If the papers in the bin don't match the electronic count... you've got a fraud.
Re:Bring back paper ballots, pencils (Score:5, Insightful)
Absentee Ballots, heard of em? (Score:2)
Re:Absentee Ballots, heard of em? (Score:2)
First, you'd also have to mail it in their presence, or there'd be no proof that you did. Further, they'd have to be there continuously from when you did it to when you mailed it, or you could invalidate it.
Second, is there a way you can invalidate previously mailed absentee ballots? I don't know if they track who sent them in, so this may or may not be possible.
Third, you could probably contact the FBI or other police force and get them to loan you a wire so
Dunno about her... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as we saw in the Steve Jackson case, the seizure is more to punish than to glean any info.
RE: seizures (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a pretty amazingly large list of computer bulletin board systems that listed "FBI raid/seizure" as their reason for finally going offline - yet no prosecutions were made in the vast majority of these cases. People simply dialed up one day, got a "number has been disconnected" message, and assumed the sysop didn't want to run his/her BBS anymore.
I first realized this when looking over one of the old collections of BBS numbers found on the Internet. (I think this was someplace on the www.bbsdocumentary.com web site, but as I look there right now - I only see lists of BBS names with phone numbers and sysops, but no notes as to why they went offline.)
It seems to me that right before the Internet really went mainstream, the feds were spending an awful lot of time seizing people's BBS hardware and software, with no real motivation other than attempting to break up the "BBS scene".
But but but (Score:5, Insightful)
Truly, I am all over anyone who hacks, destroys, or otherwise wakes the public up to the dangers of e-voting. Of course, I'm now marked for GitMo by the Bush Administration, so I probably won't be posting as often...
Are you on the list? (Score:4, Funny)
Quote from VoteHere (Score:5, Funny)
"VHTi proves that electronic voting machines worked correctly and did not cheat in every election. "
So . . . only in a few elections?
Bev Harris misses the point (Score:5, Interesting)
She dismisses open source software as a solution to electronic voting because bugs can remain hidden even after many reviews. While this is true, it misses the point that we should assume no system will provide a complete answer and therefore use a combination of source code auditing (best if the code is open), certification and what I believe is the most important: paper ballots that can be re-counted to provide an alternative to the electronic counting.
Re:Bev Harris misses the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bev Harris misses the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Words to Quiver By (Score:5, Insightful)
Question Authority
and Authority will question you.
But in the past, for most of us, that was just a quaint saying to chuckle over in the dorm lounge. This is the first time this shit is coming HOME for many of us. If you think this list of users isn't going to go into a database somewhere, you probably aren't on the list in the first place.
Bev Harris needs Robert Novak's Lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
She outed neo-con friends of Bush: she's toast (Score:3, Insightful)
The key difference is that Robert Novak was doing the administration's dirty work in outing the CIA operative as payback for comments critical of the administration. Any investigation of Navak is going to be for show
Re:Bev Harris needs Robert Novak's Lawyer... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Whether or not you like what one is saying, which obviously in the case of RN--I don't, one must still apply some set of standards to those claiming to be journalists. I would normally have no trouble with any journalist (even said RV) refusing to name a source, for the protection of person and the trade. But when it involves a political tit-for-tat at the expense of lives and national security, then you have to ask yourself whether it is still "journalism."
2) My
"Are you on the list?" (Score:2)
IP address !== fingerprint (Score:4, Funny)
Only 549 signatures on their petition... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BlackBoxVoting.org.
Go and show that it's not just a dozen paranoid freaks out there that think the system is broken.
More from the article (Score:4, Insightful)
She also states that the investigators rarely even ask her about VoteHere, that they seem to be fishing for something else...what else is there?
Diebold gets kicked out of California. There are reasons why that company/industry would want to see her/her website/whistleblowers to go away.
I'd be really sad, if we've reached a point in our history, where the FBI gets involved in covering up the Diebold mess. Diebold has *more* than earned its place of shame, and electronic voting needs more watchdogs and whistleblowers...not less.
I just had an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I just had a lightbulb go off in my head. This is how I shall eventually rule the world... eliminating my enemies via paranoid government... muhahahaha!
I visited her website several times (Score:5, Interesting)
I first started following what she and others had to say when the Swathmore College sudents launched their electronic civil disobedience campaign against Diebold. The students were trying to bring attention to internal Diebold memos which showed that Diebold employees knew how insecure their voting machines and the software was. The students were fighting Diebold's cease-and-desist letters that were forcing websites to take down the memos. For a few hours at a time websites would appear with the information and then the would quickly be shut down and dissappear. The websites not only had the internal Diebold memos but some even had the actual GEMS software and sample voting data files to play with.
The webpages included instructions on how to intall the software on your Windows computer and then use Microsoft Access to easily bypass the all security features. As I recall, it also explained how to modify the "AuditLog" and bypass the audit trail. Keep in mind that the internal memos showed that Diebold knew about most of those problems and did not seem to want to bother fixing the security flaws. Many polling places are now using Diebold voting machines here in the United States.
I did not downlaod the GEMS election software and the memos from the websites. The files would have been to large to be downloaded with my slow dial-up connecton. But, I am sure that many people around the world did. I have not kept up with what is going on lately but apparently the FBI claims to be investigating an alleged break-in at the VoteHere electronic voting software company. The FBI also seem to still be interested in the Diebold memos.
What Bev Harris and others want is for us to use voting machines that print out a stub which can be inserted into the ballot box as a backup in case a recount is needed. Machines of that type exist now but for some reason there has been less of a push for using them. Correct me if I am wrong but, I have heard that several of the voting machine companies have several lobbyists busy in Washington and have made a number of political contributions. Perhaps the main problem is that Bev Harris is trying to bring all that to everyone's attention. She and others are guilty of trying to protectly the integrity of the voting process here in the USA.
Are you on the list? (Score:3, Funny)
Lets see how the feds handle a slashdotting log
Never mind the VOTE FRAUD (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't usually curse in my /. posts, but that is just fucking priceless.
Reminds me of the justice department investigation (and criminal proceedings against) Greenpeace.
Greenpeace found a ship that was bringing illegal timber from the Amazonian rainforests. So they sent a couple guys to put up a banner on the ship, that said something like "Stop illegal logging now".
So they got caught the Justice department is using a "sailor mongering" law over 100 years old to prosecute **the entire Greenpeace organization**, not just the two chaps who trespassed on the boat. The law was intended to stop prostitutes and bookies and other "low moral characters" from getting on boats at sea.
Never mind the illegal loggers. The justice department is not investigating them, nor suing them, nor prosecuting them. Just the whistleblowers.
Let's get behind Beverly! I for one will be donating money asap!
Greenpeace won their case (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nit (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing makes me madder than discovering that along the way, one of my teachers drilled the wrong thing into me. We all depend on what we were taught in things like grammar. Unlike math, there's no "going back to first principles" or "proving it for yourself." If we were taught wrong, we end up making fools of ourselves later,. Of course, it might help if we paid teachers more than a pittance, or if more than a tiny fraction of students cared, but that's another gripe for another time.
And then, of course, there's the possibility that all three sites I checked on the 'net are wrong-- lord knows the internet isn't exactly edited for accuracy. For now, I'll just have to take your word for it.
Re:god damn right, (Score:2)
I would personally guess that Slashdot does log IPs long term and is thus able to associate IPs with usernames.
*That* would make an interesting saleable membership option: "log in to your account, check 'post anonymously', and we will not retain any record of your IP/post association after 36 hours".