I'm new to this group and have been inspired by a lot I read here... but already I think the
honeymoon is fading and a kind of sad reality is creeping in. I now realize that not
all DUers are very smart, or willing to face the facts. I guess I shouldn't have hoped for
everyone to be brilliant.... but what I'm seeing now is actually very disturbing.
Far too many DUers are in denial, or haven't been willing to do adequate research... or are
listening to too much propaganda, because they still don't get it that the elections are being
stolen. It sickens me to see DUers being conned... or whatever else is going on in their heads.
No matter what the reason. In the final analysis, this denial is dangerous. Here we are getting
ready to count the votes... and they still are not willing to face facts. This group is causing
division and doubt... and will dilute any possibility to change our future in this county if it
continues. This is a battle for our lives, and doubters will kill the battle.
I've studied computer voting since 2001 and have spent thousands of hours digging and talking
to other experts about these problems. I don't know how DUers and like-minded progressives
are EVER going to develop a viable strategy to take this country back if a substantial
portion of us don't face reality and admit there's a problem.
I don't get how this denial can persist in such smart people. It has to be the type of denial that you
cling to because it's just too much to handle psychologically. Maybe those big liberal
hearts get in the way of reality.
Or do some DUer's think Democracy is somehow untouchable? Do they have the silly idea that
systems designed and managed by partisan and special interests-- are free from criminal
manipulation? Or is it that they think that although there are evil politicians that have a "the end
justifies the means" modus operandi --- that they just can't bring themselves to believe that
these criminals would go so far as to trash Democracy... just to become the most powerful
people in the world, and get their hands on the biggest stash of cash in the world.... the
U.S. Treasury...? (at least it used to the biggest before 2001). What... that's not a big
enough prize?!
You really don't have to be a computer expert to get this, but there are plenty of us
around who have given our input on the extremely serious problems with computerized
methods of voting, and NONE of us have maintained that fraud is not readily possible.
So how come so many DUers have discounted the possibility of fraud? And though computer scientists
from universities are conservative and won't stick their necks out much, many privately discuss the
fact that fraud has indeed taken place. NONE have publicly excluded the possibility of fraud, and
yet DUers are clinging to a belief that all is well... which is kinda crazy.
A few days ago in a private e-mail to another voting fraud activist, computer security expert Dan Wallach
of Rice University, Houston was asked whether he would please make a statement about which party the
visible voting problems most often benefited. Wallach said, "All the reports I've seen have generally been
at the expense of Democrats."
FINALLY! a computer scientist with balls to state the obvious. We sent this e-mail far and wide, but so
far I haven't heard anything at all about Wallach being called to repeat it for the cameras.
A week ago Avi Ruben of Johns Hopkins University finally admitted in an NPR interview, that after years
of research that he's concluded that the only safe voting method is the use of paper ballots -- NOT computers,
and not even computers with paper receipts (as university scientists had promoted for so long).
This new stand came out way too late in my opinion.
Fraud has happened and it is very obvious to all of us who look closely at the problem that it has.
But you have to realize that it has not been talked about overtly by scientists as often as it should
because it's scary for conservative university scientists to look at all these disturbing patterns and
feel comfortable saying, "FRAUD!!! FRAUD!!! Democracy is stolen!!!
Mainly it's because they need to keep from ever straying for even a moment from the strict confines of
observable science and proof. They also have to continue to promote computers if they are to continue
to get grants and research funding from the computer/ software industry. Their bellies get soft and timid
too when they think the possibility of losing tenure. Taking risks is not a comfortable thing for these guys.
But now a few of the scientists are taking chances and speaking out. They realize that the disgusting
catch 22 of these voting systems never allowing for forensics... they realize that this is a trap that is
ensnaring all of us, including them. They don't want to go down in history as the world's greatest wimps
who let Democracy slip away. So even though the forensics cannot be performed and it can't be definitively
proven -- they see the patterns over, and over, and over -- and have to assume that the systems are
designed for fraud... because EVERYTHING SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS TRUE
If you want to hear Ruben's statement in an NPR Science Friday episode, you can download the short
interview here (see tiny word "voting" in the box at right under "ARCHIVED AUDIO":
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour1_102706.htmlAnd DUers In Denial ---don't cling to that absurd, lame crap about how voting today is really not different from
the past and that "there has always been fraud in elections"... because if you do so you are being enormously
obtuse!
It should take you ten seconds to realize that the current system is MUCH different. It's no longer that
bad, old fashioned equal opportunity vote fraud like in the good old days. Vote fraud today is hugely
different because THE SYSTEMS ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY PARTISANS AND BECAUSE
VOTES ARE CAST USING COMPUTERS -- THIS MAKES THE SHEER SCALE AND PRECISION
OF THE THEFT POTENTIALLY HUGE (!!!) COMPARED WITH DAYS OF OLD. AND...THERE IS
CURRENTLY NO RELIABLE METHOD IN PLACE TO CATCH THE FRAUD, AND NO WAY TO
DO FORENSICS TO PROVE IT OCCURRED.
It is the perfect crime.
For those DUers who are still doubting Thomasinas... you gotta do some homework. You can start with
what's outlined below for your convenience, along with links. Please do this. Our Democracy may
depend on you changing your minds and getting your brains and hearts in sync and in gear about this issue.
****************************
Here's a list of comments from computer scientists compiled by mathematician Kathy Dopp:
*************************************************************************
What do the Experts Say?
“Only real recounts (cross-checking paper records against official tabulations), not just rereading machine
totals, will resolve close elections.” October, 2006 The American Statistical Association
http://www.amstat.org/news/StatisticalIssuesInElections.pdf “Computer viruses … can spread malicious software automatically and invisibly from
machine to machine during normal pre- and post-election activity” and “even careful forensic
examination of these records will find nothing amiss” “anyone who has physical access to a voting
machine or to a memory card can install said malicious software in as little as one minute.” “some of
these problems cannot be remedied without replacing the machine’s hardware.” Princeton University
Computer Scientist Ed Felton http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
“Technicians or election officials could be producing infected memory cards without any knowledge
of what they were doing.” “We’ll never have secure machines if the vendors succeed in keeping the
inner workings of their machines secret from the security experts…. Secrecy is not the road to
security.” “The Princeton report describes two attacks: a vote-altering attack and a Denial-of-Service
attack” Yale University Computer Scientist Dr. Michael Fischer
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6387
“The current generation of electronic (DRE) voting machines are not secure, do not provide voters
with a way to know that their votes are being tabulated correctly, and do not provide a mechanism for
effective recounts when errors arise. As such, they represent an unacceptable technical risk, regardless
of how people feel about them.” Brigham Young University & University of Utah Computer
Scientists (Carter, Windley, Brundvand, Gopalakrishnan, Hanscom, Jones, Lee, Regehr, Seamons, Shirley,
Drake) http://utahcountvotes.org/voting_system_advice.pdf
“The basic problem of e-voting can be understood without an in-depth knowledge of computer
technology. Here is a helpful analogy: Suppose voters dictated their votes, privately and anonymously,
to human scribes, and that the voters were prevented from inspecting the work of the scribes. Few
would accept such a system, on simple common-sense grounds. Obviously, the scribes could
accidentally or intentionally mis-record the votes with no consequences. Without accountability, a
system is simply not trustworthy, whether or not computers are involved. “ and “You don't need a
Ph.D. in computer science to understand the basic problem with computerized voting. Computer
systems are so complex that no one really knows what goes on inside them. We don't know how to
find all the errors in a computer system; we don't know how to make sure that a system is secure or
that it hasn't been corrupted (possibly even by its designers); and we don't know how to ensure that the
systems in use are running the software they are supposed to be running.“ Stanford Computer
Scientist David Dill http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5789
“Diebold’s system is utterly unsecured. The entire cyber-security community is begging them to
come back to reality and secure our nation’s voting.” Pentagon Cyber-Security Advisor Stephen
Spoonamore http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Technology/story?id=2596705&page=2
“We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election.” Johns
Hopkins University Professor of Computer Science Avi Rubin in a paper presented at the 2004
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.
Kathy Dopp http://utahcountvotes.org/docs/WhatdotheExpertsSay.pdf 11/3/06
“There are no standards. There is no scientific research … there’s an erosion of voting rights implicit
in the inability to trust the technology that we use and if we were another country being analyzed by
America, we would conclude that this country is ripe for stealing elections and for fraud.” DeForest
Soaries, Former US Election Assistance Commission Chairman 2004-2006 (appointed by Bush)
“Many of the hard drives and apparently all of the motherboards of the voting machines are Made in
China. China is known to be attacking the Dept of Defense, Commerce Dept and other government
computers. The motherboard controls the computer and hiding a malicious program in the boot sector
of a hard drive isn’t much of a trick, one has to assume that some or all of the Diebold voting
machines are potentially, even probably controlled by China (Security 101).” And “Diebold is based
on Microsoft Windows. No other operating system in the world is as subject to so many viruses,
Trojan horses, hack tools, worms, or other attacks..” and “Diebold has repeatedly used uncertified and
untested software and hardware in elections, making a mockery of even the weak certification and
testing procedures in place.” And “Diebold has repeatedly failed to correct known security flaws and
software bugs.” and “It has become easy to determine that a Diebold representative is dissembling.
His, or her lips are moving.” Dr. Charles Corry, Colorado Springs, CO, former IEEE (the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) member of the voting system guidelines committee for 4
years (& former Marine corporal) October, 2006
“Some believe that computer touch screen machines are the future of electoral systems, but the
technology simply fails to pass the test of reliability. As anyone who uses one can attest, computers
break down, get viruses, lose information, and corrupt data. We know this to be the case, and so we
back-up our files to ensure nothing important is lost. Paper ballots serve as the ultimate back-up for
our elections, providing secure and permanent verification of the will of the people….When a vote is
cast, a vote should be counted. With paper ballots we will have a record. With paper ballots the
fundamental principle of one person, one vote is safe.” Democratic Governor Bill Richardson – NM
http://utahcountvotes.org/US/GovRichardsonLtr20060301.pdf
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) called for the state to scrap its $106 million electronic voting
apparatus and revert to a paper ballot system for the November <2006> election. "When in doubt, go
paper, go low-tech," he said. Ehrlich advocated leasing optical scan machines that use paper ballots…
Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich – MD Washington Post Thursday, September 21, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001356.html
“All three voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real
danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections.” and “Few jurisdictions have
implemented any of the key countermeasures that could make the least difficult attacks against voting
systems much more difficult to execute successfully.” The Brennan Center (NYU Law School)
Experts include statistical consultant, professor University of California at Davis; Electronic Privacy Information Center;
professor Stanford University, PhD, Cyber Defense Agency LLC; former CEO of F-Secure PLC; Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Chair of the California Secretary of State’s Voting Systems Technology Assessment and Advisory
Board; prof. University of Iowa; PhD NIST; PhD, NIST; prof. MIT; Former Chief Security Officer, Microsoft and eBay;
Counterpane Internet Security; PhD, formerly of the Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT; prof.
University of California at Berkeley; prof. Rice University; Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/SecurityExecSum7-3.pdf
“It seems that integrity and honesty aren’t terribly important at Diebold…” and “We send people to death row
on flimsier and more circumstantial evidence…” “How much are you willing to pay for secure trustworthy
elections?” “What more would these machines have to do to prove they’re dangerous, whistle Dixie while they
miscount our votes?” Andrew Kantor, technology writer for USAToday, former editor PC Magazine and
Internet World. http://www.usatoday/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-09-29-diebold_x.htm
Kathy Dopp http://utahcountvotes.org/docs/WhatdotheExpertsSay.pdf 11/3/06
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(103 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
