BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?

Subject: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 01:52 PM

So, uh... I got an e-mail this morning that referred to this... and it made me wonder. Are we in for two more months of squabbling and polarization? Is it too much to ask that our voting systems be secure? Are trickling travesties just the tricks of the political trade?

Is this what they mean by "Our Window(s) of opportunity"?

Yikes! God help us!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM

Sorry, ttr. I didn't see this thread before I posted the same Truthout article in the 'Can 55 million people be so dumb' thread. On the other hand, it can't hurt to touch all the bases!

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:12 PM

Unless yer a'courtin' trouble... ;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:16 PM

If you want your home run counted, you have to touch all the bases. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:19 PM

We knew this was possible before the election occurred. Is Edwards asleep at the wheel? Why didn't the Kerry campaign do something about it? Why did the politicians just sit back and let it happen?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:26 PM

Opening salvo.

"Three congressmen sent a letter to the General Accounting Office on Friday requesting an investigation into irregularities with voting machines used in Tuesday's elections.

"The congressmen, Democratic members of the House of Representatives from Florida, New York and Michigan, cited a number of incidents that came to light in the days after the election. One was a glitch in Ohio that caused a memory card reader made by Danaher Controls to give George W. Bush 3,893 more votes than he should have received. Another was a problem with memory cards in North Carolina that caused machines made by UniLect to lose 4,500 votes cast on e-voting machines. The votes were lost when the number of votes cast on the machines exceeded the capacity of the memory cards."

Opening the Windows

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:40 PM

Look closely at the op-scan results...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 06:09 PM

sorry, Ebbie... I was dumb... again. My blickies did not associate with Truthout... but on subsequential accessment, the Truthout article is an accurate reproduction.

So... is this hanky panky, hocus pocus, or apple pie and Chevrolet?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 06:30 PM

'Salright, ttr.

'Hocus pocus' probably comes the closest, because if it was done at all, it was with malice aforethought. I'd hate to think of it as being as 'American as mom and applie pie.' There has been fraud in American elections from time to time, no doubt about it, but a large-scale wipeout is unprecedented, I think.

And you'll notice that Election 2000 had the same twists.

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 10:15 PM

This site is absolutely asounding.

Look at Liberty County in Florida. This is a poor county in the panhandle of Florida near Tallahassee with a median per capita income of about $15,000. There are only 4075 registered voters and 88.3% of them are registered democrats while 7.9% are registered republicans. Nevertheless, Bush won Liberty County 1927 to 1070 garnering more than 64% of the votes. Does this seem reasonable to you?

Votes in this county were recorded on paper and scanned electronically so a paper trail exists. It would take less than a day to recount this county. If there was hanky-panky here, it would surely be grounds to recount the whole state to the extent possible.


Bev and Jerry

Subject: E-vote audit suit needs immediate action
From: Genie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 11:04 PM

Important related info HERE - A few more days to demand audit

Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org has for several years been fighting the "proprietary code" e-voting machines that have no paper trail.

She and her organization are poised to sue under the Freedom Of Information Act for the e-voting machines in 34 states to be "subpoenaed" and held till their source codes can be examined for glitches, patches, etc., that could have inadvertently or deliberately thrown the election results in those states.

MOST STATES CERTIFY THEIR VOTES 10 - 14 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION.

The challenges need to be mounted officially -- and maybe even ruled on -- by those deadlines.

The important links are given in the thread linked to at the top of this post.

Harris URGENTLY needs $ contributions to fund this legal fight -- and she's very good at this kind of voter advocacy. Even a dollar or two from everyone who visits the site and wants these audits to occur will help immensely, as there are lots of outraged citizens behind Harris's effort.

Please check out the information and links in that thread.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 11:27 PM

I just wrote out a check for $50 to mail off to them tomorrow. Credit card payments are assessed a fee, so they'll get more from a check. Every little bit helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 11:05 AM

The amazing thing about computer voting is that the basic procedures are well understood. All they do is build a data base that is filled by entries from an on line form. It's no different in nature than registering at a web site or ordering something on line. The level of fraud we've seen so far isn't all that sophisticated. In 4 years the republicans ought to be able to sweep the nation. The real snag is that the programs used are all secret, proprietary software. It's impossible to be certain what's actually happening with the program without knowing exactly what it does. Computer voting will never be secure until the source code is available for public examination and installed by bi-partisan committees. Prepare for the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 11:27 AM

It is precisely this confusion that upsets me... way more than the prospect of any particular candidate... I need to be able to trust the process of voting, before I can trust any administration.

The inaccuracies abound, the potential for fraud and 'totals manipulation' are rampant, and insecutiy is therefore... the norm. In the words of every challenger that has attempted to improve the status quo...

                -:WE CAN DO BETTER:-

...much better. And we had better do it now.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 12:20 PM

Since the 2000 "election" I find myself obsessing over ona phrase from the Declaration of Independence: "...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..." It's Deja Vu all over again. (Yogi Berra? Satchel Paige? Somebody smart.)

We should start by flooding our Congresspeople and Senators with the most factual, checkable links. That also gives them the info that we're out here watching and it matters to us. For starters.    Tw

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 07:04 PM

Dianavan,

I wish that Kerry and Edwards could have done something about it. They were powerless.

That said, I was disappointed that Kerry conceded so soon. However, had he not, he would have been hounded by the attack dogs of the Right-wing and possibly jeopardized his Senate seat. At least, I'd rather have him there as a deterrent to the onslaught that will take place with the Republicans try to install a Supreme Court Judge to overturn Roe V Wade.

Remember that the election was financed by big corporate tax evaders who saw to it that it was in their best interest to get Bush elected. Now they practically write the laws of our congress.
It's the closest we've come to a corporation-state as a dictator of public policy. A new kind of fascism not unlike Moussalini.

One of these corporate criminals is the Diebold organization who make the voting machines. Their chairman, Walden Odell promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. Looks like he succeeded so far.

But the investigations will go on.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 09:00 PM

Frank - I hope with all my heart that the investigations will continue. Electronic voting is bound to happen world wide. If the American voting system is so corruptible, what will become of the rest of the 'free world'?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Genie
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 02:04 AM

mack/misopist, you said it very well.

In addition, I've learned that some of the big problems with vote count have to do with the TRANSFER of precinct data to central computers. In many cases, this is being done with MS Windows (Excel, etc.) over a plain ol' MODEM! Any cyber-savvy high-schooler could hack in. Or a poll worker or elections official. Or Bin Laden himself?


We are so concerned with "security" that Ted Kennedy ends up on a "no fly" list, and 90-year-old grannies from Alabama are being wanded and searched, but we run our Presidential (and many other) elections using computer programs and transmissions that are about as secure as driving around Fallujah in a Geo Metro!

Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Genie
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:59 AM

Bev Harris's site is being sabotaged big time. Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it? I mean, if the election and the vote count have been on the up and up, why would anyone care that much about keeping the machines from being inspected and all the votes counted?

If you find you can't get onto blackboxvoting.org, please check out this thread:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=75394&messages=5


It gives alternate ways of contacting Bev.

Randi Rhodes can also help you contact Bev.
www.therandirhodesshow.com

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 04:21 AM

"Efforts to launch an official statewide recount of the Ohio presidential vote are underway. While it's unclear if a recount will result in a Kerry victory, it's likely to highlight many flaws in Ohio elections that may have tilted results toward Republicans and against Democrats.

" Common Cause of Ohio and the Alliance for Democracy, a progressive coalition, Thursday announced they were launching a recount campaign for Ohio. Columbus, Ohio attorney Cliff Arnebeck, who represents both groups, said both the Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates would seek a recount if the $110,000 filing fee could be raised. "Common Cause and the Alliance for Democracy are not partisan. The purpose of the recount is to verify the honesty of the process," Arnebeck said. "That is in the interest of anyone who would be declared the winner."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Genie
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 12:28 AM

First off, Ohio hasn't even finished the COUNT of their votes for the FIRST time. They're still working on the provisional and absentee ballots. (And, as I understand it, they've already destroyed many provisional ballots that they deemed unacceptable. IMO that should be illegal until all interested parties sign off on such destructin of "evidence.")

In theory, Kerry could win Ohio WITHOUT a recount. All it would probably take is the absentee ballots to be about 50% for Kerry and the provisional ballots to be nearly 90% for him.   This doesn't seem likely, but it's not out of the question.

Thank goodness Ohio has some fairness and rationality built into its election laws. It does take only 5 potentially "injured" citizens and ONE candidate on the ballot to demand a recount of any precinct's votes -- if they can raise the $$ to pay for it. (That is not a problem in the case of the 2004 election.)

Florida, on the other hand, makes it nearly impossible to get a recount -- especially if the "proprietary" software accidentally or deliberately made the outcome outside the margin of error. If the results were not "close," you can't get a manual recount -- even where there ARE paper ballots -- period. The exit polls could show Kerry winning 90% to 10% but if the "official" results show Bush winning by several percentage points, there won't be a recount. From what I've been reading and hearing, them's the rules, and even if a particular precinct's votes are highly suspect, you'd have to have the statewide count very close -- as it was in 2000 -- to get to recount that precinct.

I really do think Florida's electoral votes were stolen too -- based on exit polls vs. actual counts -- but I don't think this will ever be proved, because it's basically a hypothesis that can't be tested.

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Genie
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 10:06 PM

Bev & Jerry, situtations like that in Liberty could be dealt with easily by a spot-check (sampled) hand recount of the paper ballots, and in some states, e.g., Ohio, that's pretty easy to come by. But Florida law doesn't allow for any sort of recount unless the vote is "close." Even if that standard were applied at the precinct or county level, the Liberty Co. vote count wasn't "close." And the statewide Bush v. Kerry count wasn't close enough, either.

This is why voting reform laws need not only to require a paper ballot trail but mandate that a certain percent of all votes be counted manually as a check on the accuracy of the voting machines. Otherwise, all a hacker or partisan programmer needs to do is steal BIG.

I hear, BTW, that Florida doesn't plan to EVER count its provisional ballots for the 2004 Presidential election, since the result wasn't within the margin of error. That means we'll never know how great Bush's actual margin of victory was in Florida, assuming he actually won at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Hackers and Hanky Panky?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 10:11 PM

Does anyone remember the movie with Paul Newman and Robert Redford entitled "The Sting"?