Pilots For 911 Truth

Activists say voting-machine software needs a dry run before November

Electronic Voting Equipment Records a Vote of 'No Confidence'


This is a topic that will come up again before November 5th, 2008.

Talk Radio and Print Media across the nation is way ahead of MSM on Television on this particular subject. Having been a systems engineer and having done some programing/coding/development as a direct result in a past life, I can tell you that conducting our elections through the electronic filter of a software driven computer model, is down right stupid at the very least and dangerous to our republic at the worst.

I can write a program, encrypt the source code itself, compile that code into an executable and then sell that software to as many counties as I possibly can. Those counties will then use my code on election day unaware of the timed-anomaly that I coded into the "software" such that it moves "X" number of votes into the column of my favorite candidate for every "Y" number of votes cast interval for the candidate that I don't like that much.

Since the anomaly that I coded into my "software" is based on the OS data/time function, even if someone thinks that an "audit" is in order on the 5th of November, it won't matter. Why? Because my code was designed to only run the X/Y function on the 4th of November between the hours that include the open/close hours of the voting precincts.

By the time the precinct closes, the function is turned off at the source automatically and when the November 5th test is run against that particular machine, all votes will be allocated according to their actual placement by the test voter.

Simple - clean -and trace free stealing of the 2008 Presidential election.

Oh, but you say, just decompile the executable and then verify that the source code has no anomaly, right? Wrong. If I am the one who encrypted the source, then you have to come to me to get the source decrypted. Well, won't that finally solve the problem once we use your decryption on the source? No. Why? Because, if I'm a really a good code jock, then I can write a little algorithm that alters the source during decryption at precisely the location that contains my little X/Y apple pie. So, by the time you finally get to source, it looks pristine and free of anomaly.

Now, you know one way that it can be done. The questions is this: Is this going to be a problem in 2008 and are we looking at a repeat 2000 and 2004?

__________________
Max Range: 2,500 nm (normal)
Max Speed: Mach .83 (486 kts)
Max Ceiling: 49,000 ft (certified)

Panther

Electronic voting machines will be fine, they'll perform exactly as programmed.

They are the GOP equivalent of the DEMs drive to register dead people, paying people with food to get in a van to vote DEM, etc. It will all even out in the end.

__________________
Anagrams: Joe Biden and Barack Obama =
A jerk and a bad, anemic boob.
- or -
Barack mad a babe joined on.

MrVicchio

Because our votes will count.

__________________
Us Navy Veteran. AerographersMate 2nd Class (AW) Mr.Vicchio, At your service!

"What's so great about the Constitution anyway?"-1069

TacticalEvilDan

A variety of state governments are way ahead of Talk Radio and Print Media.

I've seen state legislative hearings on YouTube where "security experts" testified that electronic voting machines could be hacked remotely -- because the state had paid them to do so, in order to prove how insecure the systems they had been forced to put in place really were.

Wherever these machines are in use, we do not have a free and open election. We are told we have a free and open election, we may even believe we have a free and open election, but neither of those things makes it true.

Furthermore, if a 3rd-world nation (or any nation that was either significantly less influential than the United States or was for some reason our enemy) applied the same standards that we apply to our own elections through the use of these infernal devices and dared to state that they were holding free and open elections, we'd laugh at them until we cried -- and rightly so.

It is simple as that. My logic is incontravertible, and I'd be happy to draw a perfectly reasonably analogy in order to prove it if anybody is in doubt.

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Pilots For 911 Truth

Why do I always have to splain things to you 2, 3, 4 and 5 times in a row before you get it? (lol - just having some fun.)

Of course, the "electronic voting machines will be fine." That's my point! They will perform exactly as coded. The issue here is: can America trust that code? And, should America be conducting national elections via the computer based model?

You can "code" (although not exactly the same thing - but that's not the point) your car's PCM (primary control module) or its ECM (Engine Control Module) to start throwing "alerts" for various maint. items upon the car's arrival at various mileage intervals. That would be unethical at the very least and I would guess illegal in some States, but no one would be able to claim that the "system" failed to operate exactly the way it was designed.


As if Republicans don't do the same? You mean that Republicans are 100% ethical in their voter drive efforts?

What you've just mentioned is not a 1-to-1 ratio of unethical/illegal vote getting scam results. You won't get one dead vote for every false code related vote. Statistically, the illegal votes obtained using the false code approach would far outweigh anything in the dead or food for votes category combined. So, even if we allow for those kinds of games being played, it does not even out in the end - not by a long shot.

American

All votes for Nader will go to McCain.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

JMak

Well, what do you think? You've laid out the theoretical, now apply it.

You did this with your little model for choosing the best candidate. You crafted the model and then posted your conclusion without actually applying it.

You alluded to something happening in 00 and 04 above but didn't clearly identify what that was. What was it? And what bearing does it have on the "issue" you have presented?

Pilots For 911 Truth

Which is really silly when you stop to think about it, is it not. Think about it. Why would any of these jurisdictions have their primary servers on-line during actual voting hours! It makes no sense. Unless the user-interface input (the actual vote itself) is not be written to an HDD that is local to a specific voting location, then there is no reason at all that I can think of, for allowing either the client or the server to maintain a persistent connection to the net.

Now, this begs several questions:

a) Are the client machines (the machine you will interface with on November 4th) smart or dumb?

Smart clients will have an HDD running software with some degree of processing on the client itself - whereas, dumb clients will have their user-interface served-up by another machine and do none of the client side processing.

b) How are the clients networked to the server?

WAN, GAN, LAN, P2P, Internet, etc., are all different ways to link clients to servers. The type of networking used can potentially be a source of security issues. Questions about networking protocols and network firewalls are also questions that need to be understood as well.

c) What level of technical support will be on-sight during the vote?

This is a major issue. If you don't have properly trained/skilled individuals providing the necessary troubleshooting work in real-time, then you end up with massive voting problems at that particular location. Also, what level of systems access will technical support have? Are they only allowed to work at the client application level, or are any of these people DB access (which I seriously doubt). I've seen people in certain organizations being given DB level access when they did not have the skills necessary to do anything but harm to a system. Or, they had just enough skill to be dangerous - like dumping table space by mistake, or something equally as silly.

For me, a lot of these questions are obvious and some of the answers are obvious (like DB access protocols) but other questions are stuck in my mind as potentially serious areas that I've not seen anyone addressing to date relative to 2008.

The problem with having government involved in asking the questions, is that they often times don't know what questions they should be asking. They need to make sure they are consulting with real enterprise technology experts that know where the potential problem spots could emerge.


That's exactly right. Unless you pre-check the source code right now, you can never know whether or not the votes are being filtered to the proper candidate. I'm blown away at the fact that most Americans are simply not getting this topic, or even asking questions about it!

All votes should be hand counted with bi-partisan teams doing the physical counting and the physical verification of the count itself. It is too easy to steal an election using this type of technology.


We might even call them Communistic Regimes or, Dictatorships, or worse.

It would seem to me that the Republican mantra, which is a translation from an old Russian proverb, is plainly in order here: "doveryai, no proveryai." Translation: Trust, but verify.

It would be plainly hypocritical to do anything less.

Panther

Yes.

Yes.


Any other questions?

Pilots For 911 Truth

Oh, stop pretending, will you. I'm one of the few people on this forum who loads his posts with facts, details and substance that anyone can fact check on their own. I rarely leave a stone unturned in my posts or a base left uncovered. So, just quit it with the 'you don't provide details' nonsense.

I think you have difficulty paying attention or comprehending what's been written. You are like Bush and McCain in the sense that you seem to think that if you keep saying something long enough, it will morph into the truth.

The model created for selecting the next President and Vice President is crystal clearly a point of reference for the Independent voter to use as they vote on November 4th. Furthermore, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can look at Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin and easily see the outcome of filtering them through the model I created. To wit, where have you been over the past several weeks? Where were you, as Palin has run herself through that model with her three (3) interviews? Biden has 30+ years in this thing, being vetting by the American People on the national level. McCain has 26 years of the same and Obama has 12 years total legislative experience and vetting by the American People. Palin has 4 years, total.

There bios are there for YOU to read. I've already read them all - I know what's in them and I know what's missing, too. On every level of the model, Obama scores way ahead of McCain and Palin. Biden scores head of Obama in some areas of the model and by a landslide he scores above Palin. Biden is a closer match with McCain however, in the model on several levels. At the same time, McCain out scores all three other candidates by a massive amount in the area of "Serving and Sacrificing for Country."

In all the areas that are really important: Competency demonstrated through Capacity, Aptitude and Appropriateness, the McCain gets outscored by Obama and Biden blows Palin off the map. Obama brings more intelligence, prudence, thoughtfulness, tact, diplomacy, creativity, across the board appeal, judgment, flexibility, ideas, common sense and cerebral cohesiveness to this than does McCain.

McCain offers 'experience' that does not seem to have taught him very much along the way. His experience lead him to make wrong decisions with respect to deregulation over his entire career in the Senate. His experience lead him to make the wrong decision with respect to the war in Iraq. His experience lead him to make the wrong decision with respect to intellectually abandoning Afghanistan. His experience lead him to making the wrong decision with respect to thinking that a tactical surge could replace a strategic plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

His lack of experience, knowledge and/or wisdom caused him to shamefully continue his line that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. His lack of experience caused him to not even understand the definition of Economic Fundamentals and he continues (to this very day) misquoting what Economic Fundamentals are all about. His lack of good judgment causes him to think that a people who have been organized on earth for more than 2,000 years, could simply be systemically and ideologically changed with an invasion and post-war occupation (by force from without). His lack of better judgment causes him to behave irrationally and reactively to situations that require/demand a cerebral approach to problem solving and that caused him to recently inject Presidential politics into Congressional business in an attempt to score political points. His lack of better judgment caused him to ruin his first Presidential act, selecting his Vice Presidential running mate and that has now forced him spend his time on television flying air-cover for a candidate that should be allowed to freely engage the media on questions that matter to the American People.

At every turn in this current campaign and throughout McCain's Senatorial career, you find him acting in an unbalanced, incoherent, undisciplined, unstable, irrational, knee-jerk, reactionary, maintain the status quo and very stubborn (almost selfish and childlike) manner. That is why Obama scores head and shoulders above McCain as being more Presidential in stature. McCain's "experience" has failed to give him better judgment.

As far as filtering Palin -vs- Biden through that same model is concerned.....do you really want me to do that? I think you McCain supporters are suffering enough embarrassment as it is. No need to add insult to injury, here. The VP debate will do a good job of that all by itself, if Palin's softball interviews have not done that much already.


Quite frankly, I'm not one of those who believes Bush won the election over Gore, clearly. The evidence for vote tampering could clearly be seen in Florida, before the re-count began. Reports of voters being intimidated in various ways were just as much on my television screen as it was on yours - so don't pretend as if you don't know the issues down in Florida.

The entire process in many Democratic districts in Ohio, came under question as well with charges of vote tampering, voter intimidation and vote counting anomalies - again, just as much on my television as yours. There were issues regarding how votes were assigned across many parts of the country where the election was "thought" to be close. Frankly, I don't think it was that close at all. Gore won the pop vote. He lost Pennsylvania, by some 100K votes...easily manipulated. What should have been a decisive victory by Gore, turned into a tiny margin victory by Bush, while the popular vote ran in the other direction.

By the time 2004 rolled around, the software for recording votes was in broader use and the vast majority of that software was pushed into deployment by Republican business entities. We have no business having elections being managed by single source political operatives posing as legit technology business concerns. That is just asking for trouble and any thinking person already knows better than that.

I don't think there is any educated, serious minded person in America not asking himself whether or not we should be conducting our elections in this manner. This type of technology is easily breached and it does not need to be hacked. The breach can be coded from within and made to vanish after November 5th. Why on earth should America be taking that kind of risk?