Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

[aforceforgood]

...susceptible to errors sometimes as high as 100%,

Thanks for the article III, I guess we can revise that to say; "susceptible to errors sometimes as high as 2600%..."

I suspect we will see that percentage rise as more and more precincts adopt electronic voting...

[Rob the Wop]

As for your challenge to explain where exactly this "magic button" would be located, I'm not going to rise to that troll, you know as well as I do that if a radio signal can unlock one specific car, it's a simple enough matter to broadcast a radio signal to a voting machine telling it to change enough votes to rig an election.

A "radio" signal transmitter sends a modulated signal usually on a 300Mhz-2Ghz carrier wave. The recieving transmitter (powered via the 12v car battery) is continually scanning its frequency range for a modulated signal and if there is a match- the transmitter signals the door opening circuitry to activate. If required I can build a quick diagram of an example circuit board capable of performing the operation.

Your turn. High level design specs explained as above.

Unlike you, I've actually done research into network security protocols, worked in switch and router developement for years, designed networks, debugged secure governement networking issues, written code in six programming languages including 8088/8086 assembly, and currently work on networking silicon debug/validation.

So yes, I know a hell of a lot better than you how to unlock a car door with a small high frequency transmitter. I also have an idea on what it would take to interrupt a large, secure government network having worked on them.

Currently you are on a "pull weird science facts out of your ass" mode. Convince me that your little "magic button" isn't pulled from your ass by a simple high level technical discussion on what it would take to accomplish this proceedure.

Oh, and add learning the definition of trolling to your education.

Why don't you do some reading and find out about the problems that are already occurring with these machines? Am I so out of line to suggest that we consider what we already know, namely, that computers, while they're amazing things, are fraught with bugs still, and insecurities even though they've been around for over twenty years.

Did the reading. Two years ago I was on a group project in college (night school) with five others. We compared six different electronic voting mechanisms; discussed the basic ethics, advantages, and disadvantages; created a half hour presentation; and a 10,000 word essay over the course of six weeks.

You missed the banking metaphor. You are giving the same arguments against electronic voting that were once applied to the banking industry going to electronic mediums. It is now safer to use an credible online shopping source than to use the same card to pay for something in-store using the old fashioned mechanical card runners. It is easier and safer to use a debit card than a check or cash (checks bounce and can be forged, cash you can get mugged for or counterfiet- but unless you know someone's PIN, you ain't getting shit from their debit card and merchants have a better chance at being paid knowing the money is available in an instant).

Is electronic voting perfect? Not yet. It's still incredibely new. VERY rarely implemented in this country, at least when I researched it.
Are there benefits from going to an electronic voting methodology. YES. HUGE ONES.

Saying we shouldn't use an electronic voting medium only because it's an electronic voting medium is blinding your eyes. This is the kind of discussion that triggers me to babbling more than I am accustomed.

Uninformed declarations that X is evil.
"Err...why?"
"You KNOW why. (Hmmph!)"
"No, I understand X. Here's reasons why it could be a good thing."
"Well, OBVIOUSLY you're an IDIOT."
"....why are I still arguing?"

Welp. Just hit the last phase with this post. Never mind explaining how your magical conspiracy voting button will work on a secure, diverse government network to modify software on remote machines. I'll accept that it can be done and you win. As further proof of my faith in your ability to ferret out the evil in computers- I am removing all my money from the banks, selling off every piece of machinery with a silicon chip in it, and going to live in the Oregon hills, eating bugs.

Geez my retirement plan sucks...

[III]

>banking industry

it should be pointed out that large scale identity theft didn't become profitable until the banking industry went electronic.

technology is not a silver bullet.

and in cases where both politicians and those providing the service refuse to learn from lessons available in many other problem domains, it's a dirty bullet in a gun with a plugged barrel.

(note that i'm playing a switch up game in the arguments here - i'm not claiming that the technology isn't feasible, i'm claiming that our social structure is incapable of developing such a technology.)

[aforceforgood]

So yes, I know a hell of a lot better than you how to unlock a car door with a small high frequency transmitter. I also have an idea on what it would take to interrupt a large, secure government network having worked on them.

You're missing an important point- you're saying this system would be secure from outside interference. Who's responsible for gerrymandering and the Bush-Gore election debacle? Those in charge of the system. This is what I don't get about you- you're arguing that electronic voting machines can be made so that they would be secure and accurate, and I'm saying yes, well, maybe they could, but currently they are not, and I don't see our "leaders" making any great effort to see to it that they are improved. Judging from history, I think we can expect them to repeat behavior we've seen in the past, namely, at best implementing systems that are substandard due to political favors, and at worst rigging elections. But I guess saying that makes me a nut, stuff like that only happened in the past, we're all more evolved now and will just do the right thing, right?

Currently you are on a "pull weird science facts out of your ass" mode. Convince me that your little "magic button" isn't pulled from your ass by a simple high level technical discussion on what it would take to accomplish this proceedure.

And you're on a "I know more about the technical side of this than you do so I'm automatically right" mode.

For instance, just because you may know how the text messaging system for celphones works doesn't mean it's a superior system to using the phone to call someone and just talk to them. So your attempts to win the argument by waving your specialty in my face miss the point. I'll cede your superior knowledge of the technology, but not the likelihood that it will be abused by corrupt men. Unless you're prepared to explain to me why an electronic voting machine CANNOT be made to show whatever it's programmer wants it to.

As for banking, 2 points spring to mind immediately;

1) They have a vested interest in being percieved as trustworthy and accurate, since you can take your business elsewhere.

2) They are overseen by regulatory agencies. Who oversees our government? The media? There's a weak joke.

Is electronic voting perfect? Not yet. It's still incredibely new. VERY rarely implemented in this country, at least when I researched it.
Are there benefits from going to an electronic voting methodology. YES. HUGE ONES.

What are they? Are they more important than transparency, accuracy, and a paper audit trail?

Saying we shouldn't use an electronic voting medium only because it's an electronic voting medium is blinding your eyes. This is the kind of discussion that triggers me to babbling more than I am accustomed.

I'm not objecting to it just because it's electronic.

I'm objecting to it because we cannot be sure that what we choose gets counted correctly. See III's argument about the high school programmer. You know this, there are a bazillion things that go on invisibly inside a computer to make it do the things it does.

I'm objecting to it because it's not transparent, not secure, not ACCURATE for crying out loud, and not easily auditable, so I guess you can stop babbling and explain to me how I'm wrong about these five points.

[Rob the Wop]

>banking industry

it should be pointed out that large scale identity theft didn't become profitable until the banking industry went electronic.

technology is not a silver bullet.

Absolutely. With any technological advance comes issues stemming directly from the advance in question.
New solution?
New problems.
Newer solution.
Newer problems (though usually less than the initial problems).

In my line of work, they call them silicon steppings. I have yet to see a functioning A0 silicon. But the C1 silicon is pretty sweet. Same in software. And both the banking industry example and the electronic voting example can be broken down to silicon (mostly solved), software (working on it), physical interconnections (solved), and logical interconnections (working on it). I'm saying the benefits from the technology still outweighs the problems.

I do hear you on the government red tape and idiocy. I dealt with many civil servant contract officers that had no clue as to what hardware/software they were putting government money into. Eventually they get it right, but the learning process of who to put in charge can be extremely painful.

But you gotta admit that things are sweeter since the days you had to stand in line at the bank to get cash.

[Zane5100]

... i'm claiming that our social structure is incapable of developing such a technology

I'll agree with that and add that it's due, at least in part, to a conflict of priorities--namely there are other things that are more important than solving problems.

[Zane5100]

and no, Saddam's capture does not translate to an automatic Bush election.

Nov 2004 is a very, very long time away.

[gizray]

btw affg- detroit fans don't shoot guns in the air when they win championships . they just flip over cars and such...........

[madmatt]

This is an amazing discussion - the (too often overlooked) relationship between global terrorism policy and electronic voting methods. Can we split this thread in two? Or is that just silly o me?

[Rob the Wop]

I'm done arguing, so I'll bet the discussion will die on that front.

[aforceforgood]

And both the banking industry example and the electronic voting example can be broken down to silicon (mostly solved), software (working on it),

They've been "working on it" for twenty fucking YEARS. I'm not holding my breath.

physical interconnections (solved),

Oh? You mentioned your familiarity with military systems, so I find it hard to believe you're unaware of Van Eck Phreaking or TEMPEST.

I'm saying the benefits from the technology still outweighs the problems.

And just what are these benefits? Knowing who rigged the election quicker?

[Zane5100]

I think that an electronic balloting system can be done in secure and transparent manner that minimizes votes being tossed or corrupted.

However, I think that the process and implementation is being rushed and, frankly, the neutrality of the primary vendors is in doubt (conflict of interest).

[Chai Guy]

I think no matter what voting system (electronic or otherwise) it will be inherently flawed and susceptible to corruption/tampering.

For this reason I have long advocated we switch to a Monarchy. Think of the possible benefits!

1. No costly elections to run!
2. No worries about special interest groups & corporations influencing politics with campaign contributions.
3. No embarrassing impeachment proceedings.
4. Huge tax revenue stream from media rights on Royal Weddings, and souvenir sales.

[aforceforgood]

I think that an electronic balloting system can be done in secure and transparent manner that minimizes votes being tossed or corrupted.

Maybe, but I don't see how we can ever get past the fact that there's a lot of invisible processes inside of a touchscreen machine that we can never be 100% positive someone hasn't monkeyed with. You can't see electrons zipping through a circuit. When you hit the "x" button on your keyboard, that doesn't send an x-shaped electric charge through the wires. The computer interprets the electrical impulses sent when buttons are pressed, and the programmer (not you) has the ultimate power to decide whether that button means x, y, or z.

III was dead on when he stated a high school student could write a program that could take your vote and register it for someone you didn't vote for, and still print a paper receipt that showed your vote was registered for who you wanted to vote for.

However, I think that the process and implementation is being rushed and, frankly, the neutrality of the primary vendors is in doubt (conflict of interest).

Um, well, there's an understatement. If you click the links below and read for about 5 minutes, you'll see account after account of vendors intentionally lying, covering up, using improper software as the basis for the machines' operation (windows for chrissakes, and we all know how secure that is) etc,etc,etc. Not to mention that when someone's paycheck is at stake, their neutrality is obviously up for question.

[aforceforgood]

btw affg- detroit fans don't shoot guns in the air when they win championships . they just flip over cars and such...........

Ok, so make it Los Angelino knuckleheads celebrating New Years.

[Kinetic II]

Is there ANYTHING that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with it?

[Blenderhead]

Is there ANYTHING that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with it?

Nope. And here's another one: Saddam will never ever EVER make it to any kind of trial, due to the fact "he knows too much."

[Rob the Wop]

AFFG,

You're right. I'm wrong. In whatever you feel like attributing it to.

Get over it, ok? I said I'm done arguing with you. I've lost interest.

[Zane5100]

III was dead on when he stated a high school student could write a program that could take your vote and register it for someone you didn't vote for, and still print a paper receipt that showed your vote was registered for who you wanted to vote for.

Um, well, there's an understatement.

Yeah, I know--I was trying to be brief and while not being inflamatory.

I've read the material and it scared the crap out of me.

[diane o'thirst]

I have long advocated we switch to a Monarchy.

I could get behind that. Then again, if America had an aristocracy, my sister and I would be Contessas or better.

Nah, forget it — Monarchy means that one rich, inbred and out-of-touch jerkoid would be making all the decisions and there'd still be a brace of sycophants snapping at his heels and kibbitzing him to death.

Wait. We <b><i>DO</b></i> have that happening right now. Bring on the Monarchy!

[Zane5100]

Is there ANYTHING that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with it?

Nope. And here's another one: Saddam will never ever EVER make it to any kind of trial, due to the fact "he knows too much."

Shot while escaping leaps to mind...

[aforceforgood]

AFFG,

You're right. I'm wrong. In whatever you feel like attributing it to.

Get over it, ok? I said I'm done arguing with you. I've lost interest.

It's not about you and me, this affects everyone in the nation.

[aforceforgood]

However, I think that the process and implementation is being rushed and, frankly, the neutrality of the primary vendors is in doubt (conflict of interest).

Um, well, there's an understatement.

Yeah, I know--I was trying to be brief and while not being inflamatory.

I've read the material and it scared the crap out of me.

Yeah, I pretty much figured you probably had, in which case, thanks for the setup.

Same thing when I said we're fighting a media war- what I meant was that ultimately killing people is a very short term solution which could possibly make anti-american sentiment worse. And that the long-term solution is to show that we're not all evil, corrupt imperialists. In other words, our government, or at least the people at the top of it, which is not even 1% of our total population, is giving us a terrible image.

[Zane5100]

I don't trust the government, and I don't understand people that do.

Maybe I'm just too cynical... or someone that still remembers Watergate, The Plumbers, and "rat fucking."

[joel the ornery]

Is there ANYTHING that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with it?

Nope. And here's another one: Saddam will never ever EVER make it to any kind of trial, due to the fact "he knows too much."

What an absolutely magnificent piece of bullshit that thought seems to be.

[joel the ornery]

I don't trust the government, and I don't understand people that do.

Maybe I'm just too cynical... or someone that still remembers Watergate, The Plumbers, and "rat fucking."

Hmmmm.... maybe this will clear your mind. Nope it isn't perfectly executed but it is the best deal in town.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[KellY]

Nope. And here's another one: Saddam will never ever EVER make it to any kind of trial, due to the fact "he knows too much."

I think he may well die of "natural causes" in prison before a public trial - he certainly didn't look too healthy in those photos. As much as I think a trial in the autmun of next year would be great for Bush's propaganda - let's play up Saddam's human rights abuses and forget the WMD's that never turned up- there's no way they'd actually let him speak in his own defense. I mean, two of the biggest offenses he's accused of - attacking the Kurds and the war with Iran - hapened when he was our buddy. If we gave him aid during this period, which we did, doesn't that make us guilty of aiding and abetting -or more precicely "providing material support", as they like to say nowadays?

Hey, does anyone remember if the trial of Noriega was public? Very similar situation, and I can't recall anything about it in the media.

And if the situation in Iraq worsens, I think that capturing Saddam would end up hurting Bush in the long run, since they won't be able to blame him or his loyalists for the insurgency.

[diane o'thirst]

Okay, here's what I don't get.

Big badass character gets collared and receives a public trial. One set of critics scream yell poot and holler about it, saying things like "media circus" and "sensationalism."

Another big badass character gets collared and the nature of their crimes are such that they have to be taken in and tried in secret by a justice because if they didn't, a lynch mob would descend, and they probably couldn't find an unbiased jury. Another set of critics scream yell poot and holler about "star chambres" and "denial of due process."

Conspiracy Theorists ooze out of the woodwork and blather about bribes, spin doctoring and other such skullduggery in any case.

Yer a damn fool if ya dance, and yer a damn fool if ya don't dance. Feh! :Roll:

Given that the possibility of star chambres and denial of due process are much more likely to happen and infinitely more pernicious to the fabric of society in general, I think I'd take the media circus.

[Blenderhead]

>> What an absolutely magnificent piece of bullshit that thought seems to be.

Exactly! That's what is so wonderful about conspiracy theories.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go finish dissecting the alien I caught rummaging through my garbage last week. Nasty little bugger.

[Zane5100]

I don't trust the government, and I don't understand people that do.

Maybe I'm just too cynical... or someone that still remembers Watergate, The Plumbers, and "rat fucking."

Hmmmm.... maybe this will clear your mind. Nope it isn't perfectly executed but it is the best deal in town.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nice idea--too bad we aren’t sticking to it.

We've been a corporate welfare state since the Reconstruction, and see what happens to your constitutional protections when the phrase "national security" is brought into the mix.

I still love this country, if only sometimes I love its potential (and I’ve got a DD Form 214 to back that up).

However, I'm thoroughly disgusted by the jackbooted brown shirts goose-stepping around lately proclaiming that blind, unquestioning loyalty to the government and our president is the definition of patriotism and that any question or criticism of said government and president is paramount to treason.

I firmly believe that we should never trust the government, and question everything it does--because I've seen what it's like to live in a place where you have to trust the government, or you disappear.