Did the charter say something about political messages?..please take it off the list guys if possible...
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Paul Schmehl > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:22 AM > To: Jason Coombs; Gregory Gilliss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers > Challenge Bush Win In Florida > > --On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 05:39:31 AM +0000 Jason > Coombs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In the case in point, even with the variables you mention, > the entire > > technical problem can be reduced to observing how the election > > officials in various places have historically constructed > ballots and > > influence just those that can be influenced in just those > states where > > it will matter. The Republican party (my party) apparently has > > advantages over others when it comes to influencing the technical > > details of the design of voting machines. Diebold, for example. > > > The horse has already been packed up and shipped from the > rendering plant, but I'll give this *one* more try. (One > side note - the management of Diebold are mostly Democrats, > not Republicans, not that *that* makes one iota of difference > in the competence (or lack thereof) in designing electronic > balloting equipment. Pointing to someone's party affiliation > as proof of something is merely a distraction from the real issues.) > > You are talking about an extremely complex and unlikely set > of possibilities, *all* of which have to fall into place > perfectly for this to happen. It might be fun as > speculation, but the implementation would be nigh until > impossible and would take some real genius to pull off. > > > > It makes just about as much sense for every regional > election office > > to do their ballot construction differently as it does for > everyone to > > create their own home grown crypto. > > > And yet it's done all over America. Imagine that. > > > > Your point about differences in ballot construction is also a red > > herring to begin with. If you think that there is the same > degree of > > variability with ballots in electronic voting machines as there is > > with legacy ballots, then perhaps you are the one who does not know > > how the process really works with the machines in question. > > > Why would you assume the ballots all have to be the same just > because the same machines are being used to count them? > > Given three candidates for President (and there are usually > more than that) there are at least six different ways the > ballot could be arranged *even* if the basic design was the same. > > Furthermore, the methodology used by an electronic voting > machine is independent of the ballot design, for all intents > and purposes. For example, an optical reader merely senses > the dark spots where a vote has been cast. *Which* candidate > that represents is determined by the configuration, which is > determined by the construction of the ballot. > Having to fit within certain machine-driven parameters does > not force the ballot design into one pattern. The votes > could be on the left, in the center, on the right, staggered > from left to right, staggered from right to left. The > possibilities are great. > > Yet you want to control *all* of that to "take advantage of > statistical anomalies" in the equipment? > > Do we have a mathematician on this list who can calculate the > probabilities of this? > > I would contend that it is infinitely more likely that the > machines would be either deliberately tampered with or > incompetently misconfigured, ending up in statistical > anomalies then I would ever consider your scenario possible. > > > > You really need to stop making things seem so complicated that the > > difficulty of influencing their behavior or outcome > couldn't possibly > > be surmounted. > > > Jason, I'm not making anything complicated. I'm observing > the complication that already exists - the complication that > you apparently refuse to acknowledge. > > Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Adjunct Information Security Officer > The University of Texas at Dallas > AVIEN Founding Member > http://www.utdallas.edu > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html