Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Friday, November 19, 2004 12:12:10 AM + Jason Coombs 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,1
0801,97614,00.html?nas=PM-97614
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Bezerkley without confirmation from 
competent researchers elsewhere.  Furthermore, their more esteemed 
colleagues at CalTech already disagree with them.


Even *if* they are correct (which is at least debateable) the 130,000 vote 
discrepancy they argue for won't overcome Bush's lead of 380,000, so this 
is, at best, an academic exercise.

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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Daniel Veditz]

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> 
> Even *if* they are correct (which is at least debateable) the 130,000 vote 
> discrepancy they argue for won't overcome Bush's lead of 380,000, so this 
> is, at best, an academic exercise.

If they are even possibly correct a discrepancy that large must be
investigated to make sure it won't happen in a future election which might
be a lot closer.

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Friday, November 19, 2004 2:30 PM -0800 Daniel Veditz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Paul Schmehl wrote:
Even *if* they are correct (which is at least debateable) the 130,000
vote  discrepancy they argue for won't overcome Bush's lead of 380,000,
so this  is, at best, an academic exercise.
If they are even possibly correct a discrepancy that large must be
investigated to make sure it won't happen in a future election which might
be a lot closer.
I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating is 
premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, investigating supposed 
discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars.  The recount in Ohio 
will cost the state $1.5 million.  That's money that could pay for other 
things.  So you don't run off on wild goose chases just because some 
"researcher" says, "Oo, look at this.  This looks really unusual."

*If* the research is credible and stands up to scrutiny, *then* you spend 
whatever is necessary to get to the bottom of it and determine if there is 
a problem.  In this particular case, their "research" is laughable and 
doesn't merit followup, much less the expenditure of millions to get to the 
bottom of a nonexistent problem.

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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Stef]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:23:55 -0600, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating is
> premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, investigating supposed
> discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars.  The recount in Ohio
> will cost the state $1.5 million.  That's money that could pay for other
> things.  So you don't run off on wild goose chases just because some
> "researcher" says, "Oo, look at this.  This looks really unusual."

Oh, yes, they/we do ... based on a comparison with another well known
"triplet": money spent <--> amount of credible information <-->
importance to the United States, when having invaded Iraq, I think we
could and should justify an investigation like the above ...

Stef

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[vord]

Al Qaeda is to Iraq what electronic voting is to the bush election win.

--vord

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:06:13 -0600, Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:23:55 -0600, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating is
> > premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, investigating supposed
> > discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars.  The recount in Ohio
> > will cost the state $1.5 million.  That's money that could pay for other
> > things.  So you don't run off on wild goose chases just because some
> > "researcher" says, "Oo, look at this.  This looks really unusual."
> 
> Oh, yes, they/we do ... based on a comparison with another well known
> "triplet": money spent <--> amount of credible information <-->
> importance to the United States, when having invaded Iraq, I think we
> could and should justify an investigation like the above ...
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

RE: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Cupps, James]

And we watch the meme's collide. 

Dynamically adjusting their data architecture to counter the opposing
meme.

Meanwhile the core data remains uncompromised on both sides. Round and
round we go. Nothing is learned by any involved?

It is informative but is it a mind Virus? 
Is it destructive?
Does it take up otherwise valuable resources?
Does it self alter and morph to adjust to outside stimulus? (uh oh some
people don't like the word morph perhaps my meme will better propagate
if I use polymorph)
Does the information attempt to self propagate?

Certainly not terminal thoughts but perhaps chronic ones? :)

Interesting discussion anyway.

Cheers,
James Cupps
Information Security Officer




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vord
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win
In Florida

Al Qaeda is to Iraq what electronic voting is to the bush election win.

--vord

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:06:13 -0600, Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:23:55 -0600, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 
> > I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, 
> > investigating is premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, 
> > investigating supposed discrepancies in the vote costs millions of 
> > dollars.  The recount in Ohio will cost the state $1.5 million.  
> > That's money that could pay for other things.  So you don't run off 
> > on wild goose chases just because some "researcher" says, "Oo,
look at this.  This looks really unusual."
> 
> Oh, yes, they/we do ... based on a comparison with another well known
> "triplet": money spent <--> amount of credible information <--> 
> importance to the United States, when having invaded Iraq, I think we 
> could and should justify an investigation like the above ...
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

This message may contain information which is private, privileged or 
confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity 
named in the message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, 
please notify the sender thereof and destroy / delete the message. Neither the 
sender nor Sappi Limited (including its subsidiaries and associated companies) 
shall incur any liability resulting directly or indirectly from accessing any 
of the attached files which may contain a virus or the like.

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[bkfsec]

Paul Schmehl wrote:
I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating 
is premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, investigating 
supposed discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars.  The 
recount in Ohio will cost the state $1.5 million.  That's money that 
could pay for other things.  So you don't run off on wild goose chases 
just because some "researcher" says, "Oo, look at this.  This 
looks really unusual."

You do realize that some people consider investigation and research to 
be connected and that, if there is any implication of a problem (whether 
the all-knowing creationist agrees or not) that that problem should be 
"looked into" (does that better suit your vocabulary?)

So, what you're really saying is that you're not willing to back an 
investigation until an investigation is done which shows that an 
investigation is warranted, correct?

Well, of course you'd believe that!  It's politically expediant for you.  :)
-Barry
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[J.A. Terranson]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, bkfsec wrote:

> Paul Schmehl wrote:
>
> > I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating
> > is premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, investigating
> > supposed discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars.  The
> > recount in Ohio will cost the state $1.5 million.  That's money that
> > could pay for other things.  So you don't run off on wild goose chases
> > just because some "researcher" says, "Oo, look at this.  This
> > looks really unusual."
> >
> You do realize that some people consider investigation and research to
> be connected and that, if there is any implication of a problem (whether
> the all-knowing creationist agrees or not) that that problem should be
> "looked into" (does that better suit your vocabulary?)
>
> So, what you're really saying is that you're not willing to back an
> investigation until an investigation is done which shows that an
> investigation is warranted, correct?
>
> Well, of course you'd believe that!  It's politically expediant for you.  :)

It also highlights a disturbing circular reasoning.  Considering that Paul
is TEACHING at a supposedly "respected" *university*, we shold all be very
afraid of our nations schools.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

 Civilization is in a tailspin - everything is backwards, everything is
upside down- doctors destroy health, psychiatrists destroy minds, lawyers
destroy justice, the major media destroy information, governments destroy
freedom and religions destroy spirituality - yet it is claimed to be
healthy, just, informed, free and spiritual. We live in a social system
whose community, wealth, love and life is derived from alienation,
poverty, self-hate and medical murder - yet we tell ourselves that it is
biologically and ecologically sustainable.

The Bush plan to screen whole US population for mental illness clearly
indicates that mental illness starts at the top.

Rev Dr Michael Ellner

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Gregory Gilliss]

Okay, I cry foul. While IAPW we would all like advisories to be tested
against all possible versions of all possible affected OS's, in the
world of academia (and Paul is welcome to contradict me on this if he 
cares to, since after all he's IN it) the rules are not the same as IAPW.

In academia, it's called "publish or perish". In reality, it's more like
publish or perish, and make damned sure you don't get caught plagerizing
or lying or publishing something incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise
embarrassing to your host university. Everyone has a boss, and when your
boss consists of a bunch of potentially sensitive academics, it's best not
to piss them off, intentionally or otherwise.

So, while the circular reasoning comment is cute, I support Paul's somewhat
cautious approach. After all, if say we were discussing a vulnerability 
in Win2K or something similar, we would make damned certain that the 
thing works and worked properly and consistently before we pass it around
or disclose it, for fear of incurring the wrath of the population of this
list, for example.

So criticize all you want, but I think he's right. Historically what we
are witness to is the following:

Originally, the Office of the President was respected.
Kennedy (and possible prior to 1963) resulted in shaking our confidence
in the sacrosanct nature of the Office of the Presidency 
Nixon and Watergate  resulted in shaking our belief in the Person who
occupies the office (aka you can't trust politicians)
Bush Gore (2000) resulted in shaking out belief in the process of Electing
the person who occupies the office.
So, basically, we're witnessing the erosion of confidence in our national
government and the processes associated with it. I mean, when you get to
the point where you say "Why vote, they'll just rig the damned election!"
you're in Soviet Russia (or maybe the Ukraine).

BTW, please don't nit pick the dates and people and miss the frigging 
point. The point is - confidence in our national (yes, I apologize to
the non-US readers, but I suspect many of you will identify with this)
government and our "way of life" which is so ingratiated into our national
pride, etc...

What's the answer? Obviously the same as in security - embarrass the
bastards into playing by observable and verifiable rules. In our world
that's called open source. In the world of politics it's called something
else - citizenship or civics or "giving a damn".

So, in conclusion, I suggest that the cynics among us get out and get
active. I don't care which side you're on, but it's like the old saying - 
if you don't vote, you don't get to complain. If you want electronic
voting that's verifiable, write the damned software and post it on
sourceforge or someplace else. 

But, for heaven's sake, leave Paul alone. He's one of the few people
left on this list who makes sense occasionally.

G

On or about 2004.11.22 20:14:30 +, J.A. Terranson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:

> 
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, bkfsec wrote:
> 
> > Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree.  Until the research is credible and vetted, investigating
> > > is premature.  Many people don't seem to understand, investigating
> > > supposed discrepancies in the vote costs millions of dollars.  The
> > > recount in Ohio will cost the state $1.5 million.  That's money that
> > > could pay for other things.  So you don't run off on wild goose chases
> > > just because some "researcher" says, "Oo, look at this.  This
> > > looks really unusual."
> > >
> > You do realize that some people consider investigation and research to
> > be connected and that, if there is any implication of a problem (whether
> > the all-knowing creationist agrees or not) that that problem should be
> > "looked into" (does that better suit your vocabulary?)
> >
> > So, what you're really saying is that you're not willing to back an
> > investigation until an investigation is done which shows that an
> > investigation is warranted, correct?
> >
> > Well, of course you'd believe that!  It's politically expedient for you.  :)
> 
> It also highlights a disturbing circular reasoning.  Considering that Paul
> is TEACHING at a supposedly "respected" *university*, we should all be very
> afraid of our nations schools.
> 
> -- 
> Yours,
 

-- 
Gregory A. Gilliss, CISSP  E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer Security WWW: http://www.gilliss.com/greg/
PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14 0E 8C A3

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Jason Coombs]

As for source code or other security vulnerabilities in closed- or open-soure 
vote tabulators, there is little point in rigging such schemes, and less point 
in exploiting them. Good old fashion statistical abberations exploited for the 
benefit of the party that finds them first will win every time.

In principle, all voters have roughly the same risk of their vote not being 
counted under any electoral system. This is called 'equitable risk'.

If, through testing of electronic voting machines, statistical anomalies can be 
detected that favor the candidate that is entered into the database third (or 
whatever, take your pick, and it would be different for different voting 
machines and maybe in different regions, say, because Florida is full of 
elderly) then you can 'rig' an election in your favor simply by having a 
non-random selection for the order in which the candidates get listed, and a 
failure to properly distribute that randomness across precincts.

If anything, that is what I believe is most likely to have happened in 2004. 
Bush elected through the (fair ?) exploitation of statistical anomalies tied to 
misbehaving or ill-conceived electronic voting equipment. Teamed with the fact 
that partisan, interested voters are in charge of the process this is very 
plausible...

Sincerely,

Jason Coombs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[hggdh]

Hello Gregory,

Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 17:27:34, you wrote:


GG> So, while the circular reasoning comment is cute, I support Paul's somewhat
GG> cautious approach. After all, if say we were discussing a vulnerability
GG> in Win2K or something similar, we would make damned certain that the
GG> thing works and worked properly and consistently before we pass it around
GG> or disclose it, for fear of incurring the wrath of the population of this
GG> list, for example.

This is indeed the case. I had replied directly to Paul before, and
will now expand a bit here on this.

My problem with Paul's argument was his choice of "more respected
peers". The UCB people published what they *think* was correct, gave
the reasoning, and provided the sources and the raw data.

So, if I want to prove/dispute/verify, I can analyse UCB's reasoning,
even collect the data all over again -- which would be safer --, run
other analysis, etc. I may *reproduce* it, *verify* it, I may
*disprove* it.

On the other hand, the others provided a _statement_ that they did not
see anything weird. No data, no reasoning, no anything. Just by being
"academic", and very cautious, I am forced to disregard this. I cannot
prove their statement to be correct or incorrect. It's just hot air.

I absolutely agree with Paul -- there is *NOTHING* to investigate in
the judicial sense of the word, since there is nothing proving or
suggesting a crime was commited. And, mind you, neither did the UCB
people suggest a crime had been commited. They state more analysis is
required. They state the results are not coherent with the models.

There is, nevertheless a LOT to investigate by the academia --
specifically, UCB's assertion.

Only after such an analysis -- which should either confirm or not
confirm UCB's results -- can we then think on what can be done (if
needed). But to state that UCB's results PROVE fraud is as hot air as
the statement as I commented earlier.

After all, this is statistics, and almost anyone of us that has played
in this field knows how to truthfully lie with it.

Now, I hope we can bury this argument and go back to the usual stuff.

Huh, perhaps this IS the usual stuff...


-- 

 ..hggdh..



pgpc3co6Dys3U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Paul Schmehl]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jason Coombs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gregory Gilliss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In
Florida
>
> If, through testing of electronic voting machines, statistical anomalies
can be detected that favor the candidate that is entered into the database
third (or whatever, take your pick, and it would be different for different
voting machines and maybe in different regions, say, because Florida is full
of elderly) then you can 'rig' an election in your favor simply by having a
non-random selection for the order in which the candidates get listed, and a
failure to properly distribute that randomness across precincts.
>
I'm no mathematician, but I suspect the probability of this is somewhere
slightly south of null.  Do you have any concept of how elections are run?
In *many* states each *county* determines the ballot type and layout, the
voting machines used, etc., etc.  Merely to calculate the odds and determine
the proper order of the ballot would be an astronomical task, and *then*
you'd have to convince the election board in each county, *including* those
controlled by the opposing party, to design the ballot the way *you* wanted
it designed.

> If anything, that is what I believe is most likely to have happened in
2004. Bush elected through the (fair ?) exploitation of statistical
anomalies tied to misbehaving or ill-conceived electronic voting equipment.
Teamed with the fact that partisan, interested voters are in charge of the
process this is very plausible...
>
And to think that people call him "stupid", "the chimp", "Bushie the bozo",
etc., etc.  Who knew.

Jason, you really need to think before posting.  You're beginning to look
silly.

Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Paul Schmehl]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gregory Gilliss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In
Florida
>
> But, for heaven's sake, leave Paul alone. He's one of the few people
> left on this list who makes sense occasionally.
>
Thanks for the compliment, Gregory.  I have to agree with you regarding the
loss of confidence in our government.  It doesn't bode well for the future.

Hope you don't mind if I also key off your response for one unrelated
matter.
>
[snipped a bunch]
>
Someone else (not Gregory) posted this -
>>
> > It also highlights a disturbing circular reasoning.  Considering that
Paul
> > is TEACHING at a supposedly "respected" *university*, we should all be
very
> > afraid of our nations schools.
> >
I somehow missed this.  I think it's interesting that I am being accused of
circular reasoning when I didn't draw the circle.  :-)

One other thing - let me be very clear.  I do *not* teach at the university,
at least not the way that is implied here.  I *do* conduct security
awareness seminars and the like, and I've presented at various conferences
over the years, written articles professionally, etc., but I am *not* a
member of faculty, nor do I hold a teaching position at the university.  I
am a security professional.  My title is in my sig, and it doesn't say
"professor", OK?

Oh, and I doubt there's much reason to fear our nations schools from the
minimal impact that I might have. :-)

Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Thomas Sutpen]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:04:27 + GMT, Jason Coombs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for source code or other security vulnerabilities in closed- or open-soure 
> vote tabulators, there is little point in rigging such schemes, and less 
> point in exploiting them. Good old fashion statistical abberations exploited 
> for the benefit of the party that finds them first will win every time.
> 
> In principle, all voters have roughly the same risk of their vote not being 
> counted under any electoral system. This is called 'equitable risk'.
> 
> If, through testing of electronic voting machines, statistical anomalies can 
> be detected that favor the candidate that is entered into the database third 
> (or whatever, take your pick, and it would be different for different voting 
> machines and maybe in different regions, say, because Florida is full of 
> elderly) then you can 'rig' an election in your favor simply by having a 
> non-random selection for the order in which the candidates get listed, and a 
> failure to properly distribute that randomness across precincts.
> 
> If anything, that is what I believe is most likely to have happened in 2004. 
> Bush elected through the (fair ?) exploitation of statistical anomalies tied 
> to misbehaving or ill-conceived electronic voting equipment. Teamed with the 
> fact that partisan, interested voters are in charge of the process this is 
> very plausible...

Any sort of impartiality and vested interest in the actual security of
the whole process that you might have claimed to had was pissed away
in your very first post on the subject.  The one where you came out
waving the Kerry flag.  Remember?

It is my observation that your thinly veiled concern for the process
is merely out of self-interest, if not sour grapes.  Your fixation and
continued posting on the subject does nothing to add to your
credibility.  And further, it helps perpetuate the stereotype that
liberals are wackos, nut-jobs, conspiracy theorists, and underground
members of the peoples' tin-foil hat militia.

At least your previous email wasn't one of your six-page, vaguely
coherent, pedantic and almost meaningless rants that make you sound
stoned.

Shut up about it, already.

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Jason Coombs]

Paul,

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.

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.

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.

> Jason, you really need to think
> before posting.  You're beginning
> to look silly.

I don't know how to think, Paul. But I have sincerely appreciated all of your 
attempts to teach me how.

You really need to stop making things seem so complicated that the difficulty 
of influencing their behavior or outcome couldn't possibly be surmounted.

Speaking of thinking before posting, you type more words on mailing list 
postings every day than I have original thoughts... How do you do it and get 
work done or live life, too?

Is Texas really *so* dismal a place that there is nothing better to do?

No wonder the Bushes leave for nicer parts as soon as they can.

Regards,

Jason

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[st3ng4h]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:48:37PM -0700, Thomas Sutpen wrote:
> Any sort of impartiality and vested interest in the actual security of
> the whole process that you might have claimed to had was pissed away
> in your very first post on the subject.  The one where you came out
> waving the Kerry flag.  Remember?

Similar comments apply to Paul- and if we are to disdain any
discussion based on even a mere hint of partisanship, they apply to
many more.

The point, though, is that the discussion is valid and worthwhile
and ought not be silenced. The presidential election is one of the 
few official expressions of democracy left open to the populace,
and those who think that that's important will be a little more
paranoid about it, and rightly so. This is one area where I am not
satisfied with a basic assumption that the election is "legitimate
until proven otherwise", and I think you will find many others who
agree.
 
> It is my observation that your thinly veiled concern for the process
> is merely out of self-interest, if not sour grapes.  Your fixation and
> continued posting on the subject does nothing to add to your
> credibility.  And further, it helps perpetuate the stereotype that
> liberals are wackos, nut-jobs, conspiracy theorists, and underground
> members of the peoples' tin-foil hat militia.

You whine about impartiality and then write this?

> Shut up about it, already.

Quite a disturbing message: Just Shut Up and Trust In Your Leaders.

st3ng4h

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

RE: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Banta, Will]

>As for source code or other security vulnerabilities in closed- or
open-soure vote tabulators, there is little point in rigging such 
>schemes, and less point in exploiting them. Good old fashion
statistical abberations exploited for the benefit of the party that
finds >them first will win every time.

This sounds like a more nuanced version of the general election fraud
conspiracy theory making the rounds now. I must admit to 
being tempted by the idea that fraud, whether through overt manipulation
of counts or certain "statistical aberrations," was 
at work in this election. However, with much more discussion and
analysis of the results having occurred since Nov 2 I'm
convinced that the GOP just did a really thorough "snow job" on the
electorate.



>If anything, that is what I believe is most likely to have happened in
2004. Bush elected through the (fair ?) exploitation of 
>statistical anomalies tied to misbehaving or ill-conceived electronic
voting equipment. Teamed with the fact that partisan, interested >voters
are in charge of the process this is very plausible...

With the vote being as close as it has been in the past two elections
your idea carries more weight, however I think a more plausible
explanation of the result of the 2004 election centers around what
shaped the dominant political discourse available to the American people
during this election year. Instead of focusing on their real agenda,
which was pretty clearly observable to anyone who cared to look at the
Bush Administration's first term record - tax breaks for the rich,
increased corporate welfare, more environmental degradation, making the
workplace a more dangerous place to be and the waging of an unnecessary
war in Iraq - the GOP focused on terrorism and gay marriage. They made
the election about safety and morals which clearly hit home with more
people than did the milquetoast mumblings of John Kerry, who thoroughly
failed to define himself as a leader and let himself be characterized by
the likes of Karl Rove. IMO Kerry and the Democratic Party clearly have
the high ground on many issues that affect people's day-to-day lives
more than the threat of terrorism, but they frittered it away AGAIN.

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[bkfsec]

Thomas Sutpen wrote:
Any sort of impartiality and vested interest in the actual security of
the whole process that you might have claimed to had was pissed away
in your very first post on the subject.  The one where you came out
waving the Kerry flag.  Remember?
It is my observation that your thinly veiled concern for the process
is merely out of self-interest, if not sour grapes.  Your fixation and
continued posting on the subject does nothing to add to your
credibility.  And further, it helps perpetuate the stereotype that
liberals are wackos, nut-jobs, conspiracy theorists, and underground
members of the peoples' tin-foil hat militia.
At least your previous email wasn't one of your six-page, vaguely
coherent, pedantic and almost meaningless rants that make you sound
stoned.
Shut up about it, already.
 

So anyone who is concerned about the system and has shown that they 
aren't on your side of the political fence should have their opinion 
sumarily tossed out?

Well, since you so clearly have shown your own allegiance, wouldn't the 
case be the same for you?  Thanks for the opening. 

Everyone, please disregard Thomas' opinions - he's shown himself to not 
be impartial.

-Barry
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 05:39:31 AM + 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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:41:07 CST, Paul Schmehl said:

> I'm no mathematician, but I suspect the probability of this is somewhere
> slightly south of null.  Do you have any concept of how elections are run?
> In *many* states each *county* determines the ballot type and layout, the
> voting machines used, etc., etc.  Merely to calculate the odds and determine
> the proper order of the ballot would be an astronomical task, and *then*
> you'd have to convince the election board in each county, *including* those
> controlled by the opposing party, to design the ballot the way *you* wanted
> it designed.

So when Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, appoints a State Commissioner of 
Elections,
and drops a hint or two, there's NO way for said Commissioner to make sure that
things happen the way Jeb's brother wants them to happen?

Simply issuing an edict that candidates shall be listed alphabetically (and
leaving the rest to the slight "first candidate listed" bias) would suffice
unless the Democrats fielded somebody who's name started with 'A'

Might want to study up a bit - political machines from Boss Tweed to
Richard Daley have had absolutely *no* problems in getting the ballot
to go the way they wanted


pgpxauKqQvb0R.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 01:28:07 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
So when Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, appoints a State Commissioner of
Elections, and drops a hint or two, there's NO way for said Commissioner
to make sure that things happen the way Jeb's brother wants them to
happen?
Did you not watch the mess in 2000?  The *counties* decided how their 
ballot would be constructed and how the elections would be run.  Now how is 
Jeb Bush and/or his Commissioner going to influence *Democratic* counties 
run by *Democrats*?

Simple answer is, he *isn't*.
Simply issuing an edict that candidates shall be listed alphabetically
(and leaving the rest to the slight "first candidate listed" bias) would
suffice unless the Democrats fielded somebody who's name started with
'A'
Except that state law *explicitly* places that responsibility in the hands 
of the county election board for *that very reason*.

Might want to study up a bit - political machines from Boss Tweed to
Richard Daley have had absolutely *no* problems in getting the ballot
to go the way they wanted
Yes, *before* electronic balloting.
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

RE: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[amilabs]

Give it up folks we are looking at the second quarter of a 16 year
republitard bush dynasty. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Gregory Gilliss; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jason Coombs
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In
Florida

--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 01:28:07 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> So when Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, appoints a State Commissioner 
> of Elections, and drops a hint or two, there's NO way for said 
> Commissioner to make sure that things happen the way Jeb's brother 
> wants them to happen?
>
Did you not watch the mess in 2000?  The *counties* decided how their ballot
would be constructed and how the elections would be run.  Now how is Jeb
Bush and/or his Commissioner going to influence *Democratic* counties run by
*Democrats*?

Simple answer is, he *isn't*.

> Simply issuing an edict that candidates shall be listed alphabetically 
> (and leaving the rest to the slight "first candidate listed" bias) 
> would suffice unless the Democrats fielded somebody who's name started 
> with 'A'
>
Except that state law *explicitly* places that responsibility in the hands
of the county election board for *that very reason*.

> Might want to study up a bit - political machines from Boss Tweed to 
> Richard Daley have had absolutely *no* problems in getting the ballot 
> to go the way they wanted

Yes, *before* electronic balloting.

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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Thomas Sutpen]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:17:27 -0600, st3ng4h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point, though, is that the discussion is valid and worthwhile
> and ought not be silenced. The presidential election is one of the
> few official expressions of democracy left open to the populace,
> and those who think that that's important will be a little more
> paranoid about it, and rightly so. This is one area where I am not
> satisfied with a basic assumption that the election is "legitimate
> until proven otherwise", and I think you will find many others who
> agree.

You're indeed correct.  I agree that it should not be silenced, nor
should it be discounted.  This is why I didn't say the discussion as a
whole was flawed.

The discussants, particularly Jason, are.  They've already taken
positions that can only be preceived as self-interest, to which the
outcome can only be negative.  Like it or not, perceptual filters will
be applied to every item, and everything said will be scrutinized and
interpretted with this same filter.

> > It is my observation that your thinly veiled concern for the process
> > is merely out of self-interest, if not sour grapes.  Your fixation and
> > continued posting on the subject does nothing to add to your
> > credibility.  And further, it helps perpetuate the stereotype that
> > liberals are wackos, nut-jobs, conspiracy theorists, and underground
> > members of the peoples' tin-foil hat militia.
> 
> You whine about impartiality and then write this?

Are you not aware of the stereotypes applied to the discussants
because of their affiliation?  Think of the one you described earlier
in this email regarding Paul.

> Quite a disturbing message: Just Shut Up and Trust In Your Leaders.

Nothing of the sort was insinuated.

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:07:06 CST, Paul Schmehl said:

> Did you not watch the mess in 2000?  The *counties* decided how their 
> ballot would be constructed and how the elections would be run.  Now how is 
> Jeb Bush and/or his Commissioner going to influence *Democratic* counties 
> run by *Democrats*?
> 
> Simple answer is, he *isn't*.

In a close election, he may not even NEED to sway the Democratic counties.

Let's say that we have 100 counties, of which 50 are slanted 51/49 for
one party and 50 are slanted 51/49 for the other party.  If you can introduce
a 2% bias in "your" 50, so they're slanted 53/47, you end up with an overall 
win.

> > Simply issuing an edict that candidates shall be listed alphabetically
> > (and leaving the rest to the slight "first candidate listed" bias) would
> > suffice unless the Democrats fielded somebody who's name started with
> > 'A'
> >
> Except that state law *explicitly* places that responsibility in the hands 
> of the county election board for *that very reason*.

OK.. You don't make it an "edict", you make it a "reasonable suggestion".

Remember - you don't have to sway *all* of the opponents = if all YOUR guys
toe the line, and you issue something that 95% of the opponents reject, but
5% decide it sounds reasonable and do it... you win.  And if the politics
dictate that the opposition party will Do The Opposite of your suggestion
just to be contrary, you just suggest The Opposite of the Opposite, and let
them come to you... ;) (And if you don't have a good grasp on which county
commissioners will sway which way, you shouldn't be in that line of work ;)

Geez Paul, how the  do you *ever* get work done at a university,
if you haven't learned the fine art of telling hostile professors what you
want them to hear in a way that makes them think it was their idea? ;)

> > Might want to study up a bit - political machines from Boss Tweed to
> > Richard Daley have had absolutely *no* problems in getting the ballot
> > to go the way they wanted
> 
> Yes, *before* electronic balloting.

Red Herring.  That's like saying that the new redesigned $20 bill will
stop customers from defrauding a merchant, even when the customer pays with
a credit card.  Notice that the question of influencing a county board of
elections into designing a biased ballot doesn't have *ANYTHING* to do with
the underlying technology, be it punch card, mark-sense bubbles, mechanical
levers, or what have you.

What mechanism does electronic balloting bring into the picture that
stops the tricks that Tweed and Daley pulled?  Especially when the lack of
an audit trail on many of them introduce *more* avenues for mischief??


pgp9wujsmOMs4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Todd Towles]

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 + 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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Dave Horsfall]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Paul Schmehl wrote:

> 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?

It would be easier to compromise the central server that does the actual 
tallying (as has been suggested on some quality lists), and I suspect you 
know this.  Are you being deliberately disingenuous?

-- Dave

___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Steve Wray]

Todd Towles wrote:
Did the charter say something about political messages?..please take it
off the list guys if possible...
Actually, I thought that particular post was in the spirit of the list...
It seemed to me to address technologies and methodologies.
I didn't think that it dwelled on party political issues. Though, to be 
honest, I think Paul should have sent that last one just to the 
addressee not to the list. But he does come up with some gems so he 
won't go on my plonkers list :)

If you want to be truly pedantic as to what counts as political, well... 
there wouldn't be much to choose from. Everything is politics if you 
squint hard enough.

I find the best method of dealing with full disclosure is that every 
time you see someone post something you consider off topic or a troll or 
whatever suits your taste, simply filter their address out.

Filtering by subject doesn't help much as trolls will post to *anything* 
but trolls *will* post. So as long as I filter out anyone that seems 
like a troll (or otherwise an idiot) full disclosure comes up with some 
gems.

And the best part is that if someone on your plonker list says something 
genuinely interesting, they will doubtless be quoted by someone else so 
you may still get to read it. And the list has an archive.

Without filters I'd have left FD years ago...

-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 + Jason 
Coombs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[massive snip]
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

RE: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[Todd Towles]

I asked very nicely...and didn't say it wasn't in some weird way
connected and normally I do delete the messages I don't want to see. But
I also contacted people directly if I feel that the list will have
nothing to add to the talk.  

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Steve Wray
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers 
> Challenge Bush Win In Florida
> 
> Todd Towles wrote:
> > Did the charter say something about political 
> messages?..please take 
> > it off the list guys if possible...
> 
> Actually, I thought that particular post was in the spirit of 
> the list...
> 
> It seemed to me to address technologies and methodologies.
> 
> I didn't think that it dwelled on party political issues. 
> Though, to be honest, I think Paul should have sent that last 
> one just to the addressee not to the list. But he does come 
> up with some gems so he won't go on my plonkers list :)
> 
> If you want to be truly pedantic as to what counts as 
> political, well... 
> there wouldn't be much to choose from. Everything is politics 
> if you squint hard enough.
> 
> I find the best method of dealing with full disclosure is 
> that every time you see someone post something you consider 
> off topic or a troll or whatever suits your taste, simply 
> filter their address out.
> 
> Filtering by subject doesn't help much as trolls will post to 
> *anything* but trolls *will* post. So as long as I filter out 
> anyone that seems like a troll (or otherwise an idiot) full 
> disclosure comes up with some gems.
> 
> And the best part is that if someone on your plonker list 
> says something genuinely interesting, they will doubtless be 
> quoted by someone else so you may still get to read it. And 
> the list has an archive.
> 
> Without filters I'd have left FD years ago...
> 
> 
> >>-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 + Jason Coombs 
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [massive snip]
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Fwd: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida

[jo s]

Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

From: Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>CC: Jason Coombs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush Win InFloridaDate: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:30:55 -0800Paul Schmehl wrote:> > Even *if* they are correct (which is at least debateable) the 130,000 vote > discrepancy they argue for won't overcome Bush's lead of 380,000, so this > is, at best, an academic exercise.    ***
>If they are even possibly correct a discrepancy that large must be>investigated to make sure it won't happen in a future election which might>be a lot closer. *
I believe the real question here is IF the discrepancy was as great as purported then why would anybody assume that other discrepancy's don't exist in other states as well?  I'm constantly amazed at the naivete of the many individuals who place their trust in officials who've come to power through less than stellar means to begin with, and who are as crooked as three dollar bills and wouldn't hesitate to lie in order to further their gains in the first place.   There was no election in america this year, it is as it was planned for during the course of the first 4 years that truly and without doubt, WERE stolen.   ___Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.Charter:
 http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!