everybody else has a chance to view my remarks
to Barry's obviously short-sighted arguments.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Thomas Sutpen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:31:49 -0700
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge Bush
Win In Florida
To: bkfsec
] University Researchers Challenge Bush
Win In Florida
To: bkfsec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:02:41 -0500, bkfsec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
:[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
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
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
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.
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
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
--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
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
--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?
I forgot to make sure everybody else has a chance to view my remarks
to Barry's obviously short-sighted arguments.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Thomas Sutpen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:31:49 -0700
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] University Researchers Challenge
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
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
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
; [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
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,
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
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
- 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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--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
--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
University Researchers Challenge Bush Win In Florida
According to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley,
counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely
to show increased support for President Bush compared to counties with paper
ballots or optical scan
31 matches
Mail list logo
