paper trail

http://verify.stanford.edu/EVOTE/NEWSLETTERS/v1n3.html

David L. Dill (elections@...)
May 22, 2003
http://www.verifiedvoting.org

Federal Legislation Introduced!

Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey has introduced a bill
requiring a voter-verifiable paper trail.

http://holt.house.gov/issues2.cfm?id=5996

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of
2003.

"We cannot afford nor can we permit another major
assault on the integrity of the American electoral
process," said Rep. Rush Holt. "Imagine it's Election
Day 2004. You enter your local polling place and go to
cast your vote on a brand new 'touch screen' voting
machine. The screen says your vote has been counted. As
you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to
wonder. How do I know if the machine actually recorded
my vote? The fact is, you don't."

Folks, this is what we've been waiting for! Please
contact your U.S. Representative ASAP and ask them to
support this bill and consider co-sponsoring it.

Let everyone know about this pending legislation.

===

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> http://verify.stanford.edu/EVOTE/NEWSLETTERS/v1n3.html
//
> Folks, this is what we've been waiting for! Please
> contact your U.S. Representative ASAP and ask them to
> support this bill and consider co-sponsoring it.
>
> Let everyone know about this pending legislation.

This is silly. Technology exits to allow every citzen
to vote digitally and have it be far more secure than
a "paper trail" could ever be. PGP, or any open, strong
encryption would do.

Unfortunately, not every citizen is computer literate
yet. That means we have a literacy problem, which is
sadly not being seriously addressed by schools.

So until every citizen can use some form of open, strong
encryption, I agree -- digital technology should be
optional in voting. One could even confirm one's vote
by using both methods.

I don't know what they did when people who couldn't read
had to vote. Were they just screwed? Could they have
a literate citizen swear as a witness to a verbal vote?

Anywho, these proprietary voting machines are for the
birds. You could easily vote right over the internet.
Or by carrier pigeon. With encryption, the security of
the channel is irrelevant. The problem with dedicated
machines is: nobody knows how they work. With an open
standard like PGP, you can set up networks of "trust".

Sadly, for the most important election, we don't need
to bother with a vote -- we already know who's going to
win. Get ready to suck it up for another 4 years.

-Carl

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/

This page says that voting is required to be anonymous.
???

They asked for all kinds of my name when I registered to
vote, and the one time I did vote.

If we don't know who's voting, how can we prevent double-
voting, non-citizens from voting, etc.?

Fill me in. I'm ignorant. :(

-Carl

I am missing this on this page.
BTW the already quite a few circumstancial evidence that this type of fraud has
already occurred.
we are the only country without third party oversight except the other
underdeveloped ones.
that those people who were placed as felons in florida still remain on the
falsified list put together by by the Bushist and supported by all you major
media should make you wonder just what the hell is going on.
who did the stock options trading before 9/11

Carl Lumma wrote:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
>
> This page says that voting is required to be anonymous.
> ???
>
> They asked for all kinds of my name when I registered to
> vote, and the one time I did vote.
>
> If we don't know who's voting, how can we prevent double-
> voting, non-citizens from voting, etc.?
>
> Fill me in. I'm ignorant. :(
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

they seem to have some computer experts who disagree with you

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > http://verify.stanford.edu/EVOTE/NEWSLETTERS/v1n3.html
> //
> > Folks, this is what we've been waiting for! Please
> > contact your U.S. Representative ASAP and ask them to
> > support this bill and consider co-sponsoring it.
> >
> > Let everyone know about this pending legislation.
>
> This is silly. Technology exits to allow every citzen
> to vote digitally and have it be far more secure than
> a "paper trail" could ever be. PGP, or any open, strong
> encryption would do.

they seem to have some computer experts who disagree with you

>
>
> Unfortunately, not every citizen is computer literate
> yet. That means we have a literacy problem, which is
> sadly not being seriously addressed by schools.
>
> So until every citizen can use some form of open, strong
> encryption, I agree -- digital technology should be
> optional in voting. One could even confirm one's vote
> by using both methods.

look at the hacking that occiurs all the time. put a billion dollar potential
profit on something and i don't care what type of iencrytions you have.

>
>
> I don't know what they did when people who couldn't read
> had to vote. Were they just screwed? Could they have
> a literate citizen swear as a witness to a verbal vote?

this is how they prevented blacks from voting for years, in fact until recently

>
>
> Anywho, these proprietary voting machines are for the
> birds. You could easily vote right over the internet.
> Or by carrier pigeon. With encryption, the security of
> the channel is irrelevant. The problem with dedicated
> machines is: nobody knows how they work. With an open
> standard like PGP, you can set up networks of "trust".

especiaally whren the machines are made by companies with right wing groups

>
>
> Sadly, for the most important election, we don't need
> to bother with a vote -- we already know who's going to
> win. Get ready to suck it up for another 4 years.

well they have their forged polls that say all types of things based on the
wording that implies things that might or might not be true.

>
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> > http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
> >
> > This page says that voting is required to be anonymous.
> > ???

> I am missing this on this page.

It's at:

http://171.64.73.212/EVOTE/faq.html#s2q5

> > They asked for all kinds of my name when I registered to
> > vote, and the one time I did vote.
> >
> > If we don't know who's voting, how can we prevent double-
> > voting, non-citizens from voting, etc.?
> >
> > Fill me in. I'm ignorant. :(

-Carl

> > This is silly. Technology exits to allow every citzen
> > to vote digitally and have it be far more secure than
> > a "paper trail" could ever be. PGP, or any open, strong
> > encryption would do.
>
> they seem to have some computer experts who disagree with you

Who are they?

> > So until every citizen can use some form of open, strong
> > encryption, I agree -- digital technology should be
> > optional in voting. One could even confirm one's vote
> > by using both methods.
>
> look at the hacking that occiurs all the time. put a billion
> dollar potential profit on something and i don't care what
> type of iencrytions you have.

It's true that nothing's fail-proof. But strong encryption is
the most fail-proof communication tech humans have. Better
than punched cards for sure!

> > Anywho, these proprietary voting machines are for the
> > birds. You could easily vote right over the internet.
> > Or by carrier pigeon. With encryption, the security of
> > the channel is irrelevant. The problem with dedicated
> > machines is: nobody knows how they work. With an open
> > standard like PGP, you can set up networks of "trust".
>
> especiaally whren the machines are made by companies with
> right wing groups

Indeed.

I think what folks are objecting to is actually this aspect
of the new voting machines -- the closed nature of the tech.
See the "software quality" section of the verifiedvoting.org
faq. Under the current scheme, the source code that runs the
machines run is to be held in "escrow" by the Sec. of State.
Now _that's_ worth a laugh.

Unfortunately, adding a print-out function to the machines
won't help. It's isn't the *technology* that's the problem,
it's the method the tech is administrated.

Private industry and government can't be responsible for
voting tech. It has to be done with open standards to be
reliable.

If paper is so good, what happened in Florida in 2000?

-Carl

this refers to the practive at the moment that one does not know who voted for
who. The idea behind this, which is how it is now, is to prevent people from
being persecuted for the way they vote. I can imagine other wise my place of
work could see how i voted and decide wheather they approve or not or if i can
shop or have phone .

Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> It's at:
>
> http://171.64.73.212/EVOTE/faq.html#s2q5
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

I think wide spread vote fraud was noticed in quite a few states, it only became
noticable in florida cause it was close.
It was computers who made the list of felons, like you are black and live in
these areas and will be waintin on the highway anyway with our roadblocks.
Personally without third party oversight like they have in Europe i can only
assume that it might all fraudulant.

Carl Lumma wrote:

>
> Indeed.
>
> I think what folks are objecting to is actually this aspect
> of the new voting machines -- the closed nature of the tech.
> See the "software quality" section of the verifiedvoting.org
> faq. Under the current scheme, the source code that runs the
> machines run is to be held in "escrow" by the Sec. of State.
> Now _that's_ worth a laugh.
>
> Unfortunately, adding a print-out function to the machines
> won't help. It's isn't the *technology* that's the problem,
> it's the method the tech is administrated.
>
> Private industry and government can't be responsible for
> voting tech. It has to be done with open standards to be
> reliable.
>
> If paper is so good, what happened in Florida in 2000?
>
> -Carl

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

>this refers to the practive at the moment that one does not know
>who voted for who. The idea behind this, which is how it is now,
>is to prevent people from being persecuted for the way they vote.

Oh, duh. Yes, of course, this is a must.

-Carl

> From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:03 PM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: paper trail
>
>
> ...
>
> Private industry and government can't be responsible for
> voting tech. It has to be done with open standards to be
> reliable.
>
> If paper is so good, what happened in Florida in 2000?
>
> -Carl

something historians generally refer to as
a "bloodless coup d'etat".

(i wish i could say that i'm being satirical,
but i'm not ...)

-monz