Great John, now if you can convince the fools who buy systems for the
voting public to use your method, we might be saved from a disaster in
November.
Ed
On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:32 PM, John Berry wrote:
I don't have time to go into it at this moment but I believe I have
found a way to have o
Edmund Storms wrote:
You all would fail at solving murder mysteries. Consider the facts:
1. Diebold makes ATMs, which are secure. Therefore, they know how to
do a good job.
2. Diebold is owned by people who are strong supporters of the
Republican party. Therefore they have a self interest in
I don't have time to go into it at this moment but I believe I have found a
way to have online voting secure and cheat proof if anyone is curious, it's
not really hard.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> You all would fail at solving murder mysteries. Con
You all would fail at solving murder mysteries. Consider the facts:
1. Diebold makes ATMs, which are secure. Therefore, they know how to
do a good job.
2. Diebold is owned by people who are strong supporters of the
Republican party. Therefore they have a self interest in gaming the
system
By the way, Diebold is in the ATM business. Readers here did not know
that would miss my point. I am sure there are plenty of programmers
at Diebold who know how to do secure touch-screen transaction
processing. It is an old, long established company. You can bet your
boots that no Russian hack
ident of
Romania, and he'll have every one of our credit card numbers.
- Rick
_
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:53 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:HAVA: Game over?
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Funny that technophiles li
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Funny that technophiles like us would object to these the way we do. I guess
it's because we know easily computer systems can often be defeated even when
they're touted as being rock solid. Heck, most of the time you don't even
have to *try* to get them to fail.
Well, I
ED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:00 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:HAVA: Game over?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>There is *NO* *MENTION* of a "voter verified" paper record. There is
>*NO* requirement that the voter be allowed to *see* the paper record
>i
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> There is *NO* *MENTION* of a "voter verified" paper record. There is
>> *NO* requirement that the voter be allowed to *see* the paper record
>> indicating how they voted.
>
> The link you point is the 2002 law. Do you mean the replacement S
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
There is *NO* *MENTION* of a "voter verified" paper record. There is
*NO* requirement that the voter be allowed to *see* the paper record
indicating how they voted.
The link you point is the 2002 law. Do you mean the replacement
S.3212, "Bipartisan Electronic Votin
There has been some discussion on this list in the past regarding
electronic voting and the vital role played by a voter-verified paper
trail. In 2002 the U.S. election system was reformed, with the passage
of HAVA (the Help America Vote Act), which aims to eliminate the
problems caused by punch c
11 matches
Mail list logo
