Diebold Election Results Released By AZ Judge 134
Windrip writes "A judge in the case covering the nature of the database used in Diebold Gems software during Pima County, Arizona elections has ruled the DB is not a computer program (pdf). The result is that the Arizona Democratic party will have the chance to review previous elections for transparency and accuracy. ''The Pima County Democratic Party sued the county this year for the electronic databases from past elections. The party requested the databases and passwords be released according to Arizona public-records law. Pima County denied that part of the request, while turning over other records the party asked for. In closing arguments of the four-day trial that began Dec. 4, Pima County argued the databases meet the definition of a computer program, which is protected by state law, said Deputy County Attorney Thomas Denker."
DIebold Defeats Democracy (Score:0, Insightful)
Imagine a world where people vote, but the votes don't go anywhere. They just sit in a machine controlled by puppets of the fascist wing of the Republican Party. We are living this dream.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Concentrate on solving the problems not trying to figure out some loop hole or proving some conspiracy and blaming others for not doing well at the polls.
I really wish there was a third party candidate that had a shot at winning.
Then it would be defective by design (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do I in any case guess that this database is either MSDE or SQL Express?
A simple remark (Score:5, Insightful)
From The Article (not the PDF) (Score:4, Insightful)
I pretty much think that this is the point; and it is an important point, because without the ability to call "bullshit" then you lose the legitimacy of the votes. Any corporation wouldn't trust an accountant to maintain the books without auditing them periodically, this is basically the same thing.
also, the systems can already be hacked (quite easily I believe)
Re:DIebold Defeats Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Because of people like you, You can call everything a conspiracy theory and denounce it as crazy, but I'd rather have checks in place to make sure anyway.
There isn't any reason to go crying over spilled milk, but at the same time we should be working to make sure it won't spill again. This is one of the ways to make sure our next election is fair.
Re:DIebold Defeats Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Close races are close races.. can go either way.. that's when manipulation is useful... If there is no doubt that someone was going to win, and they didn't, manipulation would be kind of noticeable wouldn't it ?
Security by obscurity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Accountability is important. There is not nearly enough of it in the American government, at any level.
A step in the right direction (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not again! (Score:2, Insightful)
the data can be evaluated and stats worked up.
If someone was fooling with the vote count they would have to be very careful
in how they entered the data. Stats can be run one the distribution pattern and
non-random sequence of entries can be looked at closely.
Hell - every election voting database should be accessable on the net for any
election, so that ANYONE can run the numbers and take a look. look what happened
2004 election - someone was able to show the the exit poles were SIGNIFICANTLY
different then the results. Showing it had been rigged.
The powerful conservative group that is trying to run this country and own the media
tried to debunk it but it holds true.
They silenced the discussion pretty well - don't you think?
**BANG** ("looks like another suicide guys - but it's okay the guy's
spelling was harrable!")
Take the 2004 election (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Accountability is important. But after all these recounts and investigations there has not been anyone charged with voter fraud, just accusations and innuendo.
Politicians have been breed to win elections, not to solve the problems that this country has. Actually it is a fairly good example of evolution in action. Those that can get money from various lobbies and can talk to crowds and convince them that they have the same views as the crowd.
Politics has come down to simple sound bites, there is not substance. Regardless of which party is in office we get pretty much the same results.
Just base metal or dried pigment until viewed (Score:4, Insightful)
How very Hinduistically existential of you, actually. Quoting from a recent Natl. Geo. article, Faces of the Divine in the January 2008 issue (which I received earlier this week, thanks apparently to time-traveling magazine editors):
So I suppose what you describe would be the CPU's darshan of the code. (Though one could probably make a reasonable argument about which is data and which the program on the basis of specifically how dynamic the darshan needs to be to make sense of it.)
I find it somehow reassuring, and deeply cool, that certain wisdoms of the ancients can be perfectly relevant in wildly different contexts. It's also humbling to find how much our supposedly "primitive" ancestors got right in areas that we have forgotten or set aside. :)
Cheers,
Re:DIebold Defeats Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Prime example: Imagine the world today with a President Bush vs. a President Gore or President Kerry.
Both parties may share some of the same social diseases, and the fringe reactionary kooks of both parties are still reactionary kooks, but A==B? No way.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is about as serious as an episode of Guiding Light.
What happens when we find out Al Gore won? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DIebold Defeats Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Diebold's central tabulator used Microsoft Access [equalccw.com]?
(Reported in several stories, notably a DVD called "Invisible Ballots")
That their hardware [blackboxvoting.org] is some of the most programmer-friendly ever (straight X86 CPU, SDcard, CompactFlash sockets)?
(This is a simplified, smaller version of a larger report. A quick Google search will reveal more.)
WindowsCE OS?
(Same report as above)
Executable Scripts on the ballot-definition CF cards?
(Demonstrated in "Invisible Ballots", also known as the Hursti Hack [wired.com])
By one set of measures these sorts of decisions are hallmarks of el-cheapo implementation of systems that should have been designed to meet far more rigorous standards of security and reliability.
Finally, I refer you to the author of a nice little easter-egg that he was asked to write: Clint Curtis [youtube.com]
The *most charitable* characterization of this issue is that these people are guilty of professional negligence. Anyone understanding the importance of elections to this society and that (especially recently) elections are extremely high value to some people, and are hotly contested, would understand that voting systems should be developed under the strictest, most disciplined methodologies.
It is clear that none of the major voting system suppliers have bothered with the most basic architecture, design, verification and validation methodologies.