Court Filing On How 2004 Ohio Election Hacked 504
chimpo13 writes "A new filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004 presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush."
Re:Funny how (Score:1, Informative)
Check your facts. News orgs. did check in FL after the 2K election and found that Bush would have won. He did not steal the election. However, I disagreed with the Supremes when they wrote that it was too late and gave Bush the win.
Wow, who could have seen a conflict of interest? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, when the CEO of Diebold (the company making the voting machines), Walden O'Dell [wikipedia.org] is also doubling as a major Bush fundraiser and promising to "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President", is anyone really surprised that serious questions were raised about these e-voting machines--which were already controversial long before Wally O'Dell ever started fundraising?
Some things are still best done the old-fashioned way. And voting is one of them.
It was hacked? (Score:5, Informative)
I read through the article and all I found was information that it was possible to do so - but we at Slashdot ALL know that all electronic voting systems are heavily flawed. I didn't see any evidence in the article that voter fraud actually did occur, only that it was possible.
What IS mentioned is that an intermediate vote count was transferred to another server, but that just means that early vote totals were made available, not that fraudulent votes were cast.
What is with Slashdot and the craptacular headlines lately?
Re:Funny how (Score:4, Informative)
You are correct. Unemployment is closer to 25%.
Re:Wow, who could have seen a conflict of interest (Score:4, Informative)
Here's what's really annoying about that particular quote: I can't find the full text of it, least not in 15 minutes of noodling around on Google. There are tons of references to that quote, plenty of references to the responses to the quote, but nothing at all which could put that quote into context. I'm not saying it's a case of misinterpretation... but I am saying that we don't have the facts. What we have is a great soundbite.
Then we have this FTA:
Spoonamore also swore that "...the architecture further confirms how this election was stolen. The computer system and SmarTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmarTech computers."
Which sums it up nicely. The filings show how it could have been stolen - but do not prove that it was stolen. It seems to me that the same can be said of any election using this equipment and architecture.
In spite of that, I agree with your statement. The old fashioned way seems to be the one that is most foolproof. While that process can obviously be hacked as well, it typically needs to be done on a machine by machine basis and is quite a bit more traceable.
Re:This just proves (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it just proves that we should trust neither slashdot nor truth-out.org for headlines. If you read TFA it essentially says that a case is made that the architecture made it *possible* for fraud to have occurred; and TFA is apparently trying to slant that as proof that it *did* occur. It is less clear whether or not those pursuing the case are trying to make the same point; or if their point is only to prove that the architecture allowed the possibility of fraud.
Re:This just proves (Score:1, Informative)
Look up videos taken in Ohio of the 04 election and you'll see the poor neighborhoods would get one or two broke ass machines while the rich areas got MUCH more machines than required, those that tried to hand voters a slip that pointed out their right to ask for a provisional ballot, since they were making people wait several hours in line only to tell them "you're in the wrong place" and expect them to go do it all over again were first threatened and then arrested, the whole thing was a scam from the word go.
You do realize that elections, even federal ones, are handled locally, right? This means that if "poor neighborhoods" had faulty equipment, then it was the fault of the local officials who brought in faulty equipment. It's not like Karl Rove sat in his command center and dictated which precincts would get what equipment. These decisions are made locally, just as the "butterfly ballot" in Florida 2000 was designed by a Democrat.
Re:It was hacked? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh thank God, someone on Slashdot actually has some sens. All it takes is one quick visit to TFA to see that that news site is the most biased news outlet I have ever seen. Its literally more sensationalist than Fox News, just in the other direction. The people who wrote the article authored no less than 4 books like "Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election". The entire things takes "it might have been possible to hack the election" to "look! It was possible, so they did!" They don't say "reveals how it might have been hacked", which would be true, they say "was hacked", which they have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. Just suspicions, and their suspicions at that. And saying people died in "a suspicious plane crash"? Thats some nice inuendo right there. They are literally suggesting that Bush had a person killed for testifying against him. Over the top, much?
Re:This just proves (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it just proves that we should trust neither slashdot nor truth-out.org for headlines. If you read TFA it essentially says that a case is made that the architecture made it *possible* for fraud to have occurred; and TFA is apparently trying to slant that as proof that it *did* occur. It is less clear whether or not those pursuing the case are trying to make the same point; or if their point is only to prove that the architecture allowed the possibility of fraud.
TFA is guilty of not having any idea how computers work. They claim the vote totals were manipulated by a "man in the middle" machine that received votes from the precincts, changed them, and then forwarded them on be counted. The site assumes that electronic data is the same as paper data, meaning that once you send it, you no longer have a copy of it. The article never makes any attempt to show that the data forwarded by the supposed "man in the middle" computer was somehow different than the data it received and even implies that such verification would be impossible. All TFA does is say that the servers that collected the data changed it, as if it were fact, for no other reason than a result they didn't expect, even though it matched polling data prior to the election.
Here is just a single example of the crap from the article (emphasis mine):
The filing also includes the revealing deposition of the late Michael Connell. Connell served as the IT guru for the Bush family and Karl Rove. Connell ran the private IT firm GovTech that created the controversial system that transferred Ohio's vote count late on election night 2004 to a partisan Republican server site in Chattanooga, Tennessee owned by SmarTech. That is when the vote shift happened, not predicted by the exit polls, that led to Bush's unexpected victory. Connell died a month and a half after giving this deposition in a suspicious small plane crash.
So the vote totals went from the precincts (article doesn't say how GovTech received the data or where from, so we have to assume), and sent it to a "partisan Republican server", (can a server be partisan?) out of state, which is where the vote totals changed. What happened to the totals after they hit SmarTech? Does SmarTech host a website that simply posts vote totals to the public? Article doesn't say. We are left to assume that somehow, SmarTech then forwarded the totals to the Ohio Secretary of State. So, according to TFA, the votes went like this: precincts --> GovTech --> SmarTech --> (We don't know, but somewhere official), instead of precincts --> Secretary of State servers. Why?
Seriously? No independent, or even partisan group has bother to look at the vote totals, reported precinct by precinct on every news network in America received directly from the precincts themselves, and realized that the numbers that reported then were different than the final count?
This article is pure BS. I think the point is to accuse Republicans of vote tampering to insulate the Democrats from any accusations in the next election. Or maybe they are just hoping that GWB was never really elected. Who knows. It's BS either way.
Re:Wow, who could have seen a conflict of interest (Score:2, Informative)
"Here's what's really annoying about that particular quote: I can't find the full text of it, least not in 15 minutes of noodling around on Google."
Your google noodling needs work. Three minutes: http://www.bbvdocs.org/diebold/wally-odell-letter.pdf