On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:17:13 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [ Maverick ] on Wednesday 07 March 2007 04:58 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> __/ [ Maverick ] on Tuesday 06 March 2007 23:08 \__
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>__/ [ Maverick ] on Tuesday 06 March 2007 18:27 \__
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>__/ [ chrisv ] on Tuesday 06 March 2007 13:34 \__
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Except a blue-screen should not take the machine down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why the hell would a voting machine need a massive OS like Windows (or
>>>>>>>>Linux) anyway? It's difficult to think of a more simple application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like Paint?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://melissatogo.blogspot.com/2007/02/multimedia-message.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One size fits all... and contains everything. Media player on Microsoft
>>>>>>>Web servers...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Along with the built-in back doors for cheating the votes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Insertion of USB media could do this. I recently posted an item
>>>>>demonstrating that, under Windows, "insert USB" can mean "execute". How
>>>>>dumb is that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Very dumb. But I had to post my point about how a voting machine could
>>>>be manipulated... with enough money that is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a look:
>>>
>>> Tresys Nails 'Hardened Security' With Brickwall & Upcoming Razor
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | "But SELinux contains tens of thousands of rules, written in
>>> | assembly language. We make implementation easier by turning that
>>> | spaghetti code into reference code," he said.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6365/1/
>>>
>>> Now, bear in mind that the 'source' here is not quite human-readable. With
>>> Diebold, there's no source out there /at all/.
>>>
>>
>> That is the scary part. How do we know that Diebold hasn't been bribed
>> to put in back doors?
>
>See all the links in the OP. I have a larger list. People don't trust these
>machines. In some states, people voted for themselves, yet the ballots
>counted a total of 0. In some cases, people's vote was counted 3 times!
>Madness. We'll never know the truth. Next time they'll have some paper
>backup, if not just the ol' skool system. It's almost as bad as the NHS's
>failed project ([i|Micro]Soft], which lost the British taxpayer a total of
>about 12 billion pounds. They give digitisation a bad reputation, IMHO. Who
>care about Diebold's PR...? They could make reliable ATMs, but voting is
>overly subjected to incentives. Too much at stake.
I ran into a severely ethical fellow who was doing some research. He
said simply that he had a copy of a voting system subversion program.
|
|
