ACORN

[Undertoad]

Congress doesn't prosecute.

[Cicero]

So you want individuals to prosecute a large company on something that can't be proven? You can do this without leaving a trace, which is why it's such a goat fu**.

An inquiry mandated by Congress would not appease you?

Can't we use something that at least leaves an indicator if something had been tampered with?

[Undertoad]

Individuals do not prosecute. Courts prosecute, individuals testify.

Companies are not prosecuted. Individuals are prosecuted.

Tampering can certainly be proven.

Do you know that such indicators do not exist? No, you're winging it.

[Cicero]

A matter of semantics, but do you feel oh so right? I certainly saw someone do it...without indicators. Which is why the whole thing was filmed in the first place.

An individual can certainly decide to have you prosecuted. An individual can certainly decide to sue a company.

"Winging it" is different from "flipping you the bird".

[Undertoad]

You saw somebody do one thing ("it") on one system, and the person doing it believed there were no indicators.

From this you have assumed there are no indicators on any system, for any action.

You cannot make that assumption, it does not follow.

An individual can attempt to sue a company; a judge determines whether the suit goes forward, and the courts prosecute the suit. But that's all kind of immaterial and argumentative.

But let's step back and take a wider look. Most difficult crimes are not solved by CSI coming around and finding the evidence and scientifically working out whodunnit by working backwards scientifically. Most difficult crimes, I believe, are solved when the perpetrator tells other people what they did, and that information spreads, and second-hand information is tracked down to first-hand.

The kid who broke into Gov Palin's email account left no trace at Yahoo. He was careful enough to use a system to cover his tracks. Unfortunately for him, he was dumb enough to post a screenshot of the system on a very public message board.

In the case of electronic voting, one could break in, change the vote and not be detected by the machine -- yet leave evidence, such as casting more votes than the number of voters, creating an impossible or improbable vote total, failing to change the counted number of times the party lever was pulled, etc. That could lead to an investigation in which people were questioned, etc.

In fact, the easier it is to exploit the machine, the more this would happen. If the machines were utterly simple to defeat -- we would hear of these kinds of investigations constantly. Mistakes would be made. People would brag. Known exploits would be fixed -- in ways that would create indicators next time, or out the individual on the spot. Exploits would be shared not on YouTube, but on IRC and Pirate Bay.

But we don't hear of reports like that. Ever! There's never been a single prosecution.

Now, tampering with mechanical or paper systems? That has been prosecuted.

[Cicero]

Are you under the assumption that since something hasn't been prosecuted, it hasn't occrurred?

More importantly (to me as an aside) is the fact that you think since you have not personally heard of it, in that manner, that it also hasn't occurred. I am glad you are here to define reality. If you have not seen it, it does not exist? Why are we still even talking about it?

Thanks for the basic description of law. I totally was unaware of that.

"You saw somebody do one thing ("it") on one system, and the person doing it believed there were no indicators.

From this you have assumed there are no indicators on any system, for any action."


wtf? You are right. That does not follow. That is not what I assumed at all. Because that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever!!

I watched a guy from a private security firm replicate an action and prove there was no trace left. Why would I assume such an outlandish thing? I am not the one making broad and far fetched assumptions this morning, just because I am being an ass. I'm sorry UT. Things happen all the time that you personally are unaware of. Srsly. I wish I could be so self-important and convinced of my "earned" arrogance. Yes you know every crime that has ever occurred. What is your explanation? I don't think you do.

[Undertoad]

- I'm saying that we have no evidence that there has ever been any tampering with any electronic voting machine to change votes in an election.

- I'm saying that in determining whether tampering during an election has ever occurred, the fact that we have no evidence of it is probably the most meaningful fact to consider.

- I'm saying that the idea that "we haven't seen it happen because the machines don't record it happening" is bogus.

- I'm saying that none of your concerns amount to Troubling Evidence and that you should probably calm down and take a longer, wiser look at the world before proclaiming that people's votes are futile.

[Cicero]

Well..it's true. It's just the fact that it can be done electronically and remotely without a trace that screams no security. I don't like it. Neither does the Tallahasee elections department. They hired a security expert to run tests and it was suprisingly too easy to access the information and manipulate it.

Maybe I shouldn't scream voter suppression so easily, I just think that we should take a look at why there are so many security concerns, and fix them.

Is that asking too much? To ask that the technology we are using be secure? Maybe give people options? Not force feed them a vendor?

[Undertoad]

It's certainly not asking too much, and it's reprehensible that they have given us these weak excuses for voting machines.

[lookout123]

While it is a subpar machine and better security is desireable, I think it is incredibly important before you run around waving your hands and screaming about voter fraud to consider that some people have been screaming about the same issue for a few elections now. Those same people have every motivation in the world to show that fraud has been committed. Those same people have the backing to run whatever investigation they want. Those same people after all this time are unable to find any fraudulent activity. If they were able to find fraudulent activity they would be giving interviews and shouting about it. Instead, they choose to give interviews and shout the possibility of it happening.

Big distinction.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's certainly not asking too much, and it's reprehensible that they have given us these weak excuses for voting machines.

If HAVA guidelines actually existed as originally required, then quite likely is that Diebold would have no products to market. Why did the administration stifle those HAVA standards? How much more K-Street legalized bribery is yet to be uncovered in an administration that routinely did anything for the right color of money?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Cheney's fault.

[Undertoad]

Gentlemen, the elections are run by the states.

[xoxoxoBruce]

C'mon, The national political figures, especially the ones in power controlling all that federal money to the states, have no influence with the state level politicians who run the elections?

[Undertoad]

No, they really don't.

If they tried attaching federal highway money or some such to election regulations, it would be ruled unconstitutional before the ink dried on the Federal Register with the number of the House Bill.