Hunrobe wrote:
> >[email protected]
>
> wrote:
>
> >Hunrobe wrote:
> >
> >> >[email protected]
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Here's a question for you, why are the companies that own the non paper
> >> >ballot voting machines refusing to allow an audit of the source code? Do
> >> >you think making a program that counts things is such a national security
> >> >secret that no one should be allowed to look at the source code?
> >> >
> >> >Or do you prefer to be ruled, oh, sorry, governed by people who
> >> >obstruct vote verification?
> >>
> >> 1- No one has offered anything like evidence of any vote fraud.
> >
> >I see, for you're playing catch 22 here; there's no evidence of vote fraud
> >because nobody can verify the voting process, so without verification,
> >there's no fraud.
> >
> >And so far, there is evidence of voter fraud, try listening to more news
> >than fox for a change.
>
> ---snip---
>
> Instead of making nasty little remarks like the above,
What's nasty about asking you to get out and look for yourself? You won't
hear it on fox though. Here's an interesting tidbit though, did you know there
is no law that requires news stories to be accurate or correct?
> why not quote some of
> the evidence of vote fraud you claim exists?
I see that's already been furnished, but tell me, if you don't believe, or
want to believe, or even bother to check what I'm saying, why would
you want me to quote anything to you?
> While you're at it, explain how
> private companies arguing in courts to protect their work product is the same
> as the government fighting against vote verification.
I don't see what this has to do with anything we're talking about. The
government that was in power, is in power now, and is doing nothing,
and has, in fact, made sure that vote verification isn't possible by not
passing laws that would ensure some system that votes could be checked.
Does that help you? The same group that pushed for paper less voting
machines. Does that help you?
> >> They have
> >> merely said it was/is "possible". If I assert that I think it is possibleyou
> >> have bankrolled terrorists should I then have the right to review all of your
> >> financial records?
> >
> >Only if you're in the government, the patriot act sees to that. Any more
> >dumb questions?
>
> ---snip---
>
> Again with the nasty comments. I guess it's easier to make nasty comments than
> to actually state your case. Contrary to what you obviously believe, no statute
> (including the so-called Patriot Act) gives the government the right to access
> your financial/personal records based on "possibilities". The standards of
> "probable cause" and "supported by oath or affirmation before a disinterested
> magistrate" still apply.
No, they don't. You haven't read the Patriot act. Let's review a couple
of items on it.
From the law offices of Richard M. Lester.
<snipped>
First, the PA blatantly disregards the traditional constitutional and statutory
safeguards by lowering the standards for obtaining search and surveillance
orders. Instead of applying for a search warrant or request Title III wiretap,
the government makes a request to a special intelligence court pursuant to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Federal agents do not
need to demonstrate that intelligence gathering is the primary purpose to
obtain such a warrant, only that it is a significant purpose.
Second, the PA vastly expands the FBI's authority to demand the
production of business records without court approval and to
initiate national security investigations using an administrative subpoena
known as a National Security Letter.
Third, the PA authorizes, under certain circumstances, searches of
homes and seizures of property without the usual immediate notification
to the property owner. These searches are know as "sneak and peaks,"
and usually occur when the property owner is not on the premises.
In fact, federal officials are not required to ever let a person know they
were the subjects of such a "sneak and peak" investigation.
Fourth, the PA creates an expanded classification of "domestic
terrorism" which outlaws activities intended to influence the
policy of government by intimidation or coercion. Even though this
sounds like a reasonable preventive device, activities such as
protests used by groups to express their dissatisfaction with
government polices could easily be labelled as acts of domestic
terrorism.
Fifth, the PA expanded pen register trap and trace authority used
to trace incoming and outgoing telephone calls to cover
Internet communications email and Web browsing.
<snipped>
So, using the PA, it's clear that they can investigate you without
"probable cause" and also without anything "supported by oath or
affirmation before a disinterested magistrate."
> >> 2- You have not offered any example/proof/instance of any *governmental*
> >> resistance to a review of the software used to tabulate votes. Do you think
> you
> >> are being governed by the private companies that produced those machines?
> >
> >Think? A private corporation can collect our votes, tabulate them, and
> >give the results without a shred of proof, and without any possibility of
> >verification.. What do you call it?
>
> Since this simply does not occur, I'm not sure why you ask. Private companies
> did indeed build the voting machines. They then sold them to various
> governmental agencies- election commissions, voter registration offices,
> Secretary of State offices, etc. Those agencies then collected our votes,
> tabulated them, and certified the results. If you think that means the private
> companies that built the machines are governing us then you must also believe
> that because my bike is equipped with Campy components that the Campagnolo
> company is also pedaling for me.
>
> >> 3- The results would be made public but the audit you want would have toremain
>
> >> secret to protect the companies' proprietary rights so who will audit the
> >> auditors?
> >
> >I assert that their proprietary rights shouldn't exist on simple counting
> software
> >for public elections. If the process can't be audited and verified, it
> shouldn't
> >be used.
>
> ---snip---
>
> I agree with you that the voting process must be audited and verifiable.
And it wasn't, and isn't.
> Where
> we differ is in the balancing of property rights. I believe that the lawsuits
> you refer to were brought by private individuals/entities demanding that *they*
> be given access to the software, software that was written to specifications
> designed by our elected representatives. Oversight is generally a good thing
> but at what point do we say, "enough already."? When you personally have access
> to the software? When I do? When we *all* do? Oversight at that level would so
> bog down the system as to render it useless. That's why we elect
> representatives.
That's really reaching, and a pretty silly argument. To force a recount, you
have to pay for it. You got that kind of money? Oh wait, no paper, no
recount. Gee, isn't that wonderful for the winners.... And, since, as you say,
those machines where sold and maintained by the government, why can't
the public be assured that the code is properly written? As you say,
the government owns them, which means we, the people, right? Why
can't the DNC, or Kerry, or his representative(s) have an independent
audit of the code?
Without any possible way to verify how a vote was cast, how can you
say "we elect representatives"?
> >Here's a question for you. Florida law specifies a recount in close
> >elections.
> >How do you do that with paperless ballots? Yoiu don't see a conflict there?
>
> You use electronic records of course. Let's get real for a moment. I rely on
> electronic records to track my banking transactions and my credit/ATM card use.
> So do you.
Stop right there. No, I don't. I have a PAPER RECEIPT for every transaction
I make. I check and balance my check book from PAPER RECEIPTS. I have
caught 4 errors that the bank has made so far.
> Since those activities have a much more immediate and personal
> effect on us than say the election of a township road commissioner or a U.S.
> President by your argument we should be able to view the software our bank,
> credit card companies, and every merchant we ever do business with use to
> record transactions.
Nope, by my arguments, there should be a paper trail that can be audited.
Failing that, that source code should be an open book to be checked and
rechecked. There should be no outside access to those machines, no
modem lines to the computers.
My zealous keeping of paper records has saved me money when showing
errors to the bank, who will admit nothing is wrong because their computer
shows it's not in error. Surprise, my paper receipts have shown they have
made a mistake 4 times so far.
> We don't do that though because we have governmental
> agencies that oversee banking and credit. Where's the difference between the
> two?
Funny, none of those agencies were of any help resolving the banks
errors on my accounts. Nor, I suspect, would they have been willing
to assist me. So, I guess, they are not any different than the people
running the paper less voting machines....
--
-TTFN
-Steven
