Skip to main content

View Diary: YouTube Take Action: Diebold Hacked (+DIEBOLD REBUTS) (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, the election was still stolen, but (10+ / 0-)

    At least it was stolen messily. At least everyone knew it was stolen. At least both sides were doing some stealing, and both had an implicit agreement that the outcome would go to the one who could steal it the best. There were your machines, and there were my machines. There was no pretense.

    But not this time. This time, there will be no precinct captains busing people in. No five dollar bills slipped under the table in apartment backrooms. No men in smoke-filled rooms. No alphabetical lists of dead people. No riveting accounts, unopened boxes, and court orders. No book chapters written by guys with access to library files 40 years later.

    Instead it will be 20,000 votes flipped on magnetic charges in a memory disk, which are then erased as the space is overwritten a few weeks later. No Supreme Court challenges. No Robert Caro. No Means of Ascent.

    It will be neat. It will be clean.

    Like the difference between Attila the Hun and Hitler.

    •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

      Which is why I say the problem is not the technology, but the monopoly.

      You made my point better than I did.

      •  Read it again, Jeff (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr X, means are the ends

        I think you're missing the distinction.

        •  I'm not missing any point (0+ / 0-)

          The problem with the Diebold machines is not the technology.  All technology is fraught with problems.  This technology has bad problems. Terrible problems that need to be fixed.   Nobody is questioning that. The old technology had bad problems, too.  

          The issue is the elimination of the system of accountability through corrupt privatization (e.g., awarding of the contract to a company with ties to one party).

          The monopoly on the voting technology needs to be avoided.

          My point is obvious and is true:    If we want to stop Diebold, we will need to do much, much better than videos that show that an electonic machine can be hacked; we will need to show that our Democratic voting system has been handed to one private company with vested interest in the current ruling party.  

          That's it.  All the other arguments are interesting, but they miss the point.

          •  Jeffrey, please give it up (6+ / 0-)

            You have an idee fixee that you can't stop repeating. It's clear that you understand neither security nor software, but instead of learning you keep trying to cram the information you are given into your own wrong conclusion.

            Electronic voting has inherent problems that are unique to software.

            It offers no mode of verification by an independent method. An optical scanner can be fiddled with, for instance, but the paper ballots remain and can be recounted.

            It offers no method of independent observation. If a county develops a history of election fraud, it can ramp up the number of bipartisan observers. They can watch the initial count, they can examine the ballot storage facilities, they can conduct the recount publicly, and much more.

            It offers no method of voter verification. I can at least see that my ballot is marked correctly on paper, whatever happens later on. So I know that at least the original record of my vote is correct, if that record ever needs to be re-examined.

            Its security rests in the hands of a tiny number of people. It has been demonstrated elsewhere how few people are required to hack a Diebold election. Corrupting a paper election requires a much broader conspiracy.

            The fundamental thing you need to understand about security is that no one safeguard is ever enough. Multiple methods of authentication, etc., increase security. Electronic voting does not allow for these redundant failsafes. Paper voting does.

            •  Even a knuckle dragging idiot like me (0+ / 0-)

              can find his way over to wikipedia to look up all he needs to know to participate in this discussion.   The 'black box' problem is certainly not very difficult to understand.  The problem with failsafes even less so.

              Eeek!  Disagreement on dKos.  I guess if I dissent, though...that must mean I am the stupid one in this discussion.

              It ain't pretty, but I can handle that without being offended ; )

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site