Re-frame e-fraud: "CYBERTERROR: Did Bin Laden hack US election?"

Each of us has our own opinion as to the rigor with which we ought to pursue an investigation to confirm that there was no e-voting fraud/hacking.

For those who do advocate pursuing the investigation rigorously, there is the problem of gaining traction for the idea, especially in the mainstream media and Democratic party.

Here is a possible solution for gaining traction.  There is a critical distinction between: investigating whether or not BUSHCO hacked the election, and investigating whether or not SOMEONE hacked the election.

It is easier to advocate the latter, as it is less accusatory.  Furthermore, that SOMEONE may be a terrorist, e.g., Bin Laden. Therefore we can

Re-frame the movement to guarantee auditable US elections as part of the National Security debate.

For example, imagine the difference in Georgia, where voting is 100% electronic, with no paper trail. Either:

  (a) Go to the legislature and demand voter verified paper trails in 2006, so that the Republicans and Diebold Pioneers cannot steal the election;

  (b) Go to the legislature and demand voter verified paper trails in 2006, so that Bin Laden cannot destroy our US freedoms and democracy, which he hates so much.

No prizes for guessing which of (a) or (b) a Republican Georgian legislature is more likely to go for.

[For new dkos users: if you'd like to help get this Auditable Elections = Part of War On Terror frame out there, click the Recommend button over there on the right. Some mainstream media and Dem people are known to peruse the dkos recommended diaries on occasion.]

•  Maybe!

  According to the article discussed here the money used to hire the hackers active in the election came from a Saudi-tied Texas source that has in the past funded both Bush and bin Laden activities.

  </tinfoilhat off>

  by wytcld on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 02:33:21 PM PDT

  •  Reliable?

    How reliable is that source?

    by Winger on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 02:57:44 PM PDT

    •  they

      don't care about sources, evidence, proof, etc.

      by Furious Hal on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 05:04:32 PM PDT

  •  Thats perfect.....

    Lets keep handing the Republicans their excuses on a silver platter! How will we all feel when/if the proof of election fraud emerges, and this theory is immediately embraced by the administration, thereby absolving themselves of any of the guilt *"because Bin Ladin did it." *

    by warhistorian on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 06:16:37 PM PDT

    •  That would be fine, because...

      ... we'll have one of the following outcomes:

      (a) there will be proof of hacking on Nov 2, and proof that BushCo did it;

      (b) there will be proof of hacking on Nov 2, and proof that someone else did it;

      (c) there will be proof of hacking on Nov 2, with no indication who did it;

      (d) there will no proof of hacking on Nov 2.

      Without pushing hard for a full inquiry, only (d) is possible. Which gets us nowhere for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,...

      On the other hand, pushing hard to get a full inquiry, leveraged by National Security framing if necessary, at least might show hacking happened, even if BushCo manages to slime their way out of the blame; and whoever they point their fingers at (Bin Laden or otherwise), at that point the process must be fixed by 2005.

      In a sense I'm prioritizing (1) getting the elections fixed for 2005,2006,2006,... over (2) proving that BushCo hacked the 2004 election.

      Ideally of course, were BushCo guilty, a solid investigation would manage to turn up their guilt as a bonus, so we achieve both (1) and (2).

      by Winger on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 06:35:45 PM PDT

•  Further Evidence That Recommended Diaries...

  ...must go.

  Suggest that Bin Laden hacked the election? Sure, why not. We already have another recommended diary suggesting that the RNC crafted some massive plot to post technicians around the country to steal the election. Perhaps we'll soon have a recommended diary revealing how Elvis hacked the election, and the transformation of dKos from a thoughtful, meaningful place for discussion and debate to a clearinghouse for whatever crackpot conspiracy theory somebody can think up.

  Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Right wing trolls are spending their time here, "recommending" whatever crackpot theories come to mind with the secret goal of discrediting the community. Looks like the plan is working great.

  I understand your goal, and it's laudable. But if you want evidence of the fragility of these systems and the ease with which they can be subverted, why not turn to some real computer scientists:

  Analysis of an Electronic Voting System

  It's an Acrobat file, about 116K. Well worth your time, and will provide plenty of demonstrable, credible evidence.
   

  by drgardner on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 05:37:29 PM PDT

  •  Your objections

    are valid.  The title is meant to be a possible reframing which could be a foot in the door to right-wing nutcases.  "Did Bin Laden hack the election?" is not a claim, but an illustration of the genre of question which (in a suitable incarnation) could potentially broaden the base of support for voting fraud investigations, to the other side.

    This is in no way a conspiracy theory; it's just a question.  I'm sorry if you interpreted it as just-another-conspiracy-theory.

    The computer science papers are not proof of fraud, only proof of the ease by which fraud/hacking could be commited. I'm a computer science academic with publications in computer security. Since you also seem to be interested in the technical side of things, you might be interested in this diary I wrote, titled "An academic primer on e-voting fraud." It summarizes parts of Rubin et. al.'s paper, and includes a big table showing the various forms of attack by various kinds of agents.

    I think it's very important to emphasize that these computer security papers only prove the means, not the actuality of e-voting fraud/hacking.  People tend to forget this (though you are careful to make the distinction).

    As for whether my diary proves that recommendations are bad, I guess I'll leave that to the recommenders.  The title is intended as a candidate for reframing for the right-wing perspective.  Is that sufficient grounds for disqualifying the entire recommending process? I thought I had articulated reasonably clearly in the body of the diary what the goal of the title was.

    I agree that "mass hysteria" positive feedback may be damaging recommended diaries in general. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe I am I'm guilty of catalysing the problem with this diary; maybe I'm not. I guess its a subjective judgement.

    by Winger on Thu Nov 25, 2004 at 06:10:45 PM PDT

    •  Some Responses...

      I didn't interpret it as a conspiracy theory. I understood that you're trying to establish it as a point of conjecture to entice greater interest in the topic and increase the likelihood people - of all political stripes - will demand change. My concern, possibly poorly articulated, is more that given the sensationalistic nature of the statement people in general would view it as a conspiracy theory. On reconsideration, I have to say that I just don't know. Maybe it would work, maybe it would blow up in our collective faces. But I have to say you may be correct and it might work.

      I've read the paper, and will look at your diary. Thanks for the pointer. Perhaps you'd care to post a link to some of your papers.

      I think there are a variety of reasons for disqualifying the recommendation process. It frequently ends up promoting diaries that are merely popular, regardless of the quality of their analysis, the credibility of the information they provide, or their relevance to reality. None of which applies to your diary, so I apologize for applying my criticisms of recommended diaries to yours.
       

      by drgardner on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 06:13:32 AM PDT