Apparently, these "vulnerabilities" are old news....nothing to worry about

[kuozzman]

NYT 1985: "Computerized Systems for Voting Seen as Vulnerable to Tampering"

I thought I was dreaming when I found this, WTF! If anyone has access to University or Library Databases, search old news and mags, you won't believe some of the stuff you'll find. This is definitely not a surprise and nothing new to the gov!

I think MSM just stopped writing about it in the late 80s! WTF? Because it was in the years after this article that "computerized systems for voting" became more popular. I'm going to look into who owned all of the major media companies back then, because if it was this well known twenty years ago and I didn't know about it until last month and most of the people I tell about this even now, think I'm full of shit, something is not right!

You should probably sit down before you start reading this:

http://trytodenythis.tripod.com/voteprivatization/

[Eric J in MN]

1. So after this expose,

we switched to hand-counted paper ballots so our votes couldn't be stolen, right?

No, wait, never mind.

[Kralizec]

2. Published in 1984 + 1, heh

[life_long_dem]

3. Thanks. Wow there is alot to read there.

I found this paragraph to be disturbing:
Although Mr. Anderson's suit is aimed at local election officials and does not mention Computer Election Systems by name, lawyers for the company have obtained a court order forbidding him from studying the company's program in connection with his suit. They said disclosure of the program and documentation "would breach the security of the system, and thereby cast doubt upon the results of C.E.S election programs" in jurisdictions all over the United States. <Right. No one can look at these programs because it might cast doubt on the results of elections run with these programs all over the country. That's like saying fraud can't be investigated because it might lead to the discovery of more fraud.>

[pointsoflight]

4. This needs to be sent to NYT!

[NVMojo]

5. if computers and software can be hacked, then elections on computers

can be hacked. An easy theory to grasp, genius to use it as a campaign strategy, hack the vote!!

[Us vs Them]

6. Get out the vote (fraud) Legal experts, a question for you.

Please choose one of the following to complete this sentence:

The fact that electronic voting validity has been previously debated in legislature (hinders/facilitates) likely legal action in the future.

[Carl Brennan]

7. Great find.

[truehawk]

8. kick

[truehawk]

9. kick

[chomskysright]

10. Get the GA Diebold jerks

go get 'em: [e-mail]

Marsha V. Hammond, PhD: Licensed Psychologist: GA
545 Oakland Ave., S.E. Atlanta, GA 30312
cell phone: [phone]

Dear Ms. Cox:

I have personally met you before. I sat in your office with Jack Farrar, PhD, who was the president of the Georgia Psychological Association. I have admired the way you have computerized the GA government system.

However, as far as I am concerned, your entire political career is up for grabs related to you advocating for GA to have universally Diebold machines which are machines ripe for voting fraud.

I am absolutely appalled at you ignoring all the information re: Diebold and its problems which has been reported again and again and again and about which you could not possibly be ignorant.

I want very much to hear that the Diebolds are removed and /or outfitted with printers so that transparent elections can occur in GA. The Chambliss/ Perdue election was a fraud and voters were cheated. The exit polls indicated that Barnes and Cleland won. I would like to see the entire matter thoroughly investigated.

Here is just one set of information immediately below. There are more links re: Diebold below.

I am hopeful that I will get a response from you, Ms. Cox.

Marsha Hammond, PhD: Licensed Psychologist: GA



http://trytodenythis.tripod.com/voteprivatization/

"In Georgia, Cox championed the state's $54 million switch to electronic voting in 2002 and has been dogged by a small but vocal group of activists who question the integrity of the system — even though there is no evidence that an election has ever been manipulated.

This year, Cox fought legislation that would have required all of Georgia's touch-screen voting machines to have a printer that would produce a paper trail. Cox told lawmakers that uniform technological standards for the printers had not been developed on a national level. Spending about $16 million to outfit Georgia's machines could prove unwise if different standards were later developed that made them obsolete, Cox warned.

She also worried that the printers would pose a logistical nightmare for poll workers already overwhelmed by learning a new voting system. Finally, she argued that creating paper evidence of a vote is rife with opportunities for fraud, since paper ballots in the past were notorious for getting lost, replaced or even bought.

Last week, Cox said it would be easy to appease her critics by moving forward with paper trails in Georgia. "But I have an obligation to make sure I don't create further harm in the election process by doing something that I believe is not ready for prime time," she said. "

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2004/0519evote.php

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

[truehawk]

11. Nothing to see here citizen, move along.....

[paula777]

12. If it happened in this county, it could happen in Ohio

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=53842&format=