November 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

[p2p-hackers] MixMinion vs. onion routing & GNUnet question (fwd from fis@wiwi.hu-berlin.de)
by Eugen Leitl 08 Nov '04

08 Nov '04

----- Forwarded message from fis(a)wiwi.hu-berlin.de -----

1 0

In a Sky Dark With Arrows, Death Rained Down
by R.A. Hettinga 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB109953591903164550,00.html> The Wall Street Journal November 4, 2004 BOOKS In a Sky Dark With Arrows, Death Rained Down By NED CRABB November 4, 2004; Page D10 The opening slaughter of what came to be known as the Hundred Years' War took place on Aug. 26, 1346, near the village of Crecy in northern France. There King Philip VI's French army bore down on a much smaller English force commanded by Edward III. What happened in the ensuing few hours still lives, in the French national consciousness, as one of the most painful blots on the proud escutcheon of France. As described in Hugh D.H. Soar's "The Crooked Stick" (Westholme Yardley, 241 pages, $24.95), a fascinating study of a forgotten weapon, King Philip's shining knights, encased in magnificent armor and thundering toward the enemy on huge war horses, were practically annihilated by an enormous black cloud of thousands of arrows that rose from the English lines and descended with murderous effect. These were not the sort of sporting arrows skillfully shot toward gayly colored targets by Victorian archery societies (charmingly described by Mr. Soar in later chapters) but heavy "bodkin pointed battle shafts" that went through the armor of man and horse. And the black cloud wasn't just one surge, it kept coming and coming, arching high over the battlefield, as each of the 6,000 archers released an average three or four arrows a minute. For centuries the longbow dominated battle, affecting the fates of nations. Royal blood soaked the ground, and with frightening suddenness King Philip's now much reduced 27,000-man army was in desperate retreat from Edward's 9,000 Englishmen. Sixty-nine years later, at Agincourt, similar clouds of battle shafts released by the archers in Henry V's small, wet, hungry and sick army devastated a French army so badly that scores of ancient aristocratic lineages were ended in a few hours of battle. The English longbowman had emerged from centuries of hunting in the dark forests of his native land and into the glare of battle to end the dominance of the mounted knight. The knight and his "destrier" horse, also armored, were the medieval equivalent of an Abrams tank, owning the battlefield for centuries and vulnerable only to other knights and crossbowmen (who had to stop and rewind their weapons) at close range. And now here was this peasant fellow in his hooded cloth shirt, leather jerkin (close-fitting, sleeveless jacket), soft leather boots and crude helmet bringing him down into the mud. Whence came this man, with a great bow taller than himself? As Mr. Soar fascinatingly elucidates, he and his weapon have a long history. Over centuries, the English archer had developed an extra-long bow hewn from the yew tree. Many types of wood possessed the essential power-making qualities of tension and compression, but yew was by far the best. "Though notoriously difficult to work with because of its often tortuous grain," Mr. Soar writes, "yew has an elasticity superior to all other timber." Yew gave the warbow tremendous thrust, sending feathered (fletched) shafts 250 yards, compared with the shorter handbow's 50 or so and the crossbow's 100. To this day, as Mr. Soar shows later when he describes longbow archery's evolution into a garden-party pastime and Olympic sport, no superior wood has been discovered. Examining the longbow's heritage, Mr. Soar takes us to Paleolithic and Neolithic prehistory for a vivid reconstruction of the ancient bowman ancestors of the men who stood at Crecy in 1346. He begins with a typically pithy statement: "Matters were not easy for our early ancestors. It was their fate to be at once both predator and prey. At best, this was an unattractive lifestyle and one fraught with inevitable uncertainty and danger." To improve the odds, early man devised the pointed stick with which to skewer his food and his enemies. From the pointed stick came the spear with its sharp stone point, and then the need to give it propulsion other than by simply throwing it -- and thus, inevitably, the crooked stick with its primitive string of plaited grass, sinew or hemp. Eventually the bow was strengthened by the use of horn on the tips, where the string was either tied or slipped into a groove at the shaft, and sinew and hemp gave way to linen thread or silk, a far more elastic means of projecting arrows. The longbow's supremacy lasted about two centuries, shifting the balance of power mostly to England, whose kings issued royal decrees banning certain "idle" games and demanding that all able-bodied young men in every village and town diligently practice archery. The English were especially deft at instituting battlefield discipline for archers, training them to move in formation on command, usually by horn signals. The French never equaled them in either training longbow archers or in disciplining them in battlefield tactics. Some things never change. It was not until the advent of gunpowder and artillery, with a much longer range and much greater killing power, that the longbow lost its decisive role. It remained a residual weapon in the Tudor era, especially for aristocratic gentleman to demonstrate their athletic prowess at games and tournaments. (King Henry VIII was particularly fond of the longbow, and there are drawings of him shooting.) But on the battlefield, the bow could not compete with the gun, which from the first exceeded the arrow's velocity if not its precision. By the beginning of the 17th century, however, cannons and muskets had found a deadly range and accuracy. The battle of Pinkie Cleugh, in 1547, the last battle to be fought between the Scottish and English royal armies, was also the "last occasion," notes Mr. Soar, "when [the longbow] was used tactically en masse." The Scots suffered defeat, with 15,000 men slain. Mr. Crabb is the Journal's letters editor. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109953591903164550,00.html Copyright 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

3 6

The St. Louis Pledge
by J.A. Terranson 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Jason wrote: > Republican Lists > > http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=RPC&cycle=2004 > http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=RNC&cycle=2004 > http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=NRCC&cycle=2004 > http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=NRSC&cycle=2004 For those of you familiar with the Boulder Pledge against spam (see http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml) I submit the St. Louis Pledge Against Fascism: "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered by a contributor to George Bush's campaign. This is my contribution to the survival of freedom in the United States." -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time

2 1

Believe it or not, it wasn't just rednecks who voted for Bush
by R.A. Hettinga 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/07/do070…> The Telegraph Believe it or not, it wasn't just rednecks who voted for Bush By Mark Steyn (Filed: 07/11/2004) The big question after Tuesday was: will it just be more of the same in George W Bush's second term, or will there be a change of tone? And apparently it's the latter. The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they're going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'." Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765. Forty five per cent of Hispanics voted for the President, as did 25 per cent of Jews, and 23 per cent of gays. And this coalition of common-or-garden rednecks, Hispanic rednecks, sinister Zionist rednecks, and lesbian rednecks who enjoy hitting on their gay-loathin' sisters expanded its share of the vote across the entire country - not just in the Bush states but in the Kerry states, too. In all but six states, the Republican vote went up: the urinating rednecks have increased their number not just in Texas and Mississippi but in Massachusetts and California, both of which have Republican governors. You can drive from coast to coast across the middle of the country and never pass through a single county that voted for John Kerry: it's one continuous cascade of self-righteous urine from sea to shining sea. States that were swing states in 2000 - West Virginia, Arkansas - are now solidly Republican, and once solidly Democrat states - Iowa, Wisconsin - are now swingers. The redneck states push hard up against the Canadian border, where if your neck's red it's frostbite. Bush's incontinent rednecks are everywhere: they're so numerous they're running out of sisters to bunk up with. Who exactly is being self-righteous here? In Britain and Europe, there seem to be two principal strains of Bush-loathing. First, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be an idiot - as in the Mirror headline "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Second, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be a Nazi - as in Oliver James, who told The Guardian: "I was too depressed to even speak this morning. I thought of my late mother, who read Mein Kampf when it came out in the 1930s [sic] and thought, 'Why doesn't anyone see where this is leading?' " Mr James is a clinical psychologist. If smug Europeans are going to coast on moron-Fascist sneers indefinitely, they'll be dooming themselves to ever more depressing mornings-after in the 2006 midterms, the 2008 presidential election, 2010, and beyond: America's resistance to the conventional wisdom of the rest of the developed world is likely to intensify in the years ahead. This widening gap is already a point of pride to the likes of B J Kelly of Killiney, who made the following observation on Friday's letters page in The Irish Times: "Here in the EU we objected recently to high office for a man who professed the belief that abortion and gay marriages are essentially evil. Over in the US such an outlook could have won him the presidency." I'm not sure who he means by "we". As with most decisions taken in the corridors of Europower, the views of Killiney and Knokke and Krakow didn't come into it one way or the other. B J Kelly is referring to Rocco Buttiglione, the mooted European commissioner whose views on homosexuality, single parenthood, etc would have been utterly unremarkable for an Italian Catholic 30 years ago. Now Europe's secular elite has decided they're beyond the pale and such a man should have no place in public life. And B J Kelly sees this as evidence of how much more enlightened Europe is than America. That's fine. But what happens if the European elite should decide a whole lot of other stuff is beyond the pale, too, some of it that B J Kelly is quite partial to? In affirming the traditional definition of marriage in 11 state referenda, from darkest Mississippi to progressive enlightened Kerry-supporting Oregon, the American people were not expressing their "gay-loathin' ", so much as declining to go the Kelly route and have their betters tell them what they can think. They're not going to have marriage redefined by four Massachusetts judges and a couple of activist mayors. That doesn't make them Bush theo-zombies marching in lockstep to the gay lynching, just freeborn citizens asserting their right to dissent from today's established church - the stifling coercive theology of political correctness enforced by a secular episcopate. As Americans were voting on marriage and marijuana and other matters, the Rotterdam police were destroying a mural by Chris Ripke that he'd created to express his disgust at the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamist crazies. Ripke's painting showed an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Unfortunately, his workshop is next to a mosque, and the imam complained that the mural was "racist", so the cops arrived, destroyed it, arrested the television journalists filming it and wiped their tape. Maybe that would ring a bell with Oliver James's mum. The restrictions on expression that B J Kelly sees as evidence of European enlightenment are regarded as profoundly unhealthy by most Americans. When one examines Brian Reade's anatomy of redneck disfigurements - "gun-totin', military-lovin', abortion-hatin' " - most of them are about the will to survive, as individuals and as a society. Americans tote guns because they're assertive citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. They love their military because they think there's something contemptible about Europeans preening and posing as a great power when they can't even stop some nickel'n'dime Balkan genital-severers piling up hundreds of thousands of corpses on their borders. And, if Americans do "hate abortion", is Mr Reade saying he loves it? It's at least partially responsible for the collapsed birthrates of post-Christian Europe. However superior the EU is to the US, it will only last as long as Mr Reade's generation: the design flaw of the radical secular welfare state is that it depends on a traditionally religious society birthrate to sustain it. True, you can't be a redneck in Spain or Italy: when the birthrates are 1.1 and 1.2 children per couple, there are no sisters to shag. What was revealing about this election campaign was how little the condescending Europeans understand even about the side in American politics they purport to agree with - witness The Guardian's disastrous intervention in Clark County. Simon Schama last week week defined the Bush/Kerry divide as "Godly America" and "Worldly America", hailing the latter as "pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical". That's exactly the wrong way round: it's Godly America that is rational and sceptical - especially of Euro-delusions. Uncowed by Islamists, undeferential to government, unshrivelled in its birthrates, Bush's redneck America is a more reliable long-term bet. Europe's media would do their readers a service if they stopped condescending to it. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

3 2

Re: The Values-Vote Myth
by Tyler Durden 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

JAT wrote... >This election *proves* that at least half the electorate, about 60 million >people, are just Useless Eaters, who should be eagerly awaiting their Trip >Up The Chimneys. Ahhhh...I need a cigarette. But I suspect it's far more likely that some large batch of USA-ians will end up having a surprise meeting with Allah as the result of a big ole stinky dirty bomb. And with Iraq II we'll have an endless supply of suicide bombers ready to deliver. The only drawback is that there's a solid chance it'll be set off a few hundred feet from where I work. Ah well. Dems da breaks. We had a good run. -TD _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

2 1

Worse Than 2000: Tuesday's Electoral Disaster
by R.A. Hettinga 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

<http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_110804A.shtml> Worse Than 2000: Tuesday's Electoral Disaster By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Report Monday 08 November 2004 Everyone remembers Florida's 2000 election debacle, and all of the new terms it introduced to our political lexicon: Hanging chads, dimpled chads, pregnant chads, overvotes, undervotes, Sore Losermans, Jews for Buchanan and so forth. It took several weeks, battalions of lawyers and a questionable decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to show the nation and the world how messy democracy can be. By any standard, what happened in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election was a disaster. What happened during the Presidential election of 2004, in Florida, in Ohio, and in a number of other states as well, was worse. Some of the problems with this past Tuesday's election will sound all too familiar. Despite having four years to look into and deal with the problems that cropped up in Florida in 2000, the 'spoiled vote' chad issue reared its ugly head again. Investigative journalist Greg Palast, the man almost singularly responsible for exposing the more egregious examples of illegitimate deletions of voters from the rolls, described the continued problems in an article published just before the election, and again in an article published just after the election. Four years later, and none of the Florida problems were fixed. In fact, by all appearances, they spread from Florida to Ohio, New Mexico, Michigan and elsewhere. Worse, these problems only scratch the surface of what appears to have happened in Tuesday's election. The fix that was put in place to solve these problems - the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 after the Florida debacle - appears to have gone a long way towards making things worse by orders of magnitude, for it was the Help America Vote Act which introduced paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines to millions of voters across the country. At first blush, it seems like a good idea. Forget the chads, the punch cards, the archaic booths like pianos standing on end with the handles and the curtains. This is the 21st century, so let's do it with computers. A simple screen presents straightforward choices, and you touch the spot on the screen to vote for your candidate. Your vote is recorded by the machine, and then sent via modem to a central computer which tallies the votes. Simple, right? Not quite. A Diebold voting machine. Is there any evidence that these machines went haywire on Tuesday? Nationally, there were more than 1,100 reports of electronic voting machine malfunctions. A few examples: * In Broward County, Florida, election workers were shocked to discover that their shiny new machines were counting backwards. "Tallies should go up as more votes are counted," according to this report. "That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone down. Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward." * In Franklin County, Ohio, electronic voting machines gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in one precinct alone. "Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B," according to this report. "Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president." * In Craven County, North Carolina, a software error on the electronic voting machines awarded Bush 11,283 extra votes. "The Elections Systems and Software equipment," according to this report, "had downloaded voting information from nine of the county's 26 precincts and as the absentee ballots were added, the precinct totals were added a second time. An override, like those occurring when one attempts to save a computer file that already exists, is supposed to prevent double counting, but did not function correctly." * In Carteret County, North Carolina, "More than 4,500 votes may be lost in one North Carolina county because officials believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. Local officials said UniLect Corp., the maker of the county's electronic voting system, told them that each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes. Officials said 3,005 early votes were stored, but 4,530 were lost." * In LaPorte County, Indiana, a Democratic stronghold, the electronic voting machines decided that each precinct only had 300 voters. "At about 7 p.m. Tuesday," according to this report, "it was noticed that the first two or three printouts from individual precinct reports all listed an identical number of voters. Each precinct was listed as having 300 registered voters. That means the total number of voters for the county would be 22,200, although there are actually more than 79,000 registered voters." * In Sarpy County, Nebraska, the electronic touch screen machines got generous. "As many as 10,000 extra votes," according to this report, "have been tallied and candidates are still waiting for corrected totals. Johnny Boykin lost his bid to be on the Papillion City Council. The difference between victory and defeat in the race was 127 votes. Boykin says, 'When I went in to work the next day and saw that 3,342 people had shown up to vote in our ward, I thought something's not right.' He's right. There are not even 3,000 people registered to vote in his ward. For some reason, some votes were counted twice." Stories like this have been popping up in many of the states that put these touch-screen voting machines to use. Beyond these reports are the folks who attempted to vote for one candidate and saw the machine give their vote to the other candidate. Sometimes, the flawed machines were taken off-line, and sometimes they were not. As for the reports above, the mistakes described were caught and corrected. How many mistakes made by these machines were not caught, were not corrected, and have now become part of the record? The flaws within these machines are well documented. Professors and researchers from Johns Hopkins performed a detailed analysis of these electronic voting machines in May of 2004. In their results, the Johns Hopkins researchers stated, "This voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identify several problems including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. We show that voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal software." "Furthermore," they continued, "we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered and executed without access to the source code. In the face of such attacks, the usual worries about insider threats are not the only concerns; outsiders can do the damage. That said, we demonstrate that the insider threat is also quite considerable, showing that not only can an insider, such as a poll worker, modify the votes, but that insiders can also violate voter privacy and match votes with the voters who cast them. We conclude that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election." Many of these machines do not provide the voter with a paper ballot that verifies their vote. So if an error - or purposefully inserted malicious code - in the untested machine causes their vote to go for the other guy, they have no way to verify that it happened. The lack of a paper ballot also means the end of recounts as we have known them; now, on these new machines, a recount amounts to pushing a button on the machine and getting a number in return, but without those paper ballots to do a comparison, there is no way to verify the validity of that count. Worst of all is the fact that all the votes collected by these machines are sent via modem to a central tabulating computer which counts the votes on Windows software. This means, essentially, that any gomer with access to the central tabulation machine who knows how to work an Excel spreadsheet can go into this central computer and make wholesale changes to election totals without anyone being the wiser. Bev Harris, who has been working tirelessly since the passage of the Help America Vote Act to inform people of the dangers present in this new process, got a chance to demonstrate how easy it is to steal an election on that central tabulation computer while a guest on the CNBC program 'Topic A With Tina Brown.' Ms. Brown was off that night, and the guest host was none other than Governor Howard Dean. Thanks to Governor Dean and Ms. Harris, anyone watching CNBC that night got to see just how easy it is to steal an election because of these new machines and the flawed processes they use. "In a voting system," Harris said on the show, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once? What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer." Harris then proceeded to open a laptop computer that had on it the software used to tabulate the votes by one of the aforementioned central processors. Journalist Thom Hartman describes what happened next: "So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS tabulation software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the 'My Computer' icon, choose 'Local Disk C:,' open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder 'LocalDB' which, Harris noted, 'stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes.' Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled Central Tabulator Votes,' which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel. 'Let's just flip those,' Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, 'We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds.'" Any system that makes it this easy to steal or corrupt an election has no business being anywhere near the voters on election day. The counter-argument to this states that people with nefarious intent, people with a partisan stake in the outcome of an election, would have to have access to the central tabulation computers in order to do harm to the process. Keep the partisans away from the process, and everything will work out fine. Surely no partisan political types were near these machines on Tuesday night when the votes were counted, right? One of the main manufacturers of these electronic touch-screen voting machines is Diebold, Inc. More than 35 counties in Ohio alone used the Diebold machines on Tuesday, and millions of voters across the country did the same. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Diebold gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2000, along with additional contributions between 2001 and 2002 which totaled $95,000. Of the four companies competing for the contracts to manufacture these voting machines, only Diebold contributed large sums to any political party. The CEO of Diebold is a man named Walden O'Dell. O'Dell was very much on board with the Bush campaign, having said publicly in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." So much for keeping the partisans at arm's length. Is there any evidence that vote totals were deliberately tampered with by people who had a stake in the outcome? Nothing specific has been documented to date. Jeff Fisher, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District, claims to have evidence that the Florida election was hacked, and says further that he knows who hacked it and how it was done. Such evidence is not yet forthcoming. There are, however, some disturbing and compelling trends that indicate things are not as they should be. This chart displays a breakdown of counties in Florida. It lists the voters in each county by party affiliation, and compares expected vote totals to the reported results. It also separates the results into two sections, one for 'touch-screen' counties and the other for optical scan counties. Over and over in these counties, the results, based upon party registration, did not come close to matching expectations. It can be argued, and has been argued, that such results indicate nothing more or less than a President getting cross-over voters, as well as late-breaking undecided voters, to come over to his side. These are Southern Democrats, and the numbers from previous elections show that many have often voted Republican. Yet the news wires have been inundated for well over a year with stories about how stridently united Democratic voters were behind the idea of removing Bush from office. It is worth wondering why that unity did not permeate these Democratic voting districts. If that unity was there, it is worth asking why the election results in these counties do not reflect this. Most disturbing of all is the reality that these questionable Diebold voting machines are not isolated to Florida. This list documents, as of March 2003, all of the counties in all of the 37 states where Diebold machines were used to count votes. The document is 28 pages long. That is a lot of counties, and a lot of votes, left in the hands of machines that have a questionable track record, that send their vote totals to central computers which make it far too easy to change election results, that were manufactured by a company with a personal, financial, and publicly stated stake in George W. Bush holding on to the White House. This map indicates where different voting devices were used nationally. The areas where electronic voting machines were used is marked in blue. A poster named 'TruthIsAll' on the DemocraticUnderground.com forums laid out the questionable results of Tuesday's election in succinct fashion: "To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election." In short, we have old-style vote spoilage in minority communities. We have electronic voting machines losing votes and adding votes all across the country. We have electronic voting machines whose efficiency and safety have not been tested. We have electronic voting machines that offer no paper trail to ensure a fair outcome. We have central tabulators for these machines running on Windows software, compiling results that can be demonstrably tampered with. We have the makers of these machines publicly professing their preference for George W. Bush. We have voter trends that stray from the expected results. We have these machines counting millions of votes all across the country. Perhaps this can all be dismissed. Perhaps rants like the one posted by 'TruthIsAll' are nothing more than sour grapes from the side that lost. Perhaps all of the glitches, wrecked votes, unprecedented voting trends and partisan voting-machine connections can be explained away. If so, this reporter would very much like to see those explanations. At a bare minimum, the fact that these questions exist at all represents a grievous undermining of the basic confidence in the process required to make this democracy work. Democracy should not ever require leaps of faith, and we have put the fate of our nation into the hands of machines that require such a leap. It is unacceptable across the board, and calls into serious question not only the election we just had, but any future election involving these machines. Representatives John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler and Robert Wexler, all members of the House Judiciary Committee, posted a letter on November 5th to David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States. In the letter, they asked for an investigation into the efficacy of these electronic voting machines. The letter reads as follows: November 5, 2004 The Honorable David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States U.S. General Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548 Dear Mr. Walker: We write with an urgent request that the Government Accountability Office immediately undertake an investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration. In particular, we are extremely troubled by the following reports, which we would also request that you review and evaluate for us: In Columbus, Ohio, an electronic voting system gave President Bush nearly 4,000 extra votes. ("Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes," Associated Press, November 5) An electronic tally of a South Florida gambling ballot initiative failed to record thousands of votes. "South Florida OKs Slot Machines Proposal," (Id.) In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots could hold more data that it did. "Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes," (Id.) In San Francisco, a glitch occurred with voting machines software that resulted in some votes being left uncounted. (Id.) In Florida, there was a substantial drop off in Democratic votes in proportion to voter registration in counties utilizing optical scan machines that was apparently not present in counties using other mechanisms. The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has received numerous reports from Youngstown, Ohio that voters who attempted to cast a vote for John Kerry on electronic voting machines saw that their votes were instead recorded as votes for George W. Bush. In South Florida, Congressman Wexler's staff received numerous reports from voters in Palm Beach, Broward and Dade Counties that they attempted to select John Kerry but George Bush appeared on the screen. CNN has reported that a dozen voters in six states, particularly Democrats in Florida, reported similar problems. This was among over one thousand such problems reported. ("Touchscreen Voting Problems Reported," Associated Press, November 5) Excessively long lines were a frequent problem throughout the nation in Democratic precincts, particularly in Florida and Ohio. In one Ohio voting precinct serving students from Kenyon College, some voters were required to wait more than eight hours to vote. ("All Eyes on Ohio," Dan Lothian, CNN, November 3) We are literally receiving additional reports every minute and will transmit additional information as it comes available. The essence of democracy is the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. In 2000, that confidence suffered terribly, and we fear that such a blow to our democracy may have occurred in 2004. Thank you for your prompt attention to this inquiry. Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler Ranking Member, Ranking Member, Member of Congress House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution cc: Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman "The essence of democracy," wrote the Congressmen, "is the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. In 2000, that confidence suffered terribly, and we fear that such a blow to our democracy may have occurred in 2004." Those fears appear to be valid. John Kerry and John Edwards promised on Tuesday night that every vote would count, and that every vote would be counted. By Wednesday morning, Kerry had conceded the race to Bush, eliciting outraged howls from activists who were watching the reports of voting irregularities come piling in. Kerry had said that 10,000 lawyers were ready to fight any wrongdoing in this election. One hopes that he still has those lawyers on retainer. According to black-letter election law, Bush does not officially get a second term until the electors from the Electoral College go to Washington D.C on December 12th. Perhaps Kerry's 10,000 lawyers, along with a real investigation per the request of Conyers, Nadler and Wexler, could give those electors something to think about in the interim. In the meantime, soon-to-be-unemployed DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe sent out an email on Saturday night titled 'Help determine the Democratic Party's next steps.' In the email, McAuliffe states, "If you were involved in these grassroots activities, we want to hear from you about your experience. What did you do? Did you feel the action you took was effective? Was it a good experience for you? How would you make it better? Tell us your thoughts." He provided a feedback form where such thoughts can be sent. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: The Values-Vote Myth
by Tyler Durden 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

Holy Crap! Am I on crack? I think I agree with everything here! However... (James Donald wrote...) >I cannot understand why you Bush haters are so excited about this >election when on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Kerry promised to >continue all Bush's policies only more effectually. That's basically why Kerry lost. He didn't seem to challenge anything Bush did, only the way he carried things out. That means the republicans successfully caused any debate to happen on their terms. Kerry's willingness to kowtow to the idea of a benevolent invasion of Iraq just made him seem like a scumbag to me, no matter what he actually believed. However, there are some things that Bush did that, symbolically at least, he should have been drummed out for. The fact that he won and with large voter turnout is more or less a vindication of his crimes. It means that Bush won't be afraid of doing even more, and then the countless mountains of hillbillies out there will watch his back and take the inevitable bullet or two for him. Well, every people deserve the government they get, and these hillbillies are no exception. Bush will dominate them, take away their rights, make them poor and scared, and they'll deserve every bit of it. (Where's a Tim May rant when you need one?) -TD _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

2 1

RE: The Values-Vote Myth
by Tyler Durden 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

"He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror." In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm. Those of us living close enough to "Ground Zero" to smell it back in those days are apprarently less than convinced. So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation Freedom"? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.) -TD _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

8 11

Tom Wolfe: 'Talk to someone in Cincinnati? Are you crazy?'
by R.A. Hettinga 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

My mother's family's name is Sanders. It's Scots-Irish. Apparently, I like to have my "rock fights" on the net... :-). Cheers, RAH ------- <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-1347653-524,00.html> The Times of London November 07, 2004 Focus: US Election Special 'Talk to someone in Cincinnati? Are you crazy?'. . . and so the Democrats blew it Tom Wolfe on the elite that got lost in middle America Over the past few days I've talked to lots of journalists and literary types in New York. I've grown used to the sound of crushed, hushed voices on the end of the phone. The weight of George Bush's victory seems almost too much. But what did they expect, I ask myself. They don't like the war and the way the war is going, they don't like Bush and they don't like what this election says about America. But where's their sense of reality? The liberal elite showed it was way out of touch even before the election. I was at a dinner party in New York and when everyone was wondering what to do about Bush I suggested they might do like me and vote for him. There was silence around the table, as if I'd said "by the way, I haven't mentioned this before but I'm a child molester". Now, like Chicken Licken after an acorn fell on his head, they think the sky is falling. I have to laugh. It reminds me of Pauline Kael, the film critic, who said, "I don't know how Reagan won - I don't know a soul who voted for him." That was a classic and reflects the reaction of New York intellectuals now. Note my definition of "intellectual" here is what you often find in this city: not people of intellectual attainment but more like car salesmen, who take in shipments of ideas and sell them on. I think the results in Ohio, the key state this time, tell us everything we need to know. Overall, the picture of Republican red and Democratic blue across the country remained almost unchanged since last time. The millions of dollars spent and miles travelled on the Bush and Kerry campaigns made no difference at all. But look at Ohio and the different voting patterns in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Cleveland, in the north of the state, is cosmopolitan, what we would think of as an "eastern" city, and Kerry won by two votes to one. Cincinnati, in the southeast corner of Ohio, is a long way away both geographically and culturally. It's Midwestern and that automatically means "hicksville" to New York intellectuals. There Bush won by a margin of 150,000 votes and it was southern Ohio as a whole that sent him back to the White House. The truth is that my pals, my fellow journos and literary types, would feel more comfortable going to Baghdad than to Cincinnati. Most couldn't tell you what state Cincinnati is in and going there would be like being assigned to a tumbleweed county in Mexico. They can talk to sheikhs in Lebanon and esoteric radical groups in Uzbekistan, but talk to someone in Cincinnati . . . are you crazy? They have no concept of what America is made of and even now they won't see that. So who are the people who voted for Bush? I think the most cogent person on this is James Webb, the most decorated marine to come out of Vietnam. Like John Kerry he won the Silver Star, but also the Navy Cross, the equivalent of our highest honour, the Congressional Medal. He served briefly under Reagan as secretary for the navy, but he has since become a writer. His latest book, Born Fighting, is the most important piece of ethnography in this country for a long time. It's about that huge but invisible group, the Scots-Irish. They're all over the Appalachian mountains and places like southern Ohio and Tennessee. Their theme song is country music and when people talk about rednecks, this is the group they're talking about: this is the group that voted for Bush. Though they've had successes, the Scots-Irish generally haven't done well economically. They're individualistic, they're stubborn and they value their way of life more then their financial situation. If a politician comes out for gun control they take it personally. It's not about guns, really: if you're against the National Rifle Association you're against them as a people. They take Protestantism seriously. It tickles me when people talk about "the Christian right". These people aren't right wing, they're just religious. If you're religious, of course, you're against gay marriage and abortion. You're against a lot of things that have become part of the intellectual liberal liturgy. Everyone who joins the military here thinks, "Where did all these Southerners come from?" These people love to fight. During the French and Indian wars, before there was a United States, recruiters would turn up in the Carolinas and in the Appalachians and say, "Anyone want to go and fight Indians?" There was a bunch of boys who were always up for it and they haven't lost that love of battle. My family wasn't Scots-Irish but my father was from the Shenendoah Valley, in the Blue Ridge mountains in western Virginia, so I know the kind of folks Webb is talking about. They do like fighting: many's the time I was visiting there and I'd get taken down to town to watch the rock fights on a Saturday night. All the men would hit the bar, drink beer - the only drink you could buy out there - come out of the saloon, pick up rocks, throw them at each other and then go home. Bush, despite his wealthy and refined lineage, in terms of family and where he went to school, manages to come across to people like that as one of them. He walks like them, he talks like them, he likes cattle and he says he likes stock car racing, the most popular sport in the United States, not that you'd know it from reading the New York papers - they don't cover it. There's an annual race in a little place, Bristol Tennessee, a place full of Scots-Irish, that draws 165,000 people every year, 55,000 more than go to the biggest football game. Bush reflects this America - the real America - and that is maybe what the liberal elite and his critics abroad can't stomach. He honestly seems to believe in God, whereas Kerry says, "I'm a Roman Catholic so I must believe in God." It's as if he turns to James Carville (the Democratic strategist) and says, "Don't I?" It obviously doesn't play a part in his life. The values of middle America don't play well in New York. Among American writers, with few exceptions, you don't say anything patriotic and you don't say anything generally good about the country. I must finish now because I need to get to Kennedy airport to wave goodbye to all those writers and journalists who've told me they can't take another four years of Bush. Triumphalism is not my style but I can't help an "I told you so" smile. Oh, by the way, most of them are leaving for London. Heaven help you when they get there. Tom Wolfe was talking to Margarette Driscoll -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 1

Plane passengers shocked by their x-ray scans
by R.A. Hettinga 07 Nov '04

07 Nov '04

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1348172-523,00.html> The Times of London CLICK HERE TO PRINTCLOSE WINDOW? November 07, 2004 Plane passengers shocked by their x-ray scans Dipesh Gadher,Transport Correspondent AN X-RAY machine that sees through air passengers' clothes has been deployed by security staff at London's Heathrow airport for the first time. The device at Terminal 4 produces a "naked" image of passengers by bouncing X-rays off their skin, enabling staff instantly to spot any hidden weapons or explosives. But the graphic nature of the black and white images it generates - including revealing outlines of men and women - has raised concerns about privacy both among travellers and aviation authorities. In America, transport officials are refusing to deploy the device until it can be further refined to "mask" passengers' modesty. The Terminal 4 trial - being conducted jointly by the British Airports Authority and the Department for Transport - became fully operational last month and is intended to run until the end of the year. Its deployment has not been reported until now since new security measures at airports are not normally publicised. If the new body scanner is able to cope with large volumes of passengers, improves detection rates and, crucially, receives public acceptance, it is likely to be rolled out across all Britain's airports. At Heathrow, passengers are picked to go through the body scanner on a random and voluntary basis. Those who refuse are subjected to an automatic hand search. The scanner, which resembles a tall, grey filing cabinet, operates in a curtained area and passengers are asked to stand in front of it, adopting several poses, for their "naked" image to be registered. Once checked, the images are immediately erased. Security officials claim it is a far more effective way of countering potential terrorists because it detects the outline of any solid object - such as plastic explosives or ceramic knives - which conventional metal detectors would miss. Managers at Heathrow also say the new technology does away with the need to subject passengers to potentially intrusive hand searches. However, travellers who have been screened - and have asked to see the images - have been surprised by their clarity. "I was quite shocked by what I saw," said Gary Cook, 40, a graphic designer from Shaftesbury, Dorset. "I felt a bit embarrassed looking at the image. A female passenger, who did not want to be named, said: "It was really horrible. It doesn't leave much to the imagination because you're virtually naked, but I guess it's less intrusive than being hand searched." In a similar trial at Orlando international airport in Florida in 2002, passengers were shown a dummy image before going through, and at least a quarter of them refused to volunteer. In America last year, Susan Hallowell, director of the US Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) security laboratory, showed off her own x-ray image to demonstrate the technology to reporters. "It basically makes you look fat and naked, but you see all this stuff," said Hallowell, who had deliberately hidden a gun and a bomb under her clothes. The TSA has decided not to deploy the device at American airports until manufacturers can develop an electronic means of masking sensitive body parts. Copyright 2004 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website . -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0