- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

IEEE Signs VoteHere's Jim Adler for Book on Electronic Voting
by R.A. Hettinga 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

<http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041102/dctu029_1.html> Yahoo! Finance Press Release Source: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.; VoteHere, Inc. IEEE Signs VoteHere's Jim Adler for Book on Electronic Voting Tuesday November 2, 1:00 pm ET PISCATAWAY, N.J. and BELLEVUE, Wash., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), under its Standards Press program, has engaged with VoteHere, Inc. Founder and CEO, Jim Adler, to write a book on electronic voting security and voter confidence. Tentatively titled: "Where's My Vote? A Framework for Securing the Electronic Ballot and Gaining Voter Confidence," the book will explain how technology can enhance electronic voting and prove that votes are counted properly. "Where's My Vote" will discuss the issues and analyze the technology behind electronic voting, verification, and audit. Electronic voting technology has ignited a national debate surrounding the security of our elections. This book will establish a framework for secure election systems, now and in the future. "A book on voting security is an important contribution to the current debate," said Susan Tatiner, Associate Managing Director for Technical Program Development in the IEEE Standards Association. "Mr. Adler is a recognized expert and pioneer in electronic voting technology." Upon their agreement Mr. Adler commented, "I believe these issues are very timely and my hope is that the security solutions discussed in this book can help guide election reform, so that election leaders and voters might better understand the fundamental science of elections and the proper role of technology in providing transparent and auditable elections." What has been missing in the electronic voting and ballot verification debate is a scientific framework to break through the issues regarding the current election system. "Where's My Vote" provides this framework in the context of providing a unified theory of elections for verification and confidence. Jim Adler is Founder and CEO of VoteHere, the leading worldwide provider of electronic voting security technology. Mr. Adler is widely regarded as an authority on the subjects of cryptography, Internet security and e-voting. Mr. Adler co-chairs the IEEE voter-verifiable standards group and served on California's groundbreaking 1999 Internet Voting Task Force. He has testified before U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, and state legislatures on the subject of e-voting security. About IEEE The IEEE has more than 360,000 members in approximately 175 countries. Through its members, the organization is a leading authority on areas ranging from aerospace, computers and telecommunications to biomedicine, electric power and consumer electronics. The IEEE produces nearly 30 percent of the world's literature in the electrical and electronics engineering, computing and control technology fields, and has over 870 active standards and 400+ in development. This nonprofit organization also sponsors or cosponsors more than 300 technical conferences each year. Additional information about the IEEE can be found at http://www.ieee.org/. About VoteHere VoteHere, Inc. is an industry leader in secure, patented voter verification and election audit technology. VoteHere technology has been used in over 90 elections in the U.S. and Europe, for over 50 worldwide clients and partners, reaching nearly 13 million voters. For more information about VoteHere, visit the company's website at http://www.votehere.com. Source: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.; VoteHere, Inc. -- ----------------- 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

Nokia, Philips trial NFC for Wireless Ticketing
by R.A. Hettinga 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

<http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=1812> Nokia, Philips trial NFC for Wireless Ticketing Nokia, Royal Philips Electronics together with Rhein-Main Verkehrsverbund (RMV), public transport authority for Frankfurt's greater area, today announced a joint project to trial a Near Field Communication (NFC) ticketing solution that uses mobile phones to access an existing contactless smart card ticketing infrastructure. The trial, which starts early 2005, will enable RMV's current customers to use Nokia 3220 phones equipped by tailored Nokia NFC shell covers to gain access to a local bus network in Hanau, a city near Frankfurt. As a result, travelers can enjoy a convenient and secure solution designed around their needs to buy, store and use tickets with their Nokia 3220 mobile phones. About Near Field Communication (NFC): Evolving from a combination of contactless identification and networking technologies, Near Field Communication (NFC) is a wireless connectivity technology that enables convenient short-range communication between electronic devices. NFC offers the ultimate in convenience for connecting all types of consumer devices and enables rapid and easy communications. It is the perfect solution for controlling data in our increasingly complex and connected world. NFC technology evolved from a combination of contactless identification (RFID) and interconnection technologies. NFC operates in the 13.56 MHz frequency range, over a distance of typically a few centimetres. NFC technology is standardized in ISO 18092, ECMA 340, and ETSI TS 102 190. Near Field Communication is also compatible to the broadly established contactless smart card infrastructure. The ticketing solution will be demonstrated at the CARTES IT & SECURITY trade show in Paris (2-4 November). As the first live NFC-based ticketing application of its kind, the trial will use Nokia 3220 mobile phones with a contactless NFC solution, based on the Nokia NFC shell - the mobile phone's outside cover. The RMV electronic ticketing application will be securely stored on an integrated smart card controller in the phone, and is fully compatible with today's smart card-based ticketing products. Users will simply need to touch their phones against the contactless reader as they get on and off the bus to register their journey. This trial will provide the partners with practical experience of NFC-enabled mobile ticketing on a check-in/check-out basis, paving the way for broad adoption of the technology. The mobile phone offers customers a quick and convenient way to use the public transport network, and RMV is at the forefront of understanding how customers will approach the technology. As an integrated device, the mobile phone can also be used as a resource for transport information, such as timetables, as well as being a terminal for ticketing. For RMV an important feature of the project is that the Nokia NFC shells are compatible with the contactless smart card infrastructure already installed in Hanau. "Nokia is taking a leading role in bringing easy and convenient touch-based interactions to the market. Local ticketing is a great example of how mobility can bring completely new value to consumers and companies that serve them. This ticketing trial will provide us with valuable experience to meet requirements from mobile operators, transport operators and end-users going forward." said Jarkko Sairanen, Vice President, Strategy and Planning, at Nokia Technology Platforms. "With NFC we are delivering on our promise of providing simple and easy-to-use solutions to complex problems," commented Reinhard Kalla, Vice President and General Manager of Identification at Philips Semiconductors. "Together with Nokia and RMV, we have developed the first ticketing application for NFC technology, providing an example of how an intuitive, touch-based solution can simplify the daily lives of users." About the solution Jointly developed by Philips and Sony, NFC enables touch-based interactions in consumer electronics, mobile devices, PCs, smart objects and for payment purposes. Consumers are seeking easier ways to interact with their immediate environment and want to experience easy communication between their electronic devices and gain fast access to services. An intuitive technology, NFC bridges that connectivity gap and allows the connected consumer to interact with their environment. The trial implementation is in line with the Association of German transport operators (Verein Deutscher Verkehrsbetriebe ,VDV), specification that has been developed for a country wide electronic ticketing core application (VDV Kernapplikation). NFC is compatible with Sony's FeliCa(TM) card and the broadly established contactless smart card infrastructure based on ISO 14443 A, which is used in Philips' MIFARE. technology. -- ----------------- 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

Germans Use Nokia Phones in Wireless Ticket Trial
by R.A. Hettinga 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

<http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=technologyNews&story…> Reuters Germans Use Nokia Phones in Wireless Ticket Trial Tue Nov 2, 2004 06:04 AM ET HELSINKI (Reuters) - The world's top mobile phone maker Nokia said on Tuesday its phones would be used in a project to test wireless public transport fares in Hanau, near Frankfurt in Germany, beginning early next year. The trial, in cooperation with the public transport authority for Frankfurt's greater area and electronics group Philips, begins next year. It will enable owners of Nokia's 3220 handset to equip their phone with a high-tech shell used to pay for and store electronic tickets. The shell, developed by Philips, contains technology that makes the phone compatible with Hanau's existing ticketing system. "Users will simply need to touch their phones against the contactless reader as they get on and off the bus to register their journey," Nokia said in a statement. -- ----------------- 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: Musings on "getting out the vote"
by Tyler Durden 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

And they seem to believe there's going to be a huge difference between Kang and Kodos. So far, the only things Kerry seems to have promised is that he'd be better at doing all the crazy shit Bush has dove into. So when they ask me (at the corner of Wall and Broadway), "Are you a John Kerry Supporter", I reply, "Well, 'supporter' is not the word I would use." And then I 'move on'. -TD >From: "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org> >To: undisclosed-recipients: ; >Subject: Musings on "getting out the vote" >Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:42:41 -0600 (CST) > ><rant> > >Several weeks ago, a couple of MoveOn droids showed up at my door to "take >a survey". I told them that yes, I was a registered republican, and that >yes, I was voting for Kerry, so fuck off. > >Last week, while I was away, they came back to "check that [my wife] was >still planning to vote for Kerry". > >Today, after two hours in line, after braving the lawyers with the >republican stickers hovering over the line, and challenging voters who >Seem A Little Dark For This Part Of Town, and casting my vote for the guy >I hate the least [Kerry], we were walking to the car and were again >accosted by a couple of *very pushy* MoveOn droids: > > "Sir! Sir! Have you voted?" > > "Yes. Go away." > > "Sir! Wait a minute! Have you been contacted by your MoveOn > representative yet?" (as he tries to physically insert himself between me > and the street) > > "Yes. Too many fucking times: get out of my fucking way!" > >First of all, while I appreciate their willingness to help throw the angry >little midget fuck in the whitehouse out on his ass, they are alienating >people. I *guarantee* the sight of me fighting off the MoveOn people made >a mental impression on the hundred plus people on line. > >Second, I signed up to drive folks to the polls today for a few hours, >*with* MoveOn. I also came very close to saying fuckit - these assholes >need an IMMEDIATE attitude adjustment, or they are going to help turn the >vote *away* from their supposed goal. > ></rant> > > >-- >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 _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

RE: Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy
by Tyler Durden 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

"That said, I hereby confess to feeling disappointed over Senator John Kerry's failure to home in hard on one of the more worrisome domestic policy developments of the past four years - namely the Bush administration's drastic expansion of needless government secrecy." Come on! The bar slut has passed out on the pooltable and Bush's fratbrother Mr Kerry hasn't had his go yet... -TD >From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com >Subject: Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy >Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:37:28 -0400 > ><http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/opinion/01mon4.html?th=&pagewanted=print&…> > >The New York Times > >November 1, 2004 >EDITORIAL OBSERVER > >Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy >By DOROTHY SAMUELS > >t is only inevitable, I suppose, that some big issues never make it onto >the agenda of a presidential campaign, and other lesser issues, or total >nonissues, somehow emerge instead. Electoral politics, as Americans are >regularly being reminded these final hard-fought days before the election, >is a brutal, messy business, not an antiseptic political science exercise. > > That said, I hereby confess to feeling disappointed over Senator John >Kerry's failure to home in hard on one of the more worrisome domestic >policy developments of the past four years - namely the Bush >administration's drastic expansion of needless government secrecy. > > President Bush's antipathy to open government continues to garner only a >trivial level of attention compared with the pressing matters that seem to >be engaging the country at the moment, including, in no particular order, >the Red Sox, Iraq, terrorism, taxes and the mysterious iPod-size bulge >visible under the back of Mr. Bush's suit jacket at the first debate. But >the implications for a second term are ominous. > > Beyond undermining the constitutional system of checks and balances, >undue >secrecy is a proven formula for faulty White House decision-making and >debilitating scandal. If former President Richard Nixon, the nation's last >chief executive with a chronic imperial disdain for what Justice Louis >Brandeis famously called the disinfecting power of sunlight, were alive >today, I like to think he'd be advising Mr. Bush to choose another role >model. > > As detailed in a telling new Congressional report, Mr. Bush's secrecy >obsession - by now a widely recognized hallmark of his presidency - is >truly out of hand. > > The 90-page report, matter-of-factly titled "Secrecy in the Bush >Administration," was released with little fanfare in September by >Representative Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the >House Committee on Government Reform, and one of the most outspoken critics >of the Bush administration's steady descent into greater and greater >secrecy. The objective was to catalog the myriad ways that President Bush >and his appointees have undermined existing laws intended to advance public >access to information, while taking an expansive view of laws that >authorize the government to operate in secrecy, or to withhold certain >information. > > Some of the instances the report cites are better known than others. >Among >the more notorious, of course, are the administration's ongoing refusal to >disclose contacts between Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force >and energy company executives, or to explain the involvement of Mr. >Cheney's office in the awarding of huge sole-source contracts to >Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction; the post-9/11 rush to embrace >shameful, unconstitutional practices like secret detentions and trials; and >the resistance and delay in turning over key documents sought by the Sept. >11 commission. > > The report lists many other troubling examples as well. Mr. Bush and his >appointees have routinely impeded Congress's constitutionally prescribed >oversight role by denying reasonable requests from senior members of >Congressional committees for basic information. They forced a court fight >over access to the Commerce Department's corrected census counts, for >instance, withheld material relating to the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and >stonewalled attempts to collect information on meetings and phone >conversations between Karl Rove, the presidential adviser, and executives >of firms in which he owned stock. The administration has also taken to >treating as top secret documents previously available under the Freedom of >Information Act - going so far as to reverse the landmark act's presumption >in favor of disclosure and to encourage agencies to withhold a broad, >hazily defined universe of "sensitive but unclassified" information. > > Under a phony banner of national security, Mr. Bush has reversed >reasonable steps by the Clinton administration to narrow the government's >capacity to classify documents. Aside from being extremely expensive, the >predictably steep recent increase in decisions to classify information runs >starkly counter to recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission geared to >strengthening oversight of the intelligence agencies. > > Not one for self-criticism - or any kind of criticism, for that matter - >President Bush says he's content to leave it to historians to assess his >presidential legacy. What he fails to mention is that he has seriously >impeded that historical review by issuing a 2001 executive order repealing >the presumption of public access to presidential papers embedded in the >1978 Presidential Records Act. > >On a superficial level, the hush-hush treatment of this issue on the fall >campaign trail might seem perversely fitting. But Mr. Bush's unilateral >rollback of laws and practices designed to promote government >accountability surely rates further scrutiny by voters. We've learned over >the last four years that what we don't know can hurt us. > >-- >----------------- >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' _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

This Memorable Day
by R.A. Hettinga 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB109936293065461940,00.html> The Wall Street Journal November 2, 2004 COMMENTARY This Memorable Day By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON November 2, 2004; Page A22 In singular moments in our history, the security of the United States hinged on a single presidential election. Imagine George McClellan recognizing an undefeated Confederacy in March 1865. Consider an eight-year Jimmy Carter tenure. Or contemplate Walter Mondale taking over from a defeated President Reagan to implement unilaterally a nuclear freeze, Mike Dukakis asking Saddam to leave Kuwait, or Al Gore mobilizing America to invade Afghanistan. We are now faced with the same critical choice. Today's vote determines how the United States finishes the present war against terrorists, and, indeed, whether we continue to defeat Islamic fascism and those Middle East autocracies that fuel it. * * * John Kerry sees our struggle as an unending law enforcement problem, akin to gambling and prostitution. Thus the terrorist attacks of the 1990s were not deadly precursors to 9/11, but belong to a now nostalgic era of "nuisance." In contrast, George W. Bush envisioned September 11 as real war -- a global struggle against Dark-Age extremism, striving for a modern nuclear caliphate that could blackmail the industrialized world and destroy Western liberal values. So Mr. Bush took terrorist killers at their word, convinced that such "evildoers," like a Hitler or Stalin, had no legitimate complaint against America. Rather, they murder out of a deep frustration that Western-inspired freedom is on the march, threatening both Islamic fascism and those repressive regimes that hand-in-glove with them have deflected their own failures onto the United States. John Kerry promises "help is on the way" to remove President Bush, who has, according to Mr. Kerry, lied when he is exposed as incompetent. Such strident condemnation ignores the stunning victory over the Taliban, the first voting in Afghanistan in 5,000 years, the removal of Saddam Hussein with scheduled elections for next January, positive changes in Libya, Pakistan and the Gulf States, and the absence of another 9/11-like attack here at home. Moqtada al-Sadr and Osama bin Laden now whine about American retaliation and send out peace feelers. But their apprehension arises not because of Sen. Kerry's rhetoric or his promises of U.N. collectivism. Rather, the specter of four more years of a resolute George W. Bush equates to their continued defeat. Their trepidation was shared by the 1980 hostage takers in Tehran, who relented in terror of an inaugurated Ronald Reagan warning them of the impending end to Carteresque appeasement. Most of Sen. Kerry's allegations about this war ring false or insincere because he shifts in tune to mercurial polls. The senator's yes/no/maybe public statements and votes reflect the perceived daily pulse of the battlefield -- and his lack of either a strategic understanding of the war or faith in the skill and resoluteness of the U.S. military. He insists that there were no al Qaeda ties to Baathists, but we see them in postbellum Iraq, knew of them during the first World Trade Center bombing, and once accepted President Clinton's claim for them during his 1998 retaliation against the Sudan. WMD are likewise derided as a chimera. But President Clinton, Sen. Kerry, and Sen. John Edwards are all on record frantically warning about Saddam's bio-chem arsenal -- with others citing intelligence confirmation from Vladimir Putin to Hosni Mubarak. During the three-week war, American troops in the field did not don bothersome chemical suits because of President Bush's naoveti or duplicity. In Sen. Kerry's world, brave folk such as Iraq's Prime Minister Allawi, the Poles, and the Australians are belittled as hollow and bought allies, while Germany and France, that profited lucratively with Saddam, will be invited to join "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," now dubbed analogous to the Bay of Pigs. The explanation for Saddam's removal, in Teresa Heinz Kerry's words, is "blood for oil," a mantra echoed by "Fahrenheit 9/11," MoveOn.org, and bin Laden's latest infomercial. But after the invasion, petroleum prices soared. Iraq's national treasure is for the first time transparent and autonomous. France, Russia and the U.N. can no longer appropriate it. President Bush, once libeled as the villainous Texas oil schemer, is now reinvented on the campaign trail as Sen. Kerry's clueless naof, bullied by a sinister OPEC. True, much of the Kerry negativism derives from opportunism. Yet there is also a logic that explains the flip-flopping, rooted in deep-seeded doubts about both the utility and morality of using American military power. Thus Sen. Kerry voted against many of our present weapons systems. That obstructionism explains why in 1988 he looked back at the Reagan strategic build-up as one of "moral darkness." Mr. Kerry, as a soldier and a senator, conducted freelance negotiations with both the communist North Vietnamese and Sandinistas. His opposition to the 1991 Gulf War might have ensured a Saddam Hussein sitting on 30% of the world's oil, replete with nukes, and lording over what was left of Kuwait, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. His recent embrace of a "global test" as the proper requisite of American military action was not novel, but reflected his 1994 remarks that American efforts to stop Serbian fascism should be predicated only on U.N. approval -- although Sen. Kerry later supported Bill Clinton when he subsequently bombed successfully without either the sanction of the U.S. Senate or the U.N. Security Council. And when President Clinton reaffirmed America as the "indispensable nation," Sen. Kerry predictably lamented the "arrogant, obnoxious tone." Sen. Kerry insists that President Bush "squandered" global goodwill and that America is now roundly disliked. But who is angry with President Bush -- and why? North Korea to be sure -- their Danegeld of oil and food is gone, their nuclear antics under multiparty scrutiny. Iran is furious as well -- but even more terrified that the U.S. is no longer in an investigative, but rather a warrior, mood. The Arafat kleptocracy and much of the Middle East pine for the good old days of "sensitive" American cops vainly subpoenaing terrorists snug in safe compounds and palaces. If Belgium, France and Germany are purportedly seething at Mr. Bush's troop repositioning, "dead or alive" homilies, and the smashing of Saddam's cashbox, then billions in India, China and Russia see all that as a larger effort to stop a globally despised Islamic fascism. Most Americans applaud the support of Australia and Britain rather than worry over the censure of New Zealand and Canada. Yes, George W. Bush is a divisive wartime figure -- so were Lincoln, Churchill and Roosevelt. But war itself is divisive precisely because to end it one side must lose. In war, it is hard to know when victory is near, since the last campaigns are often the bloodiest. Yet we are seeing the foundations of a new Middle East, with terrorists scattered, jailed and dead. And, yes, victory itself is on the horizon -- but only if on this memorable day we persevere, and allow George W. Bush to finish the job. Mr. Hanson, a military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford. -- ----------------- 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

RE: Geodesic neoconservative empire
by Tyler Durden 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Sounds good, but there's a little flaw in the logic: >At 10:07 PM 10/24/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: > If the only way > >to kill barbarians is to kill barbarians in their bed before they > >kill you in yours, to pave over nation-states that support them, > >starting with the easiest first, it can't happen fast enough, as far > >as I'm concerned, and I'll gladly "vote" my expropriated tax-dollars > >for the purpose of draining the swamp that is the Middle East. We're not reducing the quantity of government, just consolidating under a single growing Borg-like government, namely the US. I consider one giant government a far more dangerous situation that lots of little ones. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

7 6

Re: bin Laden gets a Promotion, UBL=Moses
by Major Variola (ret) 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

At 10:16 PM 10/30/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Sunder wrote: > >> As usual, South Park is a great source of wisdom. So, are you voting for >> the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich? > >My candidate is Mr Hanky, Poo party. > I'm voting for Kodos. [Simpsons ref] UBL was pleasantly rational in this one. Even explained the origin of the tower-dropping plans, which was a nice bit for the historians. I'm surprised the "Ask yourselves why we didn't attack Sweden" comment isn't discussed more; then again I find even intelligent people refractory to that obvious question. UBL still thinks lay Americans elect their leaders, or have a clue what they're doing, but he is a man of strong faith. He even gave a succint reminder of the way out, "Leave my people alone", Moses like. Time for more locusts, frogs, red tides, or modern equivalents, I'm afraid. Extra points for the commentary on Bush Sr learning about dynasty from the Saudis, etc, and installing his sons as governors. ------ M. Atta -an Army of One

4 4

Activists fear e-voting security glitches
by R.A. Hettinga 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

<http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid14_gci1020…> TechTarget Activists fear e-voting security glitches By Bill Brenner, News Writer 01 Nov 2004 | SearchSecurity.com It's a recurring nightmare for many political activists and IT experts: electronic voting machines around the country suffer security breaches on Election Day, affecting the outcome of a bitterly-contested White House race and other key battles. "I'm extremely concerned, especially in states like Florida," said Reed Hundt, a Democrat who chaired the Federal Communications Commission during the Clinton Administration. "Republican governors control most of the battleground states and they haven't done a thing to make these systems transparent and trustworthy. Democrats will have to turn out in record numbers to be counted. I worry about a vote-counting catastrophe." State and federal efforts to replace paper and punch-card voting systems with electronic machines gained steam after Florida's 2000 election debacle. In October 2002 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, mandating that every voting district modernize its election systems by 2006 and allocating $3.9 billion for that purpose. Many states invested the money in electronic voting machines. A study by Washington D.C.-based Election Data Services estimates more than 48 million registered voters will cast ballots on electronic equipment Nov. 2, compared to 53 million who will use optical scan systems and 22 million who will still use punch cards. About the same number of voters will use lever machines, while only about a million will use paper ballots, the study estimated. But concerns abound in many states. There are fears people will be able to use security holes to vote multiple times, that a power failure could wipe out votes and that no paper trail will exist for backup. Interviews with political activists and security experts and an extensive review of media coverage over the last several months suggests most of the concern is among Democrats, Green Party members and civil liberty groups. Democrats worry e-voting security glitches could tip an extremely close election in President George W. Bush's favor. If Republicans fear problems could tip the election to Sen. John F. Kerry, they're not talking about it. President Bush has expressed faith in the nation's e-voting equipment, and Republican governors like Jeb Bush in Florida believe the machines will work fine on Election Day. Maryland reflects national debate Recent events in Maryland reflect what has happened across the country. A group called TrueVoteMD tried unsuccessfully to stop e-voting and is now fighting in court to send designated poll watchers to voting stations. The state has adopted an independent firm's recommendations to boost security and Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich believes the machines are ready. Critics remain skeptical. Pam Woodside, chief information officer for Maryland's independent State Board of Elections, said the state began experimenting with e-voting in Baltimore City in 1998 using Sequoia Voting System machines. After the 2000 election problems, then-Gov. Parris Glendenning commissioned a panel of experts to review the best voting technology for the state. Texas-based Diebold Election Systems was eventually chosen to provide the machines. Shortly after the contract was signed, Woodside said the trouble began. First came a report co-authored by Avi Rubin, computer science professor and technical director of Johns Hopkins University's Information Security Institute. The report cited several security problems with e-voting machines that could allow voters to cast unlimited votes without being detected and without insider privileges. Other problems mentioned included incorrect use of cryptography and poor software development. Woodside said many of the report's conclusions were off base. "It assumed source code was on the Internet. That was incorrect. It assumed you could attach a keyboard to the unit. That's not true. It assumed you could vote multiple times and that's not true either," she said. 'The most secure' system around After the media pounced on the report, Ehrlich ordered a risk assessment. The state hired Columbia, Md.-based RABA Technologies to do the work, and its final report said the machines failed to meet 66 of its 328 standards. Woodside said the state immediately addressed the problems and believes the machines are now ironclad. "One of the items we addressed right away was to get the vendor to change the software so we could create unique pins for voting units in each county," she said. "We now use security keys that are dynamically allocated. We also demanded more secure encryption from the vendor." The RABA report also recommended the state use locks and tamper tape to protect areas housing the server and memory card that will accumulate and store the votes. "We've done that, put antivirus software on servers, activated logs and applied applicable Microsoft patches," Woodside said. "We now have the most secure e-voting system around." Lingering worries Linda Schade, a member of TrueVoteMD and the Green Party, begs to differ. While the group failed to block e-voting in Maryland, it is now fighting in court for the right to send monitors into polling precincts around the state. "The use of paperless electronic voting in Maryland has been marred by serious problems," Schade said. "It is clear these machines need to be watched closely. We now know that in the last election, people received incomplete ballots missing candidates, machines failed to boot, technicians without identification worked on machines making undocumented alterations. The State Board of Elections told the media and the public that the machines worked flawlessly, but since then local boards of elections have reported widespread problems." Rubin also remains fearful security glitches could skew ballot counts and disenfranchise voters. After spending the day as an election judge in Baltimore County during the primary, he gained a new appreciation for poll workers, saying they worked diligently all day to ensure machines worked properly and everyone's vote was counted. But last week he said most states that will use e-voting Nov. 2 without a paper trail are "in over their heads." "I am more worried about the fact that the voting machines have the potential to be rigged than I am that they were actually rigged," said Rubin. "There's no way to know, and that's not healthy. The worst thing is that there could be a security breach, and we'd have no way of knowing 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'

1 0

Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy
by R.A. Hettinga 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/opinion/01mon4.html?th=&pagewanted=print&…> The New York Times November 1, 2004 EDITORIAL OBSERVER Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy By DOROTHY SAMUELS t is only inevitable, I suppose, that some big issues never make it onto the agenda of a presidential campaign, and other lesser issues, or total nonissues, somehow emerge instead. Electoral politics, as Americans are regularly being reminded these final hard-fought days before the election, is a brutal, messy business, not an antiseptic political science exercise. That said, I hereby confess to feeling disappointed over Senator John Kerry's failure to home in hard on one of the more worrisome domestic policy developments of the past four years - namely the Bush administration's drastic expansion of needless government secrecy. President Bush's antipathy to open government continues to garner only a trivial level of attention compared with the pressing matters that seem to be engaging the country at the moment, including, in no particular order, the Red Sox, Iraq, terrorism, taxes and the mysterious iPod-size bulge visible under the back of Mr. Bush's suit jacket at the first debate. But the implications for a second term are ominous. Beyond undermining the constitutional system of checks and balances, undue secrecy is a proven formula for faulty White House decision-making and debilitating scandal. If former President Richard Nixon, the nation's last chief executive with a chronic imperial disdain for what Justice Louis Brandeis famously called the disinfecting power of sunlight, were alive today, I like to think he'd be advising Mr. Bush to choose another role model. As detailed in a telling new Congressional report, Mr. Bush's secrecy obsession - by now a widely recognized hallmark of his presidency - is truly out of hand. The 90-page report, matter-of-factly titled "Secrecy in the Bush Administration," was released with little fanfare in September by Representative Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, and one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's steady descent into greater and greater secrecy. The objective was to catalog the myriad ways that President Bush and his appointees have undermined existing laws intended to advance public access to information, while taking an expansive view of laws that authorize the government to operate in secrecy, or to withhold certain information. Some of the instances the report cites are better known than others. Among the more notorious, of course, are the administration's ongoing refusal to disclose contacts between Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and energy company executives, or to explain the involvement of Mr. Cheney's office in the awarding of huge sole-source contracts to Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction; the post-9/11 rush to embrace shameful, unconstitutional practices like secret detentions and trials; and the resistance and delay in turning over key documents sought by the Sept. 11 commission. The report lists many other troubling examples as well. Mr. Bush and his appointees have routinely impeded Congress's constitutionally prescribed oversight role by denying reasonable requests from senior members of Congressional committees for basic information. They forced a court fight over access to the Commerce Department's corrected census counts, for instance, withheld material relating to the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and stonewalled attempts to collect information on meetings and phone conversations between Karl Rove, the presidential adviser, and executives of firms in which he owned stock. The administration has also taken to treating as top secret documents previously available under the Freedom of Information Act - going so far as to reverse the landmark act's presumption in favor of disclosure and to encourage agencies to withhold a broad, hazily defined universe of "sensitive but unclassified" information. Under a phony banner of national security, Mr. Bush has reversed reasonable steps by the Clinton administration to narrow the government's capacity to classify documents. Aside from being extremely expensive, the predictably steep recent increase in decisions to classify information runs starkly counter to recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission geared to strengthening oversight of the intelligence agencies. Not one for self-criticism - or any kind of criticism, for that matter - President Bush says he's content to leave it to historians to assess his presidential legacy. What he fails to mention is that he has seriously impeded that historical review by issuing a 2001 executive order repealing the presumption of public access to presidential papers embedded in the 1978 Presidential Records Act. On a superficial level, the hush-hush treatment of this issue on the fall campaign trail might seem perversely fitting. But Mr. Bush's unilateral rollback of laws and practices designed to promote government accountability surely rates further scrutiny by voters. We've learned over the last four years that what we don't know can hurt us. -- ----------------- 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