DC Security Geeks Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System

[Tim May]

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 06:42  AM, Ed Reed wrote:

> Grisham might be better - it's the legal wrangling that would tie up
> people's imagination, more than the technical.
>
>>>> "Major Variola (ret)" <mv at cdc.gov> 9/25/2003 12:46:13 PM >>>
> At 02:48 PM 9/24/03 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>> <http://www.cryptonomicon.net/ 
>> modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=463>
>
>>
>> Cryptonomicon.Net -
>>
>> Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
>
> Someone needs to inject a story about e-voting fraud into the popular
> imagination.
> Is Tom Clancy available?  Maybe an anonymous, detailed, plausible,
> (but
> secretly fictional)
> blog describing  how someone did this in their podunk county... then
> "leak" this to a news reporter..
> Failure to be *able* to assure that this *didn't* happen in that
> podunk
> county would make
> an important point.
>

There have already been reports of "electronic votes" being reported,  
mysteriously, before the election precincts closed.

We know the results are often fixed, but reporting the results before  
the polls are closed sorts of makes the point obvious even to the  
sheeple.

But, like the current hullaballoo about spam and telemarketing, the  
larger issues are not being discussed. Providing more sound bites about  
why Washington needs to be more successfully targeted by Al Qaida, with  
a lot more destruction than the paltry efforts we saw on 9/11, is  
boring.

The focus of this list in recent months on political lobbying  
activities is wrong-headed. We need to be working on ways to make Big  
Brother powerless, either through technology or through destroying his  
nests and his tens of millions of helpers.

The death of twenty million enablers and welfare addicts will be a very  
good thing. Burn, corpses, burn!!

--Tim May