Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An unsettling thought...
An unsettling thought...
#1
Today was a special primary in New Jersey to fill the seat left open when Senator Frank Lautenberg died some weeks back, and as I voted -- using an electronic booth -- a disturbing thought came to me.
It's already been shown that the NSA is, contrary to their earlier denials, is able to basically tap any data stream they care to.  They're basically in the classic man-in-the-middle position, having expended a great deal of  money and effort to put themselves there for all communications going through the United States.
It's only principle -- and discretion -- that keeps them from altering those data streams.
But consider how many elections are being handled electronically these days.
What happens if the NSA decides their mandate is best served by manipulating those bitstreams to make sure politicians that weren't hostile to them were elected?  Would we ever be able to tell?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Reply
 
#2
It depends on how sloppy they were and whether the results were available for review afterwards. Some years ago there Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez "graciously" agreed to a referendum to remove him from office--which he of course won. Afterwards, people going through the results from the electronic voting machines (which had been made public for token international oversight) they used realized that his people had rigged them to fake votes in an easily detectable pattern.

Electronic voting is fairly notorious for lack of security. I'd just take it as a given that what they're really showing is who tampered with them last, and nothing more.
Reply
 
#3
Considering that we've known how to alter the reports from at least some voting machines since 2003, this is just another reason to return to the paper ballot. A delay of a few hours (or a day or two) in counting the ballots and compiling the results doesn't matter when there's a couple of months between election and assumption of office, after all.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#4
It's not an election. It's a rigging contest based on the idea that the party best able to rig the election is the one best able to run the country.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Reply
 
#5
As Australia is still mainly paper-based ballots in elections, we don't have to worry about that particular possibility. Instead it's potential man in the middle attacks on a booths tallied votes to the central point.

Also there are computers present (I should know, as I set some booths up some years back) but are mainly for electoral roll database use, out of seat votes & supposedly enabling ability impaired citizens to vote, the aforementioned tally transfer. All, I think you could do is inject additional voters to the local roll.
Reply
 
#6
Quote:Bob Schroeck wrote:
Today was a special primary in New Jersey to fill the seat left open when Senator Frank Lautenberg died some weeks back, and as I voted -- using an electronic booth -- a disturbing thought came to me.
It's already been shown that the NSA is, contrary to their earlier denials, is able to basically tap any data stream they care to.  They're basically in the classic man-in-the-middle position, having expended a great deal of  money and effort to put themselves there for all communications going through the United States.
It's only principle -- and discretion -- that keeps them from altering those data streams.
But consider how many elections are being handled electronically these days.
What happens if the NSA decides their mandate is best served by manipulating those bitstreams to make sure politicians that weren't hostile to them were elected?  Would we ever be able to tell?
Bob, if the NSA is going to be jiggering the ballot box let us consider the voting infrastructure:
I am not an expert, but based on on what I saw in 2012 on TV, you have your district. Might be based on ward, county etc. You also have volunteers who make sure that you are eligible to vote, on the rolls etc. The results are sent to a server physically located in the county. I believed it's wired in, but it could be wireless. A paper copy of your vote is also generated. The results of the count is sent to the state level, either periodically or at the end of voting period. The preliminary results are established, with the votes being verified at state level by the election commission and certified by the secretary of state (of the state).
There are two sets of problems I see with someone trying to jigger the vote at the state level. At what point do you try to place your votes instead of the others and what do you do about the paper trail and verification systems in place? And what do you do with the human element? The secretary of state, the election commission? Not to mention their staffs? It can be done at the district/city level, but I see it eventually being brought out to the light of day.
Every psuedo-democracy elects the president for life easily is because he controls all the voting infrastructure from the bottom up. The NSA would have to do the same thing. I don't see them even contemplating it unless they have an unlimited budget to do it with.
If you do want to jigger the vote, you change the voting requirements. Which is what North Carolina and Texas are doing.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Reply
 
#7
Actually, if you want to jigger the vote, have your one-party system pretend to be two parties, then make it effectively impossible for real opposition parties to compete in elections. That's what the entire US does.
Reply
 
#8
Quote:khagler wrote:
Actually, if you want to jigger the vote, have your one-party system pretend to be two parties, then make it effectively impossible for real opposition parties to compete in elections. That's what the entire US does.
Then do you have an explanation for the current gridlock at the federal level?  IMO, the Republicans have decided to become the party of "NO, but hell NO!" There has not been a budget for the federal government since 2010. For the Republican, compromise is out, "purity" is in.
If it's a one party system, something ain't working right.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Reply
 
#9
Ordinance, considering that the house has passed several budgets, and the senate keeps saying no to them, and the president keeps saying no to them, i would think that the democrats are being the party of NO
 
Reply
 
#10
And if there IS no budget, then they can actually spend anything they want and not report it.
Reply
 
#11
You can get away with that? You don't have an Auditor-General or the equivalent?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#12
There's the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). But Obama and the Senate have been ignoring them. 
Reply
 
#13
and considering that they have no actual power, no rob, we dont, we just have a house that is unwilling to try and impeach because they know they senate who has to carry the case against the president wont
 
Reply
 
#14
Canada has pretty much stayed with paper balloting as well, though instead of pencil-making-the-X, you fill in the dot and feed it into an electronic reading machine. Don't know if that can be messed up, but I doubt the Communications Security Establishment - the Dominion's version of the NSA - would do that sort of thing.
Canadian lighthouse to U.S. Warship approaching it:  "This is a lighthouse.  Your call!"
Reply
 
#15
Pyeknu Wrote:Canada has pretty much stayed with paper balloting as well, though instead of pencil-making-the-X, you fill in the dot and feed it into an electronic reading machine. Don't know if that can be messed up, but I doubt the Communications Security Establishment - the Dominion's version of the NSA - would do that sort of thing.
I won't speak about the CSEC - I don't know their culture well enough.

Having the paper ballots means we can re-count the votes, by hand if necessary, in case of any allegations of irregularities. That's the main strength of the system.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#16
Quote:robkelk wrote:
Quote:Pyeknu wrote:
Canada has pretty much stayed with paper balloting as well, though instead of pencil-making-the-X, you fill in the dot and feed it into an electronic reading machine. Don't know if that can be messed up, but I doubt the Communications Security Establishment - the Dominion's version of the NSA - would do that sort of thing.
I won't speak about the CSEC - I don't know their culture well enough.

Having the paper ballots means we can re-count the votes, by hand if necessary, in case of any allegations of irregularities. That's the main strength of the system.
Truthfully, I don't know about them very well, either . . . and I was in the military for six years moons and moons ago.
I have heard that the CSE has sometimes helped the other ECHELON partners - of which NASA and the GCHQ of Britain are two - does help in ethically questionable actions against American and British citizens . . . but that might just be RUMINT for all I know.
Canadian lighthouse to U.S. Warship approaching it:  "This is a lighthouse.  Your call!"
Reply
 
#17
having paper ballots are great, until one side or the other tries to buy the vote by bussing in people who may or may not actually live in the district and are paying them to vote multiple times, in the 2012 election there were documented cases of this but while the persons in question were kept from actually voting, they were the vocal few who were caught, no telling how many were not.

am I claiming that Obama tried to buy the election, No. But i am saying that voter ID laws and verification should be in place to keep things like this from happening
 
Reply
 
#18
Pyeknu Wrote:
Quote:robkelk wrote:
Quote:Pyeknu wrote:Canada has pretty much stayed with paper balloting as well, though instead of pencil-making-the-X, you fill in the dot and feed it into an electronic reading machine. Don't know if that can be messed up, but I doubt the Communications Security Establishment - the Dominion's version of the NSA - would do that sort of thing.

I won't speak about the CSEC - I don't know their culture well enough.

Having the paper ballots means we can re-count the votes, by hand if necessary, in case of any allegations of irregularities. That's the main strength of the system.
Truthfully, I don't know about them very well, either . . . and I was in the military for six years moons and moons ago.

I have heard that the CSE has sometimes helped the other ECHELON partners - of which NASA and the GCHQ of Britain are two - does help in ethically questionable actions against American and British citizens . . . but that might just be RUMINT for all I know.
I would be more inclined to expect CSIS be the group that liaises with ECHELON rather than CSEC, myself. From what I understand from browsing unclassified documents and websites, http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/index-eng.asp]CSIS is the operational group, while http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-eng.html]CSEC is closer to being our "Q branch" analog (although both groups are involved in SIGINT).
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#19
Quote:Rajvik wrote:
Ordinance, considering that the house has passed several budgets, and the senate keeps saying no to them, and the president keeps saying no to them, i would think that the democrats are being the party of NO
And have you looked at what a Rand Paul budget calls for:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ed-budget/
You probably would go along for it if your a libetarian.  There is a thing called compromise. Remember? What I'm seeing are politicians who are bound and determine to smash the system..and their vision for a replacement would not be sustainable or practical.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Reply
 
#20
actually ordinance, i'm a dyed in the wool Tea Party type conservative, ok, i bend more libertarian on things i know are "Social" issues and not worthy of arguing over because it should be a state issue not a federal one or has no merit being argued as law period. That said, I think there should be a cap on how long you can stay on welfare, i believe that you should get penalized for having kids while on welfare and "not know" who the father is. I think that everyone should go through some kind of military boot camp for the last 2-4 months of high school to learn not only how to defend themselves but their country. I am an honorably discharged US marine who thought Bush Sr. should have trounced Saddam back in 91 and backed W full force, (I was in the service at the time), when he went into Iraq because i know for a fact just due to simple math that he still had (or sold quietly to his neighbors who shouldnt have them either) that Saddam still had his chemical weapons and was working on creating worse.

As for smashing the system, sometimes the system needs to be smashed and rebuilt back to what it was orriginally. Trying to make everyone "Equal" in outcome is what is killing our nation, you make the oportunities equal, you dont mandate that a busines must hire X amount of minorities regardless of how qualified they are, and then go, "Oh, by the way, we're gonna tax you at 40% of your income because you made more money than anyone else and we feel this should be REDISTRIBUTED to the laziest of the country so that they'll vote for us in the future because we'll scare them that your people will take it away from them if they dont.
 
Reply
 
#21
The problem is not the outcome, it's the definition of 'equal opportunity'. Everyone agrees that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but nobody can quite agree how to define equal. It's the same with taxation. We can all agree that taxation should be an equal burden - but again, nobody can agree on how to define 'equal'.

It gets much worse when there're organisations out there using predatory practices to intentionally accelerate inequality, by effectively destroying the opportunity of other people.

Ultimately, extremely unequal societies are unstable.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Reply
 
#22
equal taxation is easy, 10% across the board on personal income, no deductions. the problem is that most people think that if they take away the incentive to give to charity, the rich wont. and no inheritance tax either, thats not income and the government already taxed on it when the deceased made the income to begin with
 
Reply
 
#23
The problem then is, that 10% of 20k does more harm to the person on 20k p.a. than 10% of 200k p.a. Therein lies the issue of equal burden and differing definitions.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Reply
 
#24
Quote:Rajvik wrote:
 the problem is that most people think that if they take away the incentive to give to charity, the rich wont. 
Yeah. Which we all know is BS. Around here charitable donation is a frelling spectator sport. Businessmen are encouraged to be members of clubs like Rotary, for example, which requires a charitable donation of $500 or more every time you get mentioned in the media. The guy who owns the Buffalo Bills has a food drive at the first game every year, and matches the value of what's donated. One year some wise-acre decided to see if he was serious, and donated $100,000. He matched it. The guy offered to raise it to a half-million the next year, and was told to go right ahead, he'd match that too.
Local gamer conventions have charity auctions as a big event, as well. One year we auctioned off a $5-bill. (Funny story. We'd asked the Girl Scouts for a few boxes of cookies to donate. It was the wrong time of year for that, but they gave us five bucks to donate to our charity of choice. So we auctioned off the bill.. raised $20 for it. 
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Reply
 
#25
It's not so much what they do or don't give as individuals as what actions they take in their psychologically-disassociated personae as the profit-maximizing engines of the corporate sector of society. Unless they're going to undertake things like charitable toxic waste cleanup or mountaintop reconstruction, as well as building theaters and food drives, private charity is still at the 'bandaid on a sucking chest wound' level, and trying to rely on it is like putting a claymore mine up against your chest when there's St Elmo's Fire crackling all around you.

Certainly government employees disassociate, too, but from a societal level, and speaking personally as someone who'd be expecting to have to deal with them, 'How can I not get in trouble?' is infinitely preferable to 'Who can I step on to get ahead?'
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)