Re: FYI - [IP] How They Could Steal the Election This Time and response

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 11:48:53 CDT

Shamos knows no shame. For what it's worth, he was also on the wrong side
of the issue with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - defending Hollywood
and the record industry. Aside from money he gets as an expert witness in
court cases (both voting and DMCA), I don't know why he does this. But,
maybe the money is more than an aside.

On 8/1/04 21:04, "Karl Auerbach" <> wrote:

> This was on Dave Farber's IP list.
> One of my thoughts was "shame on Shamos".
> --karl--
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:29:25 -0400
> From: David Farber <>
> To: Ip <>
> Subject: [IP] How They Could Steal the Election This Time and response
> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <>
> Date: July 31, 2004 4:03:41 PM EDT
> To:
> Subject: How They Could Steal the Election This Time
> <>
> Click here to return to the browser-optimized version of this page.
> This article can be found on the web at
> How They Could Steal the Election This Time
> [from the August 16, 2004 issue]
> AND from Mike Shamos who was quoted in the article
> "I sent the following to The Nation today:"
> To the Editor:
> Ronnie Dugger's article ("How They Could Steal The Election This Time," Aug.
> 16) contains an error in its very first sentence and things only go downhill
> from there. He claims that voting system vendors could program the machines
> "to invisibly falsify the outcomes." There is no basis at all for asserting,
> or even believing, that such a thing is possible. It is pure science fiction
> to dream that it can be done "invisibly." Machines are tested, and if
> tampering has occurred it can be found. If the machines have been altered,
> then forensic examination can detect the alteration. He fails to mention that
> DRE machines have been used in the United States for over 25 years without a
> single verified incident in which the outcome of any election was altered
> through tampering.
> Later, Mr. Dugger misquotes me as having said that "computerized vote-counting
> is highly vulnerable to fraud." I wrote many years ago, and still believe,
> that punched-card voting, not DRE voting, was vulnerable to fraud.
> His most basic error, however, is in urging that paper systems are safer than
> electronic ones. Since 1852, the New York Times has published over 4000
> articles on paper ballot fraud in the United States. That works out to about
> one article every 12 days for the past 152 years. Paper is not safe. It may
> be familiar, but it is the principal tool of election fraud in this country
> and
> always has been. The answer is not to return to paper but to implement
> safeguards to assure the public that the sorts of machinations Mr. Dugger
> imagines are not possible in practice.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> __________
> Michael I. Shamos
> Distinguished Career Professor, Language Technologies Institute
> Director, Universal Library
> Co-Director, Electronic Commerce degree program
> 4515 Newell-Simon Hall, Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> 412-268-8193 (office phone) 412-268-6298 (office fax) 412-681-8398 (home
> phone)
> Home page:
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as
> To manage your subscription, go to
> Archives at:
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CDT