Re: CPAN 2 Election Security Testimony in Congress

From: Edward Cherlin <cherlin_at_pacbell_dot_net>
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 23:21:13 CDT

On Thursday 08 July 2004 11:18 am, David Jefferson wrote:
> Michael Shamos is (still) a close friend of mine, but I must
> say he has gone over to the dark side on this issue of voting
> security. I cannot fathom how or why this has happened, but
> everyone I know seems to feel the same way you do.
>
> I have not seen the CSPAN show you are referring to, but I
> would love to. If anyone has a pointer to where I could see
> it I'd be grateful.

Go to
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dschedule
and search for
"Electronic Voting Security"
You will go to
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?resultstart=1&resultcount=10&BasicQueryText=%22electronic+voting+security%22&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit
where there is a link to play the show. We could also buy a copy
for $210 at
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=55715187

> David
>
> > But the truly low point was Michael Shamos,
> > spouting some
> > of the most despicable sophistry I've heard anywhere. I
> > know some
> > people here know him, and say he's done good work in the
> > past--about
> > the only thing I can think of is that someone "got to him"
> > (e.g.
> > blackmail or a bribe). I'm not saying it is actually so
> > (which might
> > be libel), just that it is difficult to imagine why he would
> > express
> > such fundamentally and obviously wrong opinions so strongly.
> >
> > For example, one of Shamos' arguments was that since no
> > proven past
> > fraud on DREs had changed an election result, there is no
> > reason not to
> > accept them. Notice that he did NOT even claim there hadn't
> > been fraud
> > on DREs, just that it hadn't provably changed the results.
> > Moreover,
> > he found a mild likelihood of non-fraud to be a sufficient
> > criteria for
> > using DREs. No concept of risks whatsoever. To make an
> > analogy
> > prompted not so long ago by the US administration: would a
> > probability
> > that terrorists lack nukes be enough reason not to worry
> > about the
> > issue? Or would the fact they've never been used before be a
> > blanket
> > absolution of any concern?! (not that I believe that such
> > concerns
> > justify the specific actions of this US administration, but
> > the general
> > principle is the same).
> >
> > Depressing, depressing stuff, overall.

-- 
Edward Cherlin
Generalist & activist--Linux, languages, literacy and more
"A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it!"
--Alice in Wonderland
http://cherlin.blogspot.com
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT