Re: CPAN 2 Election Security Testimony in Congress

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sun Jul 11 2004 - 23:20:28 CDT

Did anyone get this to play? My computer tries to load the audio then

On Jul 9, 2004, at 10:21 PM, Edward Cherlin wrote:

> 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
> and search for
> "Electronic Voting Security"
> You will go to
> resultstart=1&resultcount=10&BasicQueryText=%22electronic+voting+securi
> ty%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
> 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
= 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 23:17:09 2004

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