Re: GO for March Demo

From: <dr-jekyll_at_att_dot_net>
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:14:01 CST

While I like the idea of an obviously altered mock election of some American icons versus some universally accepted nasties, I also see a down side. Would people react adversely toward us because we wrote cheating code or altered the database rather than focus on our intentions?

Having participated in Denton County Texas' evaluation of proposed new voting equipment and observing the sales tactics, I'm afraid they would show election officials our demo and seize any differences in the systems as a way to say we have security flaws in our systems that they don't have in theirs. You should have heard the misleading statements I heard from some of these vendor people. If anybody can twist things out of shape, they can.

Perhaps just focus on the Florida election where 134 votes were lost and keep hitting them with the question "Don't those folks wish they had some paper ballots to recount?".

> On Friday 05 March 2004 03:29 am, Jan Karrman wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > > Originally, when I thought of doing the demo, I wanted to set up a DRE
> > > (or some mock up of one) and smash it with a sledge hammer on television.
> > > Arthur doesn't seem to think that's such a great idea. However, I think
> > > we need some stunt other than just showing the system and explaining how
> > > it works. There has to be some excuse for the TV cameras. If you have
> > > some ideas on that, let's have them!
> >
> > There is a program on Swedish television where a guy evaluates various
> > products and services. Typically they are bad or dangerous products.
> > The program always ends with him throwing one of the checked items in
> > a large trash bin. A bit less drastic perhaps.
> >
> > /Jan
> I think throwing away a 'computer' is a bad idea. The general public might
> confuse the vendor cruft with our demo.
> I propose that we demonstrate how easy it is to steal a vote with a
> computerized system that has no voter-verified paper trail. It shouldn't be
> too hard to fork the demo software and create a version that *appears* to
> correctly count the vote, but obviously lies when the tallies are committed.
> Example:
> Have the reporters take turns voting for either 'Cats' or 'Dogs'. We could
> even have the machine display a running tally at the start that shows a 0
> vote count for each choice (just like the Diebold machines). Challenge the
> reporters to keep their own running tally. When it is time to show the final
> vote, it should be close to reality but the Dogs should always win.
> It would be good to distill all of Diebold's confidence building tricks out of
> Avi's recent account, and emulate them in this 'bogus-demo':
> Nathan
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST