Re: GO for March Demo

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 10:47:29 CST

Reading this gave me an idea. How about if we create a non-working
mockup of a DRE with a label $4000 government voting machine (covered
with gold looking foil: "gold plated"). Next to it is a toilet seat
labelled $1000 government toilet seat (or whatever they used to cost
years ago under military contracting). Next to it is a hammer
labelled $500 hammer (we need to get the exact amounts from old
newspaper articles). Next to that is our voting machine, with a
sheet showing what everything in that PC cost us (and I suggest we
actually buy one used one and a new monitor and show the receipts).

Best regards.

At 1:14 PM +0000 3/5/04, wrote:
>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
>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
>> > > 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

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= 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