Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

On Diebold

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • On Diebold

    I have now for some time been following the trials and tribulations of the voting machines in the USA,
    a program abou tthis is scheduled and besides that I would love to see a copy, I would love to hear what most of you think and whether you argee that if there is the slightest possibility to defraud an election one shoul dnot use the machines in question.

    As for the tech parts of the discussion, suffice to say I kept those articles away from here, but trust me, it's easy.

    Subject: Diebold demands that HBO cancel documentary on voting machines

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...diebold01.html

    Diebold demands that HBO cancel documentary on voting machines Film saying they can be manipulated 'inaccurate'

    By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
    BLOOMBERG NEWS

    Diebold Inc. insisted that cable network HBO cancel a documentary that questions the integrity of its voting machines, calling the program inaccurate and unfair.
    The program, "Hacking Democracy," is scheduled to debut Thursday, , five days before the 2006 U.S. midterm elections. The film claims that Diebold voting machines aren't tamper-proof and can be manipulated to change voting results.
    "Hacking Democracy" is "replete with material examples of inaccurate reporting," Diebold Election System President David Byrd said in a letter to HBO President and Chief Executive Chris Albrecht posted on Diebold's Web site. Short of pulling the film, Monday's letter asks for disclaimers to be aired and for HBO to post Diebold's response on its Web site.
    According to Byrd's letter, inaccuracies in the film include the assertion that Diebold, whose election systems unit is based in Allen, Texas, tabulated more than 40 percent of the votes cast in the 2000 presidential election.
    The letter says Diebold wasn't in the electronic voting business in 2000, when disputes over ballots in Florida delayed President Bush's victory for more than a month and raised questions about the reliability of electronic voting machines.
    "We stand by the film," said Jeff Cusson, a spokesman for HBO, which is a unit of Time Warner Inc.
    "We have no intention of withdrawing it from our schedule. It appears that the film Diebold is responding to is not the film HBO is airing."
    David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold, said the company bought another firm, Global Elections, in 2002 that served about 8 percent of balloting in 2000, including voters in Florida. The company, which hasn't seen the film, based its complaints on material from the HBO Web site, Bear said.
    This is Diebold's second recent defense of its system. On Sept. 26, Byrd wrote to Jann Wenner, editor and publisher of Rolling Stone, saying a story written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., "Will the Next Election Be Hacked?" was "error-riddled" and that readers "deserve a better researched and reported article."
    The HBO documentary is based on the work of Bev Harris, the Renton woman who founded BlackBoxVoting.org, which monitors election accuracy. In 2004 the attorney general of California took up a whistle-blower claim filed by Harris against Diebold and settled with the company for $2.6 million in December.


    cheers
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  • #2
    Re: On Diebold

    IMO most of the electronic voting issue would be taken care of if there would just be a federal statute that all electronic voting systems are required to have some sort of paper backup.

    Something where, if there's a challenge, precincts could provide to investigators a paper trail that states that, "Yes, this is how the votes were tallied." It would also provide an opportunity so that by checking the paper against the electronic results in, say, 1% of all precincts, you can verify that the electronic results hold up.

    For all the goofiness that went with the Florida problems in 2000, at least you had a piece of paper you could look at. I'd rather fight about chads and hanging chads than decide that a power surge wiped out 200 votes in a precinct because the Church custodian plugged in a vacuum cleaner in the next room.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: On Diebold

      If Diebold voting machines, or any others, aren't tamper-proof and can be manipulated to change voting results, then elections are not safe from fraud and I am concerned about that.

      Paper trails are essential.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: On Diebold

        Originally posted by sixthman View Post
        If Diebold voting machines, or any others, aren't tamper-proof and can be manipulated to change voting results, then elections are not safe from fraud and I am concerned about that.

        Paper trails are essential.
        There's no such thing as a tamper-proof machine. The question is trhe degree of difficulty.

        The vault at Fort Knox isn't tamper proof if you have a big enough bomb.

        There has also never been an election that was safe from fraud and never will be.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: On Diebold

          I agreee with Displaced Knick, We need a paper trail, so that it will be harder for voter fraud to occur.
          PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: On Diebold

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
            There has also never been an election that was safe from fraud and never will be.
            As you point out it's the degree of fraud that worries. In the old days someone could vote in two or three different places or jam a machine in one voting place to slow the vote. But, today, if I'm reading correctly, it's now possible for someone to hack the system and throw an entire election with no way to prove that someone screwed with the results.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: On Diebold

              Originally posted by sixthman View Post
              As you point out it's the degree of fraud that worries. In the old days someone could vote in two or three different places or jam a machine in one voting place to slow the vote. But, today, if I'm reading correctly, it's now possible for someone to hack the system and throw an entire election with no way to prove that someone screwed with the results.
              I don't know enough about it - if all the voting machines were networked I imagine that could happen - or if someone somehow encoded a script that was uploaded to each machine.

              But if the machines are standalones I'd think throwing an entire election would be hard to accomplish except for very local elections. I KNOW they aren't all networked because some of our polling places here don't even have internet - not even wireless.

              However I think we're all in agreement - I'd be interested to hear if anyone isn't - that there needs to be a paper trail.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: On Diebold

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                I don't know enough about it - if all the voting machines were networked I imagine that could happen - or if someone somehow encoded a script that was uploaded to each machine.
                I guess what I was thinking of is that if someone was able to do something with the software, they could do it to all the machines, or as many as they needed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: On Diebold

                  Let me lift some of the tech speak:

                  It has been proven that he code in the machines can be changed at will by inserting a card/stick that loads the software/saves the votes.

                  The code is "propriety" and not researched in extenso, as Diebold refuses to open the source code to anyone.

                  Results are "transferred per modem" and just 3 lines of code change any number of votes for A into votes for B, this was tried in a lab surrounding and proven possible.

                  It is possible to open a "locked" door on the machines to gain access to aforementioned cards, the locks on these "doors" are the same as the ones on ancient slot machines, the keys can be picked up anywhere for cents.

                  There is no paper trail, Diebold claims it not proper and therefore it is not done.

                  People who want to know more can PM me, I have some articles and links that are interesting reading.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: On Diebold

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    I don't know enough about it - if all the voting machines were networked I imagine that could happen - or if someone somehow encoded a script that was uploaded to each machine.

                    But if the machines are standalones I'd think throwing an entire election would be hard to accomplish except for very local elections. I KNOW they aren't all networked because some of our polling places here don't even have internet - not even wireless.

                    However I think we're all in agreement - I'd be interested to hear if anyone isn't - that there needs to be a paper trail.
                    Do we know the machines don't use cell/satellite somehow for a network connection?

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: On Diebold

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Do we know the machines don't use cell/satellite somehow for a network connection?

                      -Bball
                      Way to complex to be pulled off by Diebold. They're only a little bit sinister, but mostly incompetent.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: On Diebold

                        I'm in agreement that there needs to be a paper trail. How are the voted "saved" in the machines? Are they subject to the same electro magnetic problems that regular hard drives are?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: On Diebold

                          They have a dial up connection to a central site where the vote-tally per machine (no trail) is dumped and counted.

                          There is no to none control over this process.

                          The "votes" are "saved" t oa (sort of) pcmcia card that is stuck into the machine behind the door I talked about earlier, your 8 year old with a key from teh local hardware store could probably replace it without being noticed.

                          No matter how simple these things sound, let's make one thing clear; the source code (the software that counts the votes) has NOT been checked completely (which is against the law in most states, yet Diebold claims excemption to that rule) and there is no way of telling that your vote will count towards who you vote for.

                          There are several "demos" out on the net that show that no matter who you vote for it will all be tallied to one with an occaional drop to the other so it doesn't become "to obvious". (which is not saying that happens here, but without seeing ALL of the source-code no one knows, the demos out there are just demo dummy programs that do only demonstrate what CAN happen)
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: On Diebold

                            to goven an example, (real life) this is from the blackboxvoting.org site:

                            http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/for...954/44242.html

                            Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)
                            Submitted by Jim March

                            DOCUMENTED ELECTION LAW AND SECURITY VIOLATIONS IN SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE

                            Shelby County candidates Shep Wilbun, Sondra Becton, Vernon Johnson and Otis Jackson have performed a valuable service for their community in exposing some of the most irregular and illegal electronic voting procedures in America. Shelby County ran its August 3, 2006 election in a fashion that violated all basic security procedures. The multiple breaches of security call into question the results and cast doubt on the legality of elections processing.

                            Evidence from election official declarations and discovery documents obtained in litigation over a recent election using Diebold machines reveals that:

                            * Illegal and uncertified Lexar Jump Drive software was loaded onto the Diebold GEMS central tabulator, enabling secretive data transfer on small USB "key chain" memory devices. This blocked election transparency and raises questions as to whether hidden vote manipulation may have taken place.

                            * Other uncertified software of various kinds was loaded onto the system and, according to the event logs examined, was used. This opened the door for hand-editing of both vote totals and the reporting of election results.

                            * Evidence of actual attempts to manipulate election reporting results exists. The evidence available wouldn't record successful manipulation, only attempted manipulation, due to software failure. The logs show repeated failed attempts to use an HTML editor.

                            * According to Shelby County elections officials, they opened the central vote totals repository to widespread network connections. The dispersed nature of access to the central tabulator would prevent finding the perpetrators, even if documentation of manipulation could be achieved -- a difficult feat, since the type of hacking enabled by the GEMS program tends to erase evidence.

                            In an on-site inspection of the network connections conducted by Jim March, elections department lead computer operator Dennis Boyce pointed to a location on a network interconnection plug panel where the Diebold-supplied GEMS central tabulator is plugged in. No extra security such as a router or firewall was present at the interconnection. This appears to open up access by anybody in county government to the central tabulator.

                            * At the same on-site inspection, the Diebold-supplied GEMS backup central tabulator had more uncertified software than could be quickly documented – but observers did spot Symantec's PC Anywhere utility. This program would allow opening the machine to outside remote control - the PC Anywhere program allows a remote computer across a dial-up or networked connection to see the screen of the “zombied” computer and operate it's keyboard and mouse. To call this a security breach is an understatement.

                            * At the primary GEMS central tabulator station, all of MS-Office 2000 Professional was loaded and working. According to Windows, MS-Access was a frequently used program, the only component of the overall MS-Office suite that was so identified.

                            All answers to queries about what these uncertified MS-Office components were used for were evasive and no legitimate explanation was offered by the elections staff. The USB memory device (Lexar Jump Drive) was described as a way to transfer data from main to backup GEMS servers, which is plausible...but encryption for such purposes isn't. As to PC Anywhere, observers were told it “wasn't active”, which didn't answer the question of “what was it doing there?”

                            Overview Of The Environment:

                            Shelby County runs voting systems built by Diebold Election Systems Inc.

                            Most voting (both early and precinct) is handled by Diebold TSx touchscreen voting systems. Votes are tabulated county-wide on a single standard Dell computer provided by Diebold and running a Diebold application called GEMS – Global Election Management Software.

                            Altering votes at the precinct touchscreens is difficult but possible. Altering votes at the GEMS central tabulator (often referred to as the “GEMS server” or “main server”) is Chimpanzee-easy – the database of votes is in a format known as Microsoft Access. That database can be altered by programs other than GEMS and if someone does so, no audit trail record is created of the alterations and no password is required to do the alterations.

                            For this reason, physical access and network access to the central tabulator of votes is critical to overall election security. And since these systems are certified as set combinations of hardware and software at both the state and federal levels, no changes to the system involving new software or hardware are allowed as they can introduce new security vulnerabilities.

                            Shelby County Facts (as retrieved from the “Windows event log” of the GEMS server):

                            1) At 4:00pm the day after the election, somebody loaded a program called “JD Secure” into the GEMS server. “JD” stands for “JumpDrive” by the Lexar corporation. A “JumpDrive” is a small memory device, concealable in a closed fist, that allows rapid transfer of data. The fact that JD Secure was loaded means that data was not only moved around on a small, easily concealable memory device, but also that the contents of the memory device were password protected, further concealing what information was being transmitted. This violates system certification procedures and public/party observation laws (our right to transparent elections). It is difficult to conceive of a non-malicious purpose for concealment of data transfer (or manipulation) via password protection.

                            Four attempts to load the JD Secure software was documented across a period of about 15 minutes. So this loading of the memory device password application wasn’t accidental.

                            (One malicious use for the Jumpdrive with password encryption would be for a fraudster to hand-edit vote totals on another machine, spend hours to get it to total correctly, and then upload altered results back to GEMS the following day via the keychain memory device.)

                            2) On 8/7/06 somebody loaded a complete copy of Microsoft Office Professional 2000. This would include the MS-Access program long known as the simplest way to edit the contents of a Diebold central vote database (and banned for use in elections in virtually all jurisdictions nationwide).

                            3) On 8/22/06 for a period of over an hour -- and during a time period for which a Temporary Restraining Order was in effect -- somebody attempted to edit HTML data files. The only significant HTML files on a Diebold main server are vote total reports. The only reason any trace was left was because the HTML editing tools failed to load – they either broke somehow or weren’t loaded correctly. Either way, it suggests that somebody may have been hand-editing vote total reports, and that’s potentially very significant. For example: GEMS creates reports of vote tallies throughout election night, in either HTML or PDF formats. An editor for PDF data is included on the GEMS main server as shipped by Diebold, and HTML editors are easy to get. Those tally reports could be easily edited on election night, shifting the apparent vote totals, and then the main GEMS database could be hand-edited to match the false reports across most of the day after the election, to be illicitly uploaded via the password-protected Jumpdrive.

                            A Final Shelby County Fact (based on election official depositions):

                            4) At 6:30pm on election day, the GEMS main server was cross-connected to the main county computer network, which in turn has a cross-connection to the main Internet. They did this to allow uploading results from four regional elections offices across the county.

                            To be clear, it appears that results were modemed in to the regional stations from the precincts. The regional stations were reportedly connected to the county network.

                            It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this security violation. This practice is flat banned in California and many other states, and may or may not be illegal in Tennessee...we’re checking on that. As a practical matter, this allowed anybody sitting at a county PC to get to and manipulate the central vote tabulator database.

                            With this final insult, it can be plainly stated that this wasn’t an election. It was a hacking contest, open to whoever was most efficient and motivated to alter vote totals.

                            The number of potential vote fraud perpetrators was literally enormous. Regardless of whether or not vote manipulation was caught and proven, no possible perpetrator could be caught.

                            It's hard to explain these violations of both law and known standard security practices in election processing.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: On Diebold

                              Well, idiotic and/or corrupt local election officials have always been problems.

                              But it goes back to requiring a paper trail.

                              Of course, being as we're a reactionary, not proactive country (and nowhere moreso than with our elected officials), that will only be passed as a law after something's been proven to have happened - after an election result has been shown to be invalid after the fact.

                              So buck up folks! Our future holds an invalid election at some point due to either a screw-up or a crook - followed by Federal Laws requiring a paper trail.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X