You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plausible deniability & Election eTheft [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
yowzayowzayowza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 03:45 PM
Original message
Plausible deniability & Election eTheft
Advertisements [?]
The most commonly feared election etheft methods seem to be tabulator(GEMS) hacks and Clint Curtis style coding. As a programmer of over 20 yrs I gotta say those are very unlikely scenarios. Tabulator hacks could leave traces in page files, remote access logs and telephony records. Nefarious code is risky as it persists far too long. Both methods could be discovered in a recount of the paper trail. Further, neither method utilizes the preferred right-wing modus operandi since Shrub Senior nearly got busted in Iran-Contra: plausible deniability, a tactic which legitimizes stunningly blatant illegal activity. Bush lied us into a war? 'Naw, jus bad intelligence. Oops, sorry.' Judith Miller lied us into a war? 'Naw, jus bad sources. Oops, sorry.' Etc, etc...

Plausible deniability could be injected into DRE systems with preplanned errors introduced into the software that creates the ballot definitions the DREs execute. The switch could be a redundant, missing or superfluous parameter produced within the ballot definition file by a series of seemingly innocuous functions such as an unusual edit sequence. The DREs response to this unusual parameter would be to accidentally-on-purpose behave as described by Pamela de Maigret. This pair of interlocking side-effect errors could easily be activated for a particular precinct or election (thus avoiding local elections and tests). Also, the paper trail will always match the tabulation. Response to the unlikely discovery of this error? You guessed it: 'Oops, sorry.'

IMHO, tho the tabulator & explicit code methods of etheft are certainly possible, a method relying on plausible deniability is far more conceivable. Having mentioned these scenarios a coupla times before, I reiterate in hopes of expanding understanding of the potential for etheft and that explorations of electoral results (actual & exit polls) not unduly focus on exploits bound simply by voting or tabulation system.

(...Make sense, jus more contrarian gibberish er mebbie needs more cow bell?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC