"If you're worried about honesty in computers, don't get in an airplane"

[Amaryllis]

NY mayor compares paperless DREs to riding in airplanes...??? A faulty analogy, wouldn't you say?

Bloomberg on his weekly WABC radio show Friday took a position that departs from his opponents' -- and it may mean that he's more bullish on computer technology than anyone else in the field. In discussing the need to replace antiquated voting machines, the mayor spurned the widely-made argument that any new system should be backed up by a "paper trail" to help ensure that it cannot be rigged.

"I would do it, personally, without a paper trail," the mayor said. "If you are worried about honesty in computers and their reliability, don't get in an airplane because you'd never get off the ground.

"You're never going to have a set of voting machines that's 100 percent reliable," he said. "But you could come pretty close in terms of protections for the public and making sure nobody can tamper with it."

That's at odds with what Democrats in the race -- and some election experts -- have been saying. But then, Bloomberg also takes a "worry-not" stance on removing conductors from subway trains in favor of automation.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/brooklyn/nyc-camp0521,0,2027115.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-brooklyn

[firefox]

1. Does Bloomberg not know how goofy that is?

That is absolutely goofy for Bloomberg to say. We absolutely need a paper trail. To take the opposite view is unacceptable and anyone in on the conspiracy to keep the current path of removing the paper trails that have always been there needs to be removed from office. Screw Bloomberg. The guy needs replaced.

bal·lot Pronunciation (blt)
n.
1. A sheet of paper or a card used to cast or register a vote, especially a secret one.

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. No we do not need a paper trail! We need

a paper ballot.


At least you got the definition right. Now use the term. Paper trails are not worth thermal paper they are printed on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Hey, he's just saying the same thing I've been saying all along.

The computers don't make mistakes. They do what they are programmed to do. Nothing more and nothing less.

If they are programmed to get the plane in the air, they will do that. If they are programmed to steal an election, they will do that.

I can't believe I'm in agreement with Bloomberg.

[Amaryllis]

4. When you put it like that, I'd have to agree also. And here I was thinking

he'd made a ridiculous statement...

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Of course, in saying so he has admitted that he is in cahoots

with the vote stealers. Good thing to know.

[GuvWurld]

7. No, it is still stupid. Flight safety records = basis for confidence

The airline industry has its share of blockbuster disasters but the percentage of flights, and of travelers, to be injured or killed is so small that the industry continues on. People keep getting on planes because this track record gives them a basis for confidence that they will get where they're headed.

On the other hand, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections. Machines are largely but not exclusively responsible for this. It is the overall set of conditions that ensures inconclusive election results. This is what deprives us of a basis for confidence. See the Voter Confidence Resolution.

Oh, and lest we fail to see this as exposing the myth of democracy in America, let's also take note of how even with customers continuing to maintain confidence in the safety of flying, the airline industry has been hemorrhaging money and surviving only on corporate welfare - the myth of capitalism exposed.

[Amaryllis]

8. I was being tongue in cheek...it is a ludicrous statement. The Federal

Aviation Commission actually has standards, testing, certification, quality control,requirements, things like that, which the voting systems do not have. They most likely have some requirements for those who develop the software also, other than that they've done time for felonies involving computer fraud.

[GuvWurld]

10. Fair enough, I still stongly encourage adoption of the "basis" frame

n/t

[brindis_desala]

3. Just goes to show you don't have to be smart to get rich.

So if there's a power outage in "certain" precincts we just say "sorry"
you're votes disappeared in the Bermuda triangle and we ditched the pilots?

[EC]

6. Well, they keep fighting paper trails and Americans

are going to figure out that the Dems are actually more honest, since they are the ones calling for the paper...Even Repuges I know, can't figure out why they can't seem to have a receipt, since Diebold makes ATM's too, they also want a paper trail...

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. I do NOT want a Effing paper trail...you should not either!

Read my sig line and adjust your verbage!

Thanks... :hi:

Andy

[Peace Patriot]

23. A simpler explanation, paper ballot vs. paper trail...

A paper trail RECEIPT can be ignored. It has no legal standing.

A paper BALLOT cannot be ignored. It IS the vote.

-----

People sometimes use the phrase "paper trail" as an overarching term meaning: a verifiable, auditable election. They don't' mean to promote a mere paper receipt, or to demean a paper ballot. They mean a vote count that is BACKED UP with paper--that isn't just made up of highly manipulable electrons.

That's one of the reasons that there is confusion (the other more prevalent reason being ignorance of the difference). For instance, I sometimes say, "In Congress, Republican House leader Tom Delay blocked a paper trail for electronic voting," by which I mean that Bush Republicans deliberately set up an unverifiable election. I do NOT mean that we should demand only a mere "paper trail" for voting.

Another thing that contributes to the confusion is the ATM analogy--an analogy that resonates with the public, and is very useful, since almost everyone uses ATMs and is aware that ATMs routinely provide a receipt recording the transaction (ergo, why not voting machines?). If the receipt is wrong, you go into the bank to correct it. It's not an exact analogy, but it's something people readily understand (re: the basic concept of verification and paper backups).

People also associate "paper trail" with catching criminals. (How do you catch financial fraudsters, or other white collar criminals?--often by the paper trail they leave; by, for instance, reconstructing the accounting records or the memo they put through the shredder.) Again, it means verification; and tangible evidence.

The distinction between paper receipt and paper BALLOT is VERY IMPORTANT to understand, and get across to others--as Andy says--and worth taking some trouble in our use of language.

Every time you use the phrase "paper trail," ask yourself if "paper BALLOT" could be used instead.

(And be gentle with novices--people who are just grasping the idea of verification.)

------

Here's a good, clear explanation of the difference between a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and a Voter Verified Paper BALLOT (VVPB):

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1201

[Carolab]

9. Hey, Bloomberg! It's not about "reliability"; it's about hacking.

And we all know it's possible for someone to hijack a plane, now don't we? Just like someone can hijack our VOTES?

[snot]

11. Ridiculous, BECAUSE

Virtually no one gains by causing crashes, while a lot of powerful folks gain by rigging elections.

(Of course, terrorists gain by causing crashes, and precisely for that reason, we wouldn't dream of purchasing our air flight control hardware or software from terrorists.)

[Amaryllis]

18. Probably wouldn't dream of purchasing flight control software from

convicted felons with a background in building in back doors, either.

[Amaryllis]

19. People who want to get rid of their enemies gain by causing crashes. HOw

many times have you read on Du when someone like Koehler speaks out, "Tell him not to get on any small planes."

[kster]

12. Bloomberg nice

try, we are on to you, your kind is few, we are many, we know the truth,and your vote rigging is over. TRY US !

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Bloomberg must go down.

I'm sure he will. Maybe we should ask his staff in the Bahamas. I'm sure there is someone on staff who would know.

[Peace Patriot]

16. What a astonishingly irresponsible remark!

The purpose of the computers in an airport traffic control tower is not to crash planes. If they did crash planes, because of programming errors, the companies who made and programmed them would be liable--and, of course, if the programming errors were deliberate, they would be criminally liable. That is the control on fraud for air traffic control computers. The consequence of error, innocent or deliberate, would be destruction of the business and/or jail time for malfeasance or murder.

What is the control on fraud for electronic election systems with no paper ballot backup? If they produce the wrong winning candidate, because of programming errors, a) no one would know, because their programming is SECRET, PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, and b) if it's deliberate error--election fraud--it likely would BENEFIT the election computer company AND install into office someone who would protect the company from exposure and give them more government business.

There is NO CONTROL ON FRAUD for paperless electronic election systems!

No crashed airplanes.
No dead bodies.
No grieving relatives.
No insurance.
No lawsuits.
No liability.
No trace of the crime.
No ill consequences--just benefits!

[Peace Patriot]

17. I am afraid that we are in a situation in which quite a number of our...

...political leaders DON'T BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. It should be political suicide to make such a remark. It should be totally unacceptable. It should be akin to stating that the family farm is bad idea, or that women should not be permitted to vote. It should be OFF LIMITS.

Well, I guess that's our job--to make it unacceptable.

[MelissaB]

20. This was also in the NYPost yesterday.

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/46910.htm


This is just great! A lot of people believe and respect this guy. Now, we have to fight misinformation. :spank:

[Kip Humphrey]

21. If jet avionics were ANYTHIG like e-voting machies, I'd NEVER fly again!

[glitch]

22. Perhaps he meant it as a warning

You know, if you question the fraWdsters don't get into airplanes.
It's really very sweet of him. :sarcasm:

[Peace Patriot]

24. If Bloomberg knows so much about air traffic security, perhaps he...

...could explain why Washington DC had no air cover on 9/11 (with almost an hour's notice). Nagging little question.

[glitch]

25. One among an infinite number of them.

Do they hate us for our nagging little questions?

[Amaryllis]

26. I think they view us like pesky little mosquitos. Not much threat when

they control MSM.

[eridani]

27. Totally fucking STUPID!!

Airplanes have real world testing millions of times a year. Voting machines do not. If no one ever flew a plane except for once a year for a few hours, planes would suck dangerously.

[kster]

28. I agree

and if I went to the airlines and asked if I could see the inner workings of the plane before I flew on it,they might look at me kinda strange, but I am pretty sure they would let me.

[Amaryllis]

29. And they don't have felons with a history of designing software to

cause plane crashes. They have felons with a history of computer fraud designing voting system software.