Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 199
Default EMP weapon

Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials
at the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default EMP weapon



"Leif Neland" wrote in message ...

Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials
at the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...




Er, perhaps you should just go back to whatever gaming planet you happen to
be on at the moment, eh.

Oh and cut out the Skunk, too, you are just providing more funds for
criminal gangs to invest in things far more sinister.


Hope that helps.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default EMP weapon

In the US, at least one company manufacturing such machines was a strong
supporter of conservative politicians. It was assumed (but not proven, as far
as I know), that this company had given their machines a "back door" through
which to alter the votes.

People will have to stand up and reject computerized voting machines. They are
too-easily compromised.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,772
Default EMP weapon



"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
In the US, at least one company manufacturing such machines was a strong
supporter of conservative politicians. It was assumed (but not proven, as
far as I know), that this company had given their machines a "back door"
through which to alter the votes.

People will have to stand up and reject computerized voting machines. They
are too-easily compromised.


Have you been watching that U.S. series "Scandal" by any chance ... ?
:-)

Arfa

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default EMP weapon

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper
trail".

The thought had crossed my mind that a heavily encrypted system could be used,
and voters could check the "voting database" to confirm their vote had not
changed. But I'm sure someone would figure out a way to compromise even that.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default EMP weapon

On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at
the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote
with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we
have a paper trail if there is any doubt.

Bill Gill
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 199
Default EMP weapon

Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...


In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.

Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty,
when it is locked.
And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by
members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected
party members), so it is not easy to cheat.

It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000
election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all
alike, could be done by very few.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:40:36 -0600, Bill Gill
wrote:

On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at
the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote
with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we
have a paper trail if there is any doubt.

Bill Gill

Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.

In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

PlainBill
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default EMP weapon

On 1/13/2013 10:57 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:40:36 -0600, Bill Gill
wrote:

On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at
the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote
with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we
have a paper trail if there is any doubt.

Bill Gill

Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.

In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

PlainBill

Well, One of the things the counting machine does is to check for
accuracy. If it finds, for example, votes for 2 or more candidates in
the same race it rejects the ballot and the voter has to do another
one. And in Oklahoma we don't have write in votes.

As far as your other problems, those are procedural problems, and
the results should be rejected by the poll watchers. Otherwise
there is always an appeal to the court system.

There is no such thing as a perfect voting system. The Oklahoma
system does allow for checking and a recount of the actual
ballots.

Bill
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 338
Default EMP weapon

On 2013-01-12, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?


A friend of mine who used to own an electronics company (he is now retired)
had an idea to make something like that to take out traffic cameras and
other surveillance cameras, similar to a gadget police are considering
for immobilizing late-model cars involved in chases:

http://gizmodo.com/5454295/this-emp-...most-instantly

(This of course would not stop cars from the 1970s and earlier that do not have
computer-contolled engines.) If it can be done with cars it should be doable
with voting machines, or cameras, or any non-hardened computerized device
for that matter.

My friend never actually built anything as far as I know but it is
an interesting idea. You would want the pulse to be as focused as
possible to eliminate collateral damage, including to your own vehicle
and/or personal electronics.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 199
Default EMP weapon

har bragt dette til verden:
Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.


In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

There is an easy remedy for this: the poll workers are not civil
servants or otherwise employed by the government, but selected from the
general population by the parties.

In this way, both sides watch over each other. And the task is so
simple and transparent, that everybody can understand it after a few
minutes if instruction.

But, back to the question:
Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12-mains voltage(120/230V depending on
location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of
disabling a computer?

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,569
Default EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...


In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.


In some countries voting is not compulsory, so your extra 10% would go
undetected when the turnout was 50%, say.

Believe or not, in Australia the only requirement for identifying
yourself at the polling station was to tell the booth attendant your
name. S/he would then locate it in a paper directory and draw a line
through it. This meant that you could vote several times at several
polling booths by impersonating other electors.

IMHO, paper ballots are an anachronism that should have died long ago.
I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. AISI, electronic voting is an
inevitable progression.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"


I wouldn't trust Putin with any ballot, paper or otherwise. Would you?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,569
Default EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter
put finger to keyboard and composed:

But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in
the voting machines.


Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is
to the ballot boxes:

"And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored
by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the
elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat."

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,569
Default EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:37 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed:

But, back to the question:
Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12-mains voltage(120/230V depending on
location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of
disabling a computer?


To me, you are just like those Green zealots who want to impose their
anti-GM ideology on the rest of the world by destroying experimental
crops. If you don't agree with something, then you feel justified in
vandalising it. To me the solution is simple -- if you don't like
electronic voting, then vote against it. ISTM that a referendum would
be in order.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default EMP weapon

I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring
that electronic voting is safe and reliable.


It's quite capable of being safe and reliable. It's just that the people who
manufacture the voting machines aren't safe and reliable.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default EMP weapon

In article ,
Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.


Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the
electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from
some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element.

What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying
electronics? I gather that these things put out a magnetic field
with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range.



Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 907
Default EMP weapon

Leif Neland wrote:
Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the
peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can
understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...


In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.

Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty,
when it is locked.
And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by
members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected
party members), so it is not easy to cheat.

It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000
election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all
alike, could be done by very few.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"

Leif


Here in Canada our last federal election has been tainted with a
possible Robo-Call attack on voters. The way this works is first a party
figures out who is likely to vote for them and who is not, then the day
of the election they call the people (a robot does the calling) to tell
them that the polling station has moved to a new location...

Now you only need to do this in a few close-call ridings and you only
need to divert a few people so you don't tip your hand...

However Elections Canada is looking into this and if they can ever
figure out who Pierre Poutine is (Poutine is a Canadian 'delicacy') they
might be able to track down who set this up.

So, even paper ballots with scrutineers of all parties can be defeated
by unscrupulous people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall_scandal

Sad when this sort of things happens, but it generally ****es people off
enough that they get involved with other parties than the ones suspected
of perpetrating the robo-calls (I hope!).

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,236
Default EMP weapon

On Jan 13, 6:22*pm, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
Leif Neland wrote:

Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?


It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.


Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the
electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from
some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element.

What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying
electronics? *I gather that these things put out a magnetic field
with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)


I don't know, but to use it at a polling place you would have to adapt
it to battery operation and then lug around an awfully big battery box.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:37 +0100, Leif Neland
wrote:

har bragt dette til verden:
Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.


In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

There is an easy remedy for this: the poll workers are not civil
servants or otherwise employed by the government, but selected from the
general population by the parties.

In this way, both sides watch over each other. And the task is so
simple and transparent, that everybody can understand it after a few
minutes if instruction.

But, back to the question:
Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12-mains voltage(120/230V depending on
location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of
disabling a computer?

Maybe, maybe not; it depends on the degree of shielding around the
computer.

As others have suggested, you are using the wrong approach. If you
manage manage to disable the voting machines you will probably be
identified rather quickly, the suitcase would certainly arouse
curiosity.

A more effective approach would be to illustrate obviously incorrect
results in an election - one where the total number of votes for
certain candidates (ideally those belonging to parties who have few
followers) receive more votes than there were voters.

PlainBill
  #21   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 199
Default EMP weapon

Franc Zabkar formulerede spørgsmålet:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter
put finger to keyboard and composed:

But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in
the voting machines.


Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is
to the ballot boxes:

"And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored
by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the
elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat."


It is easy to find 10000 people who can understand how paper ballots
work and how they are secured.

To find ten people who understand how electronic voting works and how
to make it both secure and anonymous is hard. You might find 100 who
*thinks* they know.

And if the rest of the population doesn't trust the machines, or the
machine-attenders democracy is in trouble.

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default EMP weapon

On 1/14/2013 10:26 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Franc Zabkar formulerede spørgsmålet:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter
put finger to keyboard and composed:

But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded
in the voting machines.


Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is
to the ballot boxes:

"And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored
by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the
elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat."


It is easy to find 10000 people who can understand how paper ballots
work and how they are secured.

To find ten people who understand how electronic voting works and how to
make it both secure and anonymous is hard. You might find 100 who
*thinks* they know.

And if the rest of the population doesn't trust the machines, or the
machine-attenders democracy is in trouble.


By pressure of a hacking group "we don't trust voting compters"
the Netherlands is back to a paper ballot system.
They found that with a simple receiver you can say what a person is voting.

More to read:
http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 796
Default EMP weapon

On Jan 13, 5:22*pm, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
Leif Neland wrote:

Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?


It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.


Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the
electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from
some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element.

What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying
electronics? *I gather that these things put out a magnetic field
with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)


Rather narrow band and fairly easy to protect electronics against.
It's the ? to multi GHz that do the most damage, since very few
electronics can effectively protect against the WHOLE spectrum.
Envision how the EMP finds the resonances and then ....
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,630
Default EMP weapon

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default EMP weapon



wrote in message
...

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that

electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS



Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology when
we believe it isn't.


Gareth.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default EMP weapon

On 1/16/2013 11:36 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:


wrote in message
...

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that

electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS



Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology
when we believe it isn't.


Gareth.


Just chill out and wait.
Won't be long before we all have 'chips' and big brother knows exactly where
we are at all times. Will be hard to impersonate someone without
creating a network address conflict.
And our leaders will be selected by power brokers and lobbyists...just
like they are now.
Problem solved!!!
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default EMP weapon



"mike" wrote in message ...

On 1/16/2013 11:36 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:


wrote in message
...

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that

electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS



Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology
when we believe it isn't.


Gareth.


Just chill out and wait.
Won't be long before we all have 'chips' and big brother knows exactly where
we are at all times. Will be hard to impersonate someone without
creating a network address conflict.
And our leaders will be selected by power brokers and lobbyists...just
like they are now.
Problem solved!!!



Hmm, George Orwell couldn't have been more wrong. But then he didn't
foresee the Internet, and how could he have done.

The idea that you can "rise up" and "destroy the machines" is an idea just
as outdated, IMHO.


Gareth.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default EMP weapon

The idea that you can "rise up" and "destroy the machines" is an idea just
as outdated, IMHO.




Oh, didn't Arnie do that though? And he got to be Governor of California
for quite a while?

Hmm, maybe there's something in that after all then.


Gareth.


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,148
Default EMP weapon

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".

Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri,
all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.

Jon
  #31   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default EMP weapon


Jon Elson wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".

Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri,
all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.



What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read
by the machines in the voting precincts.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0100, Leif Neland wrote:

Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...


In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.


So, nobody told you about the graveyard voters? Let alone people with
multiple addresses? Cooking the vote with paper ballots is a century old
practice at least.

Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty,
when it is locked.
And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by
members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected
party members), so it is not easy to cheat.


That might help some. It discourages stupid ways of cheating.

It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000
election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all
alike, could be done by very few.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"

Leif

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 199
Default EMP weapon

Følgende er skrevet af josephkk:


So, nobody told you about the graveyard voters? Let alone people with
multiple addresses? Cooking the vote with paper ballots is a century old
practice at least.



I forgot to tell that I live in a country where everybody is registered
at birth with a "Person-number". We get sent a voting card printed from
that registry sent to our registered adress.
This voting card is exchanged with a blank ballot at the voting place.
So there is not possible to vote twice.

In Egypt 2000 years BC they had proper registers of the population, but
I guess this is too complicated to have in USA :-)

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,148
Default EMP weapon

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Jon Elson wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".

Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in
Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant
paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.



What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read
by the machines in the voting precincts.

Yes, the states that use mark-sense cards certainly have physical ballots
that can be checked in a recount, or just spot checked to assure the
computer counts match the physical ballots.

I think Ohio may be one of the states that used touch-screen voting
with no paper generated at the polling place. That is worrisome,
and there have been some anomalies reported, like zero votes for some
candidate in an entire precinct.

Jon
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default EMP weapon


Jon Elson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Jon Elson wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".
Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in
Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant
paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.



What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read
by the machines in the voting precincts.

Yes, the states that use mark-sense cards certainly have physical ballots
that can be checked in a recount, or just spot checked to assure the
computer counts match the physical ballots.

I think Ohio may be one of the states that used touch-screen voting
with no paper generated at the polling place. That is worrisome,
and there have been some anomalies reported, like zero votes for some
candidate in an entire precinct.



Another good reason to have left Ohio, so many decades ago.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Racism is the only weapon a progressive losing an argument has. Phil Kangas[_4_] Metalworking 0 July 10th 12 11:29 PM
Frying pan murder weapon Stormin Mormon[_7_] Metalworking 1 April 28th 12 02:33 PM
Table project - defensive weapon HeyBub[_3_] Woodworking 0 December 15th 11 01:45 PM
Battlebots Good Weapon Material? AJ Quick Metalworking 47 December 30th 04 04:16 PM
Building full-auto weapon Tom Gardner Metalworking 22 May 7th 04 02:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"