PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Art of War : E Voting
by Larmee Monday, Oct. 09, 2006 at 11:51 PM

Diebold

electronic-voting_diebold__larmee.jpg, image/jpeg, 720x816

- VIDEO: Clinton Eugene Curtis testifies under oath: U.S. House Judiciary Committee:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5851494414241212085&q=Clinton+Eugene+Curtis&hl=en


- VIDEO re: Johns Hopkins Computer Expert’s Hacking Electronic Voting Machines:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3074338748583195498&q=electronic+voting&hl=en


- VIDEO re: Princeton University: Hacking Diebold E-Voting Machines:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8673726680080882009&q=diebold&hl=en


- PAPER : Princeton University: Hacking Diebold Voting Machines
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

Main Findings The main findings of our study are:
1. Malicious software running on a single voting machine can steal votes with little if any risk of detection. The malicious software can modify all of the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machine, so that even careful forensic examination of these records will find nothing amiss. We have constructed demonstration software that carries out this vote-stealing attack.
2. Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.
3. AccuVote-TS machines are susceptible to voting-machine viruses — computer viruses that can spread malicious software automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- and post-election activity. We have constructed a demonstration virus that spreads in this way, installing our demonstration vote-stealing program on every machine it infects.

- Rolling Stone:
- http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

-
- But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities -- as much as 9.5 percent -- with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)
-
According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000.
.
-

- PENNSYLVANIA: A nonpartisan and diverse group of Pennsylvania voters filed a lawsuit today in Commonwealth Court to halt the use of electronic voting machines that do not create a permanent physical record of each vote….

http://www.voteraction.org/States/Pennsylvania/PA.html

Google: Diebold

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8673726680080882009&q=diebold&hl=en