Posted on 11/19/2009 12:11:23 PM PST by Howard Morrison
GOUVERNEUR, NY - The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus - tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines
(Excerpt) Read more at gouverneurtimes.com ...
Smartmatin owns Sequoia and Bitza was/is the software company that provides programs that drive the machines.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=919&Itemid=162
“...The interlocking Venezuelan ownership of Smartmatic and Bizta takes on a more interesting aspect when you consider that these two companies supplied the hardware (converted Olivetti lottery machines) and software used in Venezuela’s hotly disputed recall election of president Hugo Chavez in 2004. Despite pre-election polls that indicated Chavez would lose the recall vote by over 55%...”
Bitza Software Venezuela:
SC probes Smartmatic’s shady past | ABS-CBN News Online Beta
30 Jul 2009 ... Laragan presented to the Court a certification from Venezuela’s Consejo ... The report found that Bitza, which partnered with Smartmatic to obtain ... awarded the contract for the machines while Bitza for the software. ...
www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/.../sc-probes-smartmatic’s-shady-past - Cached
That or the “fill in the oval” ones used in many Texas precincts.
Haxors!
Just use a blank sheet of paper with just the offices on it. May they lead an interesting life and no notes.
It’s the Rhinovirus!
The first official use of a lever type voting machine, known then as the “Myers Automatic Booth,” occurred in Lockport, New York in 1892. Four years later, they were employed on a large scale in the city of Rochester, New York, and soon were adopted statewide. By 1930, lever machines had been installed in virtually every major city in the United States, and by the 1960’s well over half of the Nation’s votes were being cast on these machines.
Mechanical lever machines were used by 20.7% of registered voters in the United States as of the 1996 Presidential election. Because these machines are no longer made, the trend is to replace them with computer-based marksense or direct recording electronic systems.
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney - U.S. Voting Machine Company’s ...
5 May 2006 ... Smartmatic teamed up with a Venezuelan software company, Bitza, which at the time was 28% owned by Chavez’s government. ...
maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view... - Cached
Is there a Bitza/ACORN/SEIU connection?
It is not the problem you don't understand, it is the plan, that evades you. :)
What is the difference between putting a gun to your head and preventing you from voting; or committing voter fraud? What is the difference between a political coup, or voter fraud? Either way, the will of the people is thwarted by a small group of individuals, who in turn impose their will upon the population.
I view this as more heinous than simply murdering a dozen innocent people; they are denying the most basic rights of millions of people. I don't hold their lives in such high esteem; I say send them to God to determine their eternal punishment.
Hoffman must demand a paper recount for the entire district.
Bev Harris is only $10 away from uncovering the truth!
Ping!
Go the linked article in the G.Times. Scroll to the FIRST comment.
It is easier for the RATs to alter or "find" more paper ballots than it is to jigger a huge number voting machines.
alt last sentence.
The electronic voting machine with a paper back up is absolutely the only method that a sane person who isn't a fool or a crook or some scum trying to steel an election. would use.
I need to put a roof on my shed I'll be back later.
You mean an OTPROM (a true ROM would have to be configured by having the factory use custom films in its production, which is only practical when making tens of thousands of identical chips). Actually, there's nothing wrong with EPROM or even EEPROM provided that there are clearly-visible and verifiable physical interlocks to control when it is written, and provided that snapshots of the contents are taken at the start and end of the election; each party should use its own equipment to perform the snapshot, and each party should supply digitally-signed copies of its snapshots to all the other parties.
The critical requirement for any decent voting machine is that there be no way for code to execute from anything other than a write-protected storage medium. If the storage medium is write-protected before the election (in a way that could not be defeated without being detectable), each parties takes a snap-shot (and the parties confirm that they match), the medium locked into the machine in such a way that it cannot be undetectably removed and replaced (e.g. by having every party supply a padlock), and if all parties confirm after the election that the code image is unchanged, I don't think anyone would be able to tamper with the equipment.
It's possible to construct electronic systems that are more fraud-resistant than paper ballots. On the other hand, it will do little good to have a system where any fraud will be detectable if (as was the case in Washington state's gubernatorial election) those in power are willing to ignore clear and obvious irregularities.
How did the virus get into the voting machines? Had to be inserted by a human.....Who had access to the program? FBI need to be called?
Bev Harris? Isn’t she of DUFU fame? Or should I say infamy?
Whether ROM or simple segregated code, there is always the black box existence of code, some code written by someone unseen.
Years ago, many many years ago in the 2000 presidential elections, there was a huge forum of discussions on this very same issue of electronic voting. The conclusion was and still is that one can never make hidden code 100% free of fraud and tampering.
The simple example used in those discussions was that a machine can be activated to a different subroutine by the casting of a deliberate nonsensical vote.
For example, someone that votes for both Barney Frank and George Bush and against same-sex marriage and who is pro-abortion but against illegal immigration, etc.
When such a nonsensical vote would be cast, a piece of code would detect the specific sequence of nonsense votes and activate a subroutine that would return 2 votes for a designated issue or candidate for every one genuine vote in opposition.
Check sums are easy to defeat if code is written to match a checksum result. Security of paper ballots is even easier to circumvent, as the article describes, there is no provision against stuffing the ballots after the fact and no security for them while they are in a public space..
The whole idea of having nontransparent code govern an election is dangerous. Nothing can make it completely secure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.