Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

261 comments

Good job on behalf of the hacker (5, Insightful)

Cito (1725214) | about 3 years ago | (#36648322)

Hopefully this can help finally shed light on voting fraud to stuff the ballots in our election process. I've never been one for electronic voting as it's so much more easily tampered with. And only reason it's pushed so much is due to companies like diebold and the media who push so they can have up to the second voter tallies so they can sound like they are on top of everything when reporting.

It needs to go back to the old way, which wasn't perfect, but was hell of a lot better than electronic voting.

Eat my GPL'd penis! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648346)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                                              Version 3, 29 June 2007

  Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                                        Preamble

    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

    To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

    To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

    To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

    1. Source Code.

    The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

    A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

    The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.

    The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

    2. Basic Permissions.

    All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

    You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

    Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

    3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

    No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.

    When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
        it, and giving a relevant date.

        b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
        released under this License and any conditions added under section
        7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
        "keep intact all notices".

        c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
        License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
        License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
        additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
        regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
        permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
        invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

        d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
        Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
        interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
        work need not make them do so.

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

        a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
        Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
        customarily used for software interchange.

        b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

        c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
        written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
        alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
        only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
        with subsection 6b.

        d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
        place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
        Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
        further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
        Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
        copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
        may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
        that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
        clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
        Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
        Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
        available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

        e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
        you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
        Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
        charge under subsection 6d.

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

    A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

    If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

    The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

    Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

    When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

        a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
        terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

        b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
        author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
        Notices displayed by works containing it; or

        c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
        requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
        reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

        d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
        authors of the material; or

        e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
        trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

        f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
        material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
        it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
        any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
        those licensors and authors.

    All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

    If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

    Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

    8. Termination.

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).

    However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

    Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

    Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

    An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

    11. Patents.

    A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

    A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

    Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

    In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

    If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

    A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

    Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

    12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

    If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

    13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

    14. Revised Versions of this License.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

    15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

    THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    16. Limitation of Liability.

    IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

    17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

    If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                        How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
        Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

    If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

        <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
        This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

    The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

Re:Eat my GPL'd penis! (1, Troll)

Lanteran (1883836) | about 3 years ago | (#36649260)

hm, interesting. What is with these trolls posting the full text of the gpl every few days? Anyway, real trolls release their penises under the WTFPL.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 3 years ago | (#36648356)

As long as there isn't positive identification of voters at the voting booth, there will always be rampant fraud in some areas. Eliminate the hacker prone, but require state ID to vote.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#36648376)

Better than requiring ID would be to burn their hand with a branding iron when they vote. It would pretty hard to hide that

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648492)

In mexico we require ID and put some ink on the persons thumb. it's kinda hard to remove. no impossible by any means, but I'm sure someone could come up with something harder to remove, that would last for a few days.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648560)

I'm pretty sure we want to avoid modelling our system after mexico when it comes to election fraud. ;)

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648668)

Okay, so are you also going to ignore UV dye in your CS Spray just because a Mexican may also want to UV dye an attacker?

Or lemme guess, you don't carry CS because you are an indestructible American Ninja. Got it.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 3 years ago | (#36648964)

shhh! There's no such thing as Ninjas. And if you don't quiet down they might hear you and come and kill us all in the night... :)

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648766)

And a few days later, people who voted for the loser will just disappear.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648612)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what countertrolling says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

(Don't get lured into their journals either. That's their main goal along with getting these data points that way. Just ignore them and they will be powerless before you know it (no mod points)).

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (2, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 3 years ago | (#36648438)

Maybe we should re-evaluate the secret ballot. It would seem like fraud is always possible as long as ballots can't be linked one to one with a person. Even with paper ballots, someone can always steal or destroy or fill out fake ones.

Why not just go ahead and make it all verifiable?

When you show up to vote, they print a bar code off on two labels. One goes into the log book next to your name, the matching label goes on the ballot.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (4, Insightful)

damiangerous (218679) | about 3 years ago | (#36648460)

Why not just go ahead and make it all verifiable? Coercion. An employer or union boss can easily make sure their people vote the "right" way if they want to keep their jobs.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648482)

there was once a very good ted talk on voting process with a nice scheme to make it verifiable for the person that voted but not for anybody else.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 3 years ago | (#36648622)

Verifiable != public

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 3 years ago | (#36648658)

Verifiable != public

You are funny. :-)

Someone will always have access to it.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 3 years ago | (#36648780)

someone != everyone

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648810)

funny != everyone

Wait a minute. I kind a got lost with the thread here. .. what were we talking about again?

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36648840)

someone != everyone

That statement was made obsolete with the Internet.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | about 3 years ago | (#36648934)

although i agree with "someone != everyone". I really like the implications of your statement.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 3 years ago | (#36648890)

Verifiable != public

Some people feel that elections can be rigged and votes tampered with. One hacker, who goes by the name of Abhaxas, decided to prove that votes aren't secure by exposing parts of the Florida voting database. Said Abhaxas while posting the data, 'Who believes voting isn't tampered with?'

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648778)

Do you live in 1930's Chicago? Because where I work, if my boss even HINTED at trying to tell me how to vote he'd be in court so fast his lawyer would still be buttoning his shirt.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (3, Insightful)

damiangerous (218679) | about 3 years ago | (#36649152)

Everyone is not you. A great many people are poor, unskilled, uneducated laborers and often immigrants. They're already easily abused by employers due to lack of knowledge of labor laws, lack of resources to do anything about it and/or fear of repercussions.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648808)

I am on vacation in Nicaragua, they vote here by registering their cell phone number and calling in their vote, strangely enough the losers have a very difficult time getting contracts, especially if their business is linked to their phone.... secret votes are a good thing, but they need to be secure, thats the part we have gotten wrong.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

parlancex (1322105) | about 3 years ago | (#36648912)

So? Employers can already coerce employees' behavior literally 2 billion other ways that they shouldn't be able to. This is a bullshit reason. Fix the problem by updating your country's archaic labor legislation.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36649078)

The thing is that the secret ballot means that they can't coerce votes, which is what the secret ballot is about. The secret ballot doesn't directly protect against anything other coercion, but it isn't intended to. This isn't a bullshit reason and you clearly haven't thought your response through.

The secret ballot is crucial to fair elections. Note that I am not saying it is the only thing required for fair elections; it is only one of the requirements.

While fixing the other ways that employers can influence employees inappropriately is clearly important, it is orthogonal. In so far as it isn't orthogonal, the people's ability to elect a strong government (to stand for them against large groups, such as corporations) is an important protection

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#36649226)

Why not just go ahead and make it all verifiable?
Coercion. An employer or union boss can easily make sure their people vote the "right" way if they want to keep their jobs.

Please don't fire me. I voted for him. I could not make my daddy vote for him. From the '30's.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648856)

Something like this already happens in my area. A copy of the ballot number is entered into a logbook next to your name before you are allowed to vote.
This could be used to trace my vote back to me.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1, Insightful)

Evets (629327) | about 3 years ago | (#36648696)

why exactly would this help? All ID requirements do is disenfranchise lower income voters. It has nothing to do with protecting vote data.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648772)

Exactly where are these areas where rampant fraud is actually occurring, and what is the extent of the rampancy?

Oh wait...it's not.

The state ID BS is just an excuse to impose a burden, not a solution to a real and actual problem. It'd be one thing if there was a dedicated and diligent effort to make the ID's available free of charge to all citizens, but let's not pretend that is happening, because it is not. I do not know about Florida, I do not know about wherever you live but over 1/3 of the counties in my state do not have a place to get that state photo ID. So a person might have to travel over an hour to get an ID, even ignoring the time spent waiting at the DMV.

So...yeah, no thank you.
 

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36648832)

This Ohio Republican representative got his license pulled because he was driving drunk. If the election was tomorrow he wouldn't be able to vote.

He's the sponsor of a bill to require photo ID in order to vote.

The sponsor of an Ohio bill which restricts access to the ballot box was arrested back in April on drunk driving charges while he had a 26-year-old woman in his car and Viagra in his system, according to police reports.

On April 23, an Indiana state trooper pulled Rep. Robert Mecklenborg over for a burned out headlight on a 2004 Lexus he was driving. After failing three separate field sobriety tests, Mecklenborg allegedly refused to take a breath test and was placed under arrest. A blood test later revealed that he had recently taken a Viagra.

Laws requiring photo ID to vote only exist to keep poor people from voting. Let's not bullshit, here. How did the United States last 235 years without requiring photo IDs to vote? How come we haven't had any scandals involving ineligible people voting despite the Bush Administration promising to make it a priority?

If you want to do voter fraud by having ineligible people voting, it takes a lot of hard work. If you want to do it using electronic voting machines, it's trivial. How can you suggest that until we have laws keeping poor people from voting we shouldn't get rid of electronic voting? It's like ignoring the hole in the bottom of the boat because you want to make sure your captain's hat is on straight.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648904)

In Texas a Non-Driver Identification Card is $16 and expires in 6 years. If you are too poor to afford a car to bother taking/passing the driving test you can get just a regular ID.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36649218)

In Texas a Non-Driver Identification Card is $16 and expires in 6 years. If you are too poor to afford a car to bother taking/passing the driving test you can get just a regular ID.

You can go to senior citizen homes and not find a single photo ID among the residents. To get one, they'd have to get their birth certificate, which might require a trip to their home town if they were born before 1955.

Photo ID voter laws are only meant to keep poor people from voting. If you look through YouTube, you'll find Republicans admitting as much. Then there are the new residency requirements meant to keep students from voting.

This is not about the integrity of elections. Exactly the opposite in fact.

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#36649018)

A blood test later revealed that he had recently taken a Viagra. Wow. Is that a non sequitur or what? Just what the hell are they screening for in Ohio?

Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 3 years ago | (#36649136)

Individual voter fraud at the polls is hardly the main concern - and constitutes a red-herring.

It is the institutionalised, massively fraudulent manipulation of voting totals for which we ought to be concerned, not if Pedro got to vote, or if Tyrone votes twice.

Casey Anthony trial (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648338)

Closing arguments are underway.

None of this (except the passwords)... (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 3 years ago | (#36648350)

...should be secret anyway. The only part of an election that should be secret is how each individual voted.

Re:None of this (except the passwords)... (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 3 years ago | (#36648508)

How is this leak related to the poll? Its just the poll workers -- a separate system from the voting machines -- so how does this affect voting security at all?

Of course I agree that voting must be secret, integer, valid, transparent, accurate and reliable. Better use paper there, to allow independent verification.

Re:None of this (except the passwords)... (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#36648624)

Why do you need a machine to vote? Why not just pencil in an X next to the candidate's name like they do in other countries?

Re:None of this (except the passwords)... (5, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | about 3 years ago | (#36648820)

Why do you need a machine to vote? Why not just pencil in an X next to the candidate's name like they do in other countries?

How is anyone supposed to profit from that kind of scheme?

Re:None of this (except the passwords)... (4, Informative)

jc42 (318812) | about 3 years ago | (#36648906)

Why not just pencil in an X next to the candidate's name like they do in other countries?

Because that wouldn't produce income for the top people in the companies that make the electronic voting equipment. And, of course, those are people who have contributed to the re-election campaigns of the legislators who have promised to push electronic voting.

Also, it's pretty well understood that secret, verifiable elections aren't exactly popular with "incumbent" legislators.

Here in the US, we had that amusing case a couple of elections ago, where the CEO of Diebold (one of the main makers of electronic voting equipment) promised the Republicans in Ohio in writing that he would deliver Ohio to the Republicans in the next election. He delivered, too.

Actually, I think the best comment on this issue was this story [democratic...ground.com] . (For the benefit of the whoosh-impaired, I'll point out that this is a satirical site. ;-)

Re:None of this (except the passwords)... (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | about 3 years ago | (#36648670)

Oh .. "5","whatever","adavis"

You know what this means (1, Troll)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about 3 years ago | (#36648352)

We need to maintain the integrity of the voting process by collecting a tax on people who show up to vote and detaining them if they can't produce a long form birth certificate upon request.

Re:You know what this means (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 3 years ago | (#36648360)

That'd be beautiful, but it'd also be a poll tax which is unconstitutional. :)

The sentiment's well placed though. Of course the party that benefits most from this isn't the one that supposedly stole the presidential election. :) Just sayin'.... heh.

Re:You know what this means (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 3 years ago | (#36648368)

rather _IS_..... :) Oops.

Re:You know what this means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648388)

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm...

Re:You know what this means (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about 3 years ago | (#36648646)

...whoosh..

Maybe that was too far out there; I was making a veiled reference to the voter ID laws sold to fix all problems with elections.

Re:You know what this means (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#36648674)

How about the other way around? Tax everybody and then give them a refund if they show up to vote.

To make a secure voting machine (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648378)

That's the whole point of these voting machines, make it easier and save time for the users. A punchcard reader/sorta could easily accomplish that. You got physical validity and you get time saving. People can still mail in votes and a database that keeps only people who have voted already (and not who voted for who) could keep track of duplicate votes which puts up a *flag* for that person. If they done it this way, a database breach means little without physical access to the cards or machine.

What about dead people voting fraud and vote coercion for mail in votes? Stricter law enforcement and record keeping as those things already happens i suppose.

Re:To make a secure voting machine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648556)

I recall Florida really goofed up on this one.

Re:To make a secure voting machine (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 3 years ago | (#36648630)

I have a hanging chad that says you're wrong.

Bubble sheets - some states are smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36649116)

The state of MN, having had 2 close recounts and related lawsuits proved we have a robust system (well, to those who payed attention - the propaganda of the loser during the recount not withstanding.) We use PAPER fill in the bubble sheets which are optically counted by machine or by humans during a recount. No pencils, this are optical so any dark mark works (within reason) and we do not stupidly toss people who write in or write in the spouse or slightly misspell the name. We do however toss anything that has symbols which could be used to signal somebody you voted the way they wanted (for later pay off.)

Its a strong system and well thought out except for the computer side of things which is severely lacking in my expert opinion having seen it. Luckily we do have a fool proof paper fall back and a little accounting that make cheating quite difficult -- now if you can cheat by 1+% then recounts are not done and you can get off without signs of anything funny going on.

That having been said, they did manage to steal the Wellstone election using lawyers and a hasty addition to the process. Judges had to initial the ballots and so mine for example didn't count. Plus the handling was poor because it was forced after the fact without planning and rules; stupid or crook judges allowed it. They didn't count votes for the dead man and instead required the unknown replacement's name. Media totally fucked up everything on all levels as well. Outside of that mess our system was one of the strongest in the nation and now quite likely is one of the best. Its not just me saying it because my state is one of the best in the nation. (most americans probably don't even know its a state; especially the morons in those red states who live off our taxes-- partisan? no, I'm sick of my state paying out to support the broke ass red necks who want to lower this state down to theirs.)

Total non-sequitur (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#36648402)

So the fact that he was able to access a list of voters is supposed to prove that votes are rigged? How exactly does that follow?

Voter fraud is a non-existent problem. It's a bogeyman used to get people scared so that they agree to more restrictions on voting, which in turn disenfranchises those who might otherwise resist the powers that be. It also serves the double duty of de-legitimizing any political opponents. Don't like the incumbent? Call him an imposter, and that way you can scream hatred and bile against him at every moment, and your supporters won't question it, because you've given them a way to rationalize all the hate.

Re:Total non-sequitur (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648416)

First of all, votes are supposed to be confidential.

Second, you don't need electronic voting to get fast results. Canada still uses paper ballots and they have their final results within 24 hours.

Re:Total non-sequitur (2)

mevets (322601) | about 3 years ago | (#36648550)

Canadas federal ballots only have a single question: choose one of N candidates. Provincial ones are similar. Rarely you may get handed two ballots, one with a question of some burning issue. Municipal have more; often three ballots. Federal, Provincial and Municipal elections are always held on separate days.

It is a lot easier to count these than the questionnaire that US voters are to fill out. I know you can just hit "party ticket", but they still have to be looked at.

Re:Total non-sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648826)

To be fair, we have 1/10th the US' population

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 3 years ago | (#36648426)

While I agree that the vast majority of the allegations of "vote fraud" are, just as you say, a bogey-man aimed at stirring up a disaffected group of voters, closed electronic voting systems make it far easier to actually rig an election while at the same time, making it almost impossible to detect such shenanigans. Either open up the technology to audit and review or chuck it.

Re:Total non-sequitur (4, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | about 3 years ago | (#36648470)

The point is that if he hacked in and and got this junk, someone could just as easily have gotten in and altered the data. I don't put it beyond corporations to under-the-table hire hackers to accomplish their end-goals (namely because I've seen it happen), and hacking a voter database is a pretty obvious target.

And that's only the corporation side of things....

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648812)

But he hasn't proven that he as access to anything that is not public. He's provided a dump of public data that should be public data.

He hasn't even shown access to any tables that contain vote counts... not one. Simple fact of the matter is that he hasn't proven or even demonstrated access to any data that could be used to directory manipulate an election.

The only thing I see is links to voter reports. If they manipulated those links/documents on election day they might be able to point media outlets to documents that would change their reporting and disenfranchise voters... but that's a very huge stretch.

Re:Total non-sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648976)

Care to point to public voting records? Thought so.

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | about 3 years ago | (#36649002)

you will know anonymous has gotten into your electronic voting system when Guy Fawks or Chuck Norris gets elected. Paper ballots are just as easy to tamper with... the is i just the old case of http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Total non-sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36649022)

(namely because I've seen it happen)

And have you reported it? I doubt it. On both counts.

Re:Total non-sequitur (4, Interesting)

geek (5680) | about 3 years ago | (#36648506)

Re:Total non-sequitur (3, Informative)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 3 years ago | (#36648794)

I can counter your right wing sources with left wing ones:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/27/153179/report-from-poll-taxes-to-voter-id-laws-a-short-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/ [thinkprogress.org]
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-suppression-bills-sweep-country [prwatch.org]
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/voter-fraud-or-voter-suppression [motherjones.com]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/15/voter_suppression [salon.com]

While I do think there is some voter fraud in the modern era, and would point to Florida in the 2000 election and Ohio in 2004, it is often twisted and blown out of proportion to fuel a hysteria that we need to make it harder to vote. So we end up with laws that make it harder to vote for those who vote Democratic. I find it hard to believe that is an accident.

What we need is a way to verify votes that does not end up constituting an effective poll tax, and keeping people who have a right to vote from the polls. I wonder if any slashdot readers have any suggestions? I'd be quite hopeful on that account, some rather clever people read this site and have left encouraging comments on past articles about voting.

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

therefore (1076249) | about 3 years ago | (#36649102)

Interesting sources. 1. Writing in Human Events, a conservative magazine. an editor of the National Review (ditto), weaves several speculative ways voter fraud *could* occur and then lists two people who were in fact convicted. Two. Even though he links to Pajamas Media (ditto) which, with no citation, talks about "indictments, convictions, or investigation" in other states. 2. Missouri Watchdog & a local news program identified one *possible* "dead voter" but the article does allow for a clerical error. This was a 9 months ago and I can find no other follow up about this problem. This report came right before the November election and was handled with the typical "scary voice". This is the state that wants to raise the bar even further by requiring proof of citizenship (original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport), because, naturally, illegals must be voting illegally in droves, which will go further to disenfranchise voters. 3. My favorite was the Washington Post link which has nothing whatsoever to do with voter fraud. It has to do with legislation that allows for this time line: Voter mails in absentee ballot. Subsequently dies before the vote count. Should his vote be counted? The legislation said yes. This is typical of the documentation of "rampant voter fraud" (vs. registration fraud which is an entirely different animal). I don't know about voter fraud, but voter suppression is certainly a national tradition.

Re:Total non-sequitur (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36648610)

Voter fraud is a non-existent problem.

It's not quite non-existent. It's not hard to find residents of Chicago or Philadelphia who were part of political machines that regularly placed fraudulent votes. For instance, a common tactic was (maybe still is) to use dead people's names and addresses.

However, efforts to restrict voting (at least in the US) have far more to do with disenfranchising poor people and black people than they do with any actual risk of fraud. For instance, photo ID requirements, a mere annoyance for middle-class white folks with a driver's license, are an insurmountable burden for members of the underclass that survive on public housing and food assistance. One tell-tale sign here is that the focus is on somebody who shows up to the polls and tries to cast a fraudulent vote, rather than the much easier ways of committing election fraud on a significant scale like manipulating the persons or machines responsible for counting the votes or effectively ballot-stuffing. If you were, say, a secretary of state with ties to a party's political campaign trying to commit election fraud, which would be easier - making a vulnerable voting machine and changing a number in Microsoft Access, or organizing hundreds of thousands of people to go to the polls and fraudulently casting votes?

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

jjjhs (2009156) | about 3 years ago | (#36649050)

A Texas ID Card costs $16 for 6 years, and in Florida it's $25 for 8 years. You do not have to have a car and take/pass the driving test in order to get a photo id. $25 is five $5 scratch-offs or a few cases of beer or smokes..

Re:Total non-sequitur (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 3 years ago | (#36649182)

If everyone had to get a special voting ID the number of eligible voters would drop 90%. No one would bother to go through the bureaucracy and pay good money for the privilege to vote for two worthless parties.

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 3 years ago | (#36649192)

just because the right to vote is worth less than $16 to someone, should we rescind it?

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | about 3 years ago | (#36649056)

making a vulnerable voting machine and changing a number in Microsoft Access,

just as likely to be that simple as having a region report a wrong count in your favor.

you don't think the software that takes the vote isn't auditing the data? you don't think this audited data isn't checked against the central repository for votes? you don't think they'd have specialists checking the data for anomalies or unexpected results?

to get away with it completely unscathed, the political party would have to have control over all the regional media (to give people the impression they are winning), access to the machine that takes the votes, access to the server who counts the votes, tackle the paper trail that's designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse etc. etc. etc.

90% of the work to successfully manipulate the polls is done without touching the votes, paper vs electronic is pretty much inconsequential as far as vote security is concerned.

Re:Total non-sequitur (3, Insightful)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | about 3 years ago | (#36649064)

For instance, photo ID requirements, a mere annoyance for middle-class white folks with a driver's license, are an insurmountable burden for members of the underclass that survive on public housing and food assistance.

Pray, do tell, how people that are able to sign up and live off of the public dole, then become too stupid (or otherwise unable) to get a FREE photo ID. Make the photo ID part of the requirement to use these benefits, and you'll cut down on foodstamp fraud too. This whole idea about poor people unable to get ID (which can be verified) is a disingenuous strawman arguement. "insurmountable burden", my ass - just another reason to perpetuate voter fraud!

Re:Total non-sequitur (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 3 years ago | (#36649264)

The incentive for food and shelter is a lot more pressing than voting. You are being disingenuous if you don't admit that an ID requirement will mean that almost all people without cars will end up not voting. And it is pretty clear that Republicans are the ones with the strawman argument, since cheating in elections is practically the only political strategy they have left.

Re:Total non-sequitur (2)

tyrione (134248) | about 3 years ago | (#36649292)

For instance, photo ID requirements, a mere annoyance for middle-class white folks with a driver's license, are an insurmountable burden for members of the underclass that survive on public housing and food assistance.

Pray, do tell, how people that are able to sign up and live off of the public dole, then become too stupid (or otherwise unable) to get a FREE photo ID. Make the photo ID part of the requirement to use these benefits, and you'll cut down on foodstamp fraud too. This whole idea about poor people unable to get ID (which can be verified) is a disingenuous strawman arguement. "insurmountable burden", my ass - just another reason to perpetuate voter fraud!

Don't know which state you come from but a Personal ID is not FREE. It's $20 in Washington State. The Driver's License ranges from $25 to $50. Then of course you need proof of identity which requires a Notary Public Stamped Birth Certificate [another $25+ for the Notary Public stamp, and additional fee for the Birth Certificate at the Court House, plus you need to make sure your SS Card is on you to get the Birth Certificate. If you don't you have to go and have that, but if you are a homeless person I doubt you have much proof]. With 40% of the US in poverty that's one helluva a lot of disenfranchised voters. To answer your first statement, most people aren't signed up living off the public dole. The one's living off of their own invested Unemployment Insurance don't need a card. There are millions of homeless people who aren't on Welfare.

Re:Total non-sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648730)

Of course the real non-sequitur is the hidden assumption that it makes any difference whatsoever which guy gets elected (whether due to tampering or other means).

So what if pollworkers passwords are compromised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648414)

If poll workers can change votes, then the legitimacy of the election is already compromised. The fact that someone posted their passwords online doesn't do much more harm.

Re:So what if pollworkers passwords are compromise (4, Informative)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648638)

You're misunderstanding "poll workers"... these are lobby groups who are outside the polls trying to influence your votes, look at the pollworker_links table later in the dump. They're tracking who was there and who they represent... which is exactly what they should be doing. And yes, this data should be public (by law actually).

This is public election data, not voting data (3, Informative)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648448)

If anyone took 30 seconds to scan this scandalous "voting" data it's very apparent that this is data about the elections and not the actual voting or voters. All of this data can and should be public knowledge (e.g. Elections, Candidates, Races, what special interest groups are working the polls as well as voter statistics). A quick google search will give you almost all of this data because want it should be public knowledge.

This would be a story if this data wasn't available.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648486)

Though it is not clearly stated, I believe it is implied that the vote table could have been dumped as easily.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648490)

And who's to say he didn't have access to that data and chose instead to post only public information due to a moral high ground. To those that know how the machines work they would know that if he had access to that data fro. That source, then he had access to the more sensitive as well. I'm not saying that this is the case but lack of posting private. Information doesn't mean anything really. It just shows that he got into one of those machines

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (1)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648616)

Then he should have provided some proof that he had access to the data or could have manipulated it. For example, there are X number of registered voters in zip code Y voted for Z. He could have even show a table structure that linked election data to voters (e.g. this election had table key 12345678 and here's a count of voters for 12345678. He hasn't provided any evidence of an actually breach of voting casting records, just that he has access public data in a sql database.

And don't get me wrong, that's not a good thing... if you can manipulate voting stats/reports on an election night you can change an election... but this article makes it sound like they have access to actual voting casting records which there is zero proof of. Everything shown is public record.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648846)

In order to link voter X with zip code Y who voted for Z you would have to have a not-secret ballot. The systems are designed to prevent this linkage of voter to votes. Although if you are clever enough to follow the time line of roster check ins / signings with vote casting, it's not too hard to figure out.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (1)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648900)

Okay... so we're dealing with two different issues:
1. Determining who voted for who (breach of privacy)
2. Manipulating cast votes (voting fraud)
The issue raised by this article was voting fraud in which case you don't need to link a vote to a voter you just need to manipulate votes in a way that's not detectible. So you're changing the overall votes not someones specific vote (which you'd want to avoid at all cost).

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (1)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648528)

I'll add to this that the voting roster and your voting record (when and where) are public record as well... the only thing that's private is who you voted for. Everything else is a matter of public knowledge and should be, this is the only way you can keep things honest. If there are X number of votes, that should match X number of registered voters. By the same token, districts should only have X number of voters and you should only vote in your district (which is why you need to know where someone voted).

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (0)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#36648672)

Why should a person's race be an issue when holding an election? That data shouldn't be available. Recording it makes the US a racist country.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (4, Informative)

thesandbender (911391) | about 3 years ago | (#36648762)

I'm assuming you're not from the U.S. A "race" here is referring to the election and not the ethnicity of the person or person(s) involved. The literal translation in this sense in "contest"... i.e. the "race" to the finish line. You'll notice that there's a "race" lookup table which contains Sheriff, Councilman, etc. It's referring to those "contests", not black, white, asian, latino, etc.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (1)

tyrione (134248) | about 3 years ago | (#36649316)

I'm assuming you're not from the U.S. A "race" here is referring to the election and not the ethnicity of the person or person(s) involved. The literal translation in this sense in "contest"... i.e. the "race" to the finish line. You'll notice that there's a "race" lookup table which contains Sheriff, Councilman, etc. It's referring to those "contests", not black, white, asian, latino, etc.

You don't have to be from the USA to have enough brains to scan the table headers and figure out that race doesn't pertain to ethnicity. That reminds me of people reading into headlines and jumping to conclusions when if they read the context of an article they should be pissed off at how misleading the article title is as bait for you to read the story.

Re:This is public election data, not voting data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36649300)

This would be a story if this data wasn't available.

This is Amerika, Land of the Free (remove shoes, citizen) and Home of the Brave (Yes Sir! Right Away Sir!). EVERYTHING is secret except to the government and marketing organizations. Who know everything. But we can trust them, right officer?

Is this news ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648474)

For what it's worth. The database of registered voters is effectively available to the public provided you pay the county registrar for a copy. It includes everything a voter enters on the registration form, some fields are optional like occupation.

Not a Rickroll, but close. (1, Offtopic)

cvtan (752695) | about 3 years ago | (#36648478)

You tricked me into clicking on a link that had an ad for Glen Beck!!! ARRGGH!

I voted against e-votes in the 2008 election (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 3 years ago | (#36648618)

I voted: Protest E-vote. Will anyone know? No one but who reads this post, but I do protest the things. At any moment, someone could elect anyone they wanted simply by controlling any of the many machines involved. All you need to do is be a programmer, or a manager, and you can elect people at risk of jailtime.

I've always felt for it to be secure, there should be a paper trail which says who you voted for, then you pull a handle, and it gets filtered in the bin. Some bean counters will have the responsibility for checking the paper against the outcome, and viola, you're no longer trusting entirely in Diebold. Live free or Diebold. Oh I heard they changed their name just so people can't make that joke anymore.

No safe votes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648652)

Nothing new here. All voting can be tampered with. It's just as easy for a human ballot counter to count with a bias as it is for someone to code something up, or mess with a database. Voting this way is a flawed concept.

We need a better system, like having all candidates participate as contestants on one of those crazy Japanese game shows. This would immediately disqualify Sara Palin, as she can't even find Japan on a map.

Re:No safe votes... (2, Funny)

jc42 (318812) | about 3 years ago | (#36648972)

We need a better system, like having all candidates participate as contestants on one of those crazy Japanese game shows. This would immediately disqualify Sara Palin, as she can't even find Japan on a map.

Maybe not, but she can easily find it in real life. She just looks across her back fence, where she can see Russia, then looks zt the islands just to the left. Those are Japan.

It's a lot harder on a map, y'know.

I thought we solved this problem long ago. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 3 years ago | (#36648816)

It's too bad no one wants to use the solution to this problem.

Step 1. You register to vote. (Yes, we already do this...)
Step 2. You are given a unique set of voter's registration digits. (Yes, we already do this...)
Step 3. You vote, and enter some of your voter's registration digits. (Currently we enter all of them -- Dumb).
Step 4. Your ballot is cryptographically signed with the digits you did not disclose. (See, all digits get used; Just some are kept secret).
Step 5. You submit your ballot, the public digits of your voter's registration "number", and the digital fingerprint. (I assume some form of hashing is currently done, but the vendors/counters hold the keys, not the people -- Dumb!)
Step 6. Tally votes: Verify each ballot's signature is valid and that each registration number only votes once.

The only place your ID need be linked to your voter's registration number is in the registration database, all other election data can be public for the world to see while still retaining a secret ballot... Now, there's no way to trust a "voting machine", and no need for secrecy in the security protocol, so we can just use our own computers & FLOS voting client software if we choose not to use the machines provided at libraries or public schools.

The disuse of basic public key cryptographic systems by the world at large is dumbfounding.

Credit cards, voting ballots, bank accounts, social security numbers, state issued photo IDs & Licenses, etc...
Herp; We don't need to use PKI except on wobsites -- Derp!

Re:I thought we solved this problem long ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36649138)

While I agree that there are many problems public key cryptography can solve, this is not one of them, at least not in this way.

Yes, voting from home would be convenient. There is a reason we have polling places though, and it isn't convenience; it is security of the vote and voters. Also, there is a reason you can't verify your specific vote was correctly counted afterwards as well.

Polling places and their management ensure that there isn't anyone standing behind you observing your vote, prepared to punish or reward you for voting the 'wrong' or 'right' way. This cannot be done in people's homes from arbitrary Internet connected terminals.

Verifiable ballots are a problem for the same reason. If you can (after the fact) produce evidence of your vote, then someone can force you to do so to prove that you voted a specific predetermined way. That knowledge will influence some. This is prevented by a secret ballot.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648876)

if you look at the dates and other info. This is some old data... and there is no voting database here at all just list of pdf's and misc data. user names and passwords for last year.

CMT SUBJECT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36648930)

Is there a reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law? Nope there is no reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law. than there is no reason for the law to put you in jail for breaking the law because there is no reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law. everybody
oh ps. all those 'bad murderes' supposedly its for all they wouldve had to do is give them the same sentencing, there is no reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law than you must know there is no reason for the law to put you in jail for breaking the law because there is no reason for you to be in jail for breaking the law

Only user database... (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | about 3 years ago | (#36649106)

Only the poll worker user database is sensitive. Everything else is public.

No voting information for cast ballots or the personal info for voters in the district.

I can only hope the access control list is on append only media.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...