Before the attacks on my statements begin, let me just say that electronic voting machines are a terrible idea. I have never liked the lack of a paper trail. They should be banned, or used in conjunction with paper tallying. I will also provide statements from many other known experts on their lack of security. I do believe voting fraud occurred in the last two elections, but I would like to explain in depth.
First of all, just to be clear, Spoonamore was one of the people who trumpeted the role of Chinese hackers in the blackout of 2003. I hope everybody learned how difficult it would be for a hacker to cause tree limbs to touch power lines. Spoonamore made numerous ominous statements with regard to that innocuous event (and other related events):
Secrecy in this matter benefits no one. Our nation’s intellectual capital, industrial secrets, and economic security are under daily and withering attack. The oceans that surround us are no protection from sophisticated hackers, working at the speed of light on behalf of nation-states and mafias. We must cease denying the scope, scale, and risks of the issue. I, and a growing number of my peers believe our nation is in grave and growing danger.Does anybody recognize that sort of language? Though it was before my time, I studied the Cold War at the graduate level. This kind of bombastic talk would only look out of place in that era because of the modern technology referenced. He exaggerated the problems, and ignored the brilliant work of some of the world's most talented IT security specialist teams (of which a large number work in and for the United States). This sort of statement is fear mongering.
Now I am not an authority on Unix, BSD and Linux security (I am self taught), but I know very talented people in that field. They found many of Spoonamore's statements alarmist and not based on hard IT data. Matthew Franz wrote about some of Spoonamore's statement. Here's what Spoonamore said:
Stephen Spoonamore, CEO of Cybrinth, a cyber-security firm that works for government and corporate clients, said that Chinese hackers attempt to map the IT networks of his clients on a daily basis. He said that executives from three Fortune 500 companies, all clients, had document-stealing code planted in their computers while traveling in China, the same fate that befell Gutierrez.
And here's what Franz wrote:
I say prove it. Show me the logs of an informed attacker demonstrating knowledge of their target device, protocol, or application. Not, random script-kiddie crap from Chinese Universities. Been there seen that -- as has anyone that has set up a honeynet. [typo corrected]Franz is far from alone in questioning Spoonamore's claims over the years. Spoonamore took heat for some even more incredible claims on the Diane Rehm Show. He claimed the Chinese have an advantage over the United States in cyber warfare because IPv6 is “powerful software” capable of carrying “4 times the code” that IPv4 does. Huh? I am no expert, but even I know that's a load of horseshit. Jeff Martens, another old friend, chimed in on that interview also:
Spoonamore was on the Diane Rehm Show this morning and made the incredible statement that IPv6 is four times as powerful as IPv4, giving Chinese hackers an advantage over the Americans. Where did that factor of 4 come from? Sure, the addresses are four times as long, but that means the address space size of IPv6 is IPv4's to the fourth. I think he doesn't understand the technical side of things.
During that same show the "experts" also said that every operating system was just as vulnerable as another. Ohhh-kaaaay then. Message 67253 at investorvillage references the idiocy of that statement. I could provide far more comments on strange things Spoonamore has been into, but I think you get the idea.
Now here are statements from some very credible experts on the Diebold voting machines. Ariel J. Feldmen, J. Alex Halderman and Edward W. Felten writing with Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy:
Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.Just one more for the hell of it.
Dill, Stanford University Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, recognized expert on systems verification and founder of the Verified Voting Foundation:
It is not at all surprising that it is possible to write malicious vote-stealing code that is difficult to detect -- I said so in 2003, because it's obvious to anyone with the necessary technical expertise, even without knowing the details of the computer systems in question. Since 2003, hundreds of other computer scientists, including Prof. Ed Felten, signed the "Resolution on Electronic Voting" at VerifiedVoting.org because they agreed.It's not really in dispute how dangerous the use of the machines really is. I just find it odd that so many people responded to Spoonerman's claims when there are far more reputable sources that have been screaming about it for so long.
Here's what I think about Spoonerman's comments. He supported the indisputable claims that the electronic voting machines are horribly irresponsible. Then he threw gasoline on the fire that elections have been tampered with. And he did it all with a great big R- in front of his name. I believe he has expertise in his field, but many people may not understand the way propaganda works. When respectable figures make strange claims to influence people's thinking, that's part of propaganda. He told the truth, but the way he told it was odd. Also, he made a few claims that had more to do with social engineering by employees of Diebold. I don't think everything he said should be taken at face value, for reasons I have presented.
I do not believe the fraud in 2004 was any worse than the fraud that has taken place in the past, and here's why. The bottom line is that there are just too many Republican diehards out there, the Freepers and wingnuts. I happen to strongly believe that close to 50% of voters really are complete idiots who just think what the television wants them to think. Why steal an election when you can brainwash the people. When I have said in the past that big business will just buy the election, I was, of course, talking about corporate controlled media and the propaganda arm of the GOP. Diebold machines are horribly flawed, and surely have been manipulated in the past, but that's not the bigger reason we are losing the elections. It's the dumbing down of America that is the real culprit.
I am certain there are many people who will believe this post horribly flawed. I prefer to keep hoping that the election isn't completely rigged right now, because there's no way the system will be changed before November. I would walk from New Orleans to Seattle if I thought it would guarantee the machines were changed, but it won't happen before November. Crucify the shit out of my optimism, if you like, if you feel my belief that registered voters are mostly idiots is optimistic. It's only optimistic in the sense that the election process still works. If it doesn't, well we were already f***ed, now weren't we?
Posts
