US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights : Politics
How George Bush Stole the Election
06 Dec 2004
Indisputable Facts Showing Bush Stole Election
probable
electronic voting machines fraud that took place in the presidential
election. I know that there is at this point only "very strong
circumstantial evidence", but if you look at the history of how
electronic voting machines have become so prevalent in the voting
process then you can "connect the dots" and show that computer fraud
won this election for George Bush.
The following facts point clearly to George Bush, Karl Rove and the
rest of his "dirty political tricksters" stealing this election:
I am amazed that the news media has not reported on the probable
electronic voting machines fraud that took place in the presidential
election. I know that there is at this point only "very strong
circumstantial evidence", but if you look at the history of how
electronic voting machines have become so prevalent in the voting
process then you can "connect the dots" and show that computer fraud
won this election for George Bush.
The following facts point clearly to George Bush, Karl Rove and the
rest of his "dirty political tricksters" stealing this election:

1. Bush’s History of Lying
George Bush has lied, denied the truth and has been unwilling to
take responsibility for any mistakes on the part of his
administration on numerous occasions, including weapons of mass
destruction, Medicare prescription drugs, military record and the war on Iraq.
For 25 years, Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's professors at Harvard
Business School, was content with his green-card status as a permanent legal resident of the
United States. But Bush's ascension to the presidency in 2001 prompted the Japanese native
to secure his American citizenship. The reason: to be able to speak out with the full authority
of citizenship about why he believes Bush lacks the character and intellect to lead the world's
oldest and most powerful democracy.
"I don't remember all the students in detail unless I'm prompted by something," Tsurumi said
in a telephone interview Wednesday. "But I always remember two types of students. One is the
very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with
strong social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare person you never forget. And
then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally the opposite."

Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi said. "He showed pathological
lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny
saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I
challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would
respond, "Oh, I never said that." A White House spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking
comment.

In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a discussion on whether government
should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with heating costs. Bush, he recalled,
"made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he said, 'The government doesn't
have to help poor people -- because they are
lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain that assumption?' Not only could he not explain it, he
started backtracking on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'
Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film "The Grapes of Wrath," based on John Steinbeck's
novel of the Depression. "We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin
Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as
socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain
his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or
academically."

Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a
whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after
class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had
challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies.
So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and
vengeful guy."
Many of Tsurumi's students came from well-connected or wealthy families, but good
manners prevented them from boasting about it, the professor said. But Bush seemed unabashed
about the connections that had brought him to Harvard. "The other children of the rich and
famous were at least well bred to the point of realizing universal values and standards of
behavior," Tsurumi said. But Bush sometimes came late to class and often sat in the back row of
the theater-like classroom, wearing a bomber jacket from the Texas Air National Guard and
spitting chewing tobacco into a cup.
The Vietnam War was still roiling campuses and Harvard was no exception. Bush expressed strong
support for the war but admitted to Tsurumi that he'd gotten a coveted spot in the Texas Air
National Guard through his father's connections.

"I used to chat up a number of students when we were walking back to class," Tsurumi said. "Here
was Bush, wearing a Texas Guard bomber jacket, and the draft was the No. 1 topic in those days.
And I said, 'George, what did you do with the draft?' He said, 'Well, I got into the Texas Air
National Guard.' And I said, 'Lucky you. I understand there is a long waiting list for it.
How'd you get in?' When he told me, he didn't seem ashamed or embarrassed. He thought he was
entitled to all kinds of privileges and special deals. He was not the only one trying to twist
all their connections to avoid Vietnam. But then, he was fanatically for the war."

Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting a war in which others were
dying was a hypocrite. "He realized he was caught, showed his famous smirk and huffed off."

He said other professors and students at the business school
from that time share his recollections but are afraid to come forward, fearing ostracism or
retribution. And why is Tsurumi speaking up now? Because with the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and
Osama bin Laden still on the loose -- not to mention a federal deficit ballooning out of
control -- the stakes are too high to remain silent. "Obviously, I don't think he is the best
person" to be running the country, he said. "I wanted to explain why."


2. Voting Act in 2002-No Paper Trail
The Republicans passed the Voting Act in 2002 authorizing the
use of electronic voting machines in presidential elections. Tom
DeLay and other top Republicans fought very hard not to include in
this bill a requirement that the electronic voting machines be able
to generate "a paper trail". The Democrats attempted to require
this in that bill but to no avail.

3. Bush Hires Diebolt and DS&S to Make Voting Machines
The Bush administration then contracted with Diebolt and ES&S to make the lion's share of these machines for the election 2004. Even though there are several foreign and domestic corporations involved in the U.S. vote counting business, ES&S and Diebold clearly dominate
the field. ES&S claims that they have tabulated "56 percent of the
U.S. national vote for the past four presidential elections", while a Diebold
spokesperson told this writer that the company processed about 35 percent of
U.S.electronic vote count in 2002.
The President of one of these companies and the VP of the other are brothers. Both of them are staunch Republican supporters. Diebolt has contributed
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican campaign. The
CEO of Diebolt has been at George's ranch in Texas on numerous
occasions. The CEO of Diebolt within the last year has publicly
promised to deliver the state of Ohio to George Bush in this
election.
On April 22, 2004, Jim Wasserman of the Associated Press (AP)
reported, "By an 8-0 vote, the state's (California) Voting Systems and
Procedures Panel recommended that [Secretary of State] Shelley cease the use of the
machines, saying that Texas-based Diebold has performed poorly in California
and its machines malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary election,
turning away many voters in San Diego County . . . In addition to the ban,
panel members recommended that a secretary of state's office report released
Wednesday,detailing alleged failings of Diebold in California, be forwarded
to the state attorney general's office to consider civil and criminal
charges against the company."

Interestingly, no one in the U.S. federal government seems to be
paying attention . . . as usual. There is no federal agency that has
regulatory authority or oversight of the voting machine industry—not the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), not the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and not the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The FEC doesn't even have a
complete list of all the companies that count votes in U.S. elections.

Once again we are witness to an "eyes closed, hands off" approach
to protecting America. The 2004 election rests in the private hands
of the Urosevich brothers, who are financed by the far-out right wing and
top donors to the Republican Party. The Democrats are either sitting
ducks or co-conspirators. I don't know which.


4. No Recounts Possible
Without the capability of generating a "paper trail", there is
no way of having a recount of the votes which is required by law.

5. Diebolt DES Code Broken in 1997
No agency hired by the federal government ever issued a report
indicating that these electronic voting machines manufactured by
Diebolt and ES&S were secure from manipulation.
On the other hand, Dr. Avi Rubin, currently a Professor of Computer
Science at John Hopkins University "accidently"got his hands on a
copy of the Diebold software program--Diebold's source code--which
runs their e-voting machines.
Dr. Rubin's students pored over 48,609 lines of code that make up
this software. One line in partictular stood out over all the rest:
#defineDESKEY((des_KEY8F2654hd4"
All commercial programs have provisions to be encrypted so as
to protect them from having their contents read or changed by anyone
not having the key. The line that staggered the Hopkin's team was
that the method used to encrypt the Diebold machines was a method
called Digital Encryption Standard (DES), a code that was broken in
1997 and is NO LONGER USED by anyone to secure prograns.F2654hd4 was
the key to the encryption. Moreover, because the KEY was IN the
source code, all Diebold machines would respond to the same key.
Unlock one, you have then ALL unlocked.
Professor Rubin's Study was published on the Internet in February,
2004. No Bush administration officials or government agencies ever
mentioned this report which clearly states that these electronic
voting machines are not suitable to be used in the upcoming election.

6. Democrats Knew That Machines Were Not Secure From Hacking
Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, was videotaped with Democratic
presidential contender Howard Dean in March, 2004. On this
videotape entitled Votergate she and Howard Dean are able to hack
into the Diebold voting software and change the vote in 90 seconds.
Why weren't eyebrows raised by anyone in the government at this
point?

7. The Fix Was Implemented When George Knew He Was Going To Lose
Exit polls showed that John Kerry was going to win the election.George Bush was being forewarned that he was going to lose in the early evening of November 2. Election night, Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries his syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, he was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.
Then, the word was put out for the "fix". As Beverly Harris has described in detail, all of the
numerous polling places e-mailed their results to a central PC. It is this PC that she and Howard Dean were able to hack into and change the vote in 90 seconds.

8. Why Votes Do Not Match Exit Polls
There are numerous examples in Florida and Ohio where the votes
do not match the exit polls but only in those precincts where
electronic voting machines with no paper trail were being used. All
of these discrepancies are in favor of George Bush by five to 15%
despite many of the precincts having a strong Democratic majority.
In those precincts where there was a machine with a "paper trail",
the exit polls matched almost exactly the actual vote.
9. The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy --by Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D.
"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error... The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."
10. Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.

Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.

"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."

He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."

Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.


11. None or Criminally Negligent Government Oversight of Voting Machines

Your local elections officials trusted a group called NASED – the National Association of State Election Directors -- to certify that your voting system is safe.
This trust was breached.NASED certified the systems based on the recommendation of an
"Independent Testing Authority" (ITA). "Whuuut?"
What no one told local officials was that the ITA did not test for security (and NASED didn't seem to mind).
The ITA reports are considered so secret that even the California Secretary of State's office had trouble getting its hands on one. The
ITA refused to answer any questions about what it does. Imagine our
surprise when, due to Freedom of Information requests, a couple of them
showed up in our mailbox.


The most important test on the ITA report is called the "penetration
analysis." This test is supposed to tell us whether anyone can break
into the system to tamper with the votes.
"Not applicable," wrote Shawn Southworth, of Ciber Labs, the ITA that
tested the Diebold GEMS central tabulator software. "Did not test."

This is Shawn Southworth, in his office in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is the man who carefully examines our voting software.
Shawn Southworth "tested" whether every candidate on the ballot has a
name. But we were shocked to find out that, when asked the most
important question -- about vulnerable entry points -- Southworth's
report says "not reviewed."

Ciber "tested" whether ballots comply with local regulations, but when
Bev Harris asked Shawn Southworth what he thinks about Diebold
tabulators accepting large numbers of "minus" votes, he said he didn't
mention that in his report because "the vendors don't like him to put
anything negative" in his report. After all, he said, he is paid by the
vendors.
Shawn Southworth didn't do the penetration analysis, but check out what
he wrote:
"Ciber recommends to the NASED committee that GEMS software version
1.18.15 be certified and assigned NASED certification number
N03060011815."
Maybe another ITA did the penetration analysis?
Apparently not. We discovered an even more bizarre Wyle Laboratories
report. In it, the lab admits the Sequoia voting system has problems,
but says that since they were not corrected earlier, Sequoia could
continue with the same flaws. You've gotta ask yourself: Are they nuts? Some of them are computer
experts. Well, it seems that several of these people suddenly want to
retire, and the whole NASED voting systems board is becoming somewhat
defunct, but these are the people responsible for today's shoddy voting
systems.
If the security of the U.S. electoral system depends on you to certify a
voting system, and you get a report that plainly states that security
was "not tested" and "not applicable" -- what would you do?


12. Purposeful Under Utilization Of Machines in Democratic Strongholds in Ohio
Cliff Arnebeck, a Common Cause attorney, introduced into the record the Franklin County Board of Elections spreadsheet detailing the allocation of e-voting computer machines for the 2004 election. The Board of Elections’ own document records that, while voters waited in lines ranging from 2-7 hours at polling places, 68 electronic voting machines remained in storage and were never used on Election Day. In the Democratic stronghold of Columbus, 139 of the 472 precincts had at least one and up to five fewer machine than in the 2000 presidential election. In the 2004 presidential election, 29 percent of Columbus’ precincts, despite a massive increase in voter registration and turnout, had fewer machines than in 2000.
13. Media Blackout
There is a bumper sticker I saw months ago that sums up the current state of affairs in our country regarding what is the biggest news story you’ll never see on the General Media reported. It said "IF YOUR NOT OUTRAGED, YOUR NOT PAYING ATTENTION".
On Friday I received a phone call from a good friend who works at CBS--I’ve known her for years and she is a Producer for some of the news programs, one well known one in particular. She tipped me off that the news media is in a "lock-down" and that there is to be no TV coverage of the real problems with voting on Nov. 2nd. She said similar "lock-down orders" had come down last year after the invasion of Iraq, but this is far worse--far scarier. She said the majority of their journalists at CBS and elsewhere in NYC are pretty horrified--every one is worried about their jobs and retribution Dan Rather style or worse. My source said they’ve also been forbidden to talk about it even on their own time but she was pissed and her journalistic and moral integrity as what she considers to be a gov’t watchdog requires her to speak out, while be it covert and she therefore asked me to "spread" the word... She said that journalism and the truth is at stake.
14. To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:
1- That the exit polls were WRONG...(remember--they have been used for over a decade and considered reliable)
2- That Zogby’s 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were WRONG. He was within a less than 1/2 % point margin of error in his 2000 final poll and previous polls for other elections.
3- That Harris Poll last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. They were also within a 1/2% point margin of error in their 2000 final poll.
4- The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds primarily break at the end for the challenger)was WRONG.
5- The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn’t do better than his final polling)
6- The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7- That Journalist Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.
8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry, even though it was the largest number of youth voters 18-29 ever and a huge jump from 2000 and they were over 55% in favor of Kerry. >>
10- That Bush BEAT 99 to 1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority--when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13- That Voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.
Some Examples: (There are many more, but I won’t list them all here--this is to give you an idea)
The City of Gahanna in Ohio discovered a discrepancy that gave 4,000 votes to George Bush. After media scrutiny, city officials have admitted to an electronic "glitch" that caused the problem.
In Broward County, FL, errors in software code caused a referendum on gambling to be completely overturned. The error caused totals to count backwards after reaching a ceiling of 32,500 votes. The problem existed in the 2002 election as well however the issue was never resolved by the manufacturer of the electronic voting machine.
In North Carolina, a Craven County district logged 11,283 more votes than voters and actually overturned
15. Some Hard Cold Facts

80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
• There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry.
• The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
• The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a
major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was
"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president
next year."
• 35% of ES&S is owned by Republican
Senator Chuck Hagel, who became Senator based on votes counted by
ES&S machines.
• Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.
• Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout
scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can
generate a paper trail.
• Diebold is based in Ohio and supplies
almost all the voting machines there.
• None of the international election
observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
• 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out
on unverifiable touch screen voting machines.
• Bush's Help America Vote Act of 2002
has as its goal to replace all machines with the new electronic touch
screen systems.
• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel owns
35% of ES&S and was caught lying about it.
• ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

• Exit polls for the 2004 elections were accurate within 1% or less in areas where ballot machines were used.

• Major exit poll data discrepancies were noted in counties where touch screen machines were used, especially in Ohio and Florida.

16. Senator Chuck Hagel-Used Same Voting Machines to Win Upset in Nebraska
Once upon a time there were two brothers: Bob and Todd Urosevich. In
the 1980's, with the financial backing of the right-wing extremist
Christian billionaire Howard Ahmanson, Bob and Todd founded a company
called American Information Systems (AIS) that built voting machines. They
were also certified to count votes.

It is interesting to note that back then there was no federal agency
with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine
industry. Even more interesting is the fact that this is still true today.
Not even the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has a complete list of
all the companies that count votes in U.S. elections.

But let us get back to our story....

In 1992 a conservative Nebraskan fellow called Chuck Hagel became
chairman of AIS as well as chairman of the McCarthy Group, a private
investment bank. This all happened shortly after he stopped working for Bush
Sr.'s administration as Head of the Private Sector Council.



In 1995 Hagel resigned from AIS and a year later ran for Senate, with
the founder of the McCarthy Group as his campaign manager.

In 1996 Chuck Hagel became the first Republican to ever win a Nebraska senatorial campaign in 24 years, carrying virtually every demographic group, including African American precincts that had never voted Republican. The only company certified to count votes in Nebraska at the
time was AIS.

In 2003 the Senate Ethics Committee forced Chuck Hagel to reveal the
fact that he had $1 million to $5 million in investment in the McCarthy
Group, a fact he'd previously neglected to mention. The McCarthy Group
also happens to be a major owner of ES&S.


17. Criminal Record of Voting Machine Companies
Diebolt
During the 2000 presidential elections, Diebold made 16,000
presidential votes "vanish" in several Florida county.

Back in 2002 Diebold supplied the state of Georgia with brand new
electronic voting machines. That was when incumbent Democratic Governor Ray
Barnes was defeated and the Republicans won for the first time in 134
years. The poll results showed an amazing 12-point shift that took place
in the last 48 hours.

Diebold was subsequently sued for applying a last-minute code patch to
the machines that was never reviewed. In another strange turn of
events, that code was also deleted right after the election and the suit
fell through.

Earlier this year California sued Diebold for fraud and decertified its
voting machines.

Sequoia
America's second largest voting corporation is Sequoia Voting Systems.
This company is owned by the British company De La Rue, who also owns
20% of the British National Lottery. In 1995 the SEC filed suit against
Sequoia for inflating revenue and pre-tax profits.
In 1999 charges were filed by the Justice Department against Sequoia in
a massive corruption case that sent top Louisiana state officials to
jail for bribery, most of it funneled through the Mob. Sequoia's
executives were given immunity in exchange for testimony against state
officials.

18. Those Who Were Paying Attention Knew About Voting Machine Problem
Years before the election, perhaps it was with the quiet passage of the 2002
Help America Vote Act which mandated the use of Diebold and ES&S machines
notorious for their "tamperability"--concerned citizens from various walks of
life--professors, computer scientists, systems analysts, even grandmothers and
literary publicists from Seattle--had been attempting to sound the alarm: the
Diebold voting machines are not secure; the democratic process itself is in
jeopardy, seriously so. Bev Harris, Executive Director of the consumer protection
organization Blackboxvoting.org, first published her groundbreaking book Black
Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century in 2003. Avi Rubin, professor
of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical Director of the
Hopkins Security Information Security Institute, authored that study. Rubin
is a qualified expert with years of practical experience in the fields of
cryptography, network security, Web security and secure Internet services who was
employed by such companies as AT&T and Bellcore prior to accepting his
appointment at Johns Hopkins. On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, one week before the
election, CBS's 60 Minutes broadcast an alarming segment covering electronic
voting, featuring not only Rubin, but David Jefferson of the Center for Applied
Scientific Computing at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Jefferson
described the system currently in place as the "electoral weapon of mass destruction"
which could easily be manipulated by a "rogue programmer." Mark Crispin
Miller, professor of media studies at New York University and author of several
"legitimate" books on American government published by Norton & Company, also
pointed out the potential for problems with the machine-voting systems, and these
are but a few of the "minority report-esque" voices who attempted to sound
the alarm before the most recent election scandal broke loose on the internet.
Are we to discredit these experts as "internet conspiracy theorists?"

19. Professional White-Hat Hacker
I am, by trade, a professional White-Hat Hacker, so I know how
easily "secure" systems can be breached, especially by insiders.
Roughly 80% of all computer crimes are perpetrated by insiders, so
that's always the best place to look first. When the insiders also
write the code and roll the machines out, there is no question that
they have too much power and can not be trusted, whether they
support my party or not. It's called "Segregation of Duties" in the
professional world, and it is vital for system integrity.
So I went to BlackBoxVoting.org
following a link off of some website, I don't remember which, and
saw Bev's plea - "Computer Guys - Test it yourself!". I thought, all
right, I will. After all, this IS what I do for a living. It's like
asking an accountant to balance debits and credits - nothing
special, and besides, I was curious. Surely if our states are
rolling this out to Hundreds of Millions of voters, somebody checked
it. It can't be as bad as these liberal whiners are making it out to
be - they're just pissed off that our folks turned out in mass.
What I found truly shocked me, and made me physically ill. That's
what is documented on the other page. It IS that bad. I personally
don't have conclusive evidence that voter fraud was perpetrated, but
I can tell you as an Information Security professional that it would
have been very, very easy to do. If I had to choose between someone
conspiring with exit poll workers nationwide or someone changing
values in an Access Database as the cause of the difference between
the poll numbers and the "actual" results, I'll go with the easier,
more effective option every time. Why choose the hard way when it's
more trouble and you're less likely to succeed? Again, I'm staying
clear of making specific allegations - I'll leave that to the
activists who are gathering data - but I would be much more
surprised if the election weren't hacked than to find out that it
was.

It was too easy, the companies were too partisan and unethical, and
there was too much at stake for them NOT to hack it. It looked like
Bush was going to lose, and they had this tool available to pull out
a victory.
Why do I call Diebold partisan and unethical, you ask? How's this:
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the
president." - Walden O'Dell, Diebold's CEO in a fundraising letter
to Republicans, Fall 2003. O'Dell and other Diebold Senior
Executives are Republican "Pioneers", which is the designation you
get when you raise over $100,000. His brother is President of ES&S,
the #2 vote machine maker, and is also a "Pioneer". Is that
partisan enough for you? Well, what about calling them unethical?
Check this out - No less than 5 of Diebold's developers are
convicted felons, including Senior Vice President Jeff Dean, and
topping the list are his twenty-three counts of felony Theft in the
First Degree. According to the findings of fact in case no. 89-1-
04034-1:

"Defendant's thefts occurred over a 2 1/2 year period of time, there
were multiple incidents, more than the standard range can account
for, the actual monetary loss was substantially greater than typical
for the offense, the crimes and their cover-up involved a high
degree of sophistication and planning in the use and alteration of
records in the computerized accounting system that defendant
maintained for the victim, and the defendant used his position of
trust and fiduciary responsibility as a computer systems and
accounting consultant for the victim to facilitate the commission of
the offenses."
To sum up, he was convicted of 23 felony counts of theft from by -
get this - planting back doors in his software and using a "high
degree of sophistication" to evade detection. Do you trust computer
systems designed by this man? Is trust important in electronic
voting systems?
The GEMS software has been available for some
time thanks to a dumb-ass move by Diebold, when they left an FTP
server open to the public. Copies of GEMS software, database files,
user guides, code, and all kinds of "good stuff" have been
circulating around the 'Net ever since.

I thought the problem was the touchscreens, but you're talking
about something different. Why would an attacker target the GEMS
software instead of the TouchScreens? back
A:
Good question. With all of the hype about the touch screen
terminals, you'd think they'd be a likely target. When you look
through Hacker eyes, though, that's the best reason to avoid them.
Here's what I think:
I feel that it is unlikely that these individual touch screen
machines would be targeted. At greater risk than the individual
touch screens are the Central Voting Tabulation computers, which
compile the results from many other systems, such as touch screens
and optically scanned cards. From a hacker's standpoint, there are a
couple of reasons why these central computers are better targets:

a. It is extremely labor intensive to compromise a large number of
systems, and the chance of failure or being detected increases every
time an attack is attempted. Also, the controversy surrounding the
touch screen terminals ensures that their results will be closely
watched, and this theory has been born out in recent days.

b. If one were to compromise the individual terminals, they would
only be able to influence a few hundred to maybe a couple of
thousand votes. These factors create a very poor risk/reward ratio,
which is a key factor in determining which systems it makes sense to
attack.

c. On the other hand, the Central Vote Tabulation systems are a very
inviting target – by simply compromising one Windows desktop, you
could potentially influence tens or hundreds of thousands of votes,
with only one attack to execute and only one attack to erase your
tracks after. This makes for an extremely attractive target,
particularly when one realizes that by compromising these machines
you can affect the votes that people cast not only by the new touch
screen systems, but also voters using traditional methods, such as
optical scanning systems since the tallies from all of these systems
are brought together for Centralized Tabulation. This further helps
an attacker stay under the radar and avoid detection, since scrutiny
will not be as focused on the older systems, even though the vote
data is still very much at risk since it is all brought together at
a few critical points. This also has been born out by early
investigations, where the touch screen results seem to be fairly in
line with expectations, while some very strange results are being
reported in precincts still using some of the older methods.

This is not to say that the touch screens don't have their problems,
which are well documented on the web and the news. My point here is
that if you want to steal an election, targeting the individual
touch screen machines is not the easiest way to do it.



The above are the lines that connect the dots of the Bush
Conspiracy to steal this election. I have attached a number of
articles which support and explain in more detail my above 8 points.
I think the American people deserve to hear reports relative to what
I have said above.

For more articles, go to the Yahoo group entitled BushConspiracy

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.