The question comes to mind... why oh why did you cast your vote for
I guess you want the US to be policed and governed by the UN. I guess
want someone in office that can't make up his mind about anything. I
you want someone in office that will start to shred the Constitution
by piece and change it bit by bit until it reads like the Heinz Ketchup
But, it's your vote, you can vote for anyone that you wish, I'll
that right to the end, even if Kerry wants to take it away....
My vote will be PROUDLY cast for Bush, just like it was 4 years ago.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Coombs PivX Solutions" <jasonc () science org>
To: <Full-disclosure () netsys com>
Cc: <info () hartic com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:24 PM
Subject: [Full-disclosure] Will a vote for John Kerry be counted by a
InterCivic eSlate3000 in Honolulu?
I just voted for John Kerry at a walk-in absentee ballot polling
Honolulu County using an eSlate3000 (unit serial number A05A0B) made
voting electronically that the electronic voting machines weren't
to be here yet, but that since they arrived in time for the 2004
I was told by the official who gave me the choice of voting on paper
they were being used anyway.
whether or not the unit on which my vote was cast subsequently
Will my vote be counted? That depends on a number of unknowns, such as
rendering the entire vote tabulating memory card corrupt.
I did not receive a paper printout following the submission of my
the electronic 'ballot box' with false votes, or to intentionally
fail to count votes for a particular candidate, there are risks
electronic voting that do not exist in the same way with paper
Excluding the obvious possibility that fraud may occur, either to
although there are technical safeguards possible that seem like common
sense, these safeguards continue to be ignored. Why?
Will we ever see common sense safeguards added to the electronic
A search for known security vulnerabilities or potential flaws in
equipment manufactured and sold by Hart InterCivic turns up:
Prior to casting my vote, I provided a written 'application' to vote
containing my current address and other contact information. Election
officials have every bit of information necessary to inform me in the
of a memory card failure or other malfunction that causes my
not to be counted properly.
malfunctioned in the past. There have never been any reports that any
has ever been allowed to revote following the loss of their electronic
We know the very equipment that I just used to cast my vote has
database record. Why not?
I find it absurd that common sense solutions to electronic voting
are not being used. The vote I just cast could be made available for my
anonymous review after it has been counted. For that matter, all votes
by all voters could be aggregated and published such that any voter
confirm that the vote that was counted was in fact the vote that they
detection by those voters who are directly affected, and no vote would
uncounted or be miscounted by mistake unless voters choose not to
Such a safeguard would ensure that no fraud could occur without timely
such data validation.
then we the people must be empowered to become the all volunteer
If we're going to allow these electronic voting devices in our
assurance army that validates the data output.
to be honest, and the criminal justice procedures to hold them
Reasonable people can live with the necessity to trust election
when they are not, but who are we supposed to hold accountable when
equipment failures and flawed computer disaster recovery planning
the secret exclusion of members of the public from access to their
If anyone has any further information about Hart InterCivic and the
eSlate3000, please contact me directly.
jasonc () science org
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.