In sworn affidavit, programmer says he developed vote-rigging prototype for Florida congressman

Originally posted by jsobecky
Wrong. The programmer has to be involved.

True, no programmer, no code, no problem.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So does the person who writes the rigged compiler/decompiler.

Not necessariliy, the compiler could have been store bought (Visual Studio ring a bell?), a work of the same programmer, or the work of another. In any case irrelevent as it will only assemble an exe that is instructed by the source code that was created by curtus. Unless the source was tampered with by another coder, then that's an entirely different story.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So does the system architect that designed the circuitry that calculates the checksum

No circuitry is involved with the code. That is hardware. The issue is over software. The checksum calcs such as a crc-32 that is commonly found in .zip files is usually either contained in the source code before compiled to assembly or embedded in a data file and is waiting to be compared. Which reminds me, do you mean the checksum algorithm OR the checksum value(s)?

Originally posted by jsobecky
- the ALU's, GPR's shift registers, etc.

There is no such animal as a shift register. Now then, there is such a thing as a register. (AX[accumulator],BX[Base],CX[Code],DX[Data],and EX[Extended]). A shift is simply a mul or div operation by way of a power of 2. Two different things. ALU's and GPR's I am assuming are acronyms for specific algo's. Those
are normally handled by the source code itself if involved at all.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And, oh, BTW, this same rigged circuitry has to be used for everything else that the system does, so how does that happen?

Ignoring the misonomer of circuitry, when code is likely meant, that also isn't always true. Although libraries of code can be made to keep some functions and subs from being reinvented, some differences in code and values must be maintained otherwise it really wouldn't work would it? Additionally, each piece of hardware that is managed by software uses entirely different modules of code for each individual purpose. DirectX is a great example of this. All are tyed to the same framework, but in individual modules based on task,that are further divided by both individual needs and circumstances.(such as configurations, driver files loaded, bugs, features,etc)

Originally posted by jsobecky
The QA people need to be involved.

it depends on whether they can keep a secret and how much money it would take. it would be simplier to simply not tell them about the 'hidden' features and 'Easter' Eggs.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The people that will be working the "invisible buttons" need to be involved.

Maybe, does the article revealing this situation specify whether this was done remotely, automated, by manual hands, or a combination?

Originally posted by jsobecky
The owner of the company, the installation tech, etc., etc. And we have to pull this off in at least a dozen key states.

Like the QA people, it's quite likely they are not in the 'need' to know regarding the 'easter eggs'. It would be cheaper on a certain politician's wallet to do so.

In some ways, I feel betrayed by this creep. He is no different than any blackhat porting warez to innocent systems. If this code was open-source to begin with and a team of random volunteers were involved(brought on graceiously by sourceforge) with the addition of a voters receipt and a locked box of election invoices to compare receipts to, then it would be quite unlikely electronic voting would get the negative attention it's getting. Open source, volunteer teams, and a paper trail would go a long ways to integrity.

Originally posted by Crysstaafur

Originally posted by jsobecky
So does the system architect that designed the circuitry that calculates the checksum

No circuitry is involved with the code. That is hardware. The issue is over software. The checksum calcs such as a crc-32 that is commonly found in .zip files is usually either contained in the source code before compiled to assembly or embedded in a data file and is waiting to be compared. Which reminds me, do you mean the checksum algorithm OR the checksum value(s)?

Checksum value. So explain how I write module A which has a checksum value of X, and you modify it by hiding code in it, and it still calculates the same checksum?

My original piece of code and your modified piece of code will not have the same amount of bytes of info, so our checksums will be different.

No circuitry is involved with the code? So do you propose to use a software algorithm to calculate the sum of A+B? Really silly if you do; the days of heavily microcoded machines are a thing of the past. Any function that can be performed in software can - no, MUST - be able to be performed in hardware. And it is done one heck of a lot faster in HW; that is obvious. More expensively, but that is not so much a consideration anymore.

The point is, there is hardware involved with the code, every step along the way. Otherwise, it's like having sheet music without the violin to play it on.

Originally posted by jsobecky
- the ALU's, GPR's shift registers, etc.

There is no such animal as a shift register. Now then, there is such a thing as a register. (AX[accumulator],BX[Base],CX[Code],DX[Data],and EX[Extended]). A shift is simply a mul or div operation by way of a power of 2. Two different things. ALU's and GPR's I am assuming are acronyms for specific algo's. Those
are normally handled by the source code itself if involved at all.

First of all,

A shift is simply a mul or div operation by way of a power of 2

You have it backwards. A MUL is a right shift, a DIV is a left shift, not the other way around. Done in a register. Shifts are done for a myriad of other things besides MUL or DIV. For example, FFS (Find First Set).

Regardless. To answer your statement

There is no such animal as a shift register

Of course there is.

I suggest you examine the EBOX of a VAX11/780 . Right there next to (below, in the printset) the ALU (Arithmetic and Logical Unit), a piece of HARDWARE CIRCUITRY. AX, BX, and EX are merely tags given to specific GPR's (General Purpose Registers), which are HARDWARE CIRCUITRY. There are typically 32 GPRs in most processor chips, and sometimes an equal amount of FPRs (Floating Point Registers), still other pieces of HARDWARE CIRCUITRY.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And, oh, BTW, this same rigged circuitry has to be used for everything else that the system does, so how does that happen?

Ignoring the misonomer of circuitry, when code is likely meant, that also isn't always true.
:
Additionally, each piece of hardware that is managed by software uses entirely different modules of code for each individual purpose. DirectX is a great example of this.

Nope, no misonomer (sp), and I didn't mean code. I mean, if an ALU is designed to take inputs from leg A and B and add them together, and the value on A and B are 1 each, then how are you going to make it add up to 2 in one instance and 3 in another?

Hardware is hardware, even though, as you say, "Additionally, each piece of hardware that is managed by software uses entirely different modules of code for each individual purpose". Makes not a bit of diference. It cannot do more or less than what it was designed to do. You are confusing using the hardware to running two different pieces of code to it performing something it was not designed to do.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The QA people need to be involved.

it depends on whether they can keep a secret and how much money it would take. it would be simplier to simply not tell them about the 'hidden' features and 'Easter' Eggs.

Good QA people are the most anal people around when it comes to doing their job. I mean that in a nice way. He/she would never be able to live with himself if they rigged a pass.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The people that will be working the "invisible buttons" need to be involved.

Maybe, does the article revealing this situation specify whether this was done remotely, automated, by manual hands, or a combination?

Manually. And how many pairs of hands would be necessary to make an impact on an election? Not to mention that to be really effective, he would have to be the last person to vote on the rigged machine. Too many people., too many tracks to cover. No way.

I'm sure we've bored most to tears with these last posts. Once again, I'm not saying that the systems being used are any good; I'm merely stating that it's next to impossible to rig and misuse them in the manner being presented in this thread.



[edit on 9-12-2004 by jsobecky]
EDIT Typos

[edit on 9-12-2004 by jsobecky]

billybob

You keep citing that blackboxvoting site as if it indicts only Republicans. How about Theresa LePore?

Happen on both sides of the aisle, something you and MA want to ignore or pooh-pooh. Let's not talk about the Dems doing it; that means we're condoning it.

Ilk = type or kind.

Originally posted by jsobecky
billybob

You keep citing that blackboxvoting site as if it indicts only Republicans. How about Theresa LePore?

Happen on both sides of the aisle, something you and MA want to ignore or pooh-pooh. Let's not talk about the Dems doing it; that means we're condoning it.

Ilk = type or kind.

i never indicated that only republicans are involved. i said that is what happened in florida, at the station they served the FOIA request.

i think your attempt at painting bias on our masks is laughable, at best.

what 'we' are saying is the election was bogus.
what your saying is, 'that's okay, elections are corrupt'.

.
To do it in hardware/firmware seems IMO unlikely. It means manufacturing a new little chip or altering an existing one.

In the mockup that is downloadable It does make sense that being the last or very near the last person to vote would make the most sense. Of course you just have to access the database screen as an alternative to make sure your boy won.

This would only require one person right at the end of the day to access the machine. How many polling places are we talking about? And then machines per polling place? Sounds like quite a number.

Very interesting Ohio expected record turnout YET REDUCED number of polling places

Erie County consolidated 101 precincts in 2000 into just 62 this year

www.portlandphoenix.com...
Could this have been to reduce the number of people need to fix the election?

It does sound like quite an undertaking. But there are a lot of people who people who think Bush is closer to God and for them God is more important than personal integrity.

I do wonder that this may be a red-herring. The real potential fix was probably done by a very few people from off-site computers. Sort of a pre-planned hack job. Diebold's boys.

edit to add link

[edit on 9-12-2004 by slank]

Originally posted by slank
.
To do it in hardware/firmware seems IMO unlikely. It means manufacturing a new little chip or altering an existing one.

You're right. I mention it for two reasons: to rule out HW (for the very reason you mentioned) and because the possiblity was mentioned in the blackboxvoter site. Same site had good arguments against having the voting machine print out a paper trail, BTW.

Firmware, BTW, is easier to rig. It's just a matter of reprogramming an FEPROM.

In the mockup that is downloadable It does make sense that being the last or very near the last person to vote would make the most sense. Of course you just have to access the database screen as an alternative to make sure your boy won.

Once again, you're right. In the articles or the affiavit, the way it worked was, you enabled these invisible screens, and the action you took would depend on whether your candidate was winning or losing.

This would only require one person right at the end of the day to access the machine. How many polling places are we talking about? And then machines per polling place? Sounds like quite a number.

Exactly. And the scheme proposed requires the person to masquerade as a legit voter, so how would he pull off voting more than once?

Very interesting Ohio expected record turnout YET REDUCED number of polling places

Erie County consolidated 101 precincts in 2000 into just 62 this year

www.portlandphoenix.com...
Could this have been to reduce the number of people need to fix the election?

Could have been, but it's quite a cumbersome way of doing so. Most likely, there were many smaller precincts consolidated into fewer large ones.

It does sound like quite an undertaking. But there are a lot of people who people who think Bush is closer to God and for them God is more important than personal integrity.

I do wonder that this may be a red-herring. The real potential fix was probably done by a very few people from off-site computers. Sort of a pre-planned hack job. Diebold's boys.

And I think about Maryland, which voted entirely on electronic machines. Kerry won MD by 13%.

Off-site computers? Were there any outside connections, dial-in or enet? If so, it bolsters my argument that a better system could be developed by any second year engieering student group worth their salt.

Originally posted by billybob
i never indicated that only republicans are involved. i said that is what happened in florida, at the station they served the FOIA request.

what 'we' are saying is the election was bogus.
what your saying is, 'that's okay, elections are corrupt'.

No, I'm not saying that it's OK. I'm saying, prove that this election was any more bogus than any other election. You haven't been able to do so.

As far as bias, would you really be pursuing this if Kerry had won?

PS: Therea LePore is from Florida, BTW. Democrat at heart, Palm Beach County.

Your nations votes are counted by machines manufactured and sold by a politicly aligned, private, profiteering corperation who refuse to show the source code of their machines to anyone.

The election is over, its done, and its a shame that people are more occupied debating about the outcome rather than challenging this voting process, its pretty screwed up.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I doubt very much if you could educate me at all in the area of computer engineering, much less anything else. Your statements regarding source code and reverse engineering show your lack of knowledge in the sciences.

I am not defending the electronic voting system. If you knew anything about me, you would see that I have said at least a dozen times here on ATS that those who designed and sold these systems should be fired.

It is easy for you to be misled by "programmers" who say with authority that it is so easy to sabotage software without leaving any tracks. These are usually low-end programmers who do not have the experience to back up their claims.

You must also blame the states who spent their HAVA funds on this Diebold junk. Notice how much wider and wider the conspiracy that you are trying to sell becomes, until every poor simpleton voter in America has had his vote manipulated by the millions of conspirators necessary to cary out your fantastic plot.

Please: the slogan "Deny Ignorance" does not mean "Abandon reason and Common Sense."

You gotta be joking that you still feel the same after reading so much articles of fraud.What would it take for you to believe the fraud is comming from way up?a written note from the president maybe??It doesnt really matter fraud is fraud!!!American history is written here and people like you who dont care are accessories of this black history and it hasnt nearly gone full throtle yet.
You better get ur head from where you stashed it and wake up!
Or maybe you dont want to wake up??if you dont want to wake up what the hell are you doing on a site like this.

Originally posted by motionknight

Originally posted by jsobecky
I am not defending the electronic voting system. If you knew anything about me, you would see that I have said at least a dozen times here on ATS that those who designed and sold these systems should be fired.

Please: the slogan "Deny Ignorance" does not mean "Abandon reason and Common Sense."

You gotta be joking that you still feel the same after reading so much articles of fraud.What would it take for you to believe the fraud is comming from way up?a written note from the president maybe??It doesnt really matter fraud is fraud!!!American history is written here and people like you who dont care are accessories of this black history and it hasnt nearly gone full throtle yet.
You better get ur head from where you stashed it and wake up!
Or maybe you dont want to wake up??if you dont want to wake up what the hell are you doing on a site like this.

Maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension. I demand proof, not wild-assed, half-baked assertions.

So it is a conspiracy site. So what? That doesn't mean that everything that happens is a result of conspiracy. That's where people lose their ability to reason - they see the boogeyman being involved when the waitress gets their order wrong.

As to not caring, and being an "accessory to black history", please re-read my first paragraph above.

And seriously, consider a reading comprehension course before you get out of high school (notice I didn't say graduate ) or take a remedial reading course. When you go off half-cocked like that, you deny the slogan of this forum.

Only stupid people need proof, the smart ones know whats going on when presented numerous info about fraud,inconsistancies,cover-ups and what have you not.

keep your head burried i dont care, you will be confronted with your ignorance sooner or later.

Why are you on this site when you want solid proof for everything.

Have you got solid prrof your father is really your father, you dont really know before you both do an DNA test.You might say that you look to much alike not to be.So there you go:Sometimes no solid proof is really necessary
to come to a conclusion.
In other words Proof is a subjective thing,a concept.Hard evidence????
We havent got hard evidence for 99,9% of things we believe to be true.
Why cant people this???

We haven`t got hard evidence for blackholes only that we know they must excist threw certain effects.
The same you can say from all the issues like 9-11 and the elections.

Hey life is too short to stay ignorant....

Originally posted by jsobecky

No, I'm not saying that it's OK. I'm saying, prove that this election was any more bogus than any other election. You haven't been able to do so.

As far as bias, would you really be pursuing this if Kerry had won?

PS: Therea LePore is from Florida, BTW. Democrat at heart, Palm Beach County.

well, honestly, ...'no', i wouldn't. but, mind you, it's not a matter of republicrat to me. the duped masses that shook off their apathy for a change, and showed up in record numbers, were clearly there to kick the criminal out of the white house. people stay home if they think everything's 'okay', and they trust their neighbors to vote in the right guy.
so, as the exit polls indicate, kerry probably won. do i want him in the whitehouse? HELL, NO! kush and berry, burry and kesh, ...what the heck is the difference? they both serve the agenda of the skull and bones over the needs of the country. so, even though i 'hate' kerry, i'm pretty sure he is the guy the duped masses voted for, and therefore, he's the criminal that should be in the whitehouse.

badnarick would be my choice.

the BIG issue, is whether the voting system has been corrupted to the degree of near total control by the invisible hand. without a fair election process, nobody 'won' or 'lost'. they were appointed to their positions.
democracy is the one thing that allows people to change the government without bloodshed.
well, democracy is no more in america. it's been on a downhill slide since the advent of radio. the electric enviroment took society to light speed, and people were left standing in the red shift, thinking nothing had really changed. television took 'programming' to a new level by putting people into a near hypnotic state. there was still a great deal of 'bottom up' effects influencing the political enviroment, though.
but, now everything's disappeared. what we're looking at is already light years behind us.
on the lighter side, we CAN see into, and affect the future by changing the present. on the small miracles side, the internet has given us a truly free(for now) society, where we can begin to reclaim some 'people power'.

it has been proven that there was voter fraud (by the good folks at blackboxvoting.org.
if you don't INSIST on investigations and justice, then YOU are the one 'hopelessly indoctrinated'.

and, in case anyone didn't notice, the 'democrats' and the 'republicans' respective leaders are partners in crime, and currently making policy that will COMPLETELY undermine freedom in america, so it's a lot more than an issue of bipartisan bull#. the black majic mob has taken over the whitehouse, and you sit there twiddling your thumbs talking about tiny details, and trying to cloud the issue with rhetoric and jargon.

happy fast track to hell.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by jsobecky



PS: Therea LePore is from Florida, BTW. Democrat at heart, Palm Beach County.

well, honestly, ...'no', i wouldn't. but, mind you, it's not a matter of republicrat to me. happy fast track to hell.

Rupblicrat hihhihihihihihihihi nice.....

I'm not programmer so if my question seems ill informed, please forgive.

Would it have been possible for this nifty funtion of the flip code to lay dormant
until the voting official launched the upload data command?

It is more likely to be an externally activated remote trigger working imperceptibly in little pulses (with some whammies on the tabulation count to get to the desired result) than dormant code.

Diebold promised it, so for sure they and their 'competitors' could deliver. O'Dell is a "man of integrity", keeping to his word to Bush at the expense of US citizens and their values in democracy.

Don't be frightened to use the "F" word. When this story that takes your eye off the ball turns out to be a contrivance, keep your eye on the ball.

Don't be frightened to use the "F" word.


Oh you mean F�rvonvot�n!


[edit on 9-12-2004 by FallenFromTheTree]

Originally posted by motionknight


Only stupid people need proof, the smart ones know whats going on when presented numerous info about fraud,inconsistancies,cover-ups and what have you not.

keep your head burried i dont care, you will be confronted with your ignorance sooner or later.

Why are you on this site when you want solid proof for everything.

Have you got solid prrof your father is really your father, you dont really know before you both do an DNA test.You might say that you look to much alike not to be.So there you go:Sometimes no solid proof is really necessary
to come to a conclusion.
In other words Proof is a subjective thing,a concept.Hard evidence????
We havent got hard evidence for 99,9% of things we believe to be true.
Why cant people this???

We haven`t got hard evidence for blackholes only that we know they must excist threw certain effects.
The same you can say from all the issues like 9-11 and the elections.

Hey life is too short to stay ignorant....

In other words, you can prove nothing.:shk: Only stupid people need proof?

OK, here you go:

YOU took down the Twin Towers on 9/11 because you hate your mother. Of course I have no proof, but I don't need any. Only stupid people need proof, right?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is? I doubt very much that you do.

You're hopelessly indoctrinated into the looney bin way of thinking.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by motionknight
Why are you on this site when you want solid proof for everything.

Do you see how ridiculous your position is? I doubt very much that you do.

You're hopelessly indoctrinated into the looney bin way of thinking.

his position that he doesn't need proof of anything?
well, then, i'll have to ask you for proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, proof that osama bin laden is behind nien one one, and proof that voter fraud WASN'T widespread, (because, once you find one roach, you know you've got company).

all human cognition is based on pattern recognition. learn about fuzzy logic, and then tell me that you need proof to see the pattern of FASCISM.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Checksum value. So explain how I write module A which has a checksum value of X, and you modify it by hiding code in it, and it still calculates the same checksum?

My original piece of code and your modified piece of code will not have the same amount of bytes of info, so our checksums will be different.

Parsing bytes after the checksum value, if values are needed(static), if it's code, then it's simply a matter of calculating sizes and cycles(depending on what the checksum is polling atm) and matching it in such a manner as to allow a branch past the checksum point where the modfied code would exist(dynamically). This is one of the few tricks a virus does in order to maintain integrity in an executable yet remain functional.

Originally posted by jsobecky
No circuitry is involved with the code? So do you propose to use a software algorithm to calculate the sum of A+B? Really silly if you do.

I highly suspect that this is more than merely computing sums. It also would not be surprising to find that a math library written in optimized assembly to be linked into the high level framework code. Not silly at all, let alone cost effective and easy to clone over and over... I do understand that perhaps EEProming smaller optimzed asm code to assist in getting hardware inititialized is probable, just not the entire thing. Somewhere for example either high or low level code must also be involved in say, writing results into the hard drive in a given manner for storage and security purposes. (blocks, bytes, words) (xor masking, byte shifting/parsing, reversing receiving order post buffering, etc)

Originally posted by jsobecky
The point is, there is hardware involved with the code, every step along the way. Otherwise, it's like having sheet music without the violin to play it on.

Partially true, in that there would be no interrupts to grapple without the hardware being present, detected by the bios, and assigned various memory addresses. However to say hardware is solely responsible is equally silly.

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
A shift is simply a mul or div operation by way of a power of 2.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You have it backwards. A MUL is a right shift, a DIV is a left shift, not the other way around. Done in a register. Shifts are done for a myriad of other things besides MUL or DIV. For example, FFS (Find First Set).

Never said which way around it was(inverted or product), although you have it displayed correctly.Shifts can also be used for encryption (albeit not keyless). I just merely mentioned that a power of 2 is commonly involved.
Yes, commonly done in a register(clean) or through a stack(messy) using a pointer.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Of course there is.
I suggest you examine the EBOX of a VAX11/780 . Right there next to (below, in the printset) the ALU (Arithmetic and Logical Unit), a piece of HARDWARE CIRCUITRY. AX, BX, and EX are merely tags given to specific GPR's (General Purpose Registers), which are HARDWARE CIRCUITRY. There are typically 32 GPRs in most processor chips, and sometimes an equal amount of FPRs (Floating Point Registers), still other pieces of HARDWARE CIRCUITRY.

I want to apologize for the misunderstand there. Thank you. I have forgotten about bit shifts and rotations being noted in a counter stack or even a counter register. The problem is simple perception. It seems you are seeing things from the angle of hardware->software. I am seeing things from software->hardware. EE vs Dev. no prob.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And, oh, BTW, this same rigged circuitry has to be used for everything else that the system does, so how does that happen?

Again, why rig the circuits themselves? What conveinence is there to be gained? It would seem to be far simplier to copy over a file byte arrangement in the hard drive, than it would trying to sneak hometoasted epproms.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Hardware is hardware, even though, as you say, "Additionally, each piece of hardware that is managed by software uses entirely different modules of code for each individual purpose". Makes not a bit of diference. It cannot do more or less than what it was designed to do. You are confusing using the hardware to running two different pieces of code to it performing something it was not designed to do.

Then by those same words Emulation of another system is impossible if it's done in a high-level language. Is Alpha blending impossible in VGA using highlevel code, even when it doesn't exist in the video chipset? Designs are commonly expoited for other purposes. Sometimes the designs are made uniquely flexible for this purpose (usb comes to mind).

Originally posted by jsobecky
The QA people need to be involved.
He/she would never be able to live with himself if they rigged a pass.

As it should be.
I agreed in that it's better for them to remain unaware if one was so inclined. Hiding Easter Eggs from them is difficult, but not impossible.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Manually. And how many pairs of hands would be necessary to make an impact on an election? Not to mention that to be really effective, he would have to be the last person to vote on the rigged machine. Too many people., too many tracks to cover. No way.

woulldn't it be more effective to manually adjust audit values after the doors closed? Remotely doing some by way of network would be far easier than that and in real time no less. Automated would be as difficult as manual albeit different circumstances involved, still quite possible though.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm sure we've bored most to tears with these last posts.

I'm sure there are those who also find this type of depth interesting or useful.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Once again, I'm not saying that the systems being used are any good; I'm merely stating that it's next to impossible to rig and misuse them in the manner being presented in this thread.

Without paper print outs, add a touch of technolgical anxiety on the uninititiated, and a coder(s) who are also capabile of socially engineering their needs is reducing said difficulty quite considerably. Let alone having ultimate administration capablity nationwide instantly.

Catching those involved however will not be easy at all.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Crysstaafur]

Oh no, please. You guys guys go right ahead with the techno. I'm having a blast.