Anonymous claims to have saved the election from Karl Rove

[Xox]

According to this story, as far as I can make it out,
the Orca project, a Republican Party effort which had a
not so successful beta test last November 6th, included
code to alter the election results in certain critical
venues, like Ohio. Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these
functions. Rove 'melted down' on TV not because he was
surprised by voting results in Ohio, but because he
expected them to be fixed. Of course Anonymous is being
rather coy, although they say they plan to publicize
the business through Wikileaks. If it is true that an
attempt was made to jigger the vote count, it could
expand into a considerable scandal. On the other hand
it could all be a fable.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/17/anonymous-saved-the-election-text/

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:46:08 +0000, Xox wrote:

> According to this story, as far as I can make it out,
> the Orca project, a Republican Party effort which had a not so
> successful beta test last November 6th, included code to alter the
> election results in certain critical venues, like Ohio. Anonymous
> sabotaged or blocked these functions. Rove 'melted down' on TV not
> because he was surprised by voting results in Ohio, but because he
> expected them to be fixed. Of course Anonymous is being rather coy,
> although they say they plan to publicize the business through Wikileaks.
> If it is true that an attempt was made to jigger the vote count, it
> could expand into a considerable scandal. On the other hand it could
> all be a fable.

If hackers have the ability to prevent alleged manipulation of electronic
voting machines, don't they also have the ability to manipulate the
machines themselves? It may very well be that the elections Anonymous
"saved" had really been won by Republicans.

I oppose electronic voting machines, especially ones that do not print
paper receipts to use to verify the results. Like leftists who oppose
identification requirements, rightists oppose paper ballots because fraud
is their intent. Oh, they'll say that presenting a library card or
installing a dot matrix printer is just too complicated and expensive,
but their true motive is fraud.

[Bert]

In news:k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.com Xox <eta...@etaoin.com> wrote:

> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these
> functions.

While making absolutely no changes of their own?

Really?

You believe this crap?

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[man behind the curtain]

In article <k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Xox <eta...@etaoin.com>
wrote:

Well, in some "legal" document. "Fox News" claimed not be be a news
channel, but an entertainment entity.
So there!
--
Karma ; what a concept!

[Matt]

Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@
216.250.188.141:

> In news:k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.com Xox <eta...@etaoin.com> wrote:
>
>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these
>> functions.
>
> While making absolutely no changes of their own?
>
> Really?
>
> You believe this crap?
>

Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?

Matt

[Bert]

In news:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7ma...@88.198.244.100 Matt

No, but the other poster certainly was.

The only reports of "hacking" that I've ever seen about voting machines
required physical access to the voting machines.

Are the voting machines in your area connected to the Internet?
Connected to any network at all?

[David Friedman]

In article <k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Xox <eta...@etaoin.com>
wrote:

I'm afraid this runs into the rule of thumb I usually apply to
historical anecdotes: If it makes a good enough story to survive on its
literary merit, it should be viewed with suspicion.

What seems to me more plausible is that some Obama supporter succeeded
in infiltrating the Romney operation and sabotaged the software. That
would fit the other reports I have seen a good deal better. I raised the
possibility and discussed implications a few days back on my blog:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2012/11/election-dirty-tricks-speculat
ion-and.html

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Charles Bell]

Following the West (R)/Murphy(D) contest in FL18, the fraud was so
obvious in the illegally locking of the doors and re-tabulating at
midnight post election day the alleged early votes to swing 4000 votes
from 2000+ for West to 2000+ for Murphy by re-reading the cartridges
and not any of the paper ballots used to make the cartridges. There is
no automatic recount unless there is 0.5% difference, and Murphy was
up by 0.7% until the black female democrat supervisor of elections in
this disputed county of St. Lucie in FL18 took sick and went home so
that a 2-1 vote permitted a re-re-tabulation but only of less than
half of the early votes to knock the difference down to 0.58% and West
asked the obvious question why not the other half, so that a re-re-re-
tabulation of all those votes is going on today (Sunday) until the
noon deadline to certify, and, of course, they missed that deadline,
so Murphy wins. In all this no actual reference to the paper ballots
has been made -- even the obvious question: do the number of paper
ballots equal the number tabulated on the cartridges?

The issue of a "paper trail" was and remains a red-herring until
according to Florida law a democrat judge steps in declares fraud by
Republicans which would have set the deadline later, at least.

[Man of Mind]

On 11/18/2012 2:19 PM, "burnt himem" <be...@iphouse.com> whined at:
>
> Matt wrote:
>
>> "burnt himem" <be...@iphouse.com> was sniveking self-importantly because:

>>>
>>> Xox <eta...@etaoin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these
>>>> functions.
>>>
>>> While making absolutely no changes of their own?

I see that you deleted the article and url..

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/17/anonymous-saved-the-election-text/

"Through the website Wonkette today, the hacker collective
Anonymous released a statement on the election, and the
content of the statement is an eye opener:"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113370393/Anon-Rove-Letter

>>> Really?
>>>
>>> You believe this crap?
>>
>> Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?
>
> No, but the other poster certainly was.

Nope, you're wrong..

> The only reports of "hacking" that I've ever seen about voting
> machines required physical access to the voting machines.

Yup, now what about the manner in which all of the 'voting machines'
gets tallied? Do you have any idea how that takes place?

> Are the voting machines in your area connected to the Internet?

Are you suggesting something that doesn't actually have to take
place, in order to downplay (and/or delete) the facts that you
clearly don't understand?

> Connected to any network at all?

You're starting to get warmer..

--Would you like to buy a clue?

[Man of Mind]

On 11/18/2012 2:45 PM, David Friedman wrote:
>
> Xox <eta...@etaoin.com> wrote:
>
>> According to this story, as far as I can make it out,
>> the Orca project, a Republican Party effort which had a
>> not so successful beta test last November 6th, included
>> code to alter the election results in certain critical
>> venues, like Ohio. Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these
>> functions. Rove 'melted down' on TV not because he was
>> surprised by voting results in Ohio, but because he
>> expected them to be fixed. Of course Anonymous is being
>> rather coy, although they say they plan to publicize
>> the business through Wikileaks. If it is true that an
>> attempt was made to jigger the vote count, it could
>> expand into a considerable scandal. On the other hand
>> it could all be a fable.
>>
>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/17/anonymous-saved-the-election-text/
>
> I'm afraid this runs into the rule of thumb I usually apply to
> historical anecdotes: If it makes a good enough story to survive on its
> literary merit, it should be viewed with suspicion.

Whatevuh..

> What seems to me more plausible is that some Obama supporter succeeded
> in infiltrating the Romney operation and sabotaged the software.

Nah, the RNC, through it's own inexperience and disdain for
arithmetic, managed to 'sabotage' it all by themselves..

--Never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity..

[Man of Mind]

On 11/18/2012 10:37 AM, Dämp H2Ø writhed in denials:

>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:46:08 +0000, Xox wrote:
>
>> According to this story, as far as I can make it out,
>> the Orca project, a Republican Party effort which had a not so
>> successful beta test last November 6th, included code to alter the
>> election results in certain critical venues, like Ohio. Anonymous
>> sabotaged or blocked these functions. Rove 'melted down' on TV not
>> because he was surprised by voting results in Ohio, but because he
>> expected them to be fixed. Of course Anonymous is being rather coy,
>> although they say they plan to publicize the business through Wikileaks.
>> If it is true that an attempt was made to jigger the vote count, it
>> could expand into a considerable scandal. On the other hand it could
>> all be a fable.
>>

>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/17/anonymous-saved-the-election-text/

>
> If hackers have the ability to prevent alleged manipulation of electronic
> voting machines, don't they also have the ability to manipulate the
> machines themselves?

Nope, that would be a false generalization on your part..

> It may very well be that the elections Anonymous
> "saved" had really been won by Republicans.

Nope, but thanks for playing..

--http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote

[Matt]

Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F91C678480VeebleFetzer@
216.250.188.141:

> In news:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7ma...@88.198.244.100 Matt
> <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@
>> 216.250.188.141:
>>
>>> In news:k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.com Xox <eta...@etaoin.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these
>>>> functions.
>>>
>>> While making absolutely no changes of their own?
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> You believe this crap?
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?
>
> No, but the other poster certainly was.

Then certainly, there is nothing to worry about, right?

Never mind that the voting machines can be hacked easily, as shown by a
number of independents.

Electronic voting is safe, and Republicans simply can't win on their own
merits.


Matt

[Dänk 42Ø]

Electronic voting is *NOT* safe, and leftards like you have said so
repeatedly in the past. The only difference now is that Democrats
outrigged the Republican rigging.

I oppose electronic voting. Banning it nationwide could have been one of
the things Democrats did to avoid impeaching Bush upon taking control of
Congress in 2007, but they decided farm subsidies were more important
than clean elections.

Electronic voting can be made secure in theory, but this requires an open-
source system using open-source encryption algorithms of the sort that
are used in all trusted security applications. American voting machines
are all closed-source proprietary systems, which means there is no way to
verify that there are no back doors. And instead of insecure Diebold
machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each, hackers could
design and market a tamper-proof open-source machine for less than a
hundred dollars.

An electronic ballot signed with two or more encryption keys would allow
auditors to verify its authenticity while still keeping the voter's
identity a secret. The encryption can still be broken and ballots
tampered with by an agency with the resources of a nation-state (e.g.
NSA), but putting the key generation and ballot control in the hands of
local jurisdictions should prevent this from occurring.

[David Friedman]

In article <k8bt6p$5p9$1...@dont-email.me>,

Man of Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What seems to me more plausible is that some Obama supporter succeeded
> > in infiltrating the Romney operation and sabotaged the software.
>
> Nah, the RNC, through it's own inexperience and disdain for
> arithmetic, managed to 'sabotage' it all by themselves..

That's another possible explanation, although I don't think it requires
a disdain for arithmetic.

[Charles Bell]

On Nov 18, 10:44 pm, Dänk 42Ø <d...@purpleurkel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:33:16 +0000, Matt wrote:

> > Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F91C678480VeebleFetzer@
> > 216.250.188.141:
>
> >> Innews:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7ma...@88.198.244.100Matt
> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@
> >>> 216.250.188.141:
>
> >>>> Innews:k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.comXox <etac...@etaoin.com>

> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these functions.
>
> >>>> While making absolutely no changes of their own?
>
> >>>> Really?
>
> >>>> You believe this crap?
>
> >>> Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?
>
> >> No, but the other poster certainly was.
>
> > Then certainly, there is nothing to worry about, right?
>
> > Never mind that the voting machines can be hacked easily, as shown by a
> > number of independents.
>
> > Electronic voting is safe, and Republicans simply can't win on their own
> > merits.
>
> Electronic voting is *NOT* safe, and leftards like you have said so
> repeatedly in the past.  The only difference now is that Democrats
> outrigged the Republican rigging.
>
> I oppose electronic voting.  Banning it nationwide could have been one of
> the things Democrats did to avoid impeaching Bush upon taking control of
> Congress in 2007,
> but they decided farm subsidies were more important
> than clean elections.
>
> Electronic voting can be made secure in theory,

But any other form that utilizes paper such as optical scanning which
is a hybrid which has two levels of opportunies for fraud, stuffing
the paper ballot with paper votes and stuffing the electronic
cartridge in "early votes", is always in theory not secure.

but this requires an open-
> source system using open-source encryption algorithms of the sort that
> are used in all trusted security applications.  American voting machines
> are all closed-source proprietary systems, which means there is no way to
> verify that there are no back doors.  And instead of insecure Diebold
> machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each, hackers could
> design and market a tamper-proof open-source machine for less than a
> hundred dollars.
>
> An electronic ballot signed with two or more encryption keys would allow
> auditors to verify its authenticity while still keeping the voter's
> identity a secret.  The encryption can still be broken and ballots
> tampered with by an agency with the resources of a nation-state (e.g.
> NSA), but putting the key generation and ballot control in the hands of

> local jurisdictions should prevent this from occurring.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Charles Bell]

update of the West/Murphy FL18 Congressional race referenced earlier:
Murphy wins by 2000 with one precinct having 900 votes and 7
registered voters and one cartridge not read because of defect. At no
time were the optically-scanned paper ballots counted.

[Matt]

Dänk 42Ø <da...@purpleurkel.com> wrote in
news:S4KdnfOlRfeNNjTN...@earthlink.com:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:33:16 +0000, Matt wrote:
>
>> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F91C678480VeebleFetzer@
>> 216.250.188.141:
>>
>>> In news:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7ma...@88.198.244.100 Matt
>>> <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@
>>>> 216.250.188.141:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:k8avs0$3mt$2...@reader1.panix.com Xox <eta...@etaoin.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> While making absolutely no changes of their own?
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> You believe this crap?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?
>>>
>>> No, but the other poster certainly was.
>>
>> Then certainly, there is nothing to worry about, right?
>>
>> Never mind that the voting machines can be hacked easily, as shown by
>> a number of independents.
>>
>> Electronic voting is safe, and Republicans simply can't win on their
>> own merits.
>
> Electronic voting is *NOT* safe, and leftards like you have said so
> repeatedly in the past. The only difference now is that Democrats
> outrigged the Republican rigging.

Ahhh, so it ISN'T safe.

Then why are you backing it?

Matt

[Dänk 42Ø]

I'm not backing it. I may have misinterpreted your sarcasm, assuming you
supported e-voting because the machines registered a win for Obama.

One example of possible e-voting fraud is in Clark County, Nevada, where
Sequoia Pacific machines registered a win for Barack Obama. The machines
are maintained AND PROGRAMMED by technicians who are members of SEIU, a
union that is a de facto organ of the Democrat Party. Perhaps they
didn't rig the machines, but if they worked for a Republican organ and
the machines recorded a Romney win, you would definitely be screeching
fraud. This is why we need comprehensive national electoral reform to
ensure that no election can be rigged.

BTW, Mexico solved its election rigging problem by introducing tamper-
proof voter identification cards. The cards not only prove the voter's
identity and address, they contain the location of the polling station
and ensure the voter is properly registered BEFORE ELECTION DAY,
eliminating the U.S. problem of shady registration groups destroying
registration forms. Another reform was the use of clear plastic ballot
boxes so voters can see that they are empty when the polls open. Last
time I voted in California, I inserted my paper ballot in a heavy-duty
steel box which may have been a shredder for all I know.

[Anarcissie]

My considerable experience with computer projects -- it has been
my 'profession' for going on 50 years -- leads me to believe that
deliberate sabotage is usually easy to detect and remedy, but such
classic screwups as overconfidence, bad planning, failure to inform,
failure to document, and above all failure to test, all of which
were noted in reports of difficulties with Orca, are endemic to the
craft, especially when a 'business' (boosterist) mentality is
brought to bear on its practitioners by the people who write their
paychecks. Everything I heard sounded exactly like the many, many
project failures I had witnessed and heard about over the years.
The disease seems to be incurable; the same mistakes, grand, petty
and in between, are made over and over again. Perhaps they are
coded in the human genome. In fact I have heard that the Democrats
had the same sort of problems with their similar system four years
ago; the reason it was not noised about more was only that
apparently there was less boasting about it beforehand.

I am not sure why these computer systems beat the ancient
technology of precinct captains with ordinary checklists of
voters.

My experiences also cause me to doubt Anonymous's story. One
might conceal a hacking operation within another, larger
project, but it's pretty risky. It would be smarter to have
the whole thing entirely concealed and completely separate
from everything else, in which case it would be very difficult
to detect until the last moment, if at all. A lot more
information will have to come out of the events before one can
judge whether anything like that happened, anyway.

[Matt]

Dänk 42Ų <da...@purpleurkel.com> wrote in
news:IpGdnaIy-_QGxTfN...@earthlink.com:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:15:19 +0000, Matt wrote:
>

>> DƤnk 42Ć <da...@purpleurkel.com> wrote in

No, I've been against e-voting since it began, for many of the reasons
you state, and quite a few others. Lack of transparency really about
covers it, lack of paper receipts make me refuse to even consider it.

My point is that a certain Republican owns quite a few of the electronic
voting machines. Therefore, anyone backing the Republican party is pro-
electronic voting

Matt