EMP weapon

L

Leif Neland

Guest
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials
at the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.
 
"Leif Neland" wrote in message news:mn.65697dd15e9927b0.130671@neland.dk...

Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials
at the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...




Er, perhaps you should just go back to whatever gaming planet you happen to
be on at the moment, eh.

Oh and cut out the Skunk, too, you are just providing more funds for
criminal gangs to invest in things far more sinister.


Hope that helps.
 
In the US, at least one company manufacturing such machines was a strong
supporter of conservative politicians. It was assumed (but not proven, as far
as I know), that this company had given their machines a "back door" through
which to alter the votes.

People will have to stand up and reject computerized voting machines. They are
too-easily compromised.
 
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kcssr0$mi9$1@dont-email.me...
In the US, at least one company manufacturing such machines was a strong
supporter of conservative politicians. It was assumed (but not proven, as
far as I know), that this company had given their machines a "back door"
through which to alter the votes.

People will have to stand up and reject computerized voting machines. They
are too-easily compromised.
Click to expand...
Have you been watching that U.S. series "Scandal" by any chance ... ?
:)

Arfa
 
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...
Click to expand...
In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

As for everybody understanding the ballot system, tell that to the
loser of the 2000 US election. ISTR that there was some
misunderstanding about "chads" ...

Here in Australia every citizen receives a Medicare card. ISTM that it
would be very easy to use this card (and a PIN) to register a vote via
telephone. The voice prompts could also tell the voter whether their
vote was informal, so there would be no need to deliberate over
whether a chad was "pregnant. Telephone voting would save a massive
amount of time and money, with a result being guaranteed almost
immediately after the close of polling. The Electoral Commission could
oversee the elections as usual (nobody has questioned their
impartiality or competence in the past). Alternatively, international
observers could be engaged to observe the process in the tally room
where the servers are kept (we have impartial referees and linespeople
for international football matches, so why not for elections?). It
goes without saying that the software would be open source, with full
source code available for free download and examination by the general
public.

Another benefit of electronic voting would be that we could afford to
vote more often, especially in referenda.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper
trail".

The thought had crossed my mind that a heavily encrypted system could be used,
and voters could check the "voting database" to confirm their vote had not
changed. But I'm sure someone would figure out a way to compromise even that.
 
On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at
the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote
Click to expand...
with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we
have a paper trail if there is any doubt.

Bill Gill
 
Franc Zabkar udtrykte prćcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...

In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Click to expand...
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.

Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty,
when it is locked.
And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by
members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected
party members), so it is not easy to cheat.

It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000
election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all
alike, could be done by very few.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"

Leif

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.
 
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:40:36 -0600, Bill Gill <billnews2@cox.net>
wrote:

On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at
the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote
with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we
have a paper trail if there is any doubt.

Bill Gill
Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
Click to expand...
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.

In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

PlainBill
 
On 1/13/2013 10:57 AM, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:40:36 -0600, Bill Gill <billnews2@cox.net
wrote:

On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting
machines.

Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both
secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at
the next municipal elections.

The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which
think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the
system, it seems...

Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote
with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we
have a paper trail if there is any doubt.

Bill Gill
Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.

In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

PlainBill

Well, One of the things the counting machine does is to check for
Click to expand...
accuracy. If it finds, for example, votes for 2 or more candidates in
the same race it rejects the ballot and the voter has to do another
one. And in Oklahoma we don't have write in votes.

As far as your other problems, those are procedural problems, and
the results should be rejected by the poll watchers. Otherwise
there is always an appeal to the court system.

There is no such thing as a perfect voting system. The Oklahoma
system does allow for checking and a recount of the actual
ballots.

Bill
 
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the
peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can
understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...

In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

As for everybody understanding the ballot system, tell that to the
loser of the 2000 US election. ISTR that there was some
misunderstanding about "chads" ...

Here in Australia every citizen receives a Medicare card. ISTM that it
would be very easy to use this card (and a PIN) to register a vote via
telephone. The voice prompts could also tell the voter whether their
vote was informal, so there would be no need to deliberate over
whether a chad was "pregnant. Telephone voting would save a massive
amount of time and money, with a result being guaranteed almost
immediately after the close of polling. The Electoral Commission could
oversee the elections as usual (nobody has questioned their
impartiality or competence in the past). Alternatively, international
observers could be engaged to observe the process in the tally room
where the servers are kept (we have impartial referees and linespeople
for international football matches, so why not for elections?). It
goes without saying that the software would be open source, with full
source code available for free download and examination by the general
public.
Click to expand...
Here in Washington State we have vote-by-mail, using good, old fashioned paper
ballots. It's easy, convenient, and seems to work very well. And never a line.
 
PlainBill@yawhoo.com har bragt dette til verden:
Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent
elections:

If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll
worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker
preferred, of course).

Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their
choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the
candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not
counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear
indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot
is valid.


In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run
the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again,
verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no
mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The
preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers
were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters
and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at
random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for
the official recount.

There is an easy remedy for this: the poll workers are not civil
Click to expand...
servants or otherwise employed by the government, but selected from the
general population by the parties.

In this way, both sides watch over each other. And the task is so
simple and transparent, that everybody can understand it after a few
minutes if instruction.

But, back to the question:
Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12->mains voltage(120/230V depending on
location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of
disabling a computer?

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.
 
On 2013-01-12, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?
Click to expand...
A friend of mine who used to own an electronics company (he is now retired)
had an idea to make something like that to take out traffic cameras and
other surveillance cameras, similar to a gadget police are considering
for immobilizing late-model cars involved in chases:

http://gizmodo.com/5454295/this-emp-cannon-stops-cars-almost-instantly

(This of course would not stop cars from the 1970s and earlier that do not have
computer-contolled engines.) If it can be done with cars it should be doable
with voting machines, or cameras, or any non-hardened computerized device
for that matter.

My friend never actually built anything as far as I know but it is
an interesting idea. You would want the pulse to be as focused as
possible to eliminate collateral damage, including to your own vehicle
and/or personal electronics.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
On 1/13/2013 11:04 AM, Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...

In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

As for everybody understanding the ballot system, tell that to the
loser of the 2000 US election. ISTR that there was some
misunderstanding about "chads" ...

Here in Australia every citizen receives a Medicare card. ISTM that it
would be very easy to use this card (and a PIN) to register a vote via
telephone. The voice prompts could also tell the voter whether their
vote was informal, so there would be no need to deliberate over
whether a chad was "pregnant. Telephone voting would save a massive
amount of time and money, with a result being guaranteed almost
immediately after the close of polling. The Electoral Commission could
oversee the elections as usual (nobody has questioned their
impartiality or competence in the past). Alternatively, international
observers could be engaged to observe the process in the tally room
where the servers are kept (we have impartial referees and linespeople
for international football matches, so why not for elections?). It
goes without saying that the software would be open source, with full
source code available for free download and examination by the general
public.
Click to expand...
But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in
the voting machines.

Another benefit of electronic voting would be that we could afford to
vote more often, especially in referenda.
Click to expand...
 
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar udtrykte prćcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples
trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is
very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...

In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.
Click to expand...
In some countries voting is not compulsory, so your extra 10% would go
undetected when the turnout was 50%, say.

Believe or not, in Australia the only requirement for identifying
yourself at the polling station was to tell the booth attendant your
name. S/he would then locate it in a paper directory and draw a line
through it. This meant that you could vote several times at several
polling booths by impersonating other electors.

IMHO, paper ballots are an anachronism that should have died long ago.
I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. AISI, electronic voting is an
inevitable progression.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"
Click to expand...
I wouldn't trust Putin with any ballot, paper or otherwise. Would you?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter
<dachthetniet@net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in
the voting machines.
Click to expand...
Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is
to the ballot boxes:

"And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored
by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the
elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat."

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:37 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

But, back to the question:
Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12->mains voltage(120/230V depending on
location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of
disabling a computer?
Click to expand...
To me, you are just like those Green zealots who want to impose their
anti-GM ideology on the rest of the world by destroying experimental
crops. If you don't agree with something, then you feel justified in
vandalising it. To me the solution is simple -- if you don't like
electronic voting, then vote against it. ISTM that a referendum would
be in order.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring
that electronic voting is safe and reliable.
Click to expand...
It's quite capable of being safe and reliable. It's just that the people who
manufacture the voting machines aren't safe and reliable.
 
Leif Neland wrote:
Franc Zabkar udtrykte prćcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the
peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can
understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ...

In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing
the ballot box". Very easy to do ...

And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%.
Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like.

Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty,
when it is locked.
And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by
members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected
party members), so it is not easy to cheat.

It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000
election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all
alike, could be done by very few.

The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it
was OK?"

Leif
Click to expand...
Here in Canada our last federal election has been tainted with a
possible Robo-Call attack on voters. The way this works is first a party
figures out who is likely to vote for them and who is not, then the day
of the election they call the people (a robot does the calling) to tell
them that the polling station has moved to a new location...

Now you only need to do this in a few close-call ridings and you only
need to divert a few people so you don't tip your hand...

However Elections Canada is looking into this and if they can ever
figure out who Pierre Poutine is (Poutine is a Canadian 'delicacy') they
might be able to track down who set this up.

So, even paper ballots with scrutineers of all parties can be defeated
by unscrupulous people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall_scandal

Sad when this sort of things happens, but it generally pisses people off
enough that they get involved with other parties than the ones suspected
of perpetrating the robo-calls (I hope!).

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
 
In article <mn.65697dd15e9927b0.130671@neland.dk>,
Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine?

It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price
to pay to defend democracy.
Click to expand...
Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the
electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from
some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element.

What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying
electronics? I gather that these things put out a magnetic field
with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range.



Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top