EMP weapon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:37 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>
wrote:

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
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?
Maybe, maybe not; it depends on the degree of shielding around the

computer.

As others have suggested, you are using the wrong approach. If you
manage manage to disable the voting machines you will probably be
identified rather quickly, the suitcase would certainly arouse
curiosity.

A more effective approach would be to illustrate obviously incorrect
results in an election - one where the total number of votes for
certain candidates (ideally those belonging to parties who have few
followers) receive more votes than there were voters.

PlainBill

 

[hr(bob) hofmann@att.net]

On Jan 13, 6:22 pm, mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article <mn.65697dd15e9927b0.130...@neland.dk>,
Leif Neland  <l...@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.

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  mzen...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

I don't know, but to use it at a polling place you would have to adapt
it to battery operation and then lug around an awfully big battery box.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote in
news:kd1cmu01t4t@enews6.newsguy.com:

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.

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)

Yes, over a distance of 0 to 2 centimeters(one inch).
At 4 inch it would not heat a snowfake enough to melt.

 

[Leif Neland]

Franc Zabkar formulerede spřrgsmĺlet:

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.

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."

It is easy to find 10000 people who can understand how paper ballots
work and how they are secured.

To find ten people who understand how electronic voting works and how
to make it both secure and anonymous is hard. You might find 100 who
*thinks* they know.

And if the rest of the population doesn't trust the machines, or the
machine-attenders democracy is in trouble.

Leif

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

 

[tuinkabouter]

On 1/14/2013 10:26 PM, Leif Neland wrote:

Franc Zabkar formulerede spřrgsmĺlet:
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.

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."


It is easy to find 10000 people who can understand how paper ballots
work and how they are secured.

To find ten people who understand how electronic voting works and how to
make it both secure and anonymous is hard. You might find 100 who
*thinks* they know.

And if the rest of the population doesn't trust the machines, or the
machine-attenders democracy is in trouble.

By pressure of a hacking group "we don't trust voting compters"
the Netherlands is back to a paper ballot system.
They found that with a simple receiver you can say what a person is voting.

More to read:
<http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English>

 

[Robert Macy]

On Jan 13, 5:22 pm, mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article <mn.65697dd15e9927b0.130...@neland.dk>,
Leif Neland  <l...@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.

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  mzen...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Rather narrow band and fairly easy to protect electronics against.
It's the ? to multi GHz that do the most damage, since very few
electronics can effectively protect against the WHOLE spectrum.
Envision how the EMP finds the resonances and then ....

 

[Gareth Magennis]

wrote in message
news:1b27aab8-ad14-4608-a018-809eecbeca01@googlegroups.com...

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS



Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology when
we believe it isn't.


Gareth.

 

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS

 

[mike]

On 1/16/2013 11:36 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:

wrote in message
news:1b27aab8-ad14-4608-a018-809eecbeca01@googlegroups.com...

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS



Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology
when we believe it isn't.


Gareth.

Just chill out and wait.
Won't be long before we all have 'chips' and big brother knows exactly where
we are at all times. Will be hard to impersonate someone without
creating a network address conflict.
And our leaders will be selected by power brokers and lobbyists...just
like they are now.
Problem solved!!!

 

[Gareth Magennis]

"mike" wrote in message news:kd72ad$tg0$1@dont-email.me...

On 1/16/2013 11:36 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:

wrote in message
news:1b27aab8-ad14-4608-a018-809eecbeca01@googlegroups.com...

"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. "

Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS



Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology
when we believe it isn't.


Gareth.

Just chill out and wait.
Won't be long before we all have 'chips' and big brother knows exactly where
we are at all times. Will be hard to impersonate someone without
creating a network address conflict.
And our leaders will be selected by power brokers and lobbyists...just
like they are now.
Problem solved!!!



Hmm, George Orwell couldn't have been more wrong. But then he didn't
foresee the Internet, and how could he have done.

The idea that you can "rise up" and "destroy the machines" is an idea just
as outdated, IMHO.


Gareth.

 

[Gareth Magennis]

The idea that you can "rise up" and "destroy the machines" is an idea just
as outdated, IMHO.




Oh, didn't Arnie do that though? And he got to be Governor of California
for quite a while?

Hmm, maybe there's something in that after all then.


Gareth.

 

[Jon Elson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".
Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri,

all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.

Jon

 

[Jon Elson]

PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

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).

We have mark-sense ballots in Missouri (in addition to electronic

voting) and the voter places the ballots into a paper sleeve after making
their marks. The voter then drops the ballot into the sealed and
tamper-detecting ballot box himself. The box is picked up after the
polls close by armed election officials and taken to a locked room
at the count government center, and kept under multiple eyes until
counted. At no time is an election judge EVER allowed to even touch a
paper ballot.

Jon

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jon Elson wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".
Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri,
all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.

What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read
by the machines in the voting precincts.

 

[josephkk]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0100, Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk> 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.

So, nobody told you about the graveyard voters? Let alone people with
multiple addresses? Cooking the vote with paper ballots is a century old
practice at least.

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.

That might help some. It discourages stupid ways of cheating.

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

 

[Leif Neland]

Fřlgende er skrevet af josephkk:

So, nobody told you about the graveyard voters? Let alone people with
multiple addresses? Cooking the vote with paper ballots is a century old
practice at least.

I forgot to tell that I live in a country where everybody is registered
at birth with a "Person-number". We get sent a voting card printed from
that registry sent to our registered adress.
This voting card is exchanged with a blank ballot at the voting place.
So there is not possible to vote twice.

In Egypt 2000 years BC they had proper registers of the population, but
I guess this is too complicated to have in USA

Leif

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

 

[Jon Elson]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".
Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in
Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant
paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.


What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read
by the machines in the voting precincts.
Yes, the states that use mark-sense cards certainly have physical ballots

that can be checked in a recount, or just spot checked to assure the
computer counts match the physical ballots.

I think Ohio may be one of the states that used touch-screen voting
with no paper generated at the polling place. That is worrisome,
and there have been some anomalies reported, like zero votes for some
candidate in an entire precinct.

Jon

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jon Elson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Jon Elson wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no
"paper trail".
Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in
Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant
paper record
right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is
basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human
readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the
county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the
bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and
compared with the machine-readable tally.

Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine.


What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read
by the machines in the voting precincts.
Yes, the states that use mark-sense cards certainly have physical ballots
that can be checked in a recount, or just spot checked to assure the
computer counts match the physical ballots.

I think Ohio may be one of the states that used touch-screen voting
with no paper generated at the polling place. That is worrisome,
and there have been some anomalies reported, like zero votes for some
candidate in an entire precinct.

Another good reason to have left Ohio, so many decades ago.