Electronic Vulnerability

Voting more vulnerable than ATM’s – That’s not saying much

By Luther Weeks on October 18, 2011

No reason to say “It can’t happen here”.

Posted in CT, Electronic Vulnerability | Leave a response

Where Common Sense fails: Do insider attacks require a sophisticated conspiracy?

By Luther Weeks on October 10, 2011

In this post, we address where Common Sense fails. Where what seems obvious to individuals and election officials is often counter to the facts or science. Those that are unfamiliar with technology and a specific area of science often overestimate how difficult or easy specific things are to accomplish.

Posted in Chain of Custody, Common Sense, CT, Electronic Vulnerability, FAQ, Internet Security Issues, Internet Voting, Skulduggery and Errors | Leave a response

Caltech/MIT: Election Integrity – Past, Present & Future

By Luther Weeks on October 3, 2011

On Saturday October 1st, I was pleased to be a part of the The Future panel at the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project event, Election Integrity – Past, Present & Future. The event was to celebrate the 25th anniversary of a conference on voting integrity held in 1986.

Posted in CT, Electronic Vulnerability, Post-Election Audits | Leave a response

NJ: Questionable practices – Questioning courts and watchdogs

By Luther Weeks on September 16, 2011

Rigged election or three human errors – we may never know for sure.

Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, National, Skulduggery and Errors | Leave a response

EVT/WOTE: When is the CT Recanvass law totally inadequate?

By Luther Weeks on August 9, 2011

To be reasonably sure that the correct candidate is officially designated as the winner in a race with a write-in candidate, it would be prudent to assume the possibility of a 25% undercount of write-in votes. Then require a recount of all write-in votes in a race where the write-in candidate received at least 42% of the votes in a two candidate race (or 42% of the votes necessary to win in a more than two candidate race.)

Posted in CT, Electronic Vulnerability | Leave a response

Ohio 2004: Case Not Proven – Smoke yet no fire

By Luther Weeks on July 30, 2011

Distortion obscures the real story and learning available from the 2004 Ohio case. This is a seriously risky and vulnerable system, both from its complex, weak design and outsourcing to partisans. Elections results should be accumulated by computer and human systems that we can trust.

Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, National | Leave a response

Round-Up: O Me O My O – Errors in Jersey and Fraud in Ohio

By Luther Weeks on July 9, 2011

We frequently highlight stories of election error and fraud nationwide. We do this as a service to provide references to counter the frequent statements from election officials and legislators claiming no record of such errors and fraud.

Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, Mail/Absentee Voting, National, Skulduggery and Errors | Leave a response

Flip-Flopping has its place, but not in voting

By Luther Weeks on June 8, 2011

Reading and listening to the media we are led to believe that flip-flopping is the worst possible political sin. Wrong. Much of the time we spend writing, voice-mailing, or speaking with legislators is working to convince them to understand a more complete picture; to change their positions on issues.

Posted in CT, Electronic Vulnerability, National, Skulduggery and Errors | Leave a response

Security Theater: Scary! Expert Outlines Physical Security Limitations

By Luther Weeks on April 1, 2011

Connecticut’s ballots and voting machines are vulnerable. We are subject to many of the characteristics of “Security Theater” outlined by Dr. Roger Johnston of Argonne Lab’s Vulnerability Assessments Team. “Security” seals can be compromised, undetected in seconds. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Forget those Dracula movies. Contemplate the value of ballots to our democracy while watching the video.

Posted in Chain of Custody, CT, Electronic Vulnerability, National | Leave a response

NJ Chain-of-Custody: Six unsuccessful attempts to seal voting machines

By Luther Weeks on January 25, 2011

Nothing approaching these six regimes and court challenges could happen in Connecticut! Unlike New Jersey, we have no standard seal “regime”, no standard for seals or ballot containers and any election regulations and procedures going beyond the law are unenforceable. Similar court challenges in the “Nutmeg State” would be about as useful as carved wooden nutmeg seals.

Posted in Chain of Custody, CT, Electronic Vulnerability | Leave a response

Page 10 of 22« First «...8 91011 12...20...»Last »