c'est officiel ,bush n'a jamais été élu.

(source agoravox)

C’est officiel : Bush n’avait jamais été élu !





La
nouvelle est venue de l’Ohio ce 15 décembre dans une relative
indifférence. On se souvient que lors des dernières élections en 2004,
cet Etat avait joué un rôle-clé, Kerry pouvant encore l’emporter si
l’Ohio versait démocrate. Cela ne fut pas le cas, mais très vite, lors
de la soirée même d’élection, des voix s’étaient fait entendre pour
accuser le clan Bush de trucage et de malversations. Le soir même,
alors que l’issue est encore incertaine et que les blogs passent la
soirée à comparer les sondages au sortir des urnes aux résultats qui
apparaissent sur les téléviseurs, le monde s’inquiète. W. Bush pas
vraiment: il sait qu’il va gagner. Et pour cause.





C’est la deuxième fois que ça se produit, l’élection de 2000 ayant vu
l’épisode épique du recomptage des fiches cartonnées de la Floride
occuper plusieurs semaines les écrans américains. Pour mémoire, le
perdant c’était le nouveau prix Nobel, Al Gore, qui avait donc lui aussi était... élu président des Etats-Unis !
Bush, le lendemain de sa seconde élection avait surpris les
commentateurs en montrant une étrange quiétude, dans son ranch, la même
qu’il affichera au fond d’une école pendant les attentats contre le
WTC. Bush sait quelque chose, mais ne peut dire quoi.
En l’occurence pour l’Ohio que son ami Diebold a mis en place des
machines à voter qui, quoi qu’il arrive, lui assurent d’être élu. Les
machines étaient vérolées, tout le monde s’en doutait. Mais aujourd’hui, on en a la preuve formelle.
C’est Jennifer Brunner, la nouvelle responsable du vote dans l’Etat de l’Ohio, qui le dit ce jour,
elle qui restera peut être dans l’Histoire pour affirmer que si le
matériel dont elle a la charge n’est pas assez sûr pour fonctionner en
2008, cela revient à dire qu’en 2004 cela ne l’était pas plus, et que
par conséquent l’élection en Ohio a été flouée. Et la présidentielle
avec."It was worse than I anticipated" ("c’est pire que prévu"), dit-elle aujourd’ui à propos des cinq modèles différents de machines à voter installés dans l’Etat. Tous les moyens de fraude découverts par Mme Brunner avaient été détectés depuis longtemps par des activistes tels BradBlog et BlackBox, et raillés en direct avec brio par John Stewart , lors d’une émission restée culte du Daily Show avec l’ineffable John Hogman, que d’aucuns connaissent ailleurs.
"At
polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to
access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts
into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce
malignant software into servers." Les votes, dans le système Diebold, étaient stockés sur des cartes PCMCIA verrouillées par une clé du
modèle de ceux qui figurent sur les bars de chambre d’hôtel, à savoir
un modèle répandu partout et copiable à n’importe quelle échoppe du
coin. Le remplacement en 15 secondes de cette carte par un autre modèle
muni d’un logiciel faisant 4 lignes de code seulement était capable de modifier tous les décomptes, en faveur de tel ou tel candidat. La démonstration a été faite également par BradBlog.
Le
soir, les camionnettes pick-up qui ramassaient les cartes les
entassaient dans des sacs type sac de sport non fermés, sans aucun
scellé, à l’arrière, le véhicule portant un superbe autocollant de
soutien à la campagne de W. Bush. La feuille d’émargement des bureaux
de vote, contenant en filigrane le logo de l’Etat ou un insigne fédéral
avait été remplacées par de simples photocopies. Bref, les deux
élections consécutives de W. Bush ont été entachées de graves
malversations, dont l’Ohio a été l’endroit privilégié, l’Etat étant un
pion obligatoire sur l’échiquier de la conquête électorale et de la
statégie républicaine.
Trois
ans après les faits, on apprend donc que ce ne sont pas les urnes qui
ont porté W. Bush au pouvoir, mais les ordinateurs. Brunner propose
purement et simplement de remplacer dans 50 des 88 comtés de l’Ohio
TOUTES les machines de type Diebold et consorts, et de les remplacer
par des modèles à scanner, qui liront le vote effectué sur une feuille
remplie à la main par le votant. C’est un gigantesque pas en arrière,
au coût exhorbitant, mais nécessaire selon elle pour respecter
pleinement le droit de vote, floué en Ohio. Comme ailleurs. Brunner a
en fait mis trois ans pour amasser toute les preuves d’une forfaiture
manifeste, celle de son prédécesseur, J. Kenneth Blackwell, responsable
de la tenue des élections en 2004 pour tout l’Etat alors qu’il était
vice-président de la direction de la campagne de W. Bush en Ohio. Il
avait été en 2000 en Floride "principal electoral system adviser’’
pour l’équipe Bush durant le recompte en Floride. En 2004, il a
vainement tenté de devenir gouverneur de l’Ohio, avant d’être distancé
par un démocrate.
Le
travail de Brunner a d’abord consisté à prendre en compte les plaintes
d’électeurs, dont celles du comté de Cuyahoga County, qui inclut la
ville de Cleveland, dans lequel des employés chargés du décompte des
voix avaient manifestement et maladroitement trafiqué les résultats.
Ils n’étaient pas les seuls, car dans d’autres W. Bush s’est retrouvé à
deux reprises avoir plus de voix à lui seul que d’inscrits. A côté,
Jean Tiberi, à Paris, a joué voici quelques années dans la catégorie
des poids mouches. Le décompte des votes a été extrêmement difficile à
établir, voire impossible : Blackwell,
avant de quitter son poste, avait tout simplement détruit les
récépissés de vote de 56 des 88 comtés en Ohio. "Accidentellement" bien
entendu, selon la thèse officielle. Les preuves auraient dû être
gardées pendant 22 mois après l’élection, selon la loi fédérale.
Un juge chargé de l’affaire n’hésitant pas à dire "but
the rule of law says that when evidence is destroyed it creates a
presumption that the people who destroyed evidence did so because it
would have proved the contention of the other side". A savoir que
ceux qui ont détruit l’on fait sciemment, pour cacher leurs manigances
et la preuve surtout que le parti adverse l’avait emporté !
Parmi celles-ci, la découverte d’étrangetés, telles que des votes
accordés à Bush dans la "BibleBelt", la partie la plus conservatrice de
l’Etat et qui portaient deux lignes plus loin l’acquiescement à un vote
portant sur le mariage gay (on vote pour plusieurs choses en même temps
aux Etats-Unis). Ou des voix venues de nulle part ayant apporté un
soutien non négligeables non pas à Kerry, mais à d’obscurs candidats
démocrates situés en bas des feuilles de vote, privant le premier de
scores importants. La meilleure étant encore celle du comté de Warren
County, où, en raison d’une hypothétique "attaque terroriste"
annoncée par la CIA (au nom du Homeland Security), tous les bulletins
de vote avaient été portés dans une salle qui est restée fermée
plusieurs heures... avec au final la découverte de 22 000 bulletins de
trop...
Ou à Clermont, où là on a utilisé une autre technique :
des autocollants blancs placés sur le nom de Kerry, pour leurrer les
machines à lecture optique du comté... Sans oublier les 129 000
bulletins rejetés pour diverses raisons, dont... 94 000 en provenance
de bureaux de votes favorables à Kerry, qui auraient dû lui apporter
selon les observateurs au moins 26 000 votes de plus. Selon d’autres observateurs, douze moyens différents de tricher ont été employés. Au total, on évalue à quelques 350 000 le nombre de bulletins volés à Kerry, qui perd au final avec 136 483 bulletins d’écart seulement.
La
différence entre les prévisions, devenues comme en France efficaces à 1
ou 2 % maxi prêt, ont étonné également tous les observateurs. Selon
CNN, les sondages de sortie de bureau de vote ("exit polls") (on a le droit de le faire aux Etats-Unis), donnent Kerry gagnant avec 4,2 % des votes. La petite Wonkette,
l’un des plus fins observateurs de la vie politique américaine, le soir
même, en direct, annonce exactement la même chose, et affirme que Kerry
a déjà gagné. Pour elle, c’est plié... mais très vite elle constate en
direct à la télévision que que les "fromages" Excel changent de sens,
et s’en inquiète en direct. Bush l’emporte le lendemain avec 2,5 %
d’avance, ce qui fait un écart prévisionnel de 6,7 %, ce qui semble tout simplement impossible.
Les
nouveaux votants aussi sont en nombre extraordinaire, et ce, dans trois
comtés principalement. à Warren County, qui a vu sa population croître
de 14,75 % par rapport à 2000, le nombre de nouveaux électeurs passe à
29,66 %. La marge des bulletins de Bush y passe de 29 176 votes à 41
124 votes. A Clermont County, la population augmente de 4,39 %, et le
nombre de votants de 10,20 % : le
nombre de bulletins pour Bush passe de 26 202 votes à 36 376 votes.
Enfin à Butler County qui n’augmente que de 3,12 % sa population, les
votants passent à 10,06 % de plus, et les votes pro-Bush de 40 197
votes à 52 550 votes. Au total, sur trois comtés seulement, Bush
engrange 130 050 voix de différence... alors qu’il emporte l’Ohio avec 136 483 votes d’écart seulement...
Dans
cette découverte sensationnelle, on notera au passage qu’il n’y a eu
aucune théorie de complot, simplement des preuves retrouvées après de
longues vérifications. Mais ces découvertes, qui posent le problème de la légitimité même de la présence au sommet de l’Etat de W. Bush en appellent automatiquement d’autres :
un homme qui a réussi à deux reprises à tromper autant ces concitoyens
peut aller encore plus haut dans l’abject. Y compris celle de tout
faire pour arriver à ces fins, quel que soit l’obstacle. En 2001, W.
Bush souhaite entrer en guerre par tous les moyens contre Saddam
Hussein. N’y arrivant pas, il va d’abord créer le mythe des armes de
destruction massive, en créant si besoin était de fausses preuves. Un
article récent d’Agoravox nous a montré ce long cheminement médiatique
pour influer sur l’opinion américaine, et y arriver en définitive. Y
arriver grâce à un événement extraordinaire, l’effondrement du World
Trade Center.

Maintenant, à vous de savoir si un président, qui a manipulé à ce point
la démocratie en réussissant à se faire sacrer deux fois sans avoir
gagné réellement, est digne de confiance quand il nous balance des
explications abracadabrantesques sur d’extraordinaires pilotes après 20
heures de leçon seulement sur un simple Cessna, qui deviennent capables
de voler en rase-mottes avec un engin de plus de cent tonnes, ou de
réussir à viser en pleine ville des tours après avoir réussi un arrondi
parfait à 650 km/h, malgré les vents tourbillonnants et l’absence de
guidage au sol ? Ce qu’ils ont fait, aucun pilote ne l’aurait fait, pour paraphraser Guillaumet.
Personnellement,
comme pour la récente affaire iranienne, j’ai toujours eu du mal à
faire confiance à ce président-menteur en chef. Cet homme a toujours
menti, depuis le début. Ceux qui croient encore à sa reconversion
religieuse et à son abstinence alcoolique en seront bientôt pour leur
frais eux aussi. W. Bush restera dans l’Histoire comme le président du mensonge. C’est désormais indéniable. Pire : ça vient juste d’être prouvé.

putain gg oO... j'viens de me taper la lecture là et c'est quand même hallucinant qu'ils soient cons à ce point les amerlocs...

Merci Gutt pour l'article. C'est valider quelque chose qu'on savait tous plus ou moins.
Mais ce qui m'inquiete moi c'est l'arrivée de ces machines à voter en France et ce dans la plus grande indifférence. Des communes ce sont vues imposées ce genre de machines aux dernières élections. J'avais lu un dossier écrit par un informaticien qui démontrait qu'il n'y avait pas plus anti-démocratique que ces machines.
Prenons un exemple au hasard

Le petit Nicolas souhaite remporter ses élections. Il décide alors de faire en sorte que les machines soient configurées pour que tout vote ( ségo, ou vote blanc) se valide en vote pour lui. Il est tout à fait possible avec ces machines que le vote blanc apparaissent à l'écran (et là je suis contente je crois que j'ai voté blanc) mais soit comptabilisé par la machine comme un vote pour le petit nicolas. Rajoutons un algorithme pour éviter d'attirer l'attention , bah oui 100% pour nico c'est louche et l'affaire est pliée. Et tout cela juste avec l'intervention d'un informaticien, pas d'un génie...

Les Américains sont cons ? PAs de panique on y arrive

Oh ça fait flipper

Au fait la dernière blague c’est "quelle est la différence entre Bush et Hitler ?"
Hitler il a été élu !


sinon je cite un commentaire de l'article mais a prendre avec des pincettes , et si quelqu'un a le temps de recherche le nom des societé ca peut être interessant

Citation :

C’est aussi marrant de constater que
les 3 boites qui faisaient les machines à voter ont subventionné le
partic républicain beaucoup + que les démocrates, et qu’en France les 2
entreprises qui sont sur le coup pour les machines à voter son aussi
des potes de Sarko !

Je dis pas je n'aime pas Bush.

Mais croire sur parole un article (dont vous ne connaissez meme pas la source à par Gutt). Moi c'est ca qui me fais vraiment flipper.

EDIT: dont la source est agoravox donc un illustre inconnu qui peut vous raconter tout et n'importe quoi.

j'ai indiquer la source.
et dans l'articie il y a aussi un lieu vers la source de l'article en anglais. qui donne aussi le lien vers le communiqué de l'état de l'oyao.
tu peux cliquer au lieu de parcourir.
A moins que comme beaucoup , il faut que ce soit ppda qui le dise pour que ce soit vrai ?
la seule information crédible est que l'on fait l'effort de vérifier soit meme.

c'est pas a moi de faire les recherches a ta place si tu ne veux pas me croire sur parole mais je vais t'aider :

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5463#more-5463

Citation :

Interview with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
Conducted December 19, 2007
By Brad Friedman for The BRAD BLOG
Transcribed by Emily Levy
BRAD BLOG: First off, I know that when we spoke over the
summer you had pointed out that EVEREST would be beginning on 9/11 and
ending on Pearl Harbor Day…
JENNIFER BRUNNER: Well, hey, it did really begin a little
bit later because we had push-back from legislators who had been
contacted by some of the election officials.
BB: Right…
JB: …So the approval was actually on, I think, the 24th of
September. And then we were able to proceed from there. And the actual
testing began around the 7th of October and they had about two months,
then, to do the testing and write their report.
BB: And I think the implication at the time when you had
mentioned [9/11 and Pearl Harbor Day] was how perilous and fraught with
various sorts of risks such testing could be. Just to get a real quick
idea, before I get to the important stuff, were your fears materialized
here? How's it going? How's the response been, in that sense?
JB: To the results of the testing?
BB: Yeah, for a start.
JB: Actually, we've received an overwhelming number of
unsolicited, positive, supportive comments from everyday citizens
whether it's by email or fax or letter or telephone calls, and what I
was very pleased about was when we presented our results to the media
on the 14th of December it was met with credibility. They asked
questions, they understood it, and no one asked hostile questions like
they didn't believe the results of the study.
BB: Was any of that a surprise to you?
JB: I had been concerned because I saw the reaction that
Debra Bowen had in California, that she experienced, but we had the
benefit in Ohio of seeing some of the things that she faced in looking
at what we could do to prevent some of that. And part of what, I think,
helped us was that we conducted parallel independent testing. So we not
only used the academic researchers but we used corporate scientists and
they did the same type of security testing in what we would call a
parallel independent method. So we had additional validation.
The way that I analyzed the situation was that I looked at the
spectrum of people who were interested in these issues, started from
the voting activists, with the voters more in the center who've been
more concerned about what their election experience and the integrity
of the system, and then to Board of Elections officials and voting
machine manufacturers. And understanding that, perhaps, the academic
scientists would have greater credibility with the activists, while the
corporate scientists might have greater credibility with the election
officials and the manufacturers, and that if we compared the results of
the two and they're similar and identical that actually we will gain
the confidence of the public in what our results were.
BB: And [those results were] largely identical from both the academic and corporate testers?
JB: They were largely identical. The only difference is that
the academic researchers were also performing source code review on all
three systems. And so there was, there was an additional dimension to
the report of the academics. But the interesting thing is, is that the
corporate scientists, which was the company from Columbus called
MicroSolve, basically looked at this as a computer-based system ---
industry standards for computer security --- and the systems that we
have, that have been certified here in Ohio, performed miserably.
BB: [chuckle] To put it frank…And just to give you a
real quick chance to respond, I know you went out of your way to do a
bipartisan report, to do, as you say, both an academic and corporate
study here, and you even had the Speaker of the Ohio House join you
during the press conference …
JB: Which I think spoke volumes.
BB: I think it did, too. But then there was immediately an attack from the Republican Party of Ohio's website
saying that your study was put together with "left-wing activist
academics" and claiming that you "cooked up" the report. So I wanted to
give you a chance, if you wanted, to respond to that pretty startling
criticism.
JB: Well, unfortunately, the tenor of the Republican Party on
issues dealing with a Democratic state office holder such as myself, is
not very objective. And they tend to find any small little thing to
blow out of proportion and turn into criticism. And I'm surprised that
they have any credibility within their own ranks, because if I were a
member of the Republican Party and trying to read the blogs or what was
on my state Party website, I would get very tired of all that
negativity.
BB: When you chose the company SysTest to join this, I
understand, as we had spoken before and that you felt it would be good
to sort of have them as a balance to some of the academics and so
forth, because SysTest has, in the past, tested for the federal labs…
JB: If I could just interject, Brad, they did not test for
security. They ended up, we ended up breaking the task into about,
well, four different areas: performance, general performance of the
machines and the systems; configuration management, are all the
machines configured to the same level according to certification in the
state; security; and then internal controls and operations. So SysTest
really looked at the other three areas besides security.
BB: …Which is interesting because someone had pointed me to a statement they made back in August of '06,
a quote from the president of SysTest [Brian Phillips] where they said,
"All of the electronic voting equipment we have tested at SysTest Labs
has been found to be accurate, reliable and secure. We have not found
evidence of anything that would lead us to believe that these
machines," speaking about some of the ES&S machines, "are not
reliable pieces of electronic voting equipment." Did their report vary
from that statement, and does it concern you that they said one thing
then and a different thing now?
JB: Well, I really can't speak to what the context was of
what they said in 2006, but SysTest actually accommodated our ability
to employ the academics to do the research. We were able to bring the
academics in as subcontractors to SysTest to meet all the state
purchasing requirements that we had, and SysTest actually found a
number of problems in the areas that they reviewed. And some of those
problems are my responsibility as Secretary of State to clear up, with
policies and procedures, and some of them are ones that I inherited,
such as; no kind of documentation of the configuration of these
machines; is all their software at the same level?; and then with the
performance issues, they found some things that were satisfactory and
they found some things that were unsatisfactory.
BB: And they [SysTest] didn't have the right to change or
review or edit the scientists', the academic scientists', findings, did
they?
JB: Each party proceeded independently …each researcher, each contractor that worked on the study.
BB: All right, let's…
JB: With the exception, I should say, Brad, in the academics
they did work as a team with the principal investigator or lead
researcher being Patrick McDaniel from Penn State.
BB: Fair enough. Let me get to some of the criticisms here,
because I think, by and large, serious election integrity folks and
academics and computer scientists have applauded the tests, but there
has been, I think it's fair to say, a big number of concerns about the
recommendations.
JB: Mm-hmm…
BB: I'd like to go through the ones that concern me for a
start --- with the central[ized ballot] op-scanning --- but first
wanted to give you an opportunity just to respond generally, overall,
to the criticism of the recommendations you made.

"These are going to be issues
that are going to be controversial, people are going to have
differences of opinion, and my attitude is to try to embrace what's out
there, to look at it objectively, understanding that I don't have all
the answers to everything."

JB:
Well, I can say that it's really good that there are so many people out
there who care this much about our voting system, because it means they
care about democracy. And as you would anticipate, these are going to
be issues that are going to be controversial, people are going to have
differences of opinion, and my attitude is to try to embrace what's out
there, to look at it objectively, understanding that I don't have all
the answers to everything, but I started out with what simply is what I
gave the legislature: a set of recommendations. And I know, by the time
all is said and done, it's not going to look the same as how I gave it
to the legislature.
BB: And that's one of the questions, I understand that there
may be augmentations to the recommendations, for example on audits and
so forth, things that weren't specifically…
JB: …Certainly.
BB: …spoken to. But is there a chance that some of your recommendations may actually change
now that some of the election integrity and election administration
experts are ringing in? Because one of the criticisms was, from one of
those folks that I spoke to, that your circle of advisors here may have
been a bit too small, in that it was computer scientists and election
officials, but didn't really include election administration experts
who take into account election procedures and so forth.
JB: Well, it's likely that we'll expand our recommendations,
because the environment in which we've made those recommendations is
changing. For instance, the [federal] Holt bill [HR811]
may actually be revived to allow states to opt in for a paper trail
now. And also for a post-election audit. And the reward would be
federal reimbursement for undertaking those procedures or purchasing
that equipment.
BB: For a paper ballot, specifically, as opposed to a paper trail, as I understand it. But …
JB: Although there's a little question right now as to
whether a state like Ohio, that already has a paper trail, would be
reimbursed for a paper ballot [system]. Whereas a state like Indiana,
that doesn't have a paper trail on some of its machines, whether it
would be reimbursed for going to a paper trail or to a paper ballot.
And we're still trying to ascertain that from Congressman Holt's office.
BB: And I have noticed that as well, so I'm glad you did
also. But, nonetheless, that doesn't speak to biggest concerns. Whether
there's federal funding [from the Holt bill] for paper ballots, I
understand his bill will not speak to specifics like central
op-scan, versus precinct-based op-scan, and that's been one of the big
criticisms, you know. Larry Norden [of NYU's Brennan Center for
Justice] and some of these other folks, and myself included, have said
that central op-scan, particularly in Ohio (where things like Warren County's lockdown from '04
[where county elections officials locked out media and the public from
the counting room on election night, based on a "terror threat" they
claimed had come from the FBI, but actually hadn't, and which had
simply been a plan in advance to keep folks out of the counting room in
one of the last counties to report results that night] comes to mind),
central counting seems far less transparent, much easier to game than
precinct-based counting. And even you had said in your statement that
so far the integrity of these systems, "is provided purely by the
integrity of honest election officials." Shouldn't that [recommendation
for centralized counting] be changed to precinct-based counting that
the public can oversee? And where you've got, you know, election
results posted in a decentralized fashion?

"To protect the systems
against viruses that can be inserted into the system through something
as simple as a PDA and a magnet and then the cards are passed from
machine to machine almost like Typhoid Mary, I think that we have to
take greater care."

Citation :

JB:
Well, because of the security risks that were identified by the
researchers in the study, ultimately I think that would be a very
beneficial way because it's worked in the past. But until the
engineering in the system is to the level that it should be to protect
the systems against viruses that can be inserted into the system
through something as simple as a PDA and a magnet and then the cards
are passed from machine to machine almost like Typhoid Mary, I think
that we have to take greater care. So then we compensate for what we
lose in the precinct-based optical scan by things such as a
post-election audit, by ensuring that observers can be there during the
counting and also by placing precinct-based optical scanners in each
polling place to allow a voter to insert their ballot, check for
overvotes, be able to have that ballot back, make changes and then
place it into a ballot box.
BB: And I asked [the critics from Brennan Center and
elsewhere] about that yesterday. They had a conference call on some of
these issues. And I shared with them, some of your responses. And they
said, well, while they understand them, the risks you [refer to] are
sort of understandable, if you're talking to computer scientists, but
not to election administrat[ration experts], who understand how it
works, and that the risks you take with central-based counting are far
outweighed with precinct-based counting because if there is some of the
[inappropriate] access and the viruses and so forth that you suggest,
it's far more decentralized.
I did try to hold their feet to the fire on the point that you had
made to me. And they said there was still no comparison in [the safety
added by] doing precinct-based counting, that most of the chicanery
happens when there's transport of these ballots back to the County. The
chain of custody sort of disappears at that point and, as you know,
many of the counties --- and the bad guys who did some pretty
questionable things in '04 --- are still running things in places like
Warren County and elsewhere.
Doesn't that concern you? And their criticism, we're talking about a
lot of well-known election integrity and administration experts, like
Larry Norden from Brennan Center, Candice Hoke from CSU and so forth.
Are you hearing those complaints about your recommendations?
JB: Well, that was a really long question …
BB: Sorry.
JB: … but let me focus first on the issue of security. What I
think is being missed by a lot of these academic folks, who often times
focus on one particular issue in the election process, is that there is
the potential to inject malicious software into a system --- and I'm
talking purely computer security at this point --- but these are
computer-based systems.

"If there is malicious
software, like a virus put into the system, it can not only affect the
machines at the polling places, it can affect the tabulation that
occurs at the server and it can also affect future elections if it's
not detected."

They
operate from a server, there is firmware in machines that are in the
polling places, they can be tampered with, they can be penetrated, and
if there is malicious software, like a virus put into the system, it
can not only affect the machines at the polling places, it can affect
the tabulation that occurs at the server and it can also affect future
elections if it's not detected, because we go back to the question of
risk. And first of all we need to know if it's detectable, second of
all if it's recoverable, if it can be recovered from. And I think that
they're not grasping the severity of the risk to the system from a
purely computer-based standpoint.
BB: Well, some of the folks I have talked to are, you know,
computer experts, and I gotta tell you, Jennifer, that I was the one,
remember, who gave the Diebold touch-screen system to Princeton for the study that revealed how easy it was to insert a virus on these systems.
And I gotta tell ya, looking at it --- and certainly as a ten-year computer programmer myself --- I'm really concerned about the transparency that gets lost
when we centralize things as opposed to the decentralized counting. So
I do hope you'll continue to talk with them about it, because these
folks who I've talked to, I believe do understand the computer-related risks that we're talking about. But [they] understand that there needs to be, that there is mitigation [of those risks], in the more public precinct-based counting.
JB: But I still think, what our researchers found, is that
with actions that look much like a person simply voting, risks that
would be difficult to detect could be entered into the system. And what
I've been working hard to get people to understand is that I'm not
proposing a permanent solution. I'm proposing a way to deal with the
limitations in the equipment that we have now. It's all that's
available to us.
Then it's incumbent upon all of us, whether we're election officials
or whether we're activists or computer researchers, to push the
industry to improve their standards and to better engineer equipment
that will meet the security standards that we are used to and that we
expect in everything else that we do that involves a computer, whether
it's banking or communications or driving around in our car using the
GPS.
BB: Well, you understand… they did express that, you know,
the recommendations you made for central-based counting might make
sense for, certainly, the March primary that's coming up, but that for
the longer term, for the November election, central-based counting is
far more fraught with risks.
And
even, by the way, you had sent me a diagram showing the risk points of
where the memory cards are transferred and so forth, as I see that
diagram, there's actually more risk points with the central count than
with the precinct-based, if I'm understanding that chart correctly. More points of vulnerability…
[See chart at right, click it to enlarge. "M" denotes places where vulnerable memory cards are transported from point to point.]
JB: I wish I could sit beside you and point to you, with that
diagram, because essentially if you were to take the report and assign
the numbers of risks to each component in the system, and I think
you're going to see that the greatest number of risks are with the DRE
[Direct Recording Electronic voting systems, usually touch-screen],
there'll be …
BB: Oh, I'll agree with that! No problem in regard to DREs…
JB: …and one of the very startling concerns that was raised
for me was the ability --- with the optical scan that's predominantly
used in the polling places in Ohio --- to turn off the optical scanner,
turn off the memory of the optical scanner and allow the ballots to
continue to be scanned but the memory is not capturing the votes.
BB: Which is, by the way, really shocking when you had
mentioned that. So I agree. That said, I asked [the experts] about that
as well and they said, well, that is why you need to do audits and/or
use central-based counting as a double-check, if you will, on
the precinct-based counting. They weren't against that, but they
thought that getting the ballots counted and posted, the results posted
at the precinct on election night, added an extraordinary amount of
safety, transparency and decentralization to the counting.
JB: You have to take my recommendations as a whole, because
we didn't say just to move to this for Election Day voting only. We
said let's go to vote centers where we're voting over a 15-day period,
where the ballots are being transported every day back to the Board of
Elections.
We spoke with our election officials about the best way to
accomplish that and the potential to use sealed boxes that would be
maintained and not opened until it was time to start counting the
ballots.
So, and the reason that I went the direction to take this to the
legislature and to the governor, besides the issue of funding, was
because people in my state and hopefully in the country will better
trust a process where we've put this report out there, we allow the
voting activists to come in and testify in the legislative process, we
allow the election officials, the county commissioners, we allow
everyone to be heard in a democratic process, and so when we have a
Republican legislature, a Democratic governor and a Democratic
Secretary of State we've reached a truly bipartisan solution that will
increase voter confidence in what we actually decide to do. I suspect
that the legislature is not going to take my recommendation wholesale
and they're going to want to hear from the activists and I welcome them
to join the process.

"I'm not proposing a permanent
solution. I'm proposing a way to deal with the limitations in the
equipment that we have now." BRAD BLOG: So you're open to changing
those recommendations as you hear from those election integrity folks?
"Yes. I don't pretend to have all the answers."

BB: So you're open to changing those recommendations as you hear from those election integrity folks?
JB: Yes. I don't pretend to have all the answers. We took
this report of 800 pages and we synthesized it, we redacted trade
secrets and security issues in the report and we developed
recommendations with a group of 12 bipartisan election officials in a
period of a week. And so we're not done.
BB: Okay, and I know we're running long so I'm trying to speed through. I've got just a couple more here for ya.
JB: Sure.
BB: You mentioned vote centers just now.
JB: Mm-hmm.
BB: You're aware of the disaster that places such as Denver have had with vote centers?
When one simple technological glitch goes wrong, it means that many
more thousands of folks are potentially disenfranchised, unable to even
cast a vote, when you sort of put everybody into these large sort of
'mega-precinct' voting centers.
Also, there's been concerns from civil rights folks about difficulty
of getting to polling places that may be farther from their homes. But
I'm more concerned about what happens if one thing goes wrong at a
voting center, on purpose or by accident, the number of additional
folks who may be disenfranchised, the way we saw last year in Denver
when thousands couldn't cast their vote after a problem with the
computerized registration system.
JB: Well, we set up this model with the understanding that
Ohio's voter registration closes 30 days before the election. By
starting the early voting at the vote centers before the
election, we are giving the Boards of Elections a good two weeks to
make sure their registration records are cleaned up, in good shape.
And in fact, in Ohio, we're doing a pilot project that's funded by
the Pew Charitable Trust, where we're actually trying to work to spread
out registration over the period, in every moving packet that the post
office sends out to someone who files a change of address, and that
will occur in 45 counties. But either way, we'll deal with the glut at
the end of the registration period. That'll give the Boards two weeks
to get their poll lists together. And then, with the recommendations,
it's not dependent upon a machine for someone to be able to
vote. Unless they have a disability and they would be using an AutoMARK
machine [a ballot marking device for the blind and disabled].
BB: Were you talking about voting centers for early voting only or also for Election Day voting?
JB: For early voting and for Election Day voting. And,
again, the five to ten precincts [which would be combined in her
recommendations] is a flexible number. It's going to need to be based
upon what the legislature thinks, what the legislature is willing to
fun. Because we think ten precincts over a 15-day period may be a
little too big.
BB: Do you not have fears, even if you don't have, for
example, computerized registration, there's going to be folks who are
challenging voters at the polling place on Election Day --- If that's
done at a vote center or folks are using DREs or even
precinct-based op-scan, since you haven't banned either of them per se,
other than recommending against them, if they're using those at vote
centers …
JB: They're not going to be using those at vote centers.
BB: They're not?
JB: No. The only [thing they will use] is a pencil or a pen
to mark an optical scan ballot, or an AutoMARK if they have a
disability. Because we looked at this and we did not want it to be set
up like a Bureau of Motor Vehicles where the computer goes down and
everybody has to wait in line an inordinate amount of time.
BB: So if [the legislature] decided to allow vote centers,
but they allowed for the continuing use of DREs and/or precinct-based
op-scan, you'd be against that plan in general?
JB: It would be very unlikely that they would go along with
that. I think, for the legislature, our Republican legislature, it's
going to be a challenge for them to go along with the concept of a vote
center, and some are going to have difficulty going along with the
concept of that many days of early voting at locations other than the
Board of Elections. But that's our job to educate.
UPDATE: After publishing this interview, the Secretary of State's office sent us this chart [PDF] to help clarify their proposed new timeline for registration, early voting, counting etc.

Citation :

BB: Why didn't you just decertify some of these
systems given some of the absolutely startling findings in your report?
Statutorily, you have the right to do so. Why did you not do so?
JB: I would have to work through the Board of Voting Machine
Examiners, which I have appointed the members. But looking at where we
are, so close to the March primary, it would have created chaos.
BB: You could have decertified, you know, by the November general election…or even after that election, for that matter.
JB: I think that in this instance when my biggest goal, in my
first year in office, is to restore and ensure voter confidence in
Ohio, looking at the partisan climate that seems to exist in Congress,
that seems to exist in some of the folks in the Ohio GOP, the last
thing I wanted to do was to set this up as a partisan debate. Because
there is not a Republican or a Democratic way to run a fair election.
What's fair is fair.
BB: Well, that's true, but what's partisan about saying, "Hey, I did this bipartisan
study. These folks said you can wave a magnet in front of a computer
and completely wipe out the voting data. Therefore these systems should
never be used and I'm decertifying them"? What's partisan about that?
JB: If I want to go from my past experience, when I asked
both Republicans and Democrats on the Cuyahoga County Board of
Elections to resign, the accusations that came from the chairman of the
Ohio GOP, who was one of the members, was that I was being partisan and
trying to take control of the election.
BB: Well, that's Bob Bennett, and we know he's gonna do that,
and it was still done anyway, as you saw from that attack on the Ohio
Republican Party website. So they still made that attack…
JB: But the attack's minor. The attack is minor.
BB: Okay. You think it would have been more so had you just, had you actually decertified these systems?
JB: And this is isn't, and what I wanted to ensure is that it
is not about me. It is about the voters of Ohio. And I want to keep
people focused on that. And if things work best, we get the support of
the public the best when we have a very bipartisan approach to it in
Ohio. We saw it in the adoption of the state budget for the first time
in over 50 years, it unanimously passed the Senate, or had one
dissenting vote, I believe, in the House. It was unbelievable and it's
done a lot to buoy the confidence of Ohioans in their government in a
time when much reform is needed.
BB: How can, you mentioned the public, how can they best help you in your goals here? Is there anything that they can do to help make noise to support election integrity here?
JB: They should continue to make their voices heard. If they
like the plan, or they like parts of the plan that we've made
recommendations for, they should let the Ohio legislature know.
BB: I've got some concerns about the vote-by-mail
recommendation you made, but I know we're running late and I do want to
get in one question here, hopefully on the record. There were, as you
know, some of the election integrity advocates in Ohio have been
critical because you have not brought accountability to a lot of the
allegations and concerns, and indeed evidence of problems in the '04
election including 56 out of 88 counties who did not retain their
ballots as they were supposed to by order of a federal judge.
Don't you think, or do you think, I should say, that not
bringing accountability there for what happened in '04 sends the wrong
message in '08 --- since I know you're keeping your eyes on '08 --- but
doesn't 'letting the bad guys get away with it', as it were, doesn't
that send the wrong message for '08?
JB: Well, a couple points. I was a judge before I was
Secretary of State. And I understand that, in order to prove a credible
case it's with evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence
has to rise to a certain level to get you probable cause, which would
lead to an indictment. So that's one issue….
BB: But not for recommendation to …
JB: Let me…
BB: Okay.
JB: … finish through the rest of this.
When
I came into office there were 21 lawsuits against Mr. Blackwell [Ohio's
former Sec. of State, a Repulican and state co-chair of the Bush/Cheney
'04 committee]. I inherited all of them. I have five elections
attorneys plus a general counsel and two attorneys who handle
legislation. We brought in an additional attorney just to manage the
litigation and, to be very frank with you, I inherited some real
problems from the former administration. And the last thing I want for
my state, is to be looked at as a pariah like it was for 2004.
And while, yes, there are problems like ballots not being retained
[for the 2004 election], when I look back at the records to see what
kind of instructions the Boards received from Mr. Blackwell, it was a
very, very sparse email from a paralegal saying 'the chief counsel
wants you to see this', with no explanation. Uh…I have to focus on the
future.
BB: Well, not to pick on Warren County again, but they locked
people out of the counting room. They claimed that there was a Homeland
Security warning from the FBI. Nobody at the FBI has ever said such a
thing. They were clearly lying and, as I understand, those [same]
people are still running elections in Warren County. Doesn't that
trouble you? And particularly as you're doing, recommending, central
counting, these guys are going to be in charge of the counting yet
again in '08, and they've been told, you know, hey, you got away with
it in '04.
JB: We will look at the situation, because when I came into
office people were where they were. And we'll look again at that
situation and see what the best course of action is to prevent it from
happening in the future.
BB: I hope you will, because that one is just…
JB: It's troubling me too.
BB: …just mind-blowing.
JB: It troubles me, Brad.
BB: It troubles you, too?
JB: It troubled me at the time and it, it, I can't…I can't find any justification for it.
BB: Me neither, so I hope you'll do something about it, if
only to send a message to --- because it's not the only place it
happened --- but if only to send a message to folks that this will not
be tolerated in 2008. And I think taking some action there may do that. All right …
JB: One thing, if I could just add …
BB: Sure.

"The last thing I want for my
state, is to be looked at as a pariah, like it was for 2004...We think
that when this all comes together for 2008, that the country will see a
difference."

JB:
What we try to do, and some of these things are imperceptible, but
we've worked every single day, we've been in the administration to
improve the instructions, to improve the clarity and to improve the
guidance that we provide to the Boards of Election. They now have
access to election attorneys that are specifically assigned to their
county. They now have regional liaisons, over half of whom have prior
Board of Elections experience, and we think that when this all comes
together for 2008, that the country will see a difference.
BB: I hope you're right, but I'm still concerned about the bad guys in places like Warren. But I hear you and I appreciate that.
I know we've already run over the allotted time and I really appreciate that…so thank you.
JB: Thank you so much, Brad. I appreciate the opportunity to
be heard and I, I mean honestly, the more dialogue we have the better
off we are.
BB: I concur, and thank you again.
JB: Thanks so much, Brad.

Mais certains croient encore que l'information c'est la télévision d'etat.
bonne journée , tout va pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possible.

allez un dernier cadeau pour les septiques
Avis des experts de l’OSCE (Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe)
http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/informatique/0,39040745,39175294,00.htm

C’est nu peu facile de taper sur G.W.Bush maintenant qu’il ne peut plus se défendre !

En plus il a tellement apporter et les événements lui donne raison sur les positions courageuses qu’il a prit.

D’ailleurs la France se mord les doigts et commence, enfin, à comprendre qu’il faut se rallier à ces hommes qui ont sut préserver la Liberté, L’Ordre et la Morale dans leur pays.

A vous écouter il faudrait supprimer la torture et continuer à assister le reste du monde alors que la seule réponse à ces actes mauvais sont bel et bien de faire preuve de fermeté et de détermination.

Economiquement les Républicains ont sauver les U.S.A. et par là l’Europe, grâce à l’administration Bush au moins nous pouvons continuer à vivre confortablement.

Mais ça c’est bien facile d’accuser de fraude, alors que tout le monde sait que les machines de votes sont fiables, la preuve plein de pays s’en servent. Et puis les urnes ça n’empêchent pas la fraude.

Au moins avec le vote électronique on va pouvoir voter plus souvent et avoir une vrai démocratie, imaginez quand l’on pourra voter via nos téléphone portable ! Ca sera enfin le vrai pouvoir du peuple.

Le truc que me fait peur Olivier c'est que je suis sur que beaucoup de personne vont applaudir ton message en le lisant au premier degres. Sinon j'aime ton humour

Je ne plaisante pas.
Vraiment écœurant cette ambiance sur le Net de dénigrer les hommes politique qui ont le courage de porter les bonnes valeurs et de lutter pour les principes qui font notre société.

ahaha ^^ stop je vais pisser dans mon slip, tu me rappel certains mais qui eux disent ca serieusement

allez cadeau

Citation :

Ces machines sont fournies par deux sociétés: Diebol Election
Systems et Sequoia Voting Systems. Elles seront utilisées par
environ dix millions d'électeurs en novembre. Or, l'OSCE rappelle
également que la confiance des citoyens en ces technologies a
diminué. Notamment depuis que les médias américains ont révélé «les
activités politiques de leurs fabricants, qui ont contribué
financièrement à des campagnes politiques, et en particulier la
déclaration d'un des P-DG. Il a affirmé qu'il aiderait à apporter des
voix à l'un des deux candidats».

Il s'agit de Walden O'Dell, patron de Diebold. Il a assuré dans une
lettre de soutien adressée le 14 août 2003 au parti républicain qu'il
«s'engageait à aider l'Ohio à donner ses voix au président Bush».
Diebold était à l'époque sur les rangs pour équiper avec ses machines
les bureaux de vote de cet État; un appel d'offres qu'il a depuis
remporté. O'Dell a également participé à une réunion rassemblant
plusieurs contributeurs à la campagne de George Bush, dans la ranch
texan du président en août 2003.

Je prends un exemple.

Sur l'article il marque "preuve formelle" avec un lien. Je clique ca m'emmene sur un blog (http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=236) .
La le blog sa source c'est un journal le Cincinnati Enquirer qui a cité une interview que le blog a fais avec la secretaire d'état de l'OH.
Donc en gros la source du blog c'est lui même .

EDIT: j ai ecris le message pendant que tu citais l'interview sur le forum

En plus je connais pas la charmante secretaire de l'ohio mais je me dis qu'elle a surement des influences politique et j'ai aucun moyen de savoir si je peux avoir confiance dans l'interview ou pas (et je sais meme pas si y'a vraiment eu interview ou pas.. Le blog ne m'inspirant pas vraiment confiance par son aspect technique)


Et c'est pareil meme si c'est au Journal Télé je prends toujours tout avec des pincettes.

Depuis mon sejour a l'etranger quand j'ai vu les conneries qu'on raconte en France sur les USA et les conneries qu'on racontais aux USA sur la France. J'ai compris que croire les journalistes c'est partir dans le mur.
(j'étais la bas (en floride) pendant l'ouragan katrina et egalement quand il y avais les emeutes en france)

Je suis d'accord qu'il faut tout prendre avec des pincettes mais avec internet on a la pouvoir de faire pas mal de recherche soit meme, et meme si on est jamais sur a 100% d'une info, (faudrait être Dieu ou la CIA) , ya de forte présomptions. Apres a la fin de l'article le blabla sur le 11/09, c'est en trop je pense.


heu sinon scretary n'a pas le meme sens en américain que secrétaire en francais
elle fait pas les photocopies la dame ^^

Toute information venant d'internet est necessairement un tissus de mensonges.

Ce n'est pas pour rien qu'il y a des journalistes qui font leur travail, par chance en France nous avons une bonne presse, indépendante et libre (malgré quelques journaux à sensation genre "Canard Enchainés" vivant uniquement sur des rumeurs infondées.).

Là nous avons encore une belle preuve de tentative de manipulation de l'opinion via internet pour discrédité une Président élu démocratiquement et réprésentatif d'un peuple.

j'ai justtement parlé avec un journaliste de France24 dans le train qui m'expliquaut la pernicité de la carte de presse, qui en gros te permet de ne pas payer d'impots.
seulement c'est l"état qui decide de te la laisser ou pas, jolie moyen de pression (corruption deguisé?).
Il me citait entre auter l'exemple d'une depeche qu'ils ont recu d'un gendarme qui a tuer ses 2 filles et sa femme, puis à retourner l'arme contre lui. l'article était prêt, mais Hop dépèche de l'élysée : on ne publie pas.
ca n'a pas été publié.

perso j aime pas bush, ont m enlevera pas de l idee ke c t plus pour le petrole ke pour sauver des vie k is sont aller la bas, et puis kand je v aux etat unis et ke je me fais controler 4 fois sur 100m parce ke j ai une grosse barbe ca me fout les boules

Ils ont libérer le peuple opprimé d'Irak ! Fallait le faire, au moins G.W.Bush a fait le bien pour que l'Axe du Mal recule. Le pétrole franchement c'est secondaire, sinon ils auraient quitter le pays aprés la fin de Saddam, mais là ils restent pour aider la démocratie.

La presse il faut la guider sinon c'est trop n'importe quoi, et regardez : même les gouvernement, que vous devez sans doute apprécier car de gauche le font (Chavez voulait censurer la presse).

Matzul : tu ne te fais pas arrêter mais draguer, le syndrome Village People !

j ai pas mal bourlingué et des pays j en ai fais pas mal mais le seul ou les flic d aeroports ferait passé nos crs pour des scout c est aus etats unis !
Bush a p tet aider a virer saddam mais il ferait mieux de s occuper de certains de ses etats ki ressemble plus au tiers monde k aux pays surdevelloper komme il aime nous le faire croire !
Mais c sur c plus façile d engrosser encore plus ceux ki ont payé sa campagne ...

juste une precision : la france a rien a envier au etats unis question controle policier etc ... et encore moin depuis k y a sarko

Matzgul a écrit:

perso j aime pas bush, ont m enlevera pas de l idee ke c t plus pour le petrole ke pour sauver des vie k is sont aller la bas, et puis kand je v aux etat unis et ke je me fais controler 4 fois sur 100m parce ke j ai une grosse barbe ca me fout les boules

ho my god ; Mysta s'est emparé de toi