Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Will The Next Election Be Hacked?

Friday, October 13th, 2006

– this is an ongoing concern that can’t seem to gain deep traction in the popular press. There have been a few articles here, here, here, and here. Some would say that’s because these stories have no merit. Others would say it’s because big media is owned by those with vested interests in supressing stories like this.

Given what I know about how easy it is to hack computers and also given the corruption that always festers where big money and political power collect, I know which way I’m placing my bets.

————————-

Fresh disasters at the polls — and new evidence from an industry insider — prove that electronic voting machines can’t be trusted

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
From Rolling Stone Magazine

The debacle of the 2000 presidential election made it all too apparent to most Americans that our electoral system is broken. And private-sector entrepreneurs were quick to offer a fix: Touch-screen voting machines, promised the industry and its lobbyists, would make voting as easy and reliable as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, always ready with funds for needy industries, swiftly authorized $3.9 billion to upgrade the nation’s election systems – with much of the money devoted to installing electronic voting machines in each of America’s 180,000 precincts. But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines are making things worse instead of better. Studies have demonstrated that hackers can easily rig the technology to fix an election – and across the country this year, faulty equipment and lax security have repeatedly undermined election primaries. In Tarrant County, Texas, electronic machines counted some ballots as many as six times, recording 100,000 more votes than were actually cast. In San Diego, poll workers took machines home for unsupervised “sleepovers” before the vote, leaving the equipment vulnerable to tampering. And in Ohio – where, as I recently reported in “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?” [RS 1002], dirty tricks may have cost John Kerry the presidency – a government report uncovered large and unexplained discrepancies in vote totals recorded by machines in Cuyahoga County.

Even worse, many electronic machines don’t produce a paper record that can be recounted when equipment malfunctions – an omission that practically invites malicious tampering. “Every board of election has staff members with the technological ability to fix an election,” Ion Sancho, an election supervisor in Leon County, Florida, told me. “Even one corrupt staffer can throw an election. Without paper records, it could happen under my nose and there is no way I’d ever find out about it. With a few key people in the right places, it would be possible to throw a presidential election.”

Chris Hood remembers the day in July 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia – almost double the national average – and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.

Hood had been present in May 2002, when officials with Cox’s office signed a contract with Diebold – paying the company a record $54 million to install 19,000 electronic voting machines across the state. At a restaurant inside Atlanta’s Marriott Hotel, he noticed the firm’s CEO, Walden O’Dell, checking Diebold’s stock price on a laptop computer every five minutes, waiting for a bounce from the announcement.

Hood wondered why Diebold, the world’s third-largest seller of ATMs, had been awarded the contract. The company had barely completed its acquisition of Global Election Systems, a voting-machine firm that owned the technology Diebold was promising to sell Georgia. And its bid was the highest among nine competing vendors. Whispers within the company hinted that a fix was in.

More…

United Nations to consider deep sea trawling ban

Wednesday, October 4th, 2006

UNITED NATIONS – The United Nations needs to stop the destruction of deep sea ecosystems by banning fishermen from trawling nets on the ocean floor, Australia, New Zealand and Palau, joined by actress Sigourney Weaver, said today.

The 192-member United Nations General Assembly is due to begin debating this week an Australian-led plan to ban deep sea bottom trawling in unmanaged high seas and impose tougher regulation of other destructive fishing practices.

The European Commission, executive of the 25-member European Union, has said it would support a ban on deep sea trawling. UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, but they reflect the will of the international community.

About 64 per cent of the world’s ocean is in international waters, of which about three-quarters is unmanaged, according to the Pew Institute for Ocean Science.

“The world’s oceans are facing a crisis,” Weaver told a news conference, adding that deep sea bottom trawling was “raping these oceans beyond site and beyond regulation”.

More…

Climate Skeptics working New Zealand as well

Saturday, September 30th, 2006

– Climate skeptics are working world-wide.  Even in such an environmentally enlightened country as New Zealand, the claims and counter claims rise to confuse the public over what’s best for all of our futures.   Hopefully, they’ll be smarter than we’ve been to date.

————————–

News from new Zealand:

Call for TVNZ Balance on ‘Alarmist Doomcasting’

A challenge to TVNZ to balance what he termed “alarmist doomcasting” in its Tuesday evening 6 pm OneNews, has been issued by the secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Terry Dunleavy.

“TVNZ chose to broadcast a hugely exaggerated claim about global warming by an American supporter of global warming, James Hansen, on precisely the same day that Mr Hansen was being denounced in the U.S. Senate, by Senator James Inofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I challenge TVNZ to balance the record with the following except from Senator Inofe’s speech,” said Mr Dunleavy:

“On March 19 of this year ‘60 Minutes’ profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favour of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

More…

Agency Blocked Hurricane Report

Saturday, September 30th, 2006

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; 8:34 PM

WASHINGTON — A government agency blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disputed the Nature article, saying there was not a report but a two-page fact sheet about the topic. The information was to be included in a press kit to be distributed in May as the annual hurricane season approached but wasn’t ready.

“The document wasn’t done in time for the rollout,” NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John said in responding to the Nature article. “The White House never saw it, so they didn’t block it.”

The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration _ part of the Commerce Department _ in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.

According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect.

In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chair Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.

More…

CNN Fact Checks Inhofe’s Diatribe Against Global Warming Science

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

– This fellow, Senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, is Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment.  If that’s not scary, nothing is.  He apparently disbelieves in Global Warming though one has to wonder if the $850,000 he took in as campaign donations from the oil and gas industry had anything to do with it.  The U.S. has lagged very badly on coming up to speed with the rest of the world and this man is one of the major roadblocks.  How can I say this politely?  He’s an idiot and we’re all going to pay for his stupidity.   Read this one – it’s chilling!

——————————-

On Monday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor and launched into a 45-minute diatribe on global warming science. Repeating his claim that global warming is a hoax, Inhofe said, “The American people know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.“

In particular, he attacked the news media. According to Inhofe,  during the past year, “The American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry.”

This morning, CNN hit back with a segment documenting that virtually everything Inhofe said was flatly contradicted by the facts.

More…

California gets greenhouse gas law

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — In a move backers hope will change the U.S. approach to the problem of global warming, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law on Wednesday aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have begun a bold new era of environmental protection here in California that will change the course of history,” the Republican governor said.

The measure passed by the Democratic-led Legislature last month caps the state’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The most populous U.S. state seeks to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of about 25 percent.

More…

Officials Wary of Electronic Voting Machines

Saturday, September 23rd, 2006

I’m glad to see articles like this and happy that the officials are wary – but I’m also disappointed. They are not dealing with the essential problem with electronic voting machines. Instead, they are focusing on issues which really ought to be on the periphery of the discussion.

The real issue with these machines, if they do not have verifiable paper trails which are generated and checked, is that their accuracy depends on trust. And trust in politics is a might scarce quantity.

These voting machines are basically computers with a dedicated function which is, on the surface, to record, count and report votes. But, computers are very complex entities and it is possible to add a huge amount of extra fuctionality into one of these machines without apparently altering its basic functionality.

Just imagine a small sub-program, hidden deep in the main counting code, which says, ‘for each vote for a democrat received, generate a random number between 1 and 100 and if that number falls between 1 and 5, then change the vote to be for the republican.‘ This would swing 5% of the votes from the democrats to the republicans and it would be very hard to detect since the 5% of votes changed would seem to be randomly scattered. This is just a very simple example. The manipulations could be more subtle such as not changing any votes unless the race was looking very close.

Without a paper trail, and with all of us just ‘trusting’ the folks who develop the machines, how would we ever know?

Well, there are answers to this conundrum but you won’t find them in articles like this one. I was a professional computer programmer for 25 years and worked deep in the operating system interiors of many different kinds of systems and I can tell you that it is not difficult for people with the knowledge to do what I’m suggesting and it is extremly hard for anyone but another professional to find the manipulations.

The computer programming code in these machines is ‘proprietary’ which means that it is owned by the company that makes the voting machine and it is typically not available for inspection by people outside of the company. Does this sound smart to you? It gives me the willies.

———————————–

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A growing number of state and local officials are getting cold feet about electronic voting technology, and many are making last-minute efforts to limit or reverse the rollout of new machines in the November elections.

Less than two months before voters head to the polls, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland this week became the most recent official to raise concerns publicly. Mr. Ehrlich, a Republican, said he lacked confidence in the state’s new $106 million electronic voting system and suggested a return to paper ballots.

Dozens of states have adopted electronic voting technology to comply with federal legislation in 2002 intended to phase out old-fashioned lever and punch-card machines after the “hanging chads” confusion of the 2000 presidential election.

But some election officials and voting experts say they fear that the new technology may have only swapped old problems for newer, more complicated ones. Their concerns became more urgent after widespread problems with the new technology were reported this year in primaries in Ohio, Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and elsewhere.

This year, about one-third of all precincts nationwide are using the electronic voting technology for the first time, raising the chance of problems at the polls as workers struggle to adjust to the new system.

More…

Hired guns aim to confuse

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Written by David Suzuki – July 21st, 2006

Al Gore once told me that to get politicians to listen, you have to engage the people first. The former vice president is attempting to do just that this summer with his critically acclaimed global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” But he’s up against some pretty powerful opponents.His movie, by most standards, is pretty good. Rotten Tomatoes, a website that compiles movie reviews from newspapers, television and the internet, shows that 92 per cent of critics liked it. A story by the Associated Press on experts who critiqued the science behind the movie found that they too gave it a thumbs up for accuracy. Personally, I thought it was brilliant.But shortly after the Associated Press article came out, other articles started popping up that said Mr. Gore’s science was shoddy. People claiming to be experts wrote opinion pieces in newspapers decrying the film, Mr. Gore, and the “theory” of global warming in general. Contrarians, it seemed, were coming out of the woodwork. What happened?

What happened was a well-funded campaign to discredit the film and carpet bomb North Americans with confusing and contradictory information about the science of global warming. It appears to be having an effect too. Recent polls I’ve seen indicate that while the public is very concerned about climate change, they are still confused about the science.

Those who read science journals probably find this public confusion, well, confusing. While there is plenty of discussion in scientific circles about what precisely a changing climate will mean to people in various parts of the world, there is no debate about the cause of global warming (human activities, mostly burning oil, coal and gas), or about the fact that it is already having an effect and that those effects will become more and more pronounced in coming years.

Yet, there they are in the editorial and opinion pages, supposed experts writing about the grand global warming conspiracy perpetuated by Europeans. Or socialists. Or European socialists. Those in the know can laugh off such nonsense. But the problem is, most people aren’t in the know. Average citizens are busy people and they are not experts in climate science, so naturally they tend to defer to people who appear to know what they’re talking about.

Unfortunately, masquerading as an expert in the media is pretty easy. All you need are a few letters after your name and a controversial story to tell. That makes news. And there’s no shortage of public relations people willing to spin a good tale – usually for a tidy profit. Companies pay big bucks to have these spin doctors work their magic and make sure the industry line gets heard.

But even some of public relations’ best-known spin doctors are disgusted by what’s going on right now over global warming. Jim Hoggan is one. He’s a personal friend who happens to be president of one of western Canada’s largest public relations firms, James Hoggan and Associates. And he’s so appalled at what he says is deliberate manipulation of public opinion about this issue that he’s started a website called desmogblog.com to debunk the global warming skeptics.

Jim writes in his blog: “There is a line between public relations and propaganda – or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth – to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival. And it is infuriating – as a public relations professional – to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.”

Well said, Jim. His blog makes fascinating reading. It names names and follows the money trail – often leading back to big U.S. conservative organizations and fossil fuel giants. Jim’s making it his mission to expose the liars and the frauds and he’s doing a pretty good job.

Al Gore was right, the people do have to be engaged before politicians will listen. But engaging the people sometimes requires clearing the air first.

Original article…

Branson makes $3 billion climate pledge

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Sir Richard Branson is to invest $3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming.

The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years.

“We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels,” Sir Richard said.

The funds will be invested in schemes to develop new renewable energy technologies, through an investment unit called Virgin Fuels.

One of the UK’s best known entrepreneurs, Sir Richard made the announcement in New York on the second day of the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual conference hosted by former US President Bill Clinton.Sir Richard, 56, said that transport and energy companies “must be at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly business strategies”.

More…

Dobbs: Voting machines put U.S. democracy at risk

Wednesday, September 20th, 2006

NEW YORK (CNN) — Democrats and Republicans are desperately trying to nationalize the midterm elections, now only 48 days away.

Democrats are seeking to focus voter attention on President Bush’s conduct of the war in Iraq, while Republicans are trying to convince voters that the president and all Republicans should be given credit for the conduct of the war on terror, and the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

And voters will also choose which party to support on a host of other issues, local and national: illegal immigration, border security, the state of the economy, the escalating cost of health care, failing public schools, record budget and trade deficits, and the declining standard of living for the middle class.

Voters will be deciding whether the promise of challengers or the performance of incumbents merits their votes. The most recent polls reveal a national public mood that is now more supportive of a still unpopular president and about evenly divided over their preferences for, or tolerance of, congressional Republicans and Democrats. In other words, less than seven weeks before we go to the polls, there is every indication that the partisan quest for power on Capitol Hill will be close.

But there is additional uncertainty about the outcome of our elections that is intolerable and inexcusable, and which could make the contested 2000 presidential election look orderly by comparison. As of right now, there is little assurance your vote will count. As we’ve been reporting almost nightly on my broadcast for more than a year, electronic voting machines are placing our democracy at risk.

More…