[Paleopsych] extremes

[Steve Hovland]

We won't go away from using computers.

When I was working on a consulting engagement
at SBC I once saw a chart that showed how
much computer power it takes to hack various
encryption schemes.

If you have a supercomputer you can hack anything.

The problem is that in the past election there was
essentially NO security on the systems.  The
encryption key for the voting machines was 
actually programmed into them, and it was a
very out-dated, easy-to-hack key.

Keep in mind that many organizations are basically
incompetent when it comes to computer security.  

Last year Accenture wrote a $20million system for 
overseas voting by the military.  The DOD refused to 
use it because the security was too weak.  

Since good security is possible, one assumes that
that it was built to be weak so it could be hacked.

Hacking does leave a trail, and there are people
who are experts at finding these trails.

Steve Hovland
www.stevehovland.net


-----Original Message-----
From:	Geraldine  Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net]
Sent:	Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:22 AM
To:	The new improved paleopsych list
Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] extremes

I have a twofold doubt.  Firstly that computers will be 
forsaken for a paper ballot and secondly that the best 
security system can thwart a would-be hacker.  The only 
solution I see at present is to merge both parties, 
democrats and republicans, for the more sensitive 
political spots such as president and vice president. 
This would eliminate the huge costs associated with 
national campaigning and would allow those in office 
the time to concentrate on their jobs rather than their 
re-elections.

Gerry Reinhart-Waller
Independent Scholar
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Hovland" <shovland at mindspring.com>
To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" 
<paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] extremes


> My solution to the PR issue is to use
> the same techniques to attack the
> well-crafted appeals of the right.
>
> Unfortunately, I think the systemic
> failure is that the voting computers
> have been hacked.
>
> Elections won't mean anything until those
> systems have much better security
> at all levels.
>
> I don't have any confidence that the Democrats
> are technical enough to figure it out.
>
> Steve Hovland
> www.stevehovland.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Christopher 
> [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:29 AM
> To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> Subject: [Paleopsych] extremes
>
>
>>>Is there a middle ground, where you can be
> soft-hearted and hard-headed, a ground where new
> conservatives and new liberals can meet?<<
>
> --There is, when people get tired of demonizing and
> stereotyping each other. Right now, the goodness and
> rightness of one side is defined in opposition to the
> badness and wrongness of the other, such that neither
> side has to actually produce results in order to be
> seen as right in the eyes of its proponents. It is
> assumed by many that since "liberal policies have
> failed miserably" that the policies of conservatives
> will succeed. Rhetoric and ideology replace
> observation and testing as the standard for what 
> works
> and what doesn't. If it gets applause, it is assumed
> to be right. It will take another round of systemic
> failure to produce a swing toward the middle and a
> synthesis of the better ideas of both sides.
> Ultimately, the system is the problem, not the
> personalities in it. We need at least one new party 
> to
> offset the two-party oscillation, and we need a 
> better
> public understanding of how PR psychology influences
> crowds. The standard contrast method, by which one
> politician seems to have integrity in contrast to
> another's perceived lack of integrity (replace
> integrity with morals, common sense, backbone, etc),
> still works very well, and it shouldn't. People 
> should
> be able to be critical of both sides, without playing
> the "liberals are amoral and discredited" or
> "conservatives are scheming and manipulative" cards.
> It's like falling for the same used car salesman
> pitch, over and over, knowing all the cars are 
> lemons.
>
> Added to that problem is that the news media loves
> polemics, and has no attention span for deep
> discussion. Shows like Crossfire are more popular 
> than
> in-depth reporting. Filtering out complexity produces
> a system which can only oscillate from one extreme to
> the other, with very little in the way of pragmatic
> compromise.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do 
> good.
> http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> 


_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych