Mon Nov 16 20:59:58 EST 2009
to certify, anyway.
Just wondering: what was the attendance? Was Sever 113 full?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Jeremy Cushman <jscushman at gmail.com> wrote=
> So they basically debated it for an hour and a half, with 4 or 5 people
> saying that it could be corrupt and the rest of the room getting mad at
> them.=C2=A0 FAS-IT prepared a long statement in which they said that they=
> found no evidence of vote tampering after 4 of them (!) spent the entire =
> (!) probing it.=C2=A0 That apparently wasn't enough for some people, who =
> going on about how if the hackers had been really skillful they would hav=
> erased any log of them being in the system and then we'd be back where we
> started, etc. etc.=C2=A0 There was no HCS input, and it became quite unne=
> anyway after it was clear that they were ready to certify the results of =
> election.=C2=A0 In the actual vote, every member of the UC voted to certi=
> results except the election committee members (who abstained) and Hayward
> and Zhang (sore losers?).=C2=A0 I think it would have been better for the=
UC as a
> whole and better for their image if Hayward and Zhang had conceded and vo=
> to certify.=C2=A0 Just my opinion :-)
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Alex Li <li at hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> How did this turn out? Looks like they are going to certify the
>> results. Was that with the input of HCS people? Also I noticed a
>> reference to "information technology specialists" in the email the UC
>> sent out about the townhall meeting, I wonder if that's a reference to
>> the HCS people, haha.
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Jeremy Cushman <jscushman at gmail.com>
>> > I'll be attending either way, and I'm happy to help out with any
>> > presentation and/or research you guys are doing.
>> > Jeremy (the other Jeremy)
>> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Jeremy Hoon <jeremy.d.hoon at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hello HCS,
>> >> I was just asked by Andrea Flores, the current UC president, if a few
>> >> of
>> >> us could stop by a UC meeting tonight to discuss the tech issues
>> >> surrounding
>> >> the election debacle. I think we can agree that vote tampering is
>> >> unlikely
>> >> for the following reasons:
>> >> - Brad verified the results (unfortunately it appears that for
>> >> political
>> >> reasons this rationale is not being accepted by certain parties).
>> >> - Candidates did not have access to the voting application.
>> >> - It would have been very difficult to hack the voting application.
>> >> - The final vote total was very close. It seems unlikely that an
>> >> attacker
>> >> could have manipulated the votes with the precision necessary to
>> >> achieve
>> >> only a slim margin of victory.
>> >> It might make sense to discuss the voting software implementation
>> >> on-list
>> >> beforehand. Does anyone know if/where it lives in SVN?
>> >> Brad, I assume you are on this list (if not, could someone please
>> >> forward
>> >> him this message). You are obviously the number one authority on this
>> >> subject, and your input would be invaluable.
>> >> The meeting is tonight at 7:30 in Sever 113. Please respond on-list i=
>> >> you
>> >> plan to attend. A group of 2-3 people would be ideal.
>> >> Jeremy
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> hcs-discuss mailing list
>> >> hcs-discuss at lists.hcs.harvard.edu
>> >> http://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/hcs-discuss
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > hcs-discuss mailing list
>> > hcs-discuss at lists.hcs.harvard.edu
>> > http://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/hcs-discuss
> hcs-discuss mailing list
> hcs-discuss at lists.hcs.harvard.edu
More information about the hcs-discuss