Delaying the election and other absurdities

election in that

Very rational reasoning, Mark. However, I find it appalling and chilling that a former governor, presumably a lawyer, in charge of homeland security should be unaware of all those reasons and should even think the topic worth investigating. You are right, of course, that "any suggestion that the election above the municipal level can be seriously compromised by terrorist attacks in the US is ridiculous." That may be ridiculous, but the fact that the aministration is considering the possibility is not ridiculous .. it is appalling.

Boris Beizer

"Mark Schynert" dared to be a Democrat and wrote news: snipped-for-privacy@news6.west.earthlink.net...

Once again you've made me laugh and still managed to express an opinion more eloquently than I ever could on my best day. Thanks, Doug Wagner

"Boris Beizer" wrote

Oh bullshit. Did you also finding it appalling that every Administration since Truman planned for some sort of government continuity in the event of a full-scale nuclear war? Probably so, because I'm sure that you were one of those who thought that even _considering_ that we should do something other than commit mass suicide was tantamount to starting the war itself . . .

If it came out in mid-October that "lower-level DHS officials as far back as early July recommended that Tom Ridge examine the contingencies involved with a major terrorist attack during the election, such delaying it to allow all those prevented from voting to cast a ballot. Sec. Ridge, however, reportedly dismissed the need for such planning as 'ridiculous', according to an un-named DHS official", you and your ilk would be screaming about how incompetent and unprepared the administration was.

I can also imagine this: If Kerry is running close on 1 November and there IS a terrorist attack, the Democratic hacks will claim that Bush "stole the election again" because he DIDN'T delay the vote: "Thousands of Americans stayed at home Tuesday in response to Monday's bombings and the televised threat for more attacks from bin Laden himself. Those who didn't vote were 'disproportionately African-American, women, and poor', Democratic party chair Terry McAuliffe stated today. 'The Bush-Cheney administration's refusal to allow additional voting time for these traditionally disenfranchised groups is just the latest example of Republican schemes to only count the votes of the privileged elite', McAuliffe added."

KL

"Boris Beizer was a big name in the eighties. These days, he's been pretty much forgotten. His work has little relevance to modern software development. Boris is famous for pushing code coverage as a big deal and dismissing the idea of exploratory and risk-based testing. He once told me, in 1993, that Microsoft would be out of business "within 5 years" because it was using the kind of testing practices I recommend."

-- JamesBach

This is the most likely scenario. Remember this is the regime that came up with the "spy on your neighbor" idea by convicted felon John Poindexter, and perusing library records to find out who is reading "House of Bush, House of Saud"

Kim M

Bush-CHeney 2004 "We don't need no stinking elections"

Saddam Hussein had a 'regime'. The US doesn't have regimes, it has administrations.

Poindexter...

I wasn't aware that such a program had gone into effect. When did that happen?

Um, no - the idea is to check up on terrorists that use public library computers to stay in touch with their buddies.

And to this day....this new "power" has not been used even once. But I bet it *still* discouraged some "bad guys" from using public computers for such activities.

While I've no interest in discussing the politics of this issue I believe it is important to note that saying it has never been used is different than saying it has never been requested for use. The process requires the approval of a special secret court. The public is not informed when requests are made, turned down, or granted for that matter. In addition, the deterrant capability of such legislation cannot be objectively proven since you can't prove a negative.

It certainly wouldn't be a very effective tool if the requests were made public, would it? One could hope for a modicum of security during our fight against Islamofascism.

These allegations are totally without substance. I never said such things -- If I believed that, why would I have purchased MSFT stock then and all along from the time it first came out -- and still hold. As for being forgotten? Only by people who never know much about software testing in the first place. As to the 80's -- you display your ignorance of the field by failing to note the number of testing conferences at which I appeared as a keynote speaker each year -- an average of four a year all through the

90's -- if that's being "forgotten" then I could only wish that people had total amnesia.

Nor can it be disproved. There is no way to know what plans may have been thwarted due to the added layer of vigilance.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

That is indeed true. However "he who asserts must prove." If someone says it has prevented acts of terror they need to show evidence. Similiarly if someone says it has trampled the rights of the innocent they need to show evidence.

Agreed. However that means defending it by implying it hasn't been used isn't a legitimate defense. We don't know, nor should we know if it's used. Defend it on its provable utility in the fight against terrorism. Taking away rights and liberties in a democratic republic is serious business and should require a very high burden of proof.

What do you have on your computer that you're afraid of being known? KiddiePorn? Love letters to the mistress your wife doesn't know about? Instructions for how to make a bomb?

The Homeland Defense computer geeks can look at what's on my computer until their retirement comes in; any time they want. I'm not afraid 'cause I'm not doing anything wrong or illegal. It's those that have something to fear or to hide that squawk the loudest, methinks.

My home page:

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

"Boris Beizer" wrote

They aren't MY allegations - they're just the the first thing that came up under a google search for your name.

I admit I am completely ignorant of the software testing field. So what? I am not making any statements about it but simply pasting a quote I found on the Internet at the end of my message. I should also note - inasmuch as you deliberately didn't - that I attributed the quote as I found it, to one James Bach. Maybe you know him?

KL

I for one would prefer them to actually ask politely, make an appointment that is convenient for me, tell me what they're looking for and provide just cause to even look in the first place. Short of disassembling a hard drive and microwaving the platters, not much they can't dig out with their tools so lead time shouldn't be much of an issue.

"Bill Woodier" wrote

The first is illegal, the last is not, and the second just embarrassing. Why should the Government be allowed to read and disseminate as it sees fit - without your knowledge or consent - whatever it finds on your computer, especially things that fall into the embarrassing category?

You say "wrong or illegal". What business does the Government have determining what is wrong beyond what the people's Representatives have determined is illegal? What if it is neither but just embarrassing? Can't a law-abiding American citizen "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"?

I can't believe that there is nothing in your house/computer that you don't at least consider "private". Would you be content to let the Government copy - or seize - that stuff, pass it around to persons and organizations unknown, and store in some media of unknown security, for an unknown period, with unknown terms of access? That is what you are asking me to joyfully do, but goddamnit, I won't.

Beyond just the repulsive nature of your statements - especially so coming from someone I consider to be a patriotic American - I find them naive. A close relative works for the Inspector General's office of the Defense Intelligence Agency. His current caseload of people who are "lying, cheating, and stealing" (to use his term) would take him well beyond mandatory retirement age to clear - and more are being added to the stack every day. All of them are cleared, background-checked, access-authorized, fully-vetted, intelligence-type personnel like those who would be conducting these searches - if not some of the VERY people. These folks are felons who cannot be trusted to follow the Laws of the Land, let alone the rules of common sense. You may argue that their numbers are quite small, but they are certainly not zero. Letting even one person access to my private info increases my chances for a bad result. Universal, secret access will just be handing them the keys to the vault.

Sheesh.

KL

Yeah, that about sums it up for me. Privacy is an aspect of human dignity, and there are people who will abuse it for no good reason--even persons acting under color of authority. A certain prison in Iraq comes to mind...

Mark Schynert

Agreed.

It should indeed.

Absolutely none!