Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Overseas ISPs Blocked From US Voting Website 114

Posted by michael from the vote-early-vote-often dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The US Department of Defense is blocking many of the world's major Internet service providers from giving access to the web site of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, which allows registered American voters to vote from abroad. The Pentagon is blaming the risk of hackers, but Democrats Abroad aren't happy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Overseas ISPs Blocked From US Voting Website More

Overseas ISPs Blocked From US Voting Website

Comments Filter:

  • No opinion on TFA... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aelbric ( 145391 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:43PM (#10310450)
    ...however, I would think the Republicans would be up in arms about this. After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

    • Re:No opinion on TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by crow ( 16139 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:46PM (#10310497) Homepage Journal
      My guess is that the military networks aren't being blocked, but civilian ones are, so the military (Republican) vote will come through fine, but the civilian vote (more Democratic?) won't.

      • Re:No opinion on TFA... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @03:14PM (#10311569) Homepage Journal
        so the military (Republican) vote will come through fine

        but is the military vote really republican?

        the christian science monitor today is running a story on anti-bush troops in iraq [csmonitor.com]. give it a read -- and remember that the last time the u.s. was involved in a major land war a lot of the vetrans and enlisted men wound up developing strong anti-war stances... john kerry, for instance.

        • Re:No opinion on TFA... (Score:5, Informative)

          by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:37PM (#10312610)
          but is the military vote really republican?

          Read the headline: "A Strident Minority". The same article mentions this statistic: 56% of the military is Republican. One would assume there are some independents that lean (R) as well, and with an over representation of rural southerners in the military there is probably a fair number of Democrats more along the lines of Zell Miller than John Kerry. Sure you can find a statistically significant group to write an article about. Those (maybe 25%?) that opposed the war but end up over there are obviously going to be alienated & further polarized by the experience, thus the "strident" part of the title. Democrats can try to mine this 30-40% for a few extra votes, they have an opening for some counter-intuitive outreach, but the Republicans are still going to work hard to try and get this demographic to the polls in November.
          • I'm not sure how pro-Bush I'd be if I was told that I could re-enlist now or be sent directly to Iraq for the remainder of your time in service [highclearing.com] just to punch the falling re-enlistment numbers up.

            Seriously, the blunders in this war that are nice and abstract to the warbloggers willing to stomach them are much more real to someone who experiences them firsthand. Bush's support is highest in rural areas -- those farthest removed from any actual danger of a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, cities like DC and NYC a
            • Actually, I have lived in both areas, and believe that the difference between large cities and rural areas is more economic than fear of terrorism. In big cities, there tend to be the rich and the poor with very few in between, because the cost of living is so high. There are far fewer rich than poor, and the poor need help to survive when things go wrong - ergo a large Democrat population, which votes for things like social security and government medical care.

              In rural America, the difference between r
              • (Agreeing with you, but attempting to add.)
                Don't forget that in rural areas, people tend* to practice a much more conservative form of religion (which aligns better with the Republicans), are anti-abortion, hawkish, pro-NRA. I'd say that they line up pretty good with social issues and foreign affairs as well. Fear of terrorist attack is not what separates them, but rather their opinions of how to handle the problem (kill 'em over there instead of over here).

                *To ACs, this indicates that I am generaliz

          • Re:No opinion on TFA... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @01:11AM (#10316242) Homepage Journal
            A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts.

            Not sure what "considered themselves Republican" means -- presumably all the registered R's, plus independents who lean strongly that way. Anyway ... From my time in the service (1987-1997) I'd say the numbers are very different for officers and enlisted. The officer corps is strongly conservative and Republican, and becoming more so all the time (and I consider it deeply unhealthy for the nation to have an officer corps that subscribes overwhelmingly to any particular ideology, but that's a matter for another time ...) while enlisted personnel follow roughly the same split (1/3 D, 1/3 R, 1/3 other) as the rest of the country. The article pretty much says this:

            Among officers, who represent roughly 15 percent of today's 1.4 million active duty military personnel, there are about eight Republicans for every Democrat, according to a 1999 survey by Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver. Enlisted personnel, however - a disproportionate number of whom are minorities, a population that tends to lean Democratic - are more evenly split. Professor Feaver estimates that about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing.

            This isn't surprising, since officers tend to come from much more priveleged backgrounds than do enlisted personnel.

            I also suspect that the numbers vary by service, with the Marines being the most conservative, the Air Force being the most liberal, and the Army and Navy -- largely by virtue of being bigger, and therefore more diverse -- being somewhere in the middle. I'd be interested to see hard numbers on this one of these days.
            • That sounds about right. A recent Newsweek poll had the military vote going to Bush by 58%. I don't remember what Kerry got but there was still a decent "undecided" number as well so as I said before you are talking a pretty solid Republican demographic.

              I think there is a strong conservative bent even among enlisted personnel, it's just obscured by the countervailing influence of being disproportionately minority. Any group that is 46% minority (according to an NPR report I saw [pbs.org]) but that ends up voting th
        • Will be leaving the U.S. like rats from sinking ship.

          I spent a lot of the past couple of weeks with folks from Sweden, Czech Republic, and Malaysia. Who would have thought that ten, short years ago, each of these would become a haven of free thought compared to the Wal-Mart Wonderland.

          • Opinion: If you were to put this to a [unbiased] poll, I'd bet that your statement was wrong. None of my smart friends* have ever talked about leaving the US over issues like this.

            *This is not an opportunity to attack my ability to decide whether my friends are intelligent.
        • Funnily, the very first sentence in this story is "Though military personnel lean conservative, some vocally support Kerry (...)".

          Is it new at /. that even those submitting articles/giving links don't read them? :-)
    • Ditto on that. I've always heard it was primarily republicans abroad, not democrats. People vacationing out of country and military personnel stationed overseas make up the bulk of U.S. citizens abroad, and they are primarily republican.

      Or so I thought.
      • Recently, NPR reported that expats primarily vote Republican, although no one knows the correct numbers for expat population or their political ideology. That being said, there are action groups for both parties trying to get out their vote overseas. After all, the overseas vote helped tip Florida to Bush at the end.
    • Maybe the military doesn't use commercial ISP's?
    • Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Don't you think the military would be insured their right to vote? How could we expect to keep soldiers fighting for us if they couldn't vote? The Pentagon would never let that happen. Besides, name a *major* ISP in Iraq.

      The *only* group that would be affected by this (besides the hackers, of course) would be the U.S. citizens outside the country for personal rather than national reasons. Survey says... mostly Democrat.

      Even if the block did affect the military, and assume the
      • The *only* group that would be affected by this (besides the hackers, of course) would be the U.S. citizens outside the country for personal rather than national reasons. Survey says... mostly Democrat.

        Why do you assume that civilian Americans outside the USA are mostly Democrats?

        • Probably because he's been outside the USA.

          I've traveled to Europe, Mexico, Canada. I know dozens of people who regularly travel to Singapore, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, South America and a host of other regions.

          All of them are far more liberal then I am.

          • Probably because he's been outside the USA.

            And I haven't?

            I know dozens of people who regularly travel to Singapore, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, South America and a host of other regions. All of them are far more liberal then I am.

            Since most of the people I know who travel regularly are co-workers, and since most of those co-workers are tech workers in Bay Area, most of them are far more liberal than I am. I suspect if I were in the banking or defense industries, I'd find such world travellers

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:No opinion on TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @03:47PM (#10312020) Homepage Journal
      ... I would think the Republicans would be up in arms about this.

      It worries me no matter who they are predicted to vote for. Consider:
      The basis for democracy is that, in exchange for an opportunity to vote freely and fairly, we all agree to accept the result of the election, even if the candidate of our choice does not win the election. Reasonable people are willing to accept this bargain on the basis of the elections being free and fair.

      The subtle upshot of this, which many people miss, is that an election can be rigged even without compromising a single vote.

      An election is definitively won by a candidate when the number of votes received by a candidate exceeds the number of votes received by his next-nearest competitor plus the margin of error. This was the crux of the problems in Florida in the 2000 election: initially the amount of uncertainty in the vote counts exceeded the difference between Bush and Gore. What ensued was a remedial process to reduse the uncertainty through re-examination of ballots, lawsuits, and ultimately courtroom decisions.

      It's interesting to note that no part of this remedial process was under the control of the voters. Clearly, you wouldn't want it to be under the control of anyone, but it explains one strategy for rigging an election under circumstances where it's too risky (or you simply have no means to) swing how the voters will actually vote. Control of the remedial process can be leveraged into control of the election itself, but only if the difference between the two candidates is small enough. Or, put another way, only if the uncertainty is large enough. Anything which raises questions about the freeness and fairness of the election process introduces uncertainty.

      So, yes I'm a little concerned that some uber-hacker will root the electronic voting machines and change a few votes, but I'm a lot more concerned that confidence in a whole lot of votes will be lost simply because some uber-hacker could root the machines.

      I'd lump this article in the same category. Every time I hear a story about how the election process is being skewed one way or another, I can't help but think it's because someone has already rigged the remedial process in their own favor, and all they need to with the election now is enough people questioning the initial tally.

      Which is not to say I think we should stop discussing the vulnerabilities of the system, but rather to point out that we need to do more than just discuss them; we've got to ensure that the vulnerabilities are corrected. We need to send a message (from both sides of the political spectrum) that we believe our candidate can beat the opponent in a fair fight, and we won't stand for any of this crap which makes the election appear to be untrustworthyi, if for no other reason than because it calls into question the legitimacy of an election we clearly won.

      I have my favorite candidate. I accept the possibility that the other candidate could win. I am of the opinion that if the wrong candidate gets elected, he could prove very bad for this country, but I don't think either/any candidate is so horrible that the damage couldn't be pretty much undone by electing the 'right' candidate in another 4 years.

      But if we wind-up with an untrustable election system (no paper trail electronic voting, Internet vote casting, selectively disenfranchised voters, etc.) we might never see the chance 4 years down the road.

      So I'm predicting now that the 2004 race will be close (no brainer) but I'm hoping there won't be another 2000-style fiasco in the vote counting. If there is, I hope we will all look at the resolution process with a very skeptical eye, a critical eye, an eye to the possiblity that the November vote may have already been rigged.

      And that holds true no matter who wins in November.

      • Because, of course, we all know the only way for these people to cast a ballot is to use the blocked government website. That's why they couldn't vote at all before the internet. Those pesky paper forms they could order via mail or pick up at the embassy never existed. They are a figment of your imagination.

        • That's why they couldn't vote at all before the internet.

          Your point is well made; accessibility to this 'convenience' website does not affect the absentee ballot process, which remains as (in)secure as it has always been.

          But I'm reminded of that famous line from the Hackers movie:

          The world is not governed by reality, but by the

          perception of reality.

          They are a figment of your imagination.

          Precisely.

      • I am of the opinion that if the wrong candidate gets elected, he could prove very bad for this country, but I don't think either/any candidate is so horrible that the
        damage couldn't be pretty much undone by electing the 'right' candidate in another 4 years.


        How long did it take to rebuild Hiroshima?

        • How long did it take to rebuild Hiroshima?

          Many would argue Hiroshima has yet to be rebuilt. It's at least fair to say the people who died at Hiroshima have yet to be brought back to life.

          Your point was?

          When the final history of the world is written, it will certainly record Hiroshima as the place where the first nuclear detonation in anger occurred. We should hope that it will record Nagasaki as the place where the final nuclear detonation in anger occurred, and we should work toward that goal. But th

      • I don't think either/any candidate is so horrible that the damage couldn't be pretty much undone by electing the 'right' candidate in another 4 years.

        You can't just hit Ctrl-Z and undo Supreme Court appointments.

        • You can't just hit Ctrl-Z and undo Supreme Court appointments.

          Or extensions to Copyright, or Constitutional Amendments banning Marriage among Gays, or a skyrocketing budget deficit. But Justices eventually die, Amemnments can be repealed, a deficit can be paid off and even Copyrights will eventually expire, if we can convince Congress to stop voting extensions. There's going to be a legacy; just a matter of who gets to create it.

          The important thing to ensure is that there's a chance to fix things later

    • After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

      DO you really think that the military would block their own networks?? Given their excuse (fear of hackers), do yuo think that they'd admit that their own network was compromised by hackers (even if it was)??

    • ...however, I would think the Republicans would be up in arms about this. After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

      This site that's being blocked is intended for civilian expatriates only. Military votes are handled separately.

      The military is something like 55% Republican. But civilians living overseas are another matter. According to a Zogby poll, voters with passports favor Kerry over Bush by 55 to 33 percent.

      Also, fo
  • They're the happiest people I know - just look at Howard Dean!

    Seriously though - One can argue whether or not this is a good idea, but they are better than [insert e-voting manufacturer here] in at least trying to be proactive in eliminating problems.

  • this is news? (Score:3, Informative)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:49PM (#10310532) Homepage Journal
    Big deal. They also made http://www.overseasvote2004.com/ [overseasvote2004.com] page. Get over it. What's to be upset about?

  • WTF?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Malfourmed ( 633699 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:51PM (#10310559) Homepage
    Let me see if I get this straight...

    The US government has set up a website to help overseas Americans to vote.

    But it's blocked access to that website by overseas ISPs, the ISPs that overseas American voters would need to use to access that site.

    But wait! It's okay - only the big ISPs are blocked... just the ones most American voters are likely to use.

    And all this to prevent the site from being hacked.

    I guess they had to destroy the global village in order to save it.

  • This is not a voting site (Score:5, Informative)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 ) <.chris. .at. .chrisbenard.net.> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:54PM (#10310597) Homepage Journal
    This site provides information about voting absentee. The summary and title makes it look like they are letting people vote online, and I almost flipped out before I RTFA.

    I know others won't RTFA so I wanted to throw that out there. I hope they never allow voting online, as this is the most sacrosanct privilege we have and I don't want anyone to have the ability to intercept my or anyone else's vote.

    It's not a big problem to drive to the nearest school to punch a few buttons and hit "cast vote".

    Chris
    • It's not a big problem to drive to the nearest school to punch a few buttons and hit "cast vote".

      I can't go to the nearest school on voting day. Voting by post is currently the only option available to voters abroad.

      I realize that computer voting is in it's infancy and has a load of bad history, but given that I spend thousands of dollars each year in online shops, I don't think it's hard to imagine that safe, secure computer voting is in our near future. I know that I'd definitely trust a well-designe
    • So if I'm in, say, Japan.. and I go to the closest school to me.. I can cast my votes in the USA election?

  • Netcraft results (Score:4, Informative)

    by Masker ( 25119 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:56PM (#10310635)
    The purpose, from the article:

    "The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.


    Well, Netcraft says [netcraft.com] it's running Solaris 8 machine running Sun-ONE-Web-Server/6.1.

    How about putting the webserver up on Trusted Solaris [sun.com] and locking down the webserver to have fewer privs, like no write access (enforced via MAC, mandatory access controls) to the pages that you're worried about getting defaced?

    But, teh intarweb isn't the only way to get info for overseas voting. From the article:

    "In the meantime, overseas voters can contact their embassy or consulate, use the FVAP toll-free number or contact their local election official or secretary of state via telephone or the internet for more information on obtaining an absentee ballot," said Lieutenant Colonel Krenke.

  • Overseas? Find an open HTTP relay... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @02:09PM (#10310807) Homepage
    You can google for open HTTP proxies, or even just visit this site [openproxies.com]. Pick one in the US, set up your browser, and away you go. Paraphrasing John Gilmore, the Net interprets regionalization as damage and routes around it.

    I use this technique to visit Japanese idol sites that disallow non .jp addresses. Slower, but better than not getting any, er, "eye-candy."
  • why doesn't someone simply enable proxy access, as was discussed for viewing region-restricted Olympics broadcasts?

    and what about existing services like Anonymizer?
    • That's nice, but how many tourists and other people overseas going to know how to do that? There's always a solution for the technologically advanced, but not that many people technologically advanced (pretty much by definition).

      Now that you mention it: This is stupid. If I was going to hack the site, I wouldn't use a public Proxy, I'd buy a fleet of US-based Zombie boxes (at $0.15 each) and do my hacking from one of them.

      • "how many tourists and other people overseas going to know how to do that?"

        My point was:
        someone in the **USA** should put up a proxy for *anyone* overseas to use.
        • That's fine --- but once , say I put up that proxy,
          How many people would know how to look for it and use it? Also: countries like China seems to like blocking connections to open proxys, so even those people in China who knew how to find and use my proxy would soon lose access.
          • "proxy...How many people would know how to look for it and use it? Also: countries like China seems to like blocking"

            People who are savvy enough to be using TFA's website in the first place, could likely be reached via the same means which informs them of the DoD's block.
            But that's really beside the point, i.e. "better to light a candle than curse the darkness", and the lame inadequacy of the DoD's effort.

            Also, I'd guess that the percentage of affected expats who are in China is miniscule.
            • Many people who know of the TFA site may just find out about the block the hard way (and decide that the problem is 'in the internet' (esp if they're in the middle of nowhere ))

              I don't disagree that some people will use proxies, and that proves the uselessness of the DoD's block... Not only that, but the people most likely to use proxies (including somebody's zombied home PC) is preciesly the hackers they claim to be blocking.

              More to the point, I expect that they know this.

              The only purpose that I ca

  • Doesn't it bother anyone that the ***DoD*** (as opposed to the agency which "owns" the site) has the physical ability -- let alone the brazenness -- let alone the legal authority -- to do this?

    And don't you wonder if this ability is limited to blocking only govt sites, versus blocking ANY USA-hosted site?

    • Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dahan ( 130247 ) <khym@azeotrope.org> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @03:00PM (#10311395)
      Doesn't it bother anyone that the ***DoD*** (as opposed to the agency which "owns" the site) has the physical ability -- let alone the brazenness -- let alone the legal authority -- to do this?

      No, because I read the whole article, and saw the part mentioning that "The US Department of Defense ... runs the Federal Voting Assistance Program." The DoD is the agency that "owns" the site.

      And this whole thing is much ado about very little. The website is just a place where you can get info on how to vote absentee and download an absentee ballot request form. People have been voting absentee long before this website was around, and they can continue to do so. Your local US Embassy will have the ballot request form, for example (and they'll even mail it for you free there). Also, most (perhaps all?) states have their own absentee ballots that you can apply for.

      • Why does the DoD run a voting program? Since the DoD is so closely related to the military I would expect them to want to keep that seperate, I know I don't like mixing my generals and politicians or my military with voting implementation. A body with arms whose sole training revolves around the use of force should not be the caretaker of voting programs.
      • "I read the whole article, and saw ... The DoD is the agency that "owns" the site."

        ok, my bad.
        but I agree with l4m3z0r (799504) who replied to you, saying that the DoD shouldn't be the owner.

        Also, I disagree with you about "much ado about very little":
        either the site is intended to fulfill an important function -- for NON-mil expats -- or not;
        and if it is so intended, then DoD shouldn't be in charge, let alone blocking it.
    • take off the tin-foil hat, yes, the DoD can and has done that, and does have the authority to do that. It's also worth noting THAT IT'S NO BIG DEAL!!! look for *no comments* comment above
    • Yes it fucking sucks that the DOD can block who can access sites that the DOD runs.

      Did you even read the article?
  • The only legit reason I can see to block networks is if they're getting a DDOS attack from many different hosts on those networks. Maybe they're blocking some networks to ensure access for others...

    If it's not a DDOS, they you can probably chalk it up to incompetent management. Wouldn't be the first time for Government webites...
  • Maybe we should have a website where you can give away your vote like itunes and gmail accounts.

    Perhaps the "Stay the hell out of our country you imperialist b45t4rd5!" party will finally have a chance.
  • It's too much work for them to actually get off their butts and obtain the paper form from their embassy or via mail.
  • Put the entire website on a CD ROM (or DVD, if it's that big) with cachefs, and create symbolic links for any parts that need constant updates (like any databases).

    Site updates can be done by cycling the webserver and swapping out the CD.

    At that point, you'd pretty much need to attain root access to deface the box. If you remove everything that's not necessary to serving the site, you remove most of the capability for rooting the box.

  • typical government... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kr3m3Puff ( 413047 ) * <me@@@kitsonkelly...com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:35PM (#10312588) Homepage Journal
    I love the governments response... Block overseas ISPs for overseas voters and then if you RTFA, you will see the government response to that is to have them call a Toll Free Number. Why would the government have a toll free number in the US for overseas voters?! Don't they know that when you call from overseas the numbers aren't toll free. In France, you have to totally dial the number another way and in fact, most Toll Free Numbers don't allow international terminations without special provisioning. I can only assume they have done that.

    Yes, Virginia there are Americans who don't live in America!

  • You and Who's Army???? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel@bcgre e n . com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:59PM (#10312831) Homepage Journal
    Let me get this straight:

    The Department of Defence claims that they don't have the knowledge and equipment to defend one single website???!!!

    Phreak!

    So when do they change their name to Department of the Defenceless?

    Next up: ..... (Cripes... My absurdity generator can't come up with a more absurd analogy to this!)

  • In other news, the Pentagon shut down the 2004 Election, citing security threats, both from terrorist attacks and ballot fraud.
  • ...but Democrats Abroad aren't happy.

    But Republicans are? No Greens or Libertarians are bitching about it either? Just the Democrats? I don't get this. This affects ALL voters abroad, not just the Democrats.

    This may be a stupid move by the DoD, but this isn't an anti-Kerry conspiracy. Get real.
  • "The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

    What a load of crap.

    We web-savvy Slashdoters all know that it's pretty easy to allow access to the HTTP & HTTPS ports and still maintain a very secure website by blocking access to all other ports.

    Unless you have some wacky scripting on the site, this level of security is trivial.

    Blocking by IP number isn't a good security solution, because the hackers can always find anothe
    • Dude.

      "The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel

      Ellen Krenke.

      The "sysadmin" in question is a chick. Pretty much guarantees that she'll be taken in by FUD and "better safe than sorry" womanly nonsense.

      I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurrin

  • "The web site is down I can't vote." Please what a bunch of Losers with a capital L. Is this was this election is going to be all about, how people are being denied their voting rights? We are going to have another Florida based off the fact there is a group of people in this country who can't be wrong. There are other ways of voting overseas they are loosing a convenience not their rights and to the group who is claiming that they are being denied the right to vote how about some true journalism and c
    • "The web site is down I can't vote." Please what a bunch of Losers with a capital L. Is this was this election is going to be all about, how people are being denied their voting rights?

      I hate to be consise but that really does seem like a pretty important issue to me.

      To give some context to the issue though: Blocking by IP isn't effective because most hackers will already be using a compromised machine or a proxy. It would surprise me if the Department of Defense is not aware of this. With the numb
      • Don't be dumb in thinking somehow that was a statement of avocation in denying peoples right to vote. It was simply a statement of the obvious, they are taking the stance that inconveniencing is somehow preventing people from voting. If you think this is true then you are just as much a loser as these people. They are not victims of oppression because they can't order their voting cards over the web and nothing you can say would convince a normal person otherwise.

        As for the administration, you don't kno
        • Don't be dumb in thinking somehow that was a statement of avocation in denying peoples right to vote. It was simply a statement of the obvious, they are taking the stance that inconveniencing is somehow preventing people from voting. If you think this is true then you are just as much a loser as these people. They are not victims of oppression because they can't order their voting cards over the web and nothing you can say would convince a normal person otherwise.

          Please RTFA before posting. They quietly s
          • I think you're the one you didn't read the article. About the only thing you cite that was in it is the idea the site had access shut down to it.

            Just for the record, I'm not to keen on the idea of expatriates voting for the leaders of the country I call home. As for Americans abroad who are unable to vote, this may be an inconvenience for them but it is just that an inconvenience. But your whining because your afraid there won't be enough votes counted for John Kerry so lets call a spade a spade and you
  • yet there's still time in almost every state to register by snail mail, if you feel that strongly about it.
  • Interesting that should be pointed out, since the military is more likely to be Republican-leaning.

    -bZj

  • Vote (Score:2)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 )
    If you're an American overseas and still want to vote, I think the easiest way is just to drop an email to the US Embassy in your country [google.co.uk] telling them what state your from.

    For Americans in the UK, there's a form you can fill out on the embassy webpage here [usembassy.org.uk]


    -Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close