Pacific Spirit Marine Institute
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The people of California have been voting in national elections since 1850 one would think that in 157 years they might be expecting the 2008 Presidential primary.
After all they have had more than a century and a half to find a safe and secure way to cast a vote. They should have seen this election coming.
But, the Secretary of State will now have 5 days to make a decision regarding the unassailability of California Votes in the February Presidential Primary.
Voters in California are finding security for there votes is merely an ‘add-on”.
In the same way side impact airbags might be optional on some models, voter security may be optional.
I like to think of options as…you know…things that are optional, not imperative.
Security for my vote, I consider to be imperative like…oh say the stirring wheel on my car.
Secretary of State, Debra Bowen was given a security report on nearly all of California voting machine models on Friday. In order for Bowen to ‘decertify and of the electronic voting machines she has to do so by this coming Friday.
California laws state these matters must be complete 6 months before the, Feb.5 2008, Presidential Primary.
Scant time indeed to make a final decision which many people consider to be
life and death, while others judge their right to a free and honest vote the bedrock of democracy.
Following the money, as is always the ’smart’ thing to do, we can’t be surprised to learn that the least egar, least supportive of a free and honest vote are the very elections officials though-out California. Most are unwilling to toss millions of dollars spent on unsecured electronic voting systems down the toilet in favor of an honest and accurate, secure vote for the people of California.
The real mystery comes from why the non-secure systems were purchased in the first place. The word Diebold may be explanation enough.
On Monday in the state capital UC Davis investigators will present their finding on the security of the voting systems UC Davis’ computer science hacking team tested.
Representatives from the electronic voting machine corporations will be allowed to refute the UC Davis findings. Undoubtedly these companies will want to rebuff …as in re-polishing a turd type buffing…
Although Matt Bishop, US Davis computer science professor who led the hacking team, said he found no malicious source code he was ’surprised by the weakness of the security measures, both physical and electronic protecting the voting systems.
How long it would take to write and install ‘malicious source code’ in unsecured voting machines. The elections still 6 months away.
Bishops team of hackers found not only high-tech ways to breach the systems security, but low tech put your hand in situations at the polling places.
Bishop added they been given more time they would have found even more security flaws.
Bishop is a recognized expert in computer security and says “…the security seems like it was added on.”
The hearing on Monday will be open to the pubic. I hope the people of California can muster a vocal contingent…I think the security of my vote is as basic as brakes on my car…neither of which should be add-ons.
Labels: California, Ewaste, USA, eballot, electronic voting
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Security of Electronic Voting Machines Optional!
Sunday, July 15, 2007
This story falls under the heading of news you can use.
Don’t ever forget: it doesn’t matter for whom you vote, what really matters is who counts your vote!
Actions for bringing you internet voting are going on across the globe. Canada, the USA, France. The UE has launced the Cyber Vote Project trials have already been used in Sweden, France and Germany.
Why leave the club when the party is just getting hot? Text in your vote while in a drunken stupper via your cell phone. How about casting your vote for the next American Idol and then voting for your next Prime Minister or President. Careful now don’t get the two mixed up.
In spite of the US Department of Security warnings in 2004 listing its top 5 reasons to not use internet voting Evoting is rolled forward:
Our conclusions are summarized as follows:
DRE (direct recording electronic) voting systems have been widely criticized elsewhere for various deficiencies and security vulnerabilities: that their software is totally closed and proprietary; that the software undergoes insufficient scrutiny during qualification and certification; that they are especially vulnerable to various forms of insider (programmer) attacks; and that DREs have no voter-verified audit trails (paper or otherwise) that could largely circumvent these problems and improve voter confidence. All of these criticisms, which we endorse, apply directly to SERVE as well.
But in addition, because SERVE is an Internet- and PC-based system, it has numerous other fundamental security problems that leave it vulnerable to a variety of well-known cyber attacks (insider attacks, denial of service attacks, spoofing, automated vote buying, viral attacks on voter PCs, etc.), any one of which could be catastrophic.
Such attacks could occur on a large scale, and could be launched by anyone from a disaffected lone individual to a well-financed enemy agency outside the reach of U.S. law. These attacks could result in large-scale, selective voter disenfranchisement, and/or privacy violation, and/or vote buying and selling, and/or vote switching even to the extent of reversing the outcome of many elections at once, including the presidential election. With care in the design, some of the attacks could succeed and yet go completely undetected. Even if detected and neutralized, such attacks could have a devastating effect on public confidence in elections.
It is impossible to estimate the probability of a successful cyber-attack (or multiple successful attacks) on any one election. But we show that the attacks we are most concerned about are quite easy to perpetrate. In some cases there are kits readily available on the Internet that could be modified or used directly for attacking an election. And we must consider the obvious fact that a U.S. general election offers one of the most tempting targets for cyber-attack in the history of the Internet, whether the attacker’s motive is overtly political or simply self-aggrandizement.
New Report:
The US Department of Defense has continued analyzing Online Voting and concluded in a new report that reads in part May 2007:
“There really is no good way to build such a voting system without a radical change in overall architecture of the Internet and the PC, or some unforeseen security breakthrough.” Online voting security is “an essentially impossible task.”
…”Most of the security problems with Internet voting are generic to any PC and Internet application, and fundamentally have no effective solutions. This is why the majority of all email transmitted ove the Internet is spam, and an estimated 50% of all Internet-connected PCs in the world are infected with malicious software, despite more than a decad of effor and immense investment by the world’s high technology companies in trying to fix these problems.” …”The real problem is that no fundamental solution is possible using the current Internet protocols and the current PC hardware and software platforms.”
Demand that your vote be counted as cast. Demand paper ballots that can be verified. Your most fundamental of rights are in peril regardless in what nation you live.
THE TIME HAS COME FOR YOU TO STAND UP FOR YOURSELF, don’t ever forget, it isn’t them against us. They are us, we have sent them into our goverments to represent us, now demand that they proctect our right to cast an unempeachable ballot. We need to stop letting the tail wag the dog.
Labels: Ewaste, Toxic Ewaste, bycatch, eballot, electronic voting
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Eballot For World: More Ewaste and Bycatch, Texted Your Vote In!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
By now we’ve all heard the story about the woman in Ellsworth, Maine that dropped a Compact Florescent Light bulb (CFL) on her daughters’ bedroom floor.
Brandy Bridges realized the bulb contained mercury and called the store where it was purchased. They recommended she call poison control who referred her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection which directed her to call an environmental clean up crew that gave her a $2,000.00+ estimate to clean up the mercury mess.
So how much mercury does one of these bulbs contain? So much that the broken CFL left 6 times the safe level of mercury in the Bridges’ bedroom.
Each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL.
Given the fact that we already know that mercury is dangerous and highly toxic, that it can cause brain damage and leaning disabilities, what is creating this Herculean push to install literally 10’s of billions of these bulbs across the globe?
The move to ban incandescent lights in favor of CFL’s is being considered in California as well as Canada, Australia parts of the EU, and many other states in the US. The Capitol Hill complex in the US is currently in the process of replacing 20,000 incandescent bulbs with these CFL’s. These account for only the ‘desk lamps’.
What is going on? These CFL’s have been on the market for nearly 30 years. It is unrealistic to imagine consumers will dispose of these bulbs at hazardous waste collection sites. How will all the consumers be educated on the safe use and disposal of these bulbs? How many of these CFL’s will be purchased after the consumer realizes the hazards involved?
If our incandescent bulbs are banned we won’t have a choice. What really is behind this push to create more mercury hazards after so many years of trying to eliminate the mercury hazards?
Only two possibilities jump to my mind. Either global warming is moving far more rapidly than we are being told, or the monetary profits associated with these CFL’s is beyond imagination.
The skeptic in me says it’s both.
Labels: Compact Florescent Light, Ewaste, Global Warming, Mercury, Toxic Ewaste, Wal-Mart
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Compact Florescent Lights Part III: Casting a Shadow
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
We looked at Wal-Mart’s drive to sell 100 million Compact Florescent Light bulbs by the end of 2008 yesterday. Although these lights have been on the market since 1977 and they produce 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gas emissions than incandescent bulbs why haven’t they taken off?
These bulbs sound like a good idea to me, yet only 6% of homes today are using CFL’s. Saving $30.00 in energy costs over the life of each bulb sounds like a good idea too.
My mother, who grew up during the depression always said, “waste not want not”. These bulbs certainly aren’t wasting any energy. I can still see my mother standing in the middle of my room, pointing a long bony finger at the light burning in my ceiling, asking one of her favorite questions,”did you turn off the light when you left the room?”
Dear mom was by no means a conservationist; she was however highly tuned into conserving her money. Now when I leave a room I always turn off the light.
I like to think I’m a conservationist. I know I do less than some, but I’m pretty sure I do a lot more than others to keep my presence on this earth a small one.
Today I am satisfied to please my mother posthumously. I also enjoy feeling like I’m ’sticking it to the man’ by not paying him unnecessary electricity money and I’m doing my part to reduce my carbon footprint. Besides all that, I’m just plain cheap!
It really isn’t clear to me how much money I’m really going to be saving by using the CFL’s since I’m already a miser in the 3rd degree. I’m not clear on just how many pounds of greenhouse gases my lights are actually contributing to the planet either. Like I said, I’m a tightwad.
There are some drawbacks as well as payoffs in using these CFL’s in spite of their reduced energy use. They contain Mercury.
This begs the question of how much mercury are we going to leave in the landfills when millions of us throw these CFL’s away?
Tomorrow we will look at the mercury and disposal issues surrounding these nifty little money and energy savers!
Labels: CFL's, Compact Florescent Light, Ewaste, Global Warming, Mercury, Toxic Ewaste, Wal-Mart
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Compact Florescent Bulbs Part II: Are You Shinning Me On?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Why does Wal-mart want to put compact florescent light bulbs into 100 million homes by 2008.
Wal-Mart is hoping its 200 million shoppers will pick up these energy saving bulbs. But, just how much energy do these bulbs actually save?
There are clearly conservation advantages to these lights, though I’ve never looked on Wal-Mart as being a green company concerned with the well being of the communities in which they operate. Compact florescent lights use 75% less energy than regular incandescent bulbs and they last 10 times longer.
The loss of sales of 9 incandescent for every 1 compact florescent (CFL) would give pause to anyone, as jaded as I, when it comes to following the money trail. So what is the pay off for companies such as Wal-Mart that are known for their keen sense of the bottom line?
These CFL’s are 8 times more expensive than incandescents. In spite of this, the consumer would save about $30.00 in energy costs over the life of each bulb. These CFL’s also produce about 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases.
These bulbs have been on the market for a couple of decades and only around 6% of homes currently use them. They are weird looking, they give off an odd light, and they cost 8 times more than incandescents so it’s no big wonder why, as yet, they haven’t caught on.
The rise in energy costs over the years has created conservation through necessity. Even if some people aren’t taking on the whole global warming, climate change crusade, they are taking up the idea of lowering their monthly energy bills.
We’ll explore this subject more tomorrow. In the mean time,
Turn off those lights when you are out of the room. It will keep you cooler in the summer time too!
Labels: CFL's, Compact Florescent Light, Ewaste, Global Warming, Mercury, Toxic Ewaste, Wal-Mart
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Wal-Marts Pushing Compact Florescent Light Bulbs…CFL’s
Friday, June 15, 2007
We were wondering yesterday if there was any way to slow the tide of toxic Ewaste polluting our oceans, air and land. The most practical way of course will be to eliminate the use of these toxins used manufacturing of electronic equipment.
Business policing itself for the sake of the greater good isn’t something we come across very often. The fast track to profit equals the status quo. Some companies have moved towards cleaning up their products while others are simply ignoring the dangers to our environment.
One of the best ways to effect a change in any industry is to vote with your wallet. Making a conscious effort to buy products that are greener will cause the market to produce greener products.
Manufactures need to implement more responsible end-of-life recycling of their own products. These manufactures need to set up a means by which consumers can return useless electronics back to the company of origin.
Consumers shouldn’t be left holding the toxic bag.
Greenpeace lists the top 3 as most improved Lenovo, Sony Ericsson, and Samsung.
Nokia though listed as number 2 has fallen from number 1. Sony Ericsson now in the number 3 spot was number 5.
Apple is at the ultimate bottom of the list followed by Panasonic and LGE.
By looking at the list the responsible consumer can make a more informed decision regarding the electronics they buy. This guide is updated every 3 months so keep corporate responsibility on your mind when making your next purchase.
Think about what you are replacing and ask yourself it your purchase is really necessary and how are you going to responsibly dispose of the item you may be replacing. If you aren’t replacing anything worn out, but buying a new technology find out where you can rid yourself if it when it is worn out or out dated.
Remember always ‘if you aren’t part of the solution, you really are part of the problem.’
Labels: Ewaste, Global Warming, Ocean, Plastic, Toxic Ewaste
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Recycling and Eliminating Toxins From Ewaste: Corperate Responsibility and Consumer Savvy!
Thursday, June 14, 2007
We mentioned in our May 29 entry between 1997 and 2007 an unbelievable 500 million computers were discarded, by the US alone, producing a staggering 600,000 tons of toxic waste. What happens to all of this poison waste?
Here are some figures from The Basel Convention.
500 computers alone contain:
717kg of lead
1.36kg cadmium
863 grams chromium
287 grams mercury
The Basel convention is part of the United Nations Environment Programme. (UNEP)Basel seeks control of the transboundry movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal, much of which is transported via our oceans.
I first came across the Basel convention while researching the tainted products, in a seeming endless flow out of China into the rest of the world. Instead I became carried away looking at the apparent endless flow of poison waste flowing into China.
China is only one country receiving mountains of toxic waste created by other nations. Smaller under-developed countries all over the world are receiving toxic waste at an alarming rate. It may be easier to understand why these smaller extremely poor countries would import hazards for pay it’s not immediately clear why China would expose its land and its people to such hazards.
China has taken positive steps toward environmental cooperation by signing onto the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, something the US still stands away from. With poverty eradication and economic development still two of China’s top priorities it is still difficult to reconcile the importation of Ewaste from other countries.
I found a piece on the BBC News Series ‘Disposable Planet?’ A photo essay entitled ‘China’s hi-tech toxics’. The piece chronicles how, what was a perfectly good farming village is now a toxic hole in the ground. A hole with hundreds and in some cases thousands of times higher levels of toxins than are deemed safe by the WHO for lead, chromium and tin.
These already poor villagers dismantling Ewaste shipped in from other countries are falling victim to incredible healthy problems as well as ruining farm land.
These poisons get washed into the not only the soil, but the water.
What in the world can be done about slowing down the Ewaste? Computers and peripherals, we spends thousands of dollars on, are rendered virtually worthless with each new computer and electronics show.
But, having just purchased a new laptop with the new VISTA installed, I’m thinking the race to discard our old computers will dramatically slow. So maybe there is some good news, for a little while at least!
Labels: Ewaste, Global Warming, Ocean, Plastic, Toxic Ewaste
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Ocean Voyages of Toxic Ewaste
