IPOL TO USE HIGH TECH TO DETECT AND PREVENT VOTER FRAUD

E-mailed Press Release | 10-19-2002 | 1st Freedom

[1stFreedom]

NEW YORK, NY. (c) 2002 ----/

IPOL TO USE HIGH TECH TO DETECT AND PREVENT VOTER FRAUD

(October 19th, 2002) The recent discovery of fraudulent requests for absentee ballots in South Dakota has prompted IPOL (Institute to Protect Our Liberty) to use a high tech system to detect voter fraud.

In South Dakota, several hundred requests from Democrats for absentee ballots were mailed in to the registrar in a single envelope. Included in these requests was one from a woman who died in early September yet whose ballot request had a date much later in the month.

The group was formed in 2001 in response to widespread voter fraud among college students during the 2000 Presidential election. Although the system in its infancy, the group says that recent breakthroughs will allow a subset of the system to be used in this election.

For years Republicans have alleged that Democrat activists often "vote early, and vote often." Republicans are suspicious of efforts to attract out of State activists to States where same day voting registration is allowed.

“In some States, one can register and vote on Election Day if another registered voter vouches for them. No other proof is required. In other States, the students will show up for people who aren’t even alive anymore but still on the registration rolls. Obviously, these students are not coming to get out the vote, they are coming to get in the booth.” said the group’s leader, James Thompson.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of college students allegedly voted twice in the Presidential election of 2000. After the elections, it was reported that many students from the University of Wisconsin campuses publicly bragged about voting multiple times.

To combat this growing problem, IPOL going to utilizes hidden cameras near polling places. These cameras are connected to a network of high speed laptops running the group’s facial recognition software. The resulting data is forwarded to a cluster of high speed computers which are used to detect multiple voting attempts at different locations within the same State.

This isn’t the first time a facial recognition system was used in public. Similar technology was used in Florida at the Super Bowl. The system in Florida compared faces to a database of wanted persons. The IPOL system doesn’t use an existing database of faces and uses a less advanced technology to perform the recognition.

The cameras will be positioned well outside of restricted zones surrounding the polling places but angled to reach right into these zones. IPOL declined to disclose exactly how they will handle any incidents.

“Our tactics will differ from State to State. In some States we’ll perform citizen’s arrests and turn the perpetrators over to local authorities. In others, different tactics will be used” said Thompson. “These students have to realize that they are old enough to do some jail time if they are caught. Being a student is no excuse.”

The group further declined to specify the locations it will utilize the system in. Thompson did, however, indicate that they would be used in some key States. Thompson said “I can tell you that we are going to use it in New Jersey, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, Florida, and possibly Wisconsin.”

Thompson says that any legal challenges won’t hold up. “First of all, we are a private organization. We are not associated with any government entity or political party. We can legally and constitutionally record people coming into a public place. Nobody will know we are there, so nobody should feel the least bit intimidated. We aren’t out to prevent or intimidate anybody from voting legally. Our sole purpose is to prevent voter fraud.”

Thompson said that the system has no stored information and cannot provide the identity of voters. It only stores facial features and constantly compares new face patterns to patterns it has stored earlier in the day. If a face is recognized twice, a high resolution image of the person is recorded, along with over 30 seconds of video, to provide legal evidence of fraud.

The most surprising aspect of this group is that over half of the $1.6 million dollar budget the group has to work with comes from a handful of wealthy Democrats. They are intent on proving that the Republican accusations of voter fraud are baseless.

[Mia T]

Torricelli-Lautenberg-DNC Two-Step Not 1^st Foray into Virtual Reality

NJ Senators Tested "RUNet 2000," DNC Switcheroo Scheme Precursor, in 1998

[Mia T]

SENATORS FOR VOTE FRAUD

By ARNOLD ALHERT

October 19, 2002 -- IT'S more than a little ironic. On the same day it was announced that Saddam Hussein has been "unanimously" re-elected, the only two senators preventing a unanimous vote in the Senate on the election-reform bill were New York's own Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

Why? "This would make it more difficult to vote in New York. It's designed to suppress minority voting participation," said Sen. Clinton.

The "this" Sen. Clinton is referring to is the new anti-fraud provisions in the bill. They require that every person wanting to vote show a driver's license, Social Security number or other approved ID in order to cast a ballot.

Clinton and Schumer preferred a system where a potential voter merely had to sign his or her name.

So who is it exactly that this bill is "suppressing"? U.S. citizens have all the requisite ID - no matter what their ethnicity. Could it be that Clinton and Schumer are "sensitive" to some of the leftist fringe groups in this country who are clamoring for the right of illegal aliens to vote?

It is no secret that New York is home to thousands of undocumented "residents" - who would vote overwhelmingly Democratic if they could just get past these darn ID requirements.

New York's dynamic duo have a lot more 'splainin' to do on this one.

E-mail: ahlert@mindspring.com

Q ERTY4 ^{double bagel} _{REALITY CHECK}

bump!

 

 

Don't lose

Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.

--an old roadside ad, Pushme-Pullyou

 

 

 

 

[Tennessean4Bush]

This is a joke. No way this group can delver on this. Of course, they really do not have to deliver, they merely have to convince people they will deliver.

[1stFreedom]

This is no joke. We are in the age of technology where this is possible. (The use of facial recognition software at the SuperBowl as a good example). It's scary. The real question is, how good is the software? How can it be fooled?

[GOPJ]

bump

[justshe]

~~~Some people here on FR added comments in support of the previous release~~~

Can you explain more please?

[1stFreedom]

Oh, people were saying things like "Yea, the comm ports and rs232 network is up and running." I think they were poking fun at it, or trying to add support to it.

[thegreatbeast]

You write, "It's slow, but it doesn't have to be warp speed to send over facial map data."
Excuse me, but do you hear yourself? Speed isn't an issue when you are trying to identify god knows how many people entering a polling place? That is tons of information required at a rate that you have no control over.
It doesn't matter though as the software just doesn't work under these haphazard circumstances.

[GOPJ]

bump

[mvpel]

The speed of a network link is not a factor in the processing algorithm, the CPU is, and I was talking about the speed of CDPD cellular modems. Presumably, each laptop is capturing the images and generating the face maps locally, and sending the resulting digested and compressed data up over the 9600-14,400bps CDPD link to the central location where it is stored in a database of all polling places and voters.

The facial comparasons against the rest of the database are presumably then done by the central computer, not by the laptop. If there's a hit, the laptop operator is presumably notified with the details.

There's a window of five minutes or so during which a person would be in the polling place, or longer if the line is long, during which the comparison can be done, a double-voter identified, and subsequently apprehended.

[thegreatbeast]

I appreciate your efforts on the behalf of wireless technology etc but SHOW me it works and then I'll believe it.

[Jean S]

Please post a link for this. If they have email press releases, they have a website.

[mvpel]

It's a shame that Ricochet went under - they had a microcell-based technology that offered 128 kilobit mean data throughput rates, usable up to 70mph.

[mvpel]

About the Technology

CDPD became a networking standard in the early 1990s, when a consortium of cellular carriers across the United States came together for the purpose of creating a method for sending data over cellular telephone channels. They wanted to provide a cost-effective, reliable and flexible solution to providing two-way wireless data communications service for mobile professionals. [...]

[1stFreedom]

In an effort to stay out of court before and during the elections, there is no public contact data available. IPOL is a private, unincorporated organization. Although press releases are sent,and the president of the group has been named, the group is purposefully laying low..

There essentially is no public information available. If there were, Democrats would be in court asking for injunctions, restraining orders, and the likes. Can't serve someone with an injunction if you don't know whom to serve, can you?

Now, I assume that after the election the group will be in court once their identies have been revealed (via citizens arrests, etc.)

I get this information to pass on since my bro in law is doing some freelance database work for1 them. He doesn't know their identities, nor do I. Taking us to court won't do a think, cause we don't know anything!

[Exit148]

." We just need a few people with phot graphic memories stationed at the most likley poling areas.

How about just standing there with a camcorder aimed at the door? Maybe, even without film - but the bad guys wouldn't have to know that.

[thegreatbeast]

Just dawned on me that perhaps I haven't spoken as clearly as I might wish to. Sure, wireless technology works. You might even have reliable face recognition software that doesn't gobble up bandwidth and resources. But getting both to work in harmony on the fly as described in this posting? Nah,...not for a long ways off.

[mvpel]

The key is that you just have to do your crunching in the right place.

I've worked with pattern-recognition software, in particular that by Excalibur Technologies, as well as fingerprint recognition software, and it really does work. And that was getting on towards 5-7 years ago. They may not be using Excalibur's neural-net algorithms, but there are other approaches that work too.

Fingerprint recognition algorithms don't compare the prints bit-for-bit - they build algorithmic maps of the fingerprint image, summarizing the print in several different points corresponding to key features, like loops, arches, and whorls. The same approach is commonly used in facial recognition software. This serves to condense an image that may be thousands of bits in size down to a concise summary that can be quickly and efficiently compared for near matches and solid hits, and quickly and efficiently transmitted over limited-bandwidth links.

Since every one of the potential hits will be on the same day, there's no concern about aging, facial hair, etc, which simplifies the problem significantly.

Here's the steps, as I would construct them:

1. Your high-speed laptop, with a video-in port, monitors the incoming video stream and locates and maps faces of individuals entering the polling place by taking a snap every few seconds. The software to do this kind of video and/or image processing is established and while relatively cutting-edge, is available and well-understood.

2. You store a local copy of each face image, and its corresponding map summary, under a unique identifier tagged with the laptop's name and a sequential number. You transmit the map summary and the ID number over the wireless link to the central database.

3. The central database receives the map and ID data, and stores it along with all the other map and ID data from the other polling stations. Each incoming map is compared with all the other stored maps.

4. If the central computer finds a close match or a hit on a particular face-map summary, it sends a request back to the laptop that had the first submission of the map, based on its ID number, and uploads the actual video image of the face in question, then transmits that full image down to the laptop that just sent in the matching face-map summary.

5. A little bell goes "ding" on the laptop that sent in the most recent image, and the operator compares the two images - the one just taken on the local laptop, and the one just downloaded from the central computer.

6. If there's a match to the human eye, the operator clicks the "print" button, and a color printer spits out a page that is then handed to one of the assistants at the polling place, who then goes to make a citizens arrest of the culprit and calls the police.

This approach deals with the limited bandwitdh of the CDPD network by sending only the summarized, compressed face map data up, and not sending the full image data until actual vote fraud is suspected.

You seriously underestimate the ingenuity of the avearage software engineer, my friend.

PS - I'm not involved in the project, this is just the first gloss approach I'd take if I were.

[discipler]

Thanks for keeping this up. The truth will overcome the Democrats.