RE: [Full-Disclosure] Presidential Candidates' Websites Vulnerable

[Harlan Carvey <keydet89@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jan,

Thanks for the response...

> http://www.rense.com/general52/fgult.htm

I read the site, and it linked to a CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/mandatory.military/

Notice that the date on the CNN piece is 30 Dec '02.
 
> A link to the article about the passed but yet
> unsigned draft bill.

I followed another link from the site to Congress.org:
http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108

According to that site, a more complete summary of the
bill is found at:
http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.89&congress=108&size=full

According to *that* page, the status of the bill as of
7 Jan '03 was that it was "Read twice and referred to
the Committee on Armed Services."

So my question to you now is...where did you get the
information that stated that this draft bill had been
"passed"?  Were you trying to say that it has been
"passed" or agreed to by any legislative body?  If so,
which one?  Or do you mean, "passed" in the sense of
passing the sports section to the guy in the stall
next to you?  I'm just being facetious, and I really
am genuinely interested to know where you're getting
your information that this proposed legislation has
been voted on and passed by legislative body.

> Problems with electronic voting; FYI

I'm familiar with some of the issues regarding
electronic voting...what I'm not seeing is the
connection between that and this draft issue you
raised.

Thanks,

Harlan

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html