I don't get the NYTimes, in any of the ways 'get' may be interpreted. But TruthOutdotOrg does (at least in the instrumental sense), and they kindly brought my attention to a recent iteration of my long-held opinion:
Scientists Hack Voting Machines to Prove Tech Weaknesses
"Computer scientists from California universities have hacked into three electronic voting systems used in California and elsewhere in the nation and found several ways in which vote totals could potentially be altered, according to reports released yesterday by the state," reports Christopher Drew in Saturday's edition of the New York Times.
Now I am morally certain that NO ONE could ever have IMAGINED that someone would want to utterly undermine the franchis and change the untraceable votes cast onto removeable computer storage chips after they were recorded, could they?
And that is to say NOTHING AT ALL about the backdoors and trapdoors and other wormholes that were engineered into the systems at the (for-profit, politically compromised--to say the least) companies that manufactured the machines and sold them enthusiastically all over the country. The goddam CEO of Diebold notoriously promised to do everything in his power to see Bush 'elected.'
Operated by "Proprietary" software; codes protected from inspection, even by federal elections officials, by intellectual property laws of various kinds. But safe as fuukin houses, cuz not one or 'ems EVER been opened up.
Nah, that'd never happen here...gotcher tin-foil cowboy hat on too tight, hombre...
Can You Pronounce "Pojoaque?"
4 days ago