Skip to main content

View Diary: Clint Curtis' "show stopper" testimony causes "gasps" at hearing (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not the info I have (4.00)
    This isn't true.  If you read the interview released on the day this went public, or listen to the AirAmerica interview, he says that he wrote the program (took him one day) and gave it to his boss on a CD.  His statement hasn't changed as far as I can tell.  He never claimed to have proof that this software was ever used.  It was a prototype that showed how it could be done.  There was always a program.

    You might be confused becasue there was some bad reporting on this.

    •  100% Incorrect (3.12)

      Read my post. I never said that Curtis didn't write a program. Rather, the program he wrote, according to the affidavit he signed (which I read myself, and I'm working on my masters degree in Computer Science, so don't pull that "confused by reporting" shit on me) was nothing more than a mock-up demonstrating how the interface to a fraud system could work. This program:

      1. Did not actually work on a touch-screen system. (Though the interface it modelled easily could have)
      2. Did not modify or in any way interface with the voting databases used by any election machine company. (Rather, it interfaced with a fake database Curtis put together for his proof of concept)
      3. Was not and is not usable to actually modify the vote totals on voting machines.

      Yes, Curtis gave it to his boss on a CD, and she gave it to Feeney. But this wasn't so it could be installed on voting machines. It was because Feeney had requested a proof-of-concept, showing how the interface could work, before he awarded the contract to Yang to actually develop the software.

      Perhaps you've been confused by reporting?

      Its like the media listened to Weird Al's "Dare to be Stupid" and said "Yes! This is how the world should be!"

      by RHunter on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 05:48:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Telephone (none)
        Without an actual quote, it's tough to tell whether he's changed his story or not. The info in the OP looks like a paraphrase of a paraphrase.
      •  demo -> mature code (none)
        why would he code up the gui? he stated "code could be in modules", I read dll's. So all he has to do is assume the touch-screen API and worry about the "voting changing and hiding" part of the code. His demo code might have found itself just part of the larger whole.

        "I don't believe you go to heaven when you're good. Everything goes to hell, anyway..." Tom Waits

        by Nicholas Phillips on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 09:51:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not Really (none)

          In theory it could have been, but you'd have had to rebuild pretty much the entire interface to make sure it was consistent with whatever voting machine you were deploying it on. So it's pretty much useless for that, too. All it was good for was as a proof of concept, to convince Feeney that Yang could produce software to do what he wanted, and that he wouldn't be flushing his money down a hole.

          Not that this is a minor thing - on the contrary, if Curtis' story holds up, this is a major discovery. But it's also not a case of someone actually writing software to do the fraud thing.

          Its like the media listened to Weird Al's "Dare to be Stupid" and said "Yes! This is how the world should be!"

          by RHunter on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:58:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site