Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm... (4.00)
    And Curtis never said he did it, or that he saw someone else do it.  He simply demonstrated how it could be done.

    I agree with you.  But let's assume his sworn testimony to Congress is true.  Why was he asked to do this?  How much was he paid to do it?  Why would someone underwrite the expense of having Curtis write such a program just out of curiosity, especially someone (Feeney) who appears not to have had a motive to demonstrate that the machines were hackable in order to show that the machines should not be used or need to be modified (a la Bev Harris and others)?

    Of course, we don't have all the information, but based on what is there so far, it's at least reasonable to assume that someone asked Curtis to write a program to hack the vote in order to be able to use it if necessary.  Feeney is hardly known to be an advocate of election reform or of demonstrating the unreliability of these machines or the need for a paper trail, etc.  The only other reason for writing this program would be as a sort of quality control exercise, so that the hacking vulnerabilities could be addressed and remedied, but given the little I know about Feeney based on the BradBlog articles, he hardly seems to have had that motive.

    "Now watch this drive."

    by tompaine2004 on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 04:52:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site