Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Pee-Wee's Rig Adventure
A computer programmer says a congressman ordered up vote fraud code, writes John Byrne, at RAW STORY:

The programmer, Clinton Curtis, said that he was told the program needed to be “touch-screen capable, the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment, [and that] the programming was to remain hidden even if the source code was inspected.”

Curtis asserts that he told Feeney it would be nearly impossible to write a code to change the voting results if anyone were able to view the source code.

“However,” he added, “if the code were compiled before anyone was allowed to review it then any vote fraud would remain invisible to detection.”

Nevertheless, he says that he was asked at the meeting by Yang to build the prototype anyway.

Curtis states he initially believed that Feeney’s sought to stop Democrats from using such a program and “wanted to be able to detect and prevent that if it occurred.”

It was not until after the prototype was delivered that he says he got wind of its possible, more nefarious usage.

According to his affidavit, Yang, his employer, later informed him that the software might be used to “control the vote in South Florida.” He says that he would never have developed the software had he known its alleged ultimate purpose.

The claim of naivité by the programmer is a little hard to believe...kind of like squealing, "Oh, I had no idea what they wanted with this huge facility filled with plutonium rods! They said they had a whole lot of toast to make."

via Metafilter

Posted by aalkon at December 7, 2004 8:30 AM

Comments

It absolutely blows my mind, the hubris of the people responsible for making and ordering these electronic voting machines!

That any sane person who is remotely familiar with computers can say that e-voting is secure without creating a paper trail is beyond me.

Even IF, and this is an IF the size of a galaxy, you could be sure the code was accurate and secure, these machines still lack two immutable prerequisites for democratic voting: transparency and the ability to have a meaningful recount.

That government agencies responsible for purchasing voting machines can not only claim that paperless electronic voting machines are the best and most secure type of voting available, but that those who question their choice are fear mongers who don't have a valid argument, is the height of arrogant stupidity!

Posted by: Jeff R at December 8, 2004 5:29 AM