D_Raay
09-23-2004, 11:47 AM
The technical director of Hopkins' Information Security Institute warns in a new report that computerized voting is critically flawed. But proponents are downplaying the risk.
It should be obvious that a voting system subject to tampering was the intention all along. Diebold makes automated teller machines that never lose track of a penny. There should be no problem making a voting machine that never loses track of a vote. Yet, the voting machines are clearly set up with deception in mind, such as the double set of internal books.
If the government cannot prove the accuracy and honesty of the voting process by which they claim authority, then the people are neither legally nor morally obliged to obey its dictates or to pay its bills.
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0204web/vote.html
It should be obvious that a voting system subject to tampering was the intention all along. Diebold makes automated teller machines that never lose track of a penny. There should be no problem making a voting machine that never loses track of a vote. Yet, the voting machines are clearly set up with deception in mind, such as the double set of internal books.
If the government cannot prove the accuracy and honesty of the voting process by which they claim authority, then the people are neither legally nor morally obliged to obey its dictates or to pay its bills.
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0204web/vote.html