The counting systems mentioned in the article (where the votes from different counties are tabulated) have nothing to do with direct-user-contact.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/11/2004 02:22:18 PM: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:37:28 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > todays hacker community. But the realities are that we are paranoid enough > > to watch access to said systems to avoid at least 99% of local hacking, > > eliminating that from feasibility. > > We are? > > At least some of the machines used had active wireless on them - and I'm > pretty sure that they were *not* on the lookout for somebody out in the > parking lot (or *inside* the next building over) with a laptop and > a Pringle's can. > > And how, pray tell, do you get "paranoid enough to watch access" to mean > *anything* when we allow the hacker *physical* *access* *AND* be unsupervised > due to the design of the polling booth? > > > > > > [attachment "attk5prp.dat" deleted by Matt Carpenter/IT/Alticor] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
