[ale] Its over. Maybe

[Jeff Hubbs]

Again, SAIC's examination proves nothing because they weren't examining
the workings of actual field machines.  Would anyone in their right mind
think that if Diebold were actually rigging the machines, they'd give
the code of a rigged one to someone for study?

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 22:08, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 21:44 -0500, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > So far, the "mechanics" that have seen the voting machine prototypes 
> > and/or older models have all said the system is crap. And the mechanics
> > have been systematically denied access to "under the hood".
> 
> Not true.  The SAIC report from Maryland, based on the Diebold
> AccuVote-TS, states that the SAIC staff had access to the machine and
> souce code.  In that report they exonerate Diebold and place
> responsibility on implementation and managerial processes.  
> 
> -Jim P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale