Reply #32: The one inkling of an idea that I have

[DrBB]

There's one piece sticking out here that you might be able to grab hold of, to wit...

What precipitated this current move--the blow that really got through to Diebold and people like the MD Sec. of State--was the report from Avi Rubin's group. At least that's my clear impression. Diebold et al were doing okay brushing it all off, but Rubin's bona fides and access to the actual code was a double whammy they couldn't ignore. I think that cachet is still there to be drawn on if it could be done quickly and if the Hacker Heros were willing to do it.

My thought: Is there any way to get out a joint statement from Rubin, Dill and whoever else seems appropriate declaring just what THEY would require in such a test to feel that their misgivings had been adequately addressed? I.e., use their current level of credibility with the media that are following the story to preempt the SAIC investigation--make sure that the SAIC investigation will lack credibility if it doesn't address the concerns of the hackers who really broke through the wall on this story, something along those lines.

Does that make any sense?

edit: pronoun trouble