Reply #11: source codes?

[foo_bar]

Do the Bushes just pluralize everything to be safe, like the internets?

So, about the hack (hacks?):

The Hursti Hack requires a moderate level of inside access. It is, however, accomplished without being given any password and with the same level of access given thousands of poll workers across the USA. It is a particularly dangerous exploit, because it changes votes in a one-step process that will not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure, it requires only a single a credit-card sized memory card, any single individual with access to the memory cards can do it, and it requires only a small piece of equipment which can be purchased off the Internet for a few hundred dollars.

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html

So it's the "switch the briefcase" scheme? If you need one insider, one programmer, and a doppelganger memory stick, it's not the most elegant hack (especially if you have to physically remove the original card, unobserved, then destroy all evidence of its existence). It comes down to the same "chain of custody" problem, you don't need a hacker and a hundred memory sticks to spirit away the optiscan ballots in the first place; setting things on fire has been nearly perfected since the neolithic. If nobody is watching the watchers, all systems, even paper-only ones, are intrinsically hackable (per Bruce Schneier, and Katherine Harris by implication).