Reply #64: Texas, California, Illinois in 1960

[mgr]

Those people, instead of machines, did a helluva lot of damage. Be careful what you wish for.

I think that we are in general agreement, it is just that you are convinced that such actions are feasible without any specific evidence (yet); and I am taking modest comfort in that one piece of evidence suggests not (albeit from a location highly suspect of it having occurred).

The key issue with hacking the vote in this election was that it did not require large numbers to do so--that is what, IMO is what makes the fraud argument seductive and plausible to many. However, (you are talking to a civil servant) inside access is a different avenue--but without remote access it becomes arguable why no one in this vast conspiracy has not come forward, and that is where your example leads--a less plausible explanation, and out of the realm of feasible.

Once inside, the challenge also is knowing were to look. Access to a file that you do not have share rights to, is not the same as access to the file that you do not have share rights to.

I also don't know when you worked for the gummernet--but I have found that people now are far more protective of their proprietary access--some go so far as to keep others from seeing their electronic calendars. It plays hell having to discuss why we are up to asses in litigation over worker exposure to hazardous waste, and the principal decision makers choose to maintain their privacy--may be we can schedule a meeting in four months. By then it's cost taxpayers millions in fines, and we have not fixed whatever the problem is.

Mike