> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:33:16 +0000, Matt wrote:
> > Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F91C678480VeebleFetzer@
> > 216.250.188.141:

> >> Innews:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7matttellessprynetcom@88.198.244.100Matt
> >> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:

> >>> Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@
> >>> 216.250.188.141:

> >>>> Innews:k8avs0$3mt$2@reader1.panix.comXox <etac...@etaoin.com>
> >>>> wrote:

> >>>>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these functions.

> >>>> While making absolutely no changes of their own?

> >>>> Really?

> >>>> You believe this crap?

> >>> Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?

> >> No, but the other poster certainly was.

> > Then certainly, there is nothing to worry about, right?

> > Never mind that the voting machines can be hacked easily, as shown by a
> > number of independents.

> > Electronic voting is safe, and Republicans simply can't win on their own
> > merits.

> Electronic voting is *NOT* safe, and leftards like you have said so
> repeatedly in the past.  The only difference now is that Democrats
> outrigged the Republican rigging.

> I oppose electronic voting.  Banning it nationwide could have been one of
> the things Democrats did to avoid impeaching Bush upon taking control of
> Congress in 2007,
>  but they decided farm subsidies were more important
> than clean elections.

> Electronic voting can be made secure in theory,

> source system using open-source encryption algorithms of the sort that
> are used in all trusted security applications.  American voting machines
> are all closed-source proprietary systems, which means there is no way to
> verify that there are no back doors.  And instead of insecure Diebold
> machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each, hackers could
> design and market a tamper-proof open-source machine for less than a
> hundred dollars.

> An electronic ballot signed with two or more encryption keys would allow
> auditors to verify its authenticity while still keeping the voter's
> identity a secret.  The encryption can still be broken and ballots
> tampered with by an agency with the resources of a nation-state (e.g.
> NSA), but putting the key generation and ballot control in the hands of
> local jurisdictions should prevent this from occurring.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -