Hacking the election?

[OLD1953]

Map of IT infrastructure of the 2004 election shows some serious flaws.

Wonder where we can find a copy of this filing?

http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/07/1789 ... 4-election

Fitrakis isn't the only attorney involved in pursuing the truth in this matter. Cliff Arnebeck, the lead attorney in the King Lincoln case, exchanged emails with IT security expert Stephen Spoonamore. He asked Spoonamore whether or not SmarTech had the capability to "input data" and thus alter the results of Ohio's 2004 election. His response sent a chill up my spine.

"Yes. They would have had data input capacities. The system might have been set up to log which source generated the data but probably did not," Spoonamore said. In case that seems a bit too technical and "big deal" for you, consider what he was saying. SmarTech, a private company, had the ability in the 2004 election to add or subtract votes without anyone knowing they did so.

The filing today shows how, detailing the computer network system's design structure, including a map of how the data moved from one unit to the next. Right smack in the middle of that structure? Inexplicably, it was SmarTech.

Spoonamore (keep in mind, he is the IT expert here) concluded from the architectural maps of the Ohio 2004 election reporting system that, "SmarTech was a man in the middle. In my opinion they were not designed as a mirror, they were designed specifically to be a man in the middle."

A "man in the middle" is not just an accidental happenstance of computing. It is a deliberate computer hacking setup, one where the hacker sits, literally, in the middle of the communication stream, intercepting and (when desired, as in this case) altering the data.

[OLD1953]

To make myself clear here, I don't think it really mattered who won the 2004 election. About the only difference I would have expected would have been that Kerry would have not asked for additional tax cuts and that he'd have been asking for a much more comprehensive SOFA agreement with Iraq. Not big changes.

What is interesting here is that placing an unaccountable entity in the middle of a network is against every kind of network security policy. Such could only happen by incompetence or delibrate corruption, or a combination of both, reflecting the same things we've seen in the banking field, finance, politics and so forth.