Bradblog refutes Bev's questions about Clint

[Wiley50]

It's at Bradblogtoo cause he can't get on his own site.

Linkhttp://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/

[Eloriel]

1. Ya know, it's nicer and more helpful

when posters add a few paragraphs to give a hint of the gist or the direction or some salient detail. Not required, just nicer. That way you can get a little info and decide whether or not you want more -- this way you don't have any way of knowing and are compelled to go to the site or lose out on possibly some very important information.

Also, it would be nice if you could fix your link. Just a space in the right place will do it.

[Wiley50]

3. Sorry Eloriel

Just excited I guess

I'll try to do better

Wiley

[ddd3]

7. how about this?

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/response-to-bev-harris-questions-on.html

The whole story re: Clint Curtis

"I was concerned that folks might confuse Curtis' story with the broader picture Madsen was painting, and I have seen no supporting evidence to suggest that the two stories are in any way related. Not to say they aren't. I just have seen nothing to suggest they are..."

<<<snip>>>
Curtis claims that it was the fact that he thought such a program could never be used -- since the code would likely be discovered -- that he didn't give much thought to the election-rigging issue, and was far more troubled by the various acts of espionage that he had witnessed at YEI.

He told me that it was not until a story last summer on CNN which mentioned that source code for electronic voting machines was not being inspected -- and was instead being given to states already-compiled in the machines -- that he sat up, took notice, and recalled what he claims that Feeney had asked him about in October of 2000.

None the less, Harris' main point about being able to minimize or disguise the code so it may not get noticed is valid and I agree with her. Particularly since so much of the E-Voting machines do not have their source code inspected before being installed.

[Scout1071]

2. I'm usually pretty skeptical

and still am, but I'm beginning to believe this guy.

[Must_B_Free]

5. I believe it

the gist is that it got mixed up with the 2004 election.

All the guy is saying is that someone asked him to write a demo of hidden vote fraud application.

This has nothing to do with voting software or actual election fraud, just a prototype to show off.

Do we even know the intent? Maybe Feeney claims it was to show how insecure evoting is so he can PROTECT the vote...

[aquart]

4. Interesting. The god Olberman takes another hit.

[Matariki]

6. Thanks for posting that link.

It clears up some things, I think.