|
You saw somebody do one thing ("it") on one system, and the person doing it believed there were no indicators.
From this you have assumed there are no indicators on any system, for any action.
You cannot make that assumption, it does not follow.
An individual can attempt to sue a company; a judge determines whether the suit goes forward, and the courts prosecute the suit. But that's all kind of immaterial and argumentative.
But let's step back and take a wider look. Most difficult crimes are not solved by CSI coming around and finding the evidence and scientifically working out whodunnit by working backwards scientifically. Most difficult crimes, I believe, are solved when the perpetrator tells other people what they did, and that information spreads, and second-hand information is tracked down to first-hand.
The kid who broke into Gov Palin's email account left no trace at Yahoo. He was careful enough to use a system to cover his tracks. Unfortunately for him, he was dumb enough to post a screenshot of the system on a very public message board.
In the case of electronic voting, one could break in, change the vote and not be detected by the machine -- yet leave evidence, such as casting more votes than the number of voters, creating an impossible or improbable vote total, failing to change the counted number of times the party lever was pulled, etc. That could lead to an investigation in which people were questioned, etc.
In fact, the easier it is to exploit the machine, the more this would happen. If the machines were utterly simple to defeat -- we would hear of these kinds of investigations constantly. Mistakes would be made. People would brag. Known exploits would be fixed -- in ways that would create indicators next time, or out the individual on the spot. Exploits would be shared not on YouTube, but on IRC and Pirate Bay.
But we don't hear of reports like that. Ever! There's never been a single prosecution.
Now, tampering with mechanical or paper systems? That has been prosecuted.
|