Langenberg Lashes Out
Linn County auditor Linda Langenberg lashed out at voting machine critics in Tuesday’s Cedar Rapids Gazette, saying they engage in ” a form of terrorism.” She went on to add, “It’s making people lose confidence in the voting system without getting the other side from voting officials.”
Imagine that: We are unable to hear the government’s side of the argument.
Lucky for Langenberg, Gazette writer Dick Hogan reported ONLY the government’s side in his story, referring to criticism of the voting machines as “stories and rumors”. Rumors to him, maybe. He should read this blog. Or those linked on the sidebar of this blog.
And what was the Langenberg side of the story?
— That “electoral votes are never on the voting machines” and therefore it was foolish for the Diebold CEO to pledge to deliver Ohio’s votes to Bush in 2004.
— That her machines are never connected to the internet and therefore they are safe.
— That she doesn’t even use the machine modem to report results over the phone from polling place to courthouse.
Langenberg’s reassurances carry exactly as much weight as you would expect from someone who bothers to say that electoral votes are not on the voting machines.
Langenberg has not been keeping up with the news. Her Diebold ballot scanners were hacked in Florida last December, and her Diebold touchscreens were hacked by Princeton computer scientists this summer. On the 4th of July Blackboxvoting.org published complete directions on how to commandeer a Diebold touchscreen. None of these attacks required use of the internet.
Langenberg asserts, “The whole key is access (to the machines),” which she promises to strictly control.
No thanks, Ms. Langenberg. The whole key is public participation in vote counting. No one can see the machine count votes, so keeping it locked up is not reassuring to us critics.
And what is with this “terrorism” charge? Just yesterday on National Public Radio a member of the federal Election Assistance Commission said voting machine critics were “bomb throwers.” Such name-calling shows the defenders of paperless voting machines have little left to say for their products. So they resort to slander.