No, it doesn't. This is a security analysis of the machines, not an analysis of the election results.
This simply proves that they're easy to hack, and how to hack them. It says nothing about them being hacked in the past, because that's not the point of this study.
Why? These are the machines that were used in the 2004 election. The machines used in the 2004 election were hacked and gave fake results. This is a security analysis of those machines.
Therefore, this is "A security analysis of the Diebold election machines that were hacked in the 2004 US elections."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-17 09:08 pm (UTC)But it doesn't mention anything about the 2004 machines being hacked.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-17 09:21 pm (UTC)This simply proves that they're easy to hack, and how to hack them. It says nothing about them being hacked in the past, because that's not the point of this study.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-18 02:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-18 02:34 am (UTC)Therefore, this is "A security analysis of the Diebold election machines that were hacked in the 2004 US elections."