RE: the problem was human error in failing to update the reporting server with the proper election reporting software.
Here’s a question - Why were the machines NOT UPDATED WITH THE RIGHT SOFTWARE LONG BEFORE THE ELECTION?
Do these people know how to do mission critical software?
I’ve been doing Software development for most of my career and what I’m reading is totally unacceptable. I can understand why the state of Texas, after thoroughly evaluating Dominion’s Voting System, rejected using it.
You MUST do quality assurance testing of the software long before you release it for production. You do not update software when the election is ongoing or DURING PRODUCTION. So, what’s this nonsense about failing to update the software? IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED LONG BEFORE November 3 and should SAY THERE till the counting is over !! ANY software that needs to be updated in the middle of its operation is sloppy and suspect.
And here’s my other point - I know you have been trying to tell everyone in this thread to be skeptical about this forensic auditing company called Allied Security Operations.
You have been trying to warn us that this outfit is nothing but a hired gun created to cast doubts on election results from the get go. In other words, their only reason for existence is to be PAID to lie and they don’t really know what they’re doing. You also want everyone to believe that suspecting Dominion Voting Systems is a RED HERRING and there is absolutely nothing sinister with this company.
Fair enough, if this is so, what’s the problem with confronting them in court and showing them what is wrong with their analysis?
I would think that the Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Benson would be MORE THAN WILLING to confront these so-called scam artists in court to point out where they are fabricating their accusations. Bring in your Dominion experts to confront them. Technical data vs technical data. If she wants to disabuse the public of this wrong notion, what better way than to refute Allied Security Operations in court? Same with Dominion Systems. What better way to preserver and protect their reputation?
But this is NOT what the State Secretary is doing. She REFUSES to go to court to confront them. Instead, we get excuses from her lawyers telling us things like “logs might be source code and publishing them could be a security issue.”
Which tells me ( a Software Engineer ) that these lawyers don’t know what the heck they’re talking about making it even more difficult to give them credibility.
And then when Dominion’s CEO comes out to testify, he had to tell a white lie about his company never using Solarwinds products...
So, the only way to get at the truth is a COURT CASE with Dominion Engineers present to confront the claims of Allied Security.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is not cooperating. How do you expect the public not to be suspicious?
I have been programming for 35 years, from minicomputers to mainframes to modern internet backend servers, from HPUX to MVS to Linux to Windows, from COBOL to C to JavaScript and many technolgies in between. My primary clients are in the insurance and banking industries, and have experienced auditing mostly in regard to banking, which is one reason why I find the ASOG audit to be highly suspect, sloppy and amateurish. It is chock full of unsupported allegations, which one would never find in a professional audit.
RE: the problem was human error in failing to update the reporting server with the proper election reporting software.
Here’s a question - Why were the machines NOT UPDATED WITH THE RIGHT SOFTWARE LONG BEFORE THE ELECTION?
Do these people know how to do mission critical software?
You MUST do quality assurance testing of the software long before you release it for production. You do not update software when the election is ongoing or DURING PRODUCTION. So, what’s this nonsense about failing to update the software? IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED LONG BEFORE November 3 and should SAY THERE till the counting is over !! ANY software that needs to be updated in the middle of its operation is sloppy and suspect.
Most of the news reports do indeed say "software" wasn't updated, however that's not exactly what the clerk testified about the error. If you are indeed a software developer, then you should know there really are two components, software and data. An update that adds or removes issues/candidates to the ballot of particular precints is clearly data entered by a clerk, and not a software update. Also the ballot update certainly did occur well before the election, the date of which was not specified.
And here’s my other point - I know you have been trying to tell everyone in this thread to be skeptical about this forensic auditing company called Allied Security Operations.
ASOG was involved in the case Guiliani brought and cited Minnesota election data instead of Michigan data. Unprofessional and sloppy. Human error? ASOG in this case cited perticular Michigan precints with turnout data that exceeded 100% which was easily debunked. Unprofessional and sloppy. Human error? Deliberate? State, company officials dispute report claiming Antrim County tabulators bungled results
Fair enough, if this is so, what’s the problem with confronting them in court and showing them what is wrong with their analysis?
What's the problem with anyone here waiting for it? You already have a pretty good preview of some of what they are going to say from the above article.