In their Q&A distributed with the October 29 news release, Smartmatic and Sequoia claim that their merger “poses no national security risks” to the United States.

They offer no independent substantiation.

They say that their systems “prevent the use of malevolent code or other actions that affect the counting of votes.”

The Q&A describes various testing and security features, claiming that the “voting systems are stand-alone; they are not accessible over internet or through external ports. Thus, they are not subject to hacker vulnerabilities.”

It says that “The source code for all of Sequoia’s software and firmware in use in this election cycle has been or will be escrowed by election day with all states that require such escrow,” but never says that the source code has been independently audited, or that it would be subject to any user jurisdiction’s independent audit.

1. Update of Request for Proposal fo Implementation of New Voting System in 2007

Source:
1. https://sfelections.sfgov.org/elections/announcements.pdf

1. Which American national security authorities have attested to the claim that the Smartmatic-Sequoia merger “poses no national security risks”?

2. Have Smartmatic/Sequoia acknowledged that their Edge2Plus and HAAT, have been shown elsewhere to be threats to the integrity of American elections?

3. Are the companies’ voting systems truly “stand-alone” and “not accessible… through external ports”?

4. When the source code was escrowed, was it also credibly audited by, or on behalf of, the jurisdictions using the system, state-of-the-art auditing methods?

5. Why do Smartmatic/Sequoia say that the “source code” has been “tested,” but do not say that the source code has been credibly “audited”?