Note: This post contains embedded videos sourced from various Facebook accounts. It is recommended that readers use Google Chrome web browser to view the videos in this post. Other web browsers sometimes have difficulty playing Facebook videos embedded in blogger.com pages.
A seed of doubt has now started to sprout. The are some serious questions and valid points that watered this seed into germination:
1. In Smartmatic's best judgment, how really serious or how really important is it that, while significantly more than halfway in the course of the Automated Election System's on-going critical phase of data transmission, they seemingly have the sense of urgency and decided to proceed to change the sensitive program (sensitive because it has the [seemingly overlooked] potential to be maliciously taken advantage of such that it could make or break the outcome of the whole Automated Election System) that runs the counting of votes in the transparency server (the main/central computer where all the votes are ultimately received, consolidated, counted, and stored) in order to merely correct a relatively harmless single-character "cosmetic" error (allegedly to specifically correct an error that wrongly displays the "ñ" character as a "?" character possibly in the names of candidates or places in the vote-counting results shown on screen -- for example: To correctly display "Osmeña" instead of "Osme?a")?
Smartmatic said they wanted system perfection. Fine. But have they even thought of the seriousness of the repercussion of the action they have to take before the incident had to happen?
Smartmatic said they wanted system perfection. Fine. But have they even thought of the seriousness of the repercussion of the action they have to take before the incident had to happen?
2. If the system was set up such that it would take two separate and different passwords (one password with Smartmatic, and the other one with Comelec) to be able to gain access to the server's program, then in Comelec's best judgment, what serious or important explanation made them decide to collaborate with Smartmatic to change the program?
3. Why was Smartmatic seemingly allowed on its own to decide on what action to take concerning that particular problem without at least a quick prior discussion with higher officials of Comelec and not asking for any high-level prior approval?
4. Who were the [unbiased] I.T. experts (if there were) tasked to check and certify that the newly introduced program source code or script, which was intended to correct the error, was really accurate in addressing the particular problem only, and that nothing else unauthorized will be secretly done undetected?
5. At the height of the campaign, PNoy openly expressed his vow (without perhaps thinking ahead of what would be the future consequence) to thwart the return of the Marcoses into power. That vow now has seemingly served to predicate this election-cheating perception/issue.
6. Because of this "poorly-authorized" access to the server, there now is a perception of a seemingly lax system security of the Automated Election System's vote counting procedure. This incident has undesirably given the camp of Bongbong Marcos a bitter right to question the integrity of the vote counting procedure of the system.
Let us pray that light shall prevail so that darkness shall not befall the land.
