No, no, no, fucking no. IT person here. Man this site is going to shit.
No password does NOT mean that anyone can alter the data. No password simply means that the voting machines can get on the Internet without providing a password to connect to Wi-Fi. These are two completely different things; first being access to the Internet and the second being access to the information system in order to alter votes.
Should the voting machines have access to the Internet? Questionable.
Can the voting machines have their own encryption methods and access control methods, YES!
If you don’t know, please ask when it comes to IT as this is flat out stupid.
No password means no encryption over WiFi. So the question that remains is how any data, if at all, was transferred over said WiFi; and what kind of services/ports were open on the systems.
If the transfer of data was encrypted using VPN/HTTPS/TLS or anything, and also using decent set of standards, only then your argument (and you did mention that part) is fully correct. But that question goes rather conveniently unanswered.
My POV: The issue here isn't about WiFi being secure or not. But you should immediately start asking why WiFi was even allowed in this case. Go to any security event such as DefCon and you'll know why visitors disable their WiFi.
Edit: I'm also wondering right now if they were using channel isolation. Ever connected to WiFi in a hotel and seen someone else's Chromecast? I have, and that basically means you can view what someone else is watching. (And so much more)
No, no, no, fucking no. IT person here. Man this site is going to shit.
No password does NOT mean that anyone can alter the data. No password simply means that the voting machines can get on the Internet without providing a password to connect to Wi-Fi. These are two completely different things; first being access to the Internet and the second being access to the information system in order to alter votes.
Should the voting machines have access to the Internet? Questionable.
Can the voting machines have their own encryption methods and access control methods, YES!
If you don’t know, please ask when it comes to IT as this is flat out stupid.
No password means no encryption over WiFi. So the question that remains is how any data, if at all, was transferred over said WiFi; and what kind of services/ports were open on the systems. If the transfer of data was encrypted using VPN/HTTPS/TLS or anything, and also using decent set of standards, only then your argument (and you did mention that part) is fully correct. But that question goes rather conveniently unanswered.
My POV: The issue here isn't about WiFi being secure or not. But you should immediately start asking why WiFi was even allowed in this case. Go to any security event such as DefCon and you'll know why visitors disable their WiFi.
Edit: I'm also wondering right now if they were using channel isolation. Ever connected to WiFi in a hotel and seen someone else's Chromecast? I have, and that basically means you can view what someone else is watching. (And so much more)