All of this raised material alarms for Hursti, who noted that
All of this raised material alarms for Hursti, who noted that
{{quotebox-float|“If in fact remote access was arranged and granted to the server, this has gravely serious implications for the security of the new Dominion system. Remote access, regardless how it is protected and organized is always a security risk, but furthermore it is transfer of control out of the physical perimeters and deny any ability to observe the activities.”<ref>https://themarketswork.com/2020/11/15/pre-election-concerns-over-dominion-voting-systems-highlighted-in-georgia-lawsuit/</ref>}}
{{quotebox-float|“If in fact remote access was arranged and granted to the server, this has gravely serious implications for the security of the new Dominion system. Remote access, regardless how it is protected and organized is always a security risk, but furthermore it is transfer of control out of the physical perimeters and deny any ability to observe the activities.”<ref>https://themarketswork.com/2020/11/15/pre-election-concerns-over-dominion-voting-systems-highlighted-in-georgia-lawsuit/</ref>}}
+
On October 11, 2020, three weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia wrote an opinion in ''Curling v. Raffensperger'' citing a risk of "stealth vote alteration or operational interference" in touchscreen voting devices sold by Dominion Voting Systems if they are not properly audited. Those risks "are neither hypothetical nor remote under the current circumstances," Totenberg wrote, adding that the machines can "deprive voters of their cast votes" by storing data in unverified digital QR codes, making any potential manipulation invisible to voters "at least until any portions of the system implode because of system breach, breakdown, or crashes."<ref>https://casetext.com/case/curling-v-raffensperger-3</ref>