From The Editor
A quiet chain of events in Michigan may have detonated one of the most consequential discoveries since the 2020 election controversy.
According to attorney Peter Ticktin, a forensic inspection of Dominion Voting Systems tabulators turned up a shocking internal feature, a phone-style modem chip mounted directly onto the motherboard baked into the hardware itself, beneath all removable components.
If accurate, this discovery challenges years of government assurances that Dominion’s tabulators are air-gapped systems incapable of external communication. And it vindicates local election officials who now face criminal prosecution for doing their jobs documenting potential vulnerabilities in the state’s voting infrastructure.
The revelation reportedly came from election clerks in Houghton County, Michigan, who turned over tabulators for independent forensic analysis.
In a brief video shipped across X, Ticktin said investigators discovered what appears to be a telephone modem chipset not a USB-style external modem, but one soldered onto the logic board itself.
Think back to the late 1980s and 1990s, when dial-up modems were embedded directly into motherboards. That’s roughly the same design principle: a hardware communication pathway capable of sending and receiving data over standard phone lines silently, invisibly, and without external attachments.
“They found the fraud they found the telephone chip,” Ticktin said bluntly.
It’s an explosive claim, because Dominion has long stated under oath that its tabulators are incapable of network connectivity unless physically connected to an external, state-certified USB modem used solely during result transmission.
An unadvertised, internal modem would instantly nullify that sworn premise.
Hardware engineers note that such chips sometimes referred to as Modem DACs or softmodem ICs could theoretically:
Auto-answer incoming calls if preset in firmware.
Engage in data communication through simple AT command sequences.
Operate entirely beneath the detection of standard system audits.
If true, the ramifications are breathtaking. An attacker, or even a remote administrator, could establish a network session directly with the tabulator under the right electrical conditions completely bypassing Dominion’s claimed isolation controls.
More importantly, the mere existence of such a chip would mean Dominion’s federal certifications were, at best, incomplete, at worst, fraudulent.
Instead of investigating the alleged component, Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel launched prosecutions against the individuals who helped expose it.
Both a local election clerk and an attorney assisting the investigation were indicted on charges of unauthorized computer access and possession of election equipment. Nessel’s office claimed the pair “tampered with protected systems.”
Their real offense appears to be transparency.
According to insider accounts, these officials acted under oath-bound duty to ensure election accuracy. Their discovery was immediately suppressed and the equipment seized.
As one Michigan election attorney put it: “It’s clear who the state wants to protect, and it isn’t the voter.”
Dominion Voting Systems has repeatedly stated its products “cannot connect to the internet.”
But cybersecurity experts have long flagged this phrase as lawyerly spin the difference between not being configured for internet access and not being capable of it.
A hardwired modem chip, dormant or not, invalidates the comforting illusion of impossibility.
Even when external modems are used, communications during election-night uploads often occur over cellular or broadband routes handled by third-party providers meaning data from the most sacred act in democracy travels through unvetted commercial infrastructure.
Add in a mystery modem soldered to the motherboard, and you have a digital black box masquerading as a sealed ballot counter.
This revelation raises more than technical questions it cuts to the heart of institutional conduct.
If this component truly exists, why was it hidden from the public?
And why did state officials indict those who found it instead of opening an emergency investigation?
Several independent analysts argue this moment parallels the early COVID-era whistleblower crackdowns: suppress evidence first, control the narrative later.
The pattern is as old as bureaucracy itself when the truth threatens contracts, criminalize the discovery.
Nearly $400 million in federal and state funds have poured into electronic voting infrastructure over the last decade.
Yet, not one major election vendor Dominion, ES&S, or Smartmatic permits independent, open-source audits of their firmware or hardware designs.
Each hides behind intellectual property law while demanding public trust in secret code that chooses presidents and governors.
Experts have for years demanded open inspection rights under a principle borrowed from cryptography: “security through transparency, not obscurity.” The pushback has been relentless from the same agencies that now label legitimate technical questions as “misinformation.”
Attorney Ticktin reportedly plans to publish a full technical report once non-disclosure constraints ease. Meanwhile, the indicted Michigan officials await court dates that will likely determine whether whistleblowing on election machinery is now a criminal act.
Regardless of one’s political alignment, the underlying question transcends partisanship.
Should any voting system contain unverified communication hardware especially one whose manufacturer refuses full disclosure?
Until this is resolved, no rational observer can honestly claim that America’s elections meet the standard of verifiable integrity.
Transparency isn’t a luxury in democracy; it’s the foundation.
And right now, that foundation looks like it has a modem hiding inside it.
No comments:
Post a Comment