That story came out on January 21, 2004. On February 6, 2004, just over two weeks later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz issued a memorandum ordering David Chu, to halt work on the SERVE project. 31 The New York Times reported the story with the lead,
Citing security concerns, the Department of Defense yesterday canceled plans to use an electronic voting system that would have allowed Americans overseas to cast votes over the Internet in this year's elections. Paraphrasing the memorandum, a Department of Defense spokeswoman told the Times: ‘The department has decided not to use Serve [sic] in the November 2004 elections. We made this decision in view of the inability to ensure legitimacy of votes, thereby bringing into doubt the integrity of the election results.’32
Thus, the dissenting report had its desired effect. Four computer scientists, albeit with the help of the New York Times, caused the termination of an expensive Department of Defense project before it could be put into use. So powerful an essay deserves examination, so that history might understand the reasons and reasoning behind shelving SERVE. What made the SERVE system “inherently insecure”? What potentials did the critics see in the system that might result in “catastrophic” consequences? What did the dissenting essay say that led Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz to doubt the ability of SERVE “to ensure legitimacy of votes”?