I don't see anything there about specific numbers of deletions, but I do see 2 things that worry me.
1. "I don’t think you could find a voting systems expert who would think the deletion of the server data was anything less than insidious and highly suspicious," is a clever piece of misdirection, wherein there is a hidden assumption about available information (in absence of context, of course deletion without record is suspicious, then again, according to privacy policy it may be warranted) and what a "voting systems expert" is, being left to the imagination.
2. The story tries to conflate a number of voting events as part of a larger conspiracy.
That article not only fails to address what concerned me about all the reports in Georgia, but it is not compelling that "covering their tracks" for the specific act(s) is accurate.
1. "I don’t think you could find a voting systems expert who would think the deletion of the server data was anything less than insidious and highly suspicious," is a clever piece of misdirection, wherein there is a hidden assumption about available information (in absence of context, of course deletion without record is suspicious, then again, according to privacy policy it may be warranted) and what a "voting systems expert" is, being left to the imagination.
2. The story tries to conflate a number of voting events as part of a larger conspiracy.
That article not only fails to address what concerned me about all the reports in Georgia, but it is not compelling that "covering their tracks" for the specific act(s) is accurate.