Re: [tlug] Somewhat OT- open source software for US voting machines

["SL Baur" <steve@example.com>]

On 10/5/08, Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:

> Actually, it's not "worth solving" becuase the manual counts have a
>  better assurance of accuracy than any electronic means available to
>  us at the moment. In other words, electronic voting can only make the
>  counts more prone to error, not less.

That's one way to sum it up.  Thanks, Curt.

It's also the reason why the Space Shuttle was stupid,
but that's a different discussion.

Sorry, Edward, The Open -vs- Closed Source "issue" is a
Red Herring.  Even if you provided each voter with a dead
tree listing of the computer software in use on the electronic
voting machine, you still have no assurance that that represents
what is actually running inside the machine.  Refer to
Founding Father's Ken Thompson's C Compiler hack to install
a backdoor into /bin/login.

Consider also that the misnamed DRM, which attempts
to control content remotely, has been broken every time
it has been used.

Think paranoid.  How many different ways can an electronic
system be subverted?  How do you prove that it has not been
subverted?  You really cannot with the current level of technology
and Schneier should have written about that too.  He was
on Cypherpunks at the same time I was.

Edward Middleton wrote:
> There is a need for people to be certain that the declared
> election result was "the will of the people".  Not being able
> to resolve the election after a recount and having to resort
> to the courts is a failure of the election process.

You understand the problem (and the 2008 election is going
to be much closer than many people think), it's just that
the solution isn't an electronic one.

-sb