"Jose" wrote in message
...
Because too much depends on it.

"Because too much depends on it" is not a reason. If it were, we wouldn't
even be having this discussion. But the truth is, there just aren't enough
people who care.

If it were true that "because too much depends on it" would lead to some
massive inspection program on the part of volunteers, then it would also be
true that "because too much depends on it" would lead to some massive push
for all politicians to make elections auditable.

The current situation is proof that your reason isn't a reason at all.

If word processing software fails, you have to retype your Christmas
letter. If voting machine software fails, we end up going to war in Iraq.
It's like the difference between myself and a friend in the navy. When I
launch a rocket, it comes back to earth on a colorful plastic parachute,
ready for re-use. When my friend launches a rocket, it blows up Moscow.

I've never heard of open source rocket guidance software.

It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a voting
machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the appropriate
agreements for non-disclosure.

There's no point in that - it just keeps the secret if there is one.

What part of "any inspector" are you having trouble understanding? How can
something be a secret if ANY INSPECTOR is granted access?

[...]
It doesn't take "millions of programmers". It just takes one, and you'll
usually find that one in the opponent's camp.

One single person could spend their entire life inspecting the code, and
still not validate the entire thing. You need millions of eyes, all looking
in different places, to have an effective survey.

Open source isn't more readable, it's not less obfuscated,
it's not easier to validate. It's just publicly available.

... which makes it possible to validate to outsiders. I don't care if
it's validated to insiders; that's the fox and the henhouse.

Who said anything about "outsiders" versus "insiders"? That's your straw
man, not mine.

Pete