Angry

One of the most widely used open source programs (Firefox)
still regularly is found to have defects in it.

Firefox is consumer grade. If it sort of works, that's good enough. I
would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software. And I did
not say it would be flawless, just that it would be significantly easier
to detect flaws with open source than with secret software, such as
proposed by Diebold.

Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper ballot
very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect the ballot to
verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then, some small percentage
of voting machines should be selected (randomly, of course) for their output
votes to be compared to manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

Yes, of course. In addition to the software being not secret.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Firefox is consumer grade. If it sort of works, that's good enough. I
would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

A voting machine with software that's not open source can still be vetted.
It's just that the people with specific authority to inspect it need some
sort of NDA. All that open source does is remove the minimal requirement of
non-disclosure.

People act like if something is open source, there are millions of
programmers out there poring over the code looking for flaws. That's just
not the case, even for desktop applications never mind something like a
voting machine. 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 aren't going to be that
many people actually looking at it.

And I did not say it would be flawless, just that it would be
significantly easier to detect flaws with open source than with secret
software, such as proposed by Diebold.

The primary difficulty is not providing the code to the inspectors. It's
the inspectors being able to validate the code. The hard part is actually
looking at the code, not getting access to it.

Open source does make access even easier, but it's by no means required for
the purpose of providing sufficient inspection. I definitely disagree with
the claim of "significantly easier to detect flaws". Open source isn't more
readable, it's not less obfuscated, it's not easier to validate. It's just
publicly available. That's all.

Open source doesn't really help with the technical aspect of inspection.
What it does help with is public trust. That's at least as important, IMHO,
but it's not relevant to the question of actually detecting flaws.

Pete

I would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

Because too much depends on it. 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.

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.
Democracy should not be based on secrets. It is important, for freedom
and democracy, that the workings of the machinery that protects our
freedoms be public.

People act like if something is open source, there are millions of
programmers out there poring over the code looking for flaws.

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

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.

Shrodinger's cat knows whether it's dead or alive, even if we don't. If
you put us in a box and we open the cat box, we will find out. But
nobody outside =our= box will know. It's the people outside the box
that matter.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

Because too much depends on it.

How naive!!

"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

"Hilton" wrote in message
k.net...


CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON

Matt Barrow wrote:

CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON.

But then we'd have to post a lot of OT pilot and aviation stuff in
alt.politics.childish.assholes in order to balance USENET properly.


Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
. com...
Matt Barrow wrote:

CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON.

But then we'd have to post a lot of OT pilot and aviation stuff in
alt.politics.childish.assholes in order to balance USENET properly.


Ya know...it sounds like elementary school hallway monitors when people try
to lord it over others in the group and play netcop.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:11:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote in ::

Ya know...it sounds like elementary school hallway monitors when people try
to lord it over others in the group and play netcop.

Ya know... such an onerous outburst in response to a polite request
sounds like a rebellious child acting out for attention.