NYT Calls For Open-Source Election Machines

anti-drew writes "The New York Times Magazine has an interesting editorial (free reg. req.) calling for open-source voting machines. From the article: 'Electronic voting has much to offer, but will we ever be able to trust these buggy machines? Yes, we will -- but only if we adopt the techniques of the 'open source' geeks.' That's quite an endorsement coming from the Times. Of course, one of the justifications was that open-source enthusiasts are 'libertarian freaks, nuttily suspicious of centralized power', who would 'scream to the high heavens if they found anything wrong'."

"Endorsement?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's most definitely not an "endorsement from the Times." Unless the Op-ed was written by the Times editorial board, it will have a disclaimer stating that the statements contained herein only represent the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Times or its parent corporations.

user / pass for those who want it free

[Kalgash]

Use google and google at the prompt.

Working Link Via Google

[thedogcow]

Click here [nytimes.com]

Not an "editorial"

[gkuz]

The New York Times Magazine has an interesting editorial

It's an interesting piece, but it's not an editorial. An editorial states the opinion of the newspaper as a whole (actually of the Editorial Board, if you're feeling pedantic) and as such carries a fair amount of weight, as in saying, for example, "The New York Times has endorsed Kerry for President." This is just an opinion piece by one of the paper's writers, and is a lot lower on the food chain than an editorial.

Open Voting Consortium

[coshx]

No mention of an open-source voting project currently gathering a lot of support. Their idea is to keep what people trust about voting, and just computerize the parts that will make the process easier and more accessable.

Open Voting Consortium [openvotingconsortium.org]

Re:well.. not completely true

[psykocrime]

That *some guy* is Ken Thompson. Here [wbglinks.net], here [susx.ac.uk], and here [fogcreek.com] is some more info about the infamous "compiler backdoor."

Re:well.. not completely true

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably thinking of Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust [acm.org]. A very good read for anyone involved in computer security.

Re:Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not all he did. He proceeded to exploit the open proxy (before warning NYT). One of the things he did was ring up 300'000 dollars in Lexus Nexus charges. Searching for info on himself. That's one huge ego, which I'm sure will serve him well in prison.

Re:Finally, people are seeing reason...

[crashnbur]

Right. "Communism" emphasizes collective public ownership of property, which is contrary to American ideals. That's not what the open-source movement is going for. Open source is closer to "socialism", which emphasizes the collective public ownership of the means of production -- not the products of production -- and the freedom of the entire community to exercise political power.

In this particular case, the open-source movement advocates the individual's right to public information, especially information behind public processes that have a huge impact on government functions and operations. We have a right to understand exactly how such critical processes work in order that the integrity of such processes is preserved.

Re:So how do you prove...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. Just explicitly specify the compiler (and compile arguments), then run a hash (SHA1 or similar) on the binary.

Re:Open Voting Consortium

[gordonius]

The article actually did mention the open voting consortium:
"A group of civic-minded programmers known as the Open Voting Consortium has written its own open-source code."

Re:200 year tradition of open source method

[weapon]

And the only problem you could ever encounter is a bad pen!
I'm also from Australia and usualy we know the winner of the election, if not on the night by monday if it is close!
Dave