Sequoia To Publish Source Code For Voting Machines 102
Posted
by
timothy
from the this-time-on-purpose dept.
from the this-time-on-purpose dept.
cecille writes "Voting machine maker Sequoia announced on Tuesday that they plan to release the source code for their new optical-scan voting machine. The source code will be released in November for public review. The company claims the announcement is unrelated to the recent release of the source code for a prototype voting machine by the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation. According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'"
I'd be more interested in this post (Score:3, Insightful)
"According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'""
Re:I'd be more interested in this post (Score:3, Insightful)
How about they release the source code for their old voting machines.
You know, the ones that aren't "optical-scan".
Last I checked, the touchscreen ones are the voting machines that have caused so much grief.
Re:A step in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
But we need another step: a requirement for a paper audit trail. According to the article, criticism of the Sequoia system first surfaced because some printed output didn't match the electronic totals. Open source is good, but in this case, it's not enough: we must be able to check the reliability of these machines and their operators against a paper record. That doesn't mean that every election has to involve an electronic and a paper count—but the paper will be there if we need it. As the reliability of a given system is proven over time, we'll come to trust it—though I think a cross-check of a statistically significant number of votes would always be a good idea.
Horray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow-- horray for them!
There are still a lot of things to worry about with electronic voting-- but this goes a long way toward making the process transparent, and transparency (of the vote counting method) is absolutely essential to confidence in the results.
Great news!
Programming Thinking...Again (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it once, and I will say it again, you can publish ALL the code you want, but
1. In the event of a recount, can I get repeatable results?
2. In the event of a "software bug" can I hold someone responsible, will they pay for the cost of a reelection?
3. In the event of a hardware failure, can I hold someone responsible, are there contingency plans, will someone pay the cost of a reelection?
It's a matter of trust, and what you can put behind your software.
Since this is software, and programmers, the answer to these questions is generally "no" and "nothing".
Elections don't wait for service packs, bug fixes, hot fixes, etc A flaw in your software could cause chaos.
Simple programmers can't go to jail for negligence, can't get sued for bugs, and can't put anything concrete behind their code.
I can just picture reading the election software EULA, "NO WARRANTY" , "NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE", "CONTAINS KNOWN DEFECTS"..
secrecy is not security? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad Time to be a Sequoia Developer (Score:5, Insightful)
Boss: OK, guys. Marketing and PR has decided to release the source code publicly. You guys said our software is really nice, clean, secure code. So you don't have any problems with that, right?
Developers: Umm, yeah, sure, no problem... You know, we might want to make one or two very minor fixes first... [runs frantically back to computer and pounds away]
Re:plan to (Score:5, Insightful)
You're still voting for crooks (Score:1, Insightful)
If you want real democracy, then work on open sourcing the legislative process [metagovernment.org].
Released in November? (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course if they did the same thing next year - after midterm 2010 elections - we could have an even more dramatic situation on our hands.
Re:Tag story "noshit". (Score:3, Insightful)
How about a license that allows people to read it, comment on it (both pro and con) publicly without constraint, and doesn't automatically assume Sequioa own all voting-related code that person might subsequently write at some point in the future? (Obviously, that assumes the code isn't copied.)
That'd be about my minimum.
optical-scan? (Score:5, Insightful)
The key point here is actually that it's an optical-scan machine! You don't input votes on a keyboard or touchscreen but by feeding in an actual human-readable piece of paper (maybe it asks for confirmation that it read it correctly?), which then gets stored in a lockbox. This is obviously the Right Thing because it gives a built-in hardcopy audit trail.
In short, I think we're missing the SuddenOutbreakofCommonSense tag on this story...
Cynicism be damned... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
According to a VP quoted in the press release, 'Security through obfuscation and secrecy is not security.'
Amazing. Did anyone notice whether there may have been an alien tentacle wrapped around the VP's throat manipulating his voice and his jaw?
That's such a turnabout (at least in publicly-stated position) that I may get whiplash trying to track.
Of course, words are cheap. We shall see how deeply this new-found wisdom is held.
Comprehensively and fairly open the subject source code for unfiltered public inspection, without explicit or implicit coercion against criticism, and respecting reasonable fair-use rights to quote and comment, and you will get full credit for your Damascus road conversion. Take one step towards intimidation, chilling of discourse, or SLAPP, and we will know that your glib sound-bite was just cheap empty talk.
And for as much or little as Nerd Rage counts, you will experience it.
Re:The Robinson Voting Method (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear Sir,
I have googled your ideas and only found forum posts similar to this one.
It does nothing for your credibility. Next time anchor your link or have a crawlable page if you want anyone to see what you have to say.