| ??? 11/08/06 02:54 Read: times |
#127529 - Huh? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
What do you think?
Since the code is open-sourced, anyone could verify that it has no features to prevent it from misrepresenting the printed vote in the barcoded (or whatever) representation of the vote. You expect poll workers to examine code ???? Who said anything about poll workers examining code? I don't trust voting machine code that can't be examined by anyone. That's begging to get hacked, and almost assuredly will get hacked. You expect open source to be tsmper proof? Oh absolutely I expect it to be tsmper proof. Tamper proof is another matter. I would definitely expect open source to be much more tamper resistant than proprietary code that no one is allowed to audit. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| automated voting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think you fell off the rocker | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Huh? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| tamper and audit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Backwards | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lack of relevance | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not a problem for the real "bad guys" ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reversed argtument | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| electronic voting, a very very very bad idea. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you can read Schneier on security here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Automated voting - a good idea. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a paper trail and lots of sunlight ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Did you accidentally vote for Pat Buchannan? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If that were the case ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Cute! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Often thought that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sadly, there's ample reason to agree ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think you are entirely missing the point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I don't think that's necessary | 01/01/70 00:00 |