Sound bite: Open records

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 15:04:36 CDT

On Apr 5, 2004, at 3:33 PM, charlie strauss wrote:
> We need open-software and visible-ballots for the same reason we have
> open-meetings laws; sunshine is a disinfectant.

I agree strongly with Charlie's point here; this is something that has
come up some discussion groups I am on (i.e. plastic.com, which posted
my same demo blurb as on /.).

A bad--but I guess intuitive to some people--argument is "Why should
voters care about seeing the source code, when most of them can't
understand it anyway." My rebut to that is that most people, not being
lawyers (let alone specialized lawyers) also cannot understand most
laws. Both should be open for inspection for the same procedural
reasons.

In a blurb, maybe:

        You wouldn't accept secret laws; and you SHOULDN'T accept
    secret election procedures (and the software that implements
    it).

Not quite suitable for a bumper-sticker, but not too complicated for a
reporter, I think.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT