Re: First brush at KSG/NSF report

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 17:06:41 CDT

On Jun 9, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
> On the "hybrid" system. I note that a reporter asked Karl Auerbach on
> camera if he would characterize the OVC system as a "hybrid." Karl
> said
> "no." I liked his answer although I don't remember exactly what was
> said.
> I think Karl was trying to emphasize that the OVC system is really
> consistent with the age-old idea of a paper ballot.

Hmmm... good point. Maybe I'll push to try to get that language
improved. Part of my ambivalence is that I'm really not sure the
report has any particular significance either way. Meeting the people
I did was useful, but I kinda think the report is not much other than
one more CV bullet item for the organizers.

Whaddayathink? Will it wind up ever influencing anything?

> I don't really care much for this:
> "If underlying mechanics or software are
> not in the public domain, they must at least
> be available for inspection by the larger
> security research community."
> Eventually, we must demand public software, period. Very few people
> can
> afford to look at proprietary software.

I agree, of course. Did any of you see the EAC report that just came
out? It was absolutely awful, for the most part. It TOTALLY didn't
understand the idea of Free Software; and went on about NDAs being
great. The KSG report isn't quite so bad, since it still presumes
public domain is the best (and semi-open inspection only a fallback
position).

Unfortunately, the above quote probably *IS* the consensus of the
symposium.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:30 CDT