Re: Wired: Kim Zetter: In Industry First, Voting Machine Company to Publish Source Code

From: Nancy Tobi <nancy_dot_tobi_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Oct 28 2009 - 13:45:59 CDT

David,

While it is true we have fought against proprietary systems running our
elections, we have at heart and most fundamentally fought against concealed
vote counting and the outsourcing of our elections.

The only victory I would like to lay claim to is the restoration of legal,
democratic elections.

Computer programs do not count votes in a publicly observable manner. They
never will, as far as I can see.

Constitutional elections call for observable voting systems.

The voting rights act calls for observable elections.

Vote counting is exactly the kind of governmental function that falls under
the OMB's legal definition of NONDELEGABLE.

Computerized voting systems violate all of these legal requirements. Why
should we stand for it?

This is a victory only for the e-voting industrialists who wish to continue
controlling our elections and profiting from this control, and for a
relatively small group of computer experts who have parlayed themselves into
"election experts" without ever uttering the words "voting rights".

These folks, who have successfully formed a cottage industry out of the
e-voting boondoggle, using taxpayer monies in the form of NIST and other
government grants to keep them afloat, I am sure see a bright future ahead.

Unfortunately, the emperor is still butt-nekked and we will go on shouting
it from the rooftops.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:33 PM, David Jefferson <d_jefferson@yahoo.com>wrote:

> On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Bev Harris <bev@blackboxvoting.org> wrote:
>
> At this point, I see Kim Zetter as basically the publicist for EFF,
> VerifiedVoting, ACCURATE and the gang. Her headline for the first article
> was
> not just misleading, it was deceptive. Let's take another look at that:
>
> "Nationís First Open Source Election Software Released"
>
> 1. It's not the first.
> 2. It wasn't released. Only some of it.
> 3. She didn't ask the right questions, such as the questions about what
> license
> will be used, what hardware will be used, etc. She has plenty of access to
> the
> expertise to know what the questions should be.
>
> Zetter's article was about OSDV's as-yet incomplete open
> source software. As I understand it, it is a real open source
> development process, and will have an open source license (although I
> don't know the details of the license, and I doubt they have all been
> worked out).
>
> Then it should be accurately headlined, and referred to as a plan or as a
> development process, and fair & balanced coverage should also discuss the
> Open
> Voting Consortium project, and even mention that the OVC has a working demo
> that was shown at LinuxWorld.
>
> I am not defending the limitations of Zetter's article. My info comes from
> John Sebes, and I can get more if you want it.
>
> Sequoia has explicitly renounced security by
> obscurity.
>
> Oh c'mon David. You know better than this. Their disclosed code will run on
> their proprietary hardware.
>
> Look, I am not naive about Sequoia. i too have bumped up against them many
> times over the years. But that very explicit rejection of
> security-by-obscurity in a well-worded quote in their own press release is
> something we (you and I and others who are at least loosely allied in the
> desire for better elections) can use again and again, forever. It is
> irreversible. They cannot take it back. It might be as powerful as the
> quote from Wally O'Dell about delivering Ohio. It is certainly a quote that
> OVC can use.
>
> I don't see how you can fail to see any upside in this development. You
> and many others have forced Sequoia into this. Why not see it as a victory
> and even take (partial) credit for it?
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the
> content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of
> copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly
> archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
>

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Nov 30 23:17:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 30 2009 - 23:17:17 CST