[OVC-demo-team] Interesting posts from Slashdot so far...

From: <laird_at_io_dot_com>
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 10:19:13 CST

My favorite Slashdot comments so far:

-----

This has everything that Diebold Lacks (Score:5, Insightful)
by amigoro (761348) on Wednesday March 24, @06:20AM (#8654445)

Diebold: I quote: fraud-prone, blackbox, proprietary, expensive,
idiosyncratic, unreliable

OVC: I quote:technically sound, accurate, secure, inexpensive, uniform and
open voting system

That really sums it up.

If you don't believe me try a demo of the Diebold voting system [mithuro.com]

DIEBOLD: Boldling rigging where no man's rigged before
(Well... Let's not talk about the presidential election 2004)

----
 First step (Score:2)
by xant (99438) on Wednesday March 24, @10:41AM (#8656437)
(http://twistedmatrix.com/~moonfallen)
This sounds like a first step in that process. There's no point getting
peoples' attention if your software is flawed (and if, in addition, you
don't have money to lobby congress). If you're trying to produce an open
voting system, you must first prove its reliability on technical merits.
Doing so in a public building seems like a great way to get attention.
Then they'll build on that attention as Diebold's flaws get reported more
and more widely.
____ ____
umlaut umlaut
----
 Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
by awol (98751) on Wednesday March 24, @07:56AM (#8654801)
Paper ballots are expensive, not tamper proof and subject to other forms
of non tamper based fraud, like ballot stuffing.
----
 Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
by PorscheDriver (698772) on Wednesday March 24, @06:32AM (#8654490)
This sounds very noble - and I wish them the very best of luck. Because
they're going to need it.
Whilst right thinking intelligent people (everyone reading this of
course), realise the benefits of such an approach to voting, the people
who choose voting systems (i.e. Politicians) will ask one question:
"Who is accountable?"
Because it's not a company developing this system, (who after all, always
act in an appropriate, legal, and fully accountable manner :-|),
politicians will believe that such 'communist' philosophies are not to be
trusted. "Surely if it's an open system, it can be exploited by ne'er do
wells?".
I'd liken it to companies who always buy MS - "because, hey, MS is a
reputable company. They're accountable for their software". It's a
mentality which goes along the lines of "Companies are better than a gang
of hippies, doing it because they want to make the world a better place
man."
Same old same old - whilst this will undoubtedly be technically better
than anything Diebold can come up with, politcal motives will bury this
initiative I fear.
----
 Re:Good Luck (Score:2)
by catscan2000 (211521) on Wednesday March 24, @10:47AM (#8656532)
True, but e-voting systems come with a twist. Rather than holding a
company or entity responsible, a government with the proper resources can
hold itself accountable if it has reviewed and openly modified the system.
Of course, there are downsides to that, as the government probably doesn't
want to use itself as a scapegoat.
But anyway, at the bottom of the PDF file you will find that they are an
organized corporation, so this system does have a corporation that is
accountable :-).
----
 What can I say but "bravo?" (Score:2)
by dpbsmith (263124) on Wednesday March 24, @08:51AM (#8655276)
(http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith)
Sorry for such a boring post, but I have to say this is the best news I've
heard in a long time. Hopefully this will reconcile those who understand
the importance of a layperson-visible, inspectable, monitorable, open,
recountable system, and those who are concerned about the rights of the
disabled.
The clear presentation of a working alternative should make a real
difference in the political dialog surrounding the issue.
----
 What a bizarre idea (Score:1)
by homebrewmike (709361) on Wednesday March 24, @10:02AM (#8655982)
By the people, for the people.
The electoral process is supposed to be transparent. Can't be transparent
if we don't get to see how the machines work, now can it?
----
 Hardware, not software (Score:2)
by jfengel (409917) on Wednesday March 24, @10:39AM (#8656406)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday November 03, @03:59PM)
The software is a good start, but you can't walk up to a city/county/state
government and sell them a CD-ROM full of software and claim, "This is
your voting booth".
Diebold's software is almost completely irrelevant. They're the guys who
make safes, ATMs, and other high-physical-security objects. The fact that
the software makes the machines unreliable...well, what state/county/city
ever actually looked inside the mechanical voting machine to see if it
worked properly? The machines were supposed to be physically
tamper-reistant.
There's also the "blame" issue. Companies have some sort of identity that
cn be held responsible. (The fact that corporate structure generally hides
the actions of individuals is...a nice benefit, especially if you're in
the business of rigging elections. But I digress.)
So the only way for this to work is to become the enemy. Build a physical
infrastructure (a hell of a lot more expensive than banging out some
software) and find a progressive city willing to use it instead of
Diebold. Pick up a track record, and perhaps you can compete. Then,
perhaps, the conspiracy theorists will have something to point to when the
state of Florida chooses Diebold at twice the price.
----
 right (Score:2)
by Chuck Bucket (142633) on Wednesday March 24, @10:52AM (#8656598)
(http://lefttochance.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 23, @09:08PM)
The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is holding a demonstration of its Free
Software voting system in Santa Clara, California on April 1, 2004 (yeah,
I know the date, but it's not a joke)
That's what someone pulling a joke would say!
CVBS
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Thu Apr 1 02:40:32 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 02:40:37 CST