| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
It should be taken very seriouslyIt should be taken very seriouslyPosted Mar 18, 2008 15:39 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104)Parent article: Sequoia v. Ed Felten It's more than just a legal question. There should be no behind-the-scenes interference with the voting results. If there is no law requiring independent testing of the voting machines, there should be such law. Free voting is one of the foundations of democracy. Once there is a backdoor, somebody will use it. Even if there is just a perception of a backdoor, it will erode legitimacy of those elected with the use of such machines.
(Log in to post comments)
Translating corporate speak Posted Mar 18, 2008 17:22 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Corporate speak: "our intellectual property" English: "our right to prevent someone from doing something we don't like" The "property" they're talking about is a government-granted monopoly in the first place. So the way to prevent "behind-the-scenes interference with the voting results" isn't to require independent testing, it's to make sure that the existing copyright and trade secret laws do not apply to voting software, or to software whose output is government evidence in a criminal case, as with a breathalyzer or photo radar machine.
|
|
||||||||||||