Sequoia v. Ed Felten
Sequoia v. Ed Felten
Posted Mar 18, 2008 16:31 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022)Parent article: Sequoia v. Ed Felten
It helps to consider that there is context not mentioned -- New Jersey voting officials, clients/users of these machines, seem to be all in favor of having them independently analyzed, by Ed Felten. We should be applauding this, because NJ is then doing the right thing. Sequoia is attempting to prevent this analysis, on the basis of their contract with the New Jersey county in question. "IP" is being used here to chill the investigation into the operation of the tools being used for our democratic process, by which the governance of the republic at all levels is determined. Secrecy is being invoked by the tool-maker to prevent external view of what the tool actually does in a variety of conditions not constrained by the maker.
Posted Mar 19, 2008 4:47 UTC (Wed)
by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
[Link]
New Jersey voting officials, clients/users of these machines, seem to be all in favor of having them independently analyzed, by Ed Felten. Adding to this, I think it would be wise for NJ officials and citizens to flatly reject the Sequoia voting machines because of the cease-and-desist letter Sequoia sent Felten. Of course, I'm not a NJ citizen, so my opinion doesn't matter in this case.
Sequoia v. Ed Felten
