[E-voting] Source Code

David GLAUDE dglaude at gmx.net
Mon Mar 22 23:34:11 GMT 2004



Fergal Daly wrote:

> On Sunday 21 March 2004 22:38, Mark Dennehy wrote:
> 
> No one is arguing against OS, I think we'd all like it to be OS but I don't 
> believe it makes any real difference to the security or transparency of a 
> VVAT proper election. It may have a small influence on the reliability of the 
> machines and so it may eleiminate some election day hiccups.

Even if you have VVAT, you don't know what the computer does. The only 
system were you don't care what the computer do is a system were only 
the paper count and the is no electronic recording of your vote 
(Computer Assisted Paper Ballot Filling). With CAPBF, you can avoid the 
"problem" of "spoiled vote" you may even be able to help blind to 
produce paper ballot without assistance (but they need to trust the 
computer).

Once you have the source code, you can really show how bad the system 
is: http://www.afront.be/lib/vote.html
This is what as been done for Diebold too.

> We get very limited publicity and I think we should concentrate the little 
> time we get on VVAT. It makes open/closed irrelevant and as Aengus said, if 
> we ask for VVAT and OS we can get a "compromise" of OS and then where are we?

I think the Irish FSF should request that (simultaniously as saying that 
it is not enough to have the source code).

In Belgium we had the source code because of legal challenge.
The Expert monitoring the election said it would increase trust and 
transparency.

David GLAUDE

-- 
Don't let computer expert control election...
Endorse: http://www.free-project.org/resolution/
For Belgium: http://www.poureva.be/







More information about the E-voting mailing list