On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 01:47, Andrew Plato wrote:
> >Beyond that, I can't really discuss any technical details of the system
>
> >for obvious security reasons.
> >
> > That is not obvious. There is a lot of evidence that open systems are
> > more secure than closed systems. OTOH, "... can't really discuss any
> > technical details of the system for obvious *proprietary* reasons" is
>
> > obvious :)
>
> Crispin, we're not talking about a word processing program or an open
> source version of Everquest here. This is a government system for
> elections. It's a little more important than some open source project.
It is more important. That is why the process needs to be open.
> And the state is doing something to ensure security. It mandated
> security expertise in this project and Saber hired Anitian. And while I
> might not share your vision of security, I do know what it takes to make
> a system work securely.
One of the reasons that people desire open systems is so *they* can
trust it. When you keep it secret, they figure that you have something
to hide. With the vote-rigging scandals of the last four years and a
political party which believes in "winning at any cost", the rest of the
electorate needs to be convinced, not just the State.
"Secure elections" means different things to different people. "Honest
elections" and "verifiable elections" do not seem to intersect that for
some. Without open elections, you cannot verify those things.
> I also respect the scientific process. It's the core element of my
> company's methodology (see our web page.) The scientific process demands
> collaboration with peers. So at some point, Anitian probably will call
> upon the community for input and advice. I don't know the level of that
> involvement, I'll have to clear that with the state. But, suffice to
> say, we're not doing this in a vacuum. Many of the ideas discussed right
> here are getting into the design meetings because I recognize their
> importance.
>
> Consider the alternative...this project could be done by some huge out
> of state company who has no investment in Oregon at all.
What I am wondering is what could possibly be "proprietary" about an
election process.
You count and record votes.
It is not rocket science, nor is it brain surgery.
Have they come up with a new number system? Do they count the votes for
Republicans in base 8 and the votes for Democrats in base 10? (Sorry.
That is patented by Diebold.)
What could possibly be "proprietary" in the process?
--
"Push that big, big granite sphere way up there from way down here!
Gasp and sweat and pant and wheeze! Uh-oh! Feel momentum cease!
Watch it tumble down and then roll the boulder up again!"
- The story of Sisyphus by Dr. Zeus in Frazz 12/18/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 25 2004 - 14:16:17 PST