Problem (was: Re: need help with tool requirement)

bscott at ntisys.com bscott at ntisys.com
Wed Apr 21 09:23:25 EDT 2004


On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, at 1:33am, bmcculley at rcn.com wrote:
> Electronic voting machines are feared to be vulnerable to hidden malicious
> code ("Easter eggs") that could subvert voter intentions and deliver votes
> to the wrong candidates.

  Open the source code to public review.

  That's the solution.  Full stop.  If a vendor will not agree to those
terms, invalidate the use of their products for public elections.  Sorry if
that means Diebold or whoever makes a few less bucks.  Our government is
more important then Diebold's profit margins.

  If you cannot get the original source code, run the object code through a
disassembler and review that.

  The above may violate the DMCA.  Good.  I would find it especially
appropriate if the DMCA was over-turned so that we could insure the
integrity of our elections.

  Restricting access to the source code does not make what the code does a
secret.  Source code is instructions for a computer.  Object code is
instructions for a computer.  The only difference is that, with the source
code, it is generally easier to determine what the code was intended to do,
while with assembler, one can often only determine what the code actually
does.

  Restricting access to the source code does not stop piracy.  Pirates don't
care about the source; all they need is the object code.

  Opening the code to review does not mean it has to be Free(dom) Software,
or even free (gratis) software.  Restrictions can be put in place such that
one cannot use the software without a proper license.  See above about
pirates.

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |




More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list