What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
8 Comments
- lrdntwnd, on 12/21/2008, -0/+12I'm just waiting for the day when the voting machines are being run on open source software that has been reviewed by multiple independent organizations for security and integrity. Only then can results from electronic voting machines (including optical scan machines) be trusted. I think it's pretty sad that in the world's model for democracy the people cannot be certain that the results are completely accurate.
- 2res, on 12/22/2008, -0/+9Open source and hard copy printouts are the only way to ensure integrity
- nealmcb, on 12/22/2008, -0/+9@irdntwnd - I'd also love to see open source software in voting machines. But as Ken Thompson showed decades ago in "Reflections on Trusting Trust", that isn't enough. An insider could still hack the compiler or other links in the chain. So paper records and a proper canvass and audit is the only way to get what NIST says is needed: "software independence".
- NoTiG, on 12/22/2008, -0/+2What is crazy about the diebold machines.. and their proprietary program... is that there is a video on youtube that proved that the election counts could be manipulated... not by manipulating the program but by malicious code on the actual disks used to store the data. This means that an internal audit of the actual program may never reveal such maliciously designed code...... but what it DOES show is that the program itself is designed to be corrupted... because in no way should the program on voting machines... execute any code on the disks that store data.
For instance take a music cd... it is meant to simply store data. There is no reason to put executable code on a data disk. You don't need a program since the player on your computer handles playing the data.
If you wanted a program that you could manipulate the winner like diebold wants, then it would be bad from a technical standpoint to have the code on the actual main program since it may frequently need to be changed depending on the candidate they wanted to win or by how much he should win. So thats why they have the program execute code on the disk itself. - inactive, on 12/22/2008, -0/+1they are really great but must be handeled with care
- RogueGenius, on 12/22/2008, -0/+1I'm glad someone in on the case. Ideally, we will have multiple open-source apps, each written by different, unconnected people, running on each machine. The end result of all counts should match. If they don't, investigate.
- enssss, on 12/22/2008, -0/+1This is interesting. So the votes are counted by multiple systems. I agree that open source helps, but I am focusing on the integrity of the vote count. The government should supply one system for counting the votes and set up standards, including how the PAPER BALLOTS are kept safe. And then various organizations should be allowed to also supply their own systems to count the ballots on election day and discrepancies in the different counts could be identified quickly.
- dookiefans, on 12/22/2008, -0/+0You can download electionaudits v0.8 here
http://www.desktopauditing.com/download-electionau ...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is