It's the programming code that is the problem

[BeFree]

First, I want to say that a return to HCPB is my idea of the way to true reform. But there is great opposition to that idea.

Faced with the fact of the coming train wreck it makes sense that a proper derailing takes place. How do we derail this train?

The code is the switching gear. If we could somehow successfully demand the code become public information, that code would have to be rewritten, and could be rewritten in weeks, then go through a proper examination by computer experts before being used to count the November votes.

Several states have made similar demands, Holt 550 approaches that switch, and it makes perfect sense to open up the code by just about everyone.

Can we do it before August? Can we unite together and push for public coding of the public's vote counting machinery?

[napi21]

1. I have a technical question about open code.

I'm sure no computer guru, but I was an accountant and worked with computer systems for a very long time! I also understand the reason banks, corps, etc don't have a problem with sysrem errors or fraud is because they ALWAYS have a source document to verify against. With vote tabulation and the requirement for the secret ballot, there is no source doc, thereby leaving the door wide open for tampering.

If all the coding for voting machines was made open source, wouldn't that also open the door to many potential hackers? I realize right now, it's probably only open to employees of the voting machine mfg.s, but wouldn't it actually be worse?

[BeFree]

2. You've answered your question

Banks and other financial users always have a source code to verify. Its a simple accounting measure.

Election officials do not presently have a clue, and are denied by law to getting one.

Imagine a banking system set the same way? It'd be a failure.

[SharonAnn]

3. They have a "source DOCUMENT". Only sometimes do they have

"source code".

In the case of proprietary software, the require that it be stored (held in escrow), in case it is needed later. This is especially of concern if the software company goes out of business or stops supporting the software.

[BeFree]

4. I stand corrected

Not being anywhere near an expert in the field, but with some knowledge of coding, my generalities are prone to error. Just like the election officials are prone.

It is not important that I be close to error free, but it is, don't you think, Sharon, that the election officials should be?

Having a universal code might make it easier for them to approach perfection, eh?

[drm604]

5. Yes, it possibly could,

unless it was so well-written that it was un-hackable. I think that's part of the reason for having open source - the abilitity of third parties to find and point out bugs and security flaws so that they can, hopefully, be corrected before the next election. The problem with this is that it's completely possible that some subtle flaw will be noticed only by some hacker who will then know how to exploit that flaw.

I have a more fundamental objection to the whole idea of open source. Suppose the source code is available to the public, maybe on the internet, and suppose I've gone over that code with a fine toothed comb and I'm convinced that it is secure and reliable. After all of that, when I walk into the polling place how the hell do I know that the machine I vote on is running code that was compiled from the source I've reviewed? How do I know that it's not running something from slightly different source code? How do I know that it's not running something from completely different source code? How do I know that it wasn't compiled honestly from the open source but then patched afterwards? How do I know that there isn't some unauthorized vote-skewing software running on the same machine as the clean legitimate code?

Even ignoring that, is the compiler that created the executable code itself open source? Is the operating system open source? Is the hardware design open source?

[napi21]

6. Your post sounds like there could NEVER be a machine you'd

feel comfortable with using. I just don't buy that. There will never be a way to guarantee an absolute perfect voting system, and there never has been.

Computers offer a lot of advantages that no other method can offer. With a computer, you can't ever have the butterfly ballot problem, you can't have duplicate votes for the same office, you can't have hanging chads. BUT I think what is needed is that source document I keep talking about. It could be the printed doc from the same computer the voter just used, that would print under a sealed clear viewer for the voter to see it, and then drop into a sealed secure box. THEN, several auditors representing all parties, would do random tests, the same as a CPA does with every Corp. audit, to insure there were NO errors. The way it's done in a corp. audit is that a sample of perhapse 10% is manually tested to insure all the data matches. The test ends there, UNLESS one error is found! If an error is found, the second test is expanded to 35%, and if any more errors are found, a 100% test is done!

I'm a firm believer in technology, and I really do think it's a good way to handle our elections, but the necessary controls must be incorporated as well.

[BeFree]

7. Believe it or not...

...technology is what we are gonna get. Have.

The thing is that we should have trust in election officials to do the right thing. Well, they are not tech experts, but they can hire tech experts to do the right thing.

The problem is the tech now being used has been roundly criticized by the tech experts. And the election officials are using that tech, a tech that they don't have a clue about. Even if they had a clue they couldn't do anything about the tech because the law won't let them. Except for Ion Sancho, he tested the tech, and look at the hell he caught!

I'm thinking tech using bank officials need to be heard from as concerns this situation. They are pros at using the tech to count. When that group heard about the internet being controlled by singular sources they began to halt that process. Election tech is controlled by singular sources, would banks allow such private tech without proper accounting?

[napi21]

8. Well, I disagree with your first statement!

The thing is that we should have trust in election officials to do the right thing.

As I said, I was an accountant for 45+ years, and you trust NO ONE! You ONLY trust provable facts!

Banks are not perfect either, and neither are the people who work there! I can send you the adress of several who are now incarcerated, if you'd like to send them a note. ;o)

I'm not pretending to have the best answer, but I believe the system I proposed would work well, and until I see a better one, I'm going to continue to fight for an auditable election!

[BeFree]

10. Have Trust: Will Vote

If you had no trust in the bank, you wouldn't put your money there, eh?

The same amount of trust should be given the election officials, even more maybe. The question is: Have they earned it? No. Do we have the same level of trust in them as we do banks? Again, no. At least not for those who are aware.

One reason we have trust in the banks is the capability - and willingness - to do audits. HAVA requires audit-able systems ---- do you think the systems are auditable? Without auditable systems, no bank would long survive. But the machines grow, and grow.

[eridani]

11. We need to eliminate "trust" entirely

Replace it with CHECKS AND BALANCES. You know, like drug dealers or parents of small children with not enough leftover birthday cake. Little Johnnie cuts the cake, and little Suzie gets first choice. Or our Founding Fathers, for that matter.

All parties to voting, with all their conflicting interests, watch each other. All the time.

[drm604]

9. A voter verified paper record is what's needed.

The "source document" you refer to would satisfy me, as long as it was generated in front of the voter and could be read by them before it is dropped into a secure container. That's providing that it is always accompanied by a mandated hand count of a statistically valid random sample of those paper documents.

If that was done then open source wouldn't really be necessary and, as I've said, open source doesn't really prove anything anyway.

I'm not at all hostile to the idea of open source in general. I'm just afraid that, for voting, open source by itself could generate an unwarranted sense of confidence.

[BeFree]

12. Many states have a VVAPT

HAVA kinda says it is a requirement but then accepts the non-bank version of diebold's business model as good enough. Makes no sense.

Eventually, all the nation will have VVPAT, until then what we can change nationwide is taking it out of the closet and allowing the sun to shine on that source code.

At present the code is a secret. It should not be a secret, but it will still count the votes this year, one way or another.

[mmarcus]

14. You can't just have open code

See, there is something really stuck. A long time ago there was a bunch of emails circuating around (does anyone know if their still online?) and anyway, they talked about my location, they talked about known poblems, then there was some code that got leaked, so I guess you could say that's open.

Nobody did one thing about it even when the proof was there about how bad this code was. I mean, they don't do ANYTHING about it even if you have security holes you can drive a mack truck through.

So if they won't even fix what they KNOW is messed up how will opening it up help?

[mmarcus]

15. oh crap does this site have a spell check?

I have too many typos. Sheesh.:argh:

[BeFree]

13. Opening up the code

As evidence that opening up the code makes perfect sense, just look at North Carolina.

That state made the code available for public viewing in a law passed just last year.

What happened? Diebold closed up shop and left the state. Just because someone could read the damn code. That's powerful.