[EM] Re: voting machines

[Dave Ketchum]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:09:46 +0200 David GLAUDE wrote:

> Rob Brown wrote:
> 
>> Dave Ketchum <davek <at> clarityconnect.com> writes:
>>
>>> Agreed BUT:
>>>
>>> If someone writes usable code, AND makes it public, what stops 
>>> someone else copying the code without paying those who did the work?
>>
> 
> The main reason for not copying the code is copyright law.


Hard to measure, if I copy the design, whether that is close enough to 
violate copyright - and - if I keep what I did a secret, as some vendors 
are doing, harder to measure.

Where we ought to be is ALL the code is PUBLIC, and those demonstrating 

doing useful work get paid.
> 
> You can only do what the licence of the code or what the author of the 
> code say you can do with it. This apply to the code, the binary version 
> of the code or any derivative work (it up to the judge to evaluate what 
> consitute a derivative work) based on that code.
> 
> You assume that a line of code must be paid many time... this is only 
> possible business model.


WRONG - I want the voters to know what they are getting, and those doing 
useful work getting paid, but not paying fairy tale claims with no work.

> 
>> One thing that would work is that the federal government contracts 
>> that the code be written, pays the contractor, and then the government 
>> releases it into the public domain (or GPL or whatever).  The 
>> government got what it wanted, 
> 

I have NO DESIRE FOR "The government got what it wanted" - I want the 
voters to get honest, workable, elections.

> 
> Releasing into public domain is not really the best choice if at all 
> possible... Releasing in GPL or other Free Software licence is possible 
> but it is seems a very difficult process for the federal government to 
> move contracted software into something like GPL (copyright transfert, 
> ...) but it is not impossible and has been done before.
> 
>> the contractor got paid, and if some other country wants to use the 
>> code for their own system, so be it, it is in our interest that our 
>> democratic processes be copied elsewhere.
> 

When they get down to details, there should be nothing preventing good 
code being used world wide - I am convinced some vendors understand 
selling as such - which actually helps quality if the privacy question 
gets settled right.

> 
> It is the rest of the world democratic interest not to copy the various 
> mistake that US is doing with DRE and other. If Fidel Castro was elected 
> with kind of electronic voting used in the US... Washington would say it 
> is a fraud.


Another reason for the US to do better.

> 
> Venezuella did use electronic voting to confirm/re-elect it's president. 
> The vendor of the electronic voting system was apparently close to the 
> opposition, the USA was supporting the opposition, ... Guess what, 
> Washington does not recognise the result and want investigation.

I read a bit differently:
     Opposition:  Washington; a polling co. associated with a voting 
system vendor (not in this election) AND not above illegally publishing an 
exit poll claiming opposition win while polls were still open.
     Chávez:  "And the smear attempt against the democratic process also 
attacks the reputation of the U.S. company, SmartMatic, that worked so hard 
to make Sunday's election the fairest, most heavily participated, and, in 
fact, only presidential recall vote in American history!"  For the 
participation, polls stayed open longer than planned.
> 
> The only problem is that in Venezuella, they were using Voter Verified 
> Audit Trail (a paper copy of the vote stored in a ballot box) and the 
> the paper result and the electronic result were compare in a few 
> location to verify the accuracy of the result.
> 
> A former president of the US also confirmed the election were fair and 
> honest and the result can be trusted. Obiously the Carter foundation 
> should monitor the US presidential election... and have fun.
> 
> Who are we to judge on somebody else democracy?
> Let's try to fix our problem first...
> 
> David GLAUDE
==============================

From: "Philippe Errembault" <phil.errembault at skynet.be>
Subject: Re: [EM] voting machines
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:18:58 +0200

He speaks for Belgium, for open code, and for investigating possible 
failures in defending voter secrecy.
===============================

From: "James Gilmour" <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [EM] voting machines
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:32:48 +0100

He tells us of a formal report from Ireland.  They found no 
failures to cause rejection, but not willing to declare success.

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.