On Second Thought... Wisconsin E-Voting Bill Not As Impressive
from the oh-well dept
Well, so much for that. Last Wednesday we reported on a new e-voting law in Wisconsin that seemed very progressive. We noted that not only did it require a verifiable paper trail for recounts, but also that the source code must be "publicly accessible" so that it "may be used to independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the operating and tallying procedures to be employed at any election." That sounded great to us -- and we were surprised that only one source, the Wisconsin Technology Network, was mentioning the available source part of the story. The reason? The Wisconsin Technology Network was wrong. Adina Levin notes in a comment that the article that reported this has now corrected their original story, saying that the source code is not to be made public, but needs to be placed in escrow (like in other states, such as North Carolina) and will only be checked in case of a recount and then only under non-disclosure by certain parties. The original report was based on an earlier draft of the bill, before the lobbyists got a chance to hack out things like revealing the source code. So, better than nothing, but not quite as nice as originally reported.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Code Review
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
(After all, what with the WMF issue being solved by a third-party faster, it seems the public has a better grasp of things).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
(As an aside, the WMF exploit you mentioned, probably would have happened sooner if the Microsoft source code had been available to the hackers.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
There are plenty of voting Americans that I wouldn't want to see that code either then if you think that one of those people can what can anyone else do. This is really a ridiculous discussion as the first time one of these machines gets hacked. Which seems to be next year everyone is gonna be saying how dumb were we no matter what way it goes. If you open it up we made it more available for people to find. If you leave it closed the compnay has the responsibility of being right just and fair if and only if no one can figure it out.
Maybe I'll take a stab at it when it becomes time. I do pretty well with figuring things out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
A. Because few sane people would sign it. If you're an expert in electronic voting, signing an NDA to see the source code of a voting machine from one company could make you "tainted" and unemployable by other companies in the field.
Meanwhile, here's an example of Example of Open Source Voting:
Training material for Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks - UK Electoral Commission
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
I agree that there are plenty of Americans that I wouldn't want to see the code either, but it isn't a question of what I want or don't want. If you are a voter, you have the right to see how the voting process works. You have the right to be assured that the voting process is fair. If that means you need to see the source code, you should be allowed to see it. So I really don't think that keeping the source code closed should be allowed. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some safeguards on the access. if you are not a voter(for whatever reason) you do not have that right. Tracking who has access to the source code, will make it easier to prosecute and punish those who do hack it with the intent to defraud.
Hacking the source code with malicious intent is a crime, and should be treated as such. It is the same as if you found a way to rig a normal election. Dead people counted, bribed officials, etc.
Hacking it in a controlled environment for security research, isn't a crime. That is only pointing out faults in the process so that they can be improved.
Viewing the source code for your own peace of mind should also not be a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Code Review
I see where you are coming from. If I worked in the field of electronic voting, I wouldn't want to sign it either. But don't the companies who make the machines have the right to protect their product? They need to be sure that the code and specs of the machine aren't copied and stolen by a competitor. Some solution where the code can be viewed and verified, but not copied and stolen is needed. I don't think there is a solution like that unless the government researches, funds, and creates their own voting machines and software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]