Slashdot Mirror
Online Voting In 2004 To Require Windows
letxa2000 writes "According to this article at CBS, a trial Internet voting system will be made available to 100,000 voters in 2004--particularly military and overseas U.S. citizens. As an American living overseas I think this is a step in the right direction. But the article also says 'Voters using SERVE can register to vote and cast their ballots from any computer using Microsoft Windows with Internet access.' Why the Windows requirement? Is that really going to make online voting secure?"
Bill Gates by a landslide!
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Why could they not make it platform independent?... sheesh... it's not like you can't get a C-compiler for just about any platform ever made. Somebody more elite in the security department care to enlighten me about a legitimate reason for choosing a single platform? Anyone?
I RTFA, but didn't see anything about open source code... they can't seriously be relying on security through obscurity...
SOMEBODY needs to audit this, and I'm not talking about a secret "trust-us-it's-good" non-independent audit.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
First off, isn't the last OS they would want to use because it IS so insecure?
More importantly cant they go about it a different way. Making it a mult-platform application, or use JAVA or something!!!!
I have some understanding of why it would be for windows. Windows is used for a lot of the software the military uses, granted I still love to read about the destroyer that had to be towed back cause NT crashed and they couldn't start it up again.
But regardless, we live in society that constantly prints up in 10 million different languages for everyone in our country, yet refuses to code to the 4 or 5 different major OS's out there. Is it me or there something either very wrong with this, or more likely having a republican president in the office, very suspicious!!!
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
First, someone will be able to readily h4x0r and r00t their boxen because they run on that POS, er, OS called Windows.
Second, it's possible that Maro$haft will slip a secret back door and take the info they learn and sell it to someone.
Third, what about those of us who boycott M$ and refuse to use their OS, using Linux or BSD instead (or, horrors, Darwin)?
WTF are they thinking going Windows-only?
Can't they write the software for these other OSes, statically linked? Fasuck, people, get a real operating system, dammit!
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Total soft money contributions made by Microsoft for the 2002 election cycle:
Republicans: $1,890,401
Democrats: $800,343
Source
Microsoft is already using money to influence politics, and they favor Republicans 2-1... you think they can give Bush a few hundred "extra" Florida votes if he needs them?
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
And thaaat's what we call FREEDOM.
If you can't, or don't want to, afford MS Windows you just can't vote.
Next Step: If you can't, or don't want to, afford a Mont Blanc pen you just can't vote.
Or even: If you can't, or don't want to, afford a house on you own you just can't vote.
And to get back to XVIII century: If you can't, or don't want to, have a $120,000 job you just can't vote (adjusted values).
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
IANAL, and not an US citizen either. So may be the US laws regarding elections are quite diferent from those in other countries. But i wonder if this initiative is sustainable on constitutional grounds.
Strict equality (``one man one vote'', and equal accesibitlity of all citizens to the right of voting) is the basis of all democratic systems. Assuming the U.S. is one of these, having to pay for an O.S. to a certain software company for issuing a vote doesn't seem to hold on that basis.
The basic technologies behind security certainly shouldn't be secure
Should read:
"The basic technologies behind security certainly shouldn't be obscured"