Slashdot Mirror
NY Legislature Rejects "Microsoft Amendment"
An anonymous reader writes "Finally, some good news on electronic voting. The New York state legislature rejected an amendment proposed by Microsoft's lobbyists which would have gutted New York's requirements for voting machine vendors to turn over their source code to the state Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton commented: 'The voting machine vendors have known for two years what our laws said. Now they're saying that those parts of their systems using Microsoft software have to be proprietary? It's just wrong.'"
But platform code that is obtained from a third party vendor should be acceptable provided that it is widely used as a general purpose platform and there is a reliable demonstration that the code has not been modified.
I would rather see voting platforms built on microsoft trustworthy computing platforms without code review of the platform part of the system than built on a platform where I cannot be sure what code is running.
The code reviews are useless unless I am sure that the machines actually run the code that was reviewed.
Of course paper and pencil requires no code review.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
After that amendment passed, I was worried about NYS letting this fly. I'm glad to see that the legislators are attentive.
The real question is: What does Microsoft have to hide from election officials?
-Are they worrying that the source will be leaked?
-Due to the above fear, is MS afraid of getting crap from the DRM loving media cartels?
-Is there something in the code that MS doesn't want seen?
-Are they afraid this mentality hurts the "security through obscurity" idea?
Of course this is all speculation. I'm just so curious why Microsoft is so opposed to sharing their code with a state government.
Is why the HELL anyone is trying to build a voting machine around an unsecureable platform in the first place? If these vendors want to sell systems that have specific requirements for auditability and securability, they can either comply with the requirements or fuck off.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I click on them all the time.
It's a deliciously satisfying way of transferring cold hard cash from Microsoft's wallet to Slashdot and Google.
the legislature didn't actually "reject" it. they just didnt pass it. and yes, they concluded their regularly scheduled legislative session last week. BUT, they're expected back for a "special" session in July, and the governor has implied that he will call them back several times.
students of the NYS legislature will also tell you that the "special" sessions tend to be when the sneakiest things go on in NYS because, in general, they garner less attention and most of the legislators just want to make it as quick as possible and get back to their families.
that being said, NY does have a very strong voting rights coalition with a number of very smart and talented people working very hard to make sure that this DOESNT go through.
one good thing did happen at the end of session. is that NYVV's (New Yorker's for Verified Voting) Bo Lipari (who's been leading the charge AGAINST microsoft's lobbyists) has been granted a seat at the table. the citizen's advisory board now has statutory authority. which means that when the board of elections makes decisions about this stuff he's got a seat at the table to help shape the outcome.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
You rock!!
Of course, you by yourself won't have much impact but there would be if 1% of Slashdot's reader base did.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Without agreeing with the rhetorical gist of the GP, I believe the point being made was that the suggestion was so absurd that nobody would put it forward unless they were paid to do so.
I disagree with that premise, but I do agree that obscuring any aspect of a voting system that is being used to decide, among other things, the next president of the United Sates is the height of folly.
Risk is measured as a combination of:
In this case, the prize is political control of the most powerful nation in the world. So we need to ask ourselves: How much are fair and free elections worth? What, in effect, is the price of the democratic process in the US?
I think it's worth billions of dollars. That means stringent code review, impeccable chain of custody and constant supervision. Saving a few bucks by using an off-the-shelf operating system - especially one that is orders of magnitude more complex than what is actually required - that's absurd, in my opinion.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Buy a batch of Z-80s or even 8080s; they are still being made. The design is so old that it's unlikely to have been compromised; but if you are really paranoid, the circuitry of an 8-bit CPU is simple enough that you could easily verify it by hand. Build a little voting box around one of those chips, and you're done.
The design would take half a year and cost less than a $1 million -- which is peanuts when the goal is to ensure the honesty of a democracy's most important event.
Source code or not, you can't look inside the machine and see what's running on it while it's running. Not ever. It doesn't matter who has access to whatever source code. It's just too easy for a very small number of people (or even just one) to tamper with these machines, and leave absolutely no meaningful trace. Anyone caught up in the source code debate has missed the problem.
http://www.unfocus.com/