You know, I am not the person always gung-ho about open source technology, but I do believe that open source software and hardware is the only way to have electronic voting work.
It's the only way to get enough peer-review so that all sides and all parties can be assured it would be tamper-proof.
Any private entity is the exact opposite, since they have no requirement, and often the exact opposite incentive to make it tamper-proof, so therefore the devices are more likely to "deliver" the votes the company wants to deliver, all in the argument that "it's more secure" because they say it is.
Has anyone ever brought this up in slashdot?
It really is worth it's own article.
P.S. Paper can be manipulated, too.
Now, i'm not saying wikipedia is always correct or the best for everything, but every single data source has a slant. History is written by the winners and is never like it truly has been. Encyclopedia's have had individual companies, maybe with a team, who could have been just as incorrect as wikipedia, with actually fewer eyes reviewing it.
The same can go for any academic book out there.
So, while any person off the street can edit it, so can anyone correct it, and I see more eyes reviewing a subject as better than less, so this trust is somewhat founded.
It's not like academic experts aren't reviewing the bad edits or corporate edits on subjects and correcting them to what they should be (as numerous articles have been posted here), so what is so bad about this model?
Personally, I believe it is better to have more eyes on a subject towards a consensus in a debate manner than just a handful of people researching and understanding a subject and just dishing it out to us like manna from heaven.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I am not the person always gung-ho about open source technology, but I do believe that open source software and hardware is the only way to have electronic voting work. It's the only way to get enough peer-review so that all sides and all parties can be assured it would be tamper-proof. Any private entity is the exact opposite, since they have no requirement, and often the exact opposite incentive to make it tamper-proof, so therefore the devices are more likely to "deliver" the votes the company wants to deliver, all in the argument that "it's more secure" because they say it is. Has anyone ever brought this up in slashdot? It really is worth it's own article. P.S. Paper can be manipulated, too.
Now, i'm not saying wikipedia is always correct or the best for everything, but every single data source has a slant. History is written by the winners and is never like it truly has been. Encyclopedia's have had individual companies, maybe with a team, who could have been just as incorrect as wikipedia, with actually fewer eyes reviewing it. The same can go for any academic book out there. So, while any person off the street can edit it, so can anyone correct it, and I see more eyes reviewing a subject as better than less, so this trust is somewhat founded. It's not like academic experts aren't reviewing the bad edits or corporate edits on subjects and correcting them to what they should be (as numerous articles have been posted here), so what is so bad about this model? Personally, I believe it is better to have more eyes on a subject towards a consensus in a debate manner than just a handful of people researching and understanding a subject and just dishing it out to us like manna from heaven.