|
I had a conversation with Linda this morning and this
came up. No dissing her, but she has had the same confused idea as many others
that I have talked to. The idea that all the reason that open source is desired
is to make sure that things are un-hackable. The issue about open source is
making sure that there are no mistakes, or factory back-doors. I hate the use of the adverb hack. I am a hacker. It’s
a good way to learn. Crackers are the bad people. Hackers try to get in to know
that they can. Crackers break things. Paul Tiger -----Original
Message----- I was thinking near the same line. By
throwing people's attention to a 'non-issue' of hacking, these companies are
deflecting the public's attention from the real issue(s), while giving
people the perception that the opponents really have no issues ('these things
aren't connected to the internet', etc), therefore, all this concern is a moot
point. In the article, 'verification' is mentioned, but the real issue of the
printed ballot, verified by the voter, dropped into the secure ballot box, is
dusted over--just by looking at a paper receipt to confirm that the electronic
device recorded the vote correctly needs to be responded to. And I agree with
Paul, they are the real danger. -Monty |