Re: Hand count or open source

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I choose option #3, which was the original citizens request, starting
over a year ago: BOTH fully-disclosed software/hardware with
procedural protections, and a hand-counted audit of 1% of the votes.

-Neal

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:15:06AM -0700, Evan Daniel Ravitz wrote:
> 
> Me three. #2 Hand count. When in doubt, use the tried and true.
> 
> Evan
> 
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
> 
> > Dear Paul:
> >
> > Me, too.  #2.
> >
> > Open source is not open hardware.
> >
> > How hard would it be to put in hardware that looks for a bit pattern in
> > memory that switches the software from "real mode" to "test mode" so that
> > bogus data moves through the system?
> >
> > The answer to that rhetorical question is: Not hard at all.
> >
> > Ralph Shnelvar
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:32:18 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >Evan,
> > >
> > >Lets take a poll right now and see how people feel.
> > >
> > >1. open source software with procedural protections to make sure
> > >the source we inspect is what we vote with.
> > >
> > >or
> > >
> > >2. hand-counted paper ballots
> > >
> > >before NEXT YEAR's election.
> > >
> > >-----
> > >and I'll start with #2
> > >
> > >
> >