3 ms·

While I appreciate the cynicism, I'm not seeing how an open schema for tamper-evident verifiable voting machines could be anything other than positive. It's wo

While I appreciate the cynicism, I'm not seeing how an open schema for tamper-evident verifiable voting machines could be anything other than positive. It's worth noting that Microsoft has discouraged the use of embedded Windows on voting machines in the past: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2680658/gates-undaunted-by-linux.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/2680658/gates-undaunted-by... > “We ourselves are not going after the e-voting market or the nuclear reactor control market,” Gates said.

freshm087 7y ago
For starters, the whole voting machines concept is a essentially a ploy to exploit wide-spread respect for computer technologies in society to sell hardware, and software. It reduces observability compared to pieces of paper, and doesn't solve any real problems. I don't think Gates words from 2004 can be seen as policy statement for today's Msft. Apparently, a lot has changed.
- YokoZar 7y ago
  > Microsoft will not charge for using ElectionGuard and will not profit from partnering with election technology suppliers that incorporate it into their products. I'm not sure how much stronger of a statement they can make than that. There's no money in voting machines for Microsoft.