3 ms·

Not exactly what I meant. If installation number is open and visible, any person without any knowledge can confirm that during vote, latest installation number

Not exactly what I meant. If installation number is open and visible, any person without any knowledge can confirm that during vote, latest installation number was such and such and hash of build was of such and such. Before election day number can be publicly broadcast so everyone knows what needs to be checked. Opensource and visible means same as for linux, code is visible to those that have knowledge and can quickly identify attempts of backdoor attempts like for instance this one: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor-attempt-of-2003/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor-... Code wise that will allow that people in power will not try to manipulate or rig elections. If you have XX thousands of IT professionals that can check code it is surely better than "trusted" dedicated private contractor.

wwweston 6y ago
Consider that there is currently a huge bifurcation in which newspapers of record run by journalism professionals are to be trusted. Or even just outright distrust of journalism period, in some circles. Or distrust of university professors and other "elites." It seems pretty likely that it's possible cultivate the same distrust of technical professionals. In fact, considering how little true technical expertise has gone into the voting systems that exist, it's probably inevitable and possibly in some cases accurate. If you need an technical expert to verify your voting system or even your vote count, that itself is a vulnerability in what voting systems are for. This is not a coding problem.
patmorgan23 6y ago
> Not exactly what I meant. > If installation number is open and visible, any person without any knowledge can confirm that during vote, latest installation number was such and such and hash of build was of such and such. Before election day number can be publicly broadcast so everyone knows what needs to be checked. > Opensource and visible means same as for linux, code is visible to those that have knowledge and can quickly identify attempts of backdoor attempts like for instance this one: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor- https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor-... > Code wise that will allow that people in power will not try to manipulate or rig elections. If you have XX thousands of IT professionals that can check code it is surely better than "trusted" dedicated private contractor. "any person woth the knowledge" that's the issue you want a system where the most number of people with the least amount of specialized knowledge nessicary can verify their vote. Everyone can look at a pice of paper and see their vote before they cast it. Not everyone has the expertise to verify software was installed correctly and all the important cryptographic boxes where ticked.

wwweston 6y ago

Consider that there is currently a huge bifurcation in which newspapers of record run by journalism professionals are to be trusted. Or even just outright distrust of journalism period, in some circles. Or distrust of university professors and other "elites." It seems pretty likely that it's possible cultivate the same distrust of technical professionals. In fact, considering how little true technical expertise has gone into the voting systems that exist, it's probably inevitable and possibly in some cases accurate. If you need an technical expert to verify your voting system or even your vote count, that itself is a vulnerability in what voting systems are for. This is not a coding problem.

patmorgan23 6y ago

> Not exactly what I meant. > If installation number is open and visible, any person without any knowledge can confirm that during vote, latest installation number was such and such and hash of build was of such and such. Before election day number can be publicly broadcast so everyone knows what needs to be checked. > Opensource and visible means same as for linux, code is visible to those that have knowledge and can quickly identify attempts of backdoor attempts like for instance this one: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor- https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoor-... > Code wise that will allow that people in power will not try to manipulate or rig elections. If you have XX thousands of IT professionals that can check code it is surely better than "trusted" dedicated private contractor. "any person woth the knowledge" that's the issue you want a system where the most number of people with the least amount of specialized knowledge nessicary can verify their vote. Everyone can look at a pice of paper and see their vote before they cast it. Not everyone has the expertise to verify software was installed correctly and all the important cryptographic boxes where ticked.