4 ms·

HN users in general are not going to support a militant attack motivated by concerns that are not backed by hard evidence. Free and open source software is the

HN users in general are not going to support a militant attack motivated by concerns that are not backed by hard evidence. Free and open source software is the gold standard, but the fact that election machines used proprietary software is not nearly enough to justify the attack.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
[flagged]
- commoner 4y ago
  I don't know of any country that uses only free and open source software for its election machines. By your standards, any militant attack after any election woth election machines would be justified, because proprietary software was involved. I reject that reasoning, since it is nonpragmatic to the point of extremism. Of course it would be ideal to incorporate FOSS into the election process, but this militant attack is both unnecessary to achieve this and unjustifiable based on the weakness of the arguments against election integrity. Also, this attack appears to be aimed at overriding the result of the election, not at increasing FOSS uptake in future elections.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    You are ignoring the supply chain vulnerability discovered in the voting software build process. Source code and binaries release are the only things that could legitimitize this election at this point. I want to reverse engineer the binary and see if I can find any malicious code in those unaudited libraries. I simply won't have any confindence in the results unless I do that myself. This is not extremism either. Why should anyone recognize representatives produced by a faulty process? That's bullshit. This is not extremism at all. I don't care about "pragmatism" either, they have to do it right or not do it at all. They have two legitimate choices: produce a resilient and transparent election system or relinquish their power. They took a third option by forcing this questionable system down our throats and doubling down on their mistake when problems inevitably surfaced; what you're seeing right now is the result.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

[flagged]

commoner 4y ago
I don't know of any country that uses only free and open source software for its election machines. By your standards, any militant attack after any election woth election machines would be justified, because proprietary software was involved. I reject that reasoning, since it is nonpragmatic to the point of extremism. Of course it would be ideal to incorporate FOSS into the election process, but this militant attack is both unnecessary to achieve this and unjustifiable based on the weakness of the arguments against election integrity. Also, this attack appears to be aimed at overriding the result of the election, not at increasing FOSS uptake in future elections.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  You are ignoring the supply chain vulnerability discovered in the voting software build process. Source code and binaries release are the only things that could legitimitize this election at this point. I want to reverse engineer the binary and see if I can find any malicious code in those unaudited libraries. I simply won't have any confindence in the results unless I do that myself. This is not extremism either. Why should anyone recognize representatives produced by a faulty process? That's bullshit. This is not extremism at all. I don't care about "pragmatism" either, they have to do it right or not do it at all. They have two legitimate choices: produce a resilient and transparent election system or relinquish their power. They took a third option by forcing this questionable system down our throats and doubling down on their mistake when problems inevitably surfaced; what you're seeing right now is the result.