3 ms·

@mjec, "I am advised that publication of the software could leave the voting system open to hacking or manipulation" Shouldn't this "advice" demand substantia

• mlandauer 12y ago
  There is a follow up freedom of information request on trying to get some more information about that advice here https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/documents_informing_the_response https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/documents_informing_t...
• mjec 12y ago
  > Shouldn't this "advice" demand substantiation or evidence? I think so, and evidently so do others. Already a gentleman by the name of Brendan Molloy has put in an FOI request for the documents on which this advice was based: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/documents_informing_the_response https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/documents_informing_t... > Also, what does that bit about "commercial-in-confidence" mean? The AEC does conduct some elections on a fee-for-service basis - things like union elections. They use a version of the same system to tally votes in those elections too. They say that the two systems are totally inseparable, to the point where you can't just cut out the code used in industrial elections. They also say revealing the code (though keep in mind it would still be copyrighted, so couldn't be used by any other organisation) would cause them significant commercial disadvantage. Because they have particular efficiency in the way their software operates which causes them to be more competitive. As you might suspect, I disagree with pretty much every part of what they claim there.