Response to BryceM: Why Open Source Makes Sense for Voting in King County and the Country[Front paged: NM. Here's a link to the California Top-to-Bottom Study. King County's Council in their Proposed Ordinance 2007-0402 this past July (the ordinance that recommended against adopting the "Reckless Plan" of King County Elections), cited the top-to-bottom review in several places: "Recognizing the important findings of the California "top-to-bottom" review 38 of voting systems, the elections section shall incorporate third party security experts in 39 the testing of any new equipment and software...." etc.] BryceM makes the point that it is possible to have secure systems built around closed source and that experts may contribute to such systems. I, on the other hand, defend the idea that King County would be better off using the equipment it has now and then, after the 2008 election, evaluate Open Source with its other options for a new voting system to to be deployed before the 2012 elections. Technically Bryce has a point. It is logically possible to have the small group of people who know and care about security, computing and voting review the offerings of vendors' requirements, design, code, test, etc., on a practical level this not going to happen in real life. With four large vendors and a bunch of small ones, many of whom have shown very little interest in improved security or motivation to invest in security, the vendors are simply not going to hire real independent experts. On the other hand, if a team like ours were funded by someone like King County, experts such as those who worked on the California Top to Bottom Review would likely volunteer to help. Partly, this is because counties all over the country will likely end up using this technology as it would cost so much less than buying proprietary election equipment. Those experts who volunteer services do not have the added burden of pleasing the client who is paying them; rather, they are more likely to serve the public interest. Independence from the vendor is critical to election security and Open Source permits that far better than the vendor lock-in tactic that proprietary systems foster.
Bryce, have you studied the California Top to Bottom Review? I think that after you do, you might also come to the conclusion that closed source has simply failed in the world of voting and we should throw in the towel and build Open Source solutions that election authorities can share with one another nationwide, even worldwide. It was not that the California experts could break into one voting system. They were able to compromise all of them. If this does not call for a change, what would?
Only Open Source allows an election official to be in a appropriate power relationship with regard to a vendor. It is critically important that a county be able to fire their support vendor, if circumstances warrant. King County has been victimized by poor service from a vendor in the past, but King County election officials still argue, after giving that vendor a score of only 5 out of 10, that they must buy from the vendor. They argue that, because otherwise past investments in equipment and skills acquisition would be discarded, changing vendors would be too expensive. This is a perfect example of why closed source solutions in voting are unacceptable. They lead to lock in and a drug addiction-ike dependence that does not inspire public confidence in voting systems or elections.. Only Open Source provides transparency, i.e., that we are not trusting a few hired experts under Non-Disclosure Agreements but that every knowledgably person who wants to examine the code can and is invited provide a review and recommendations for improvement and that such results are freely publishable. The King County situation cries out for, at the very least, a detailed evaluation of the comparative costs of building an Open Source voting system of its own. The Open Source unbundled solution will allow best of breed in each category and will allow King County its proper role as master of its own elections. Sincerely,
Richard Johnson
Response to BryceM: Why Open Source Makes Sense for Voting in King County and the Country | 12 comments (12 topical)
|