bugtraq - RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:00:16 +0930
From: "Geoff Vass" <geoff@...zow.com.au>
To: "Paul Wouters" <paul@...net.nl>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Cc: <jeremy.epstein@...methods.com>
Subject: RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor

I don't think Jeremy was arguing that "killing free enterprise" is a
reason not to do something; it's the reason given by the people who oppose
scrutiny in this area.

This is a common political tactic, if you oppose something, you pick
something in the argument that's off-topic or even irrelevant and then
thrash it. So in this case if people are asking for open source voting
software, the rebuttal that comes back is: "you're killing free
enterprise" and the argument stops dead. You can't win an argument like
this because they can't and won't address the underlying reason for the
call for open source (ie. integrity in voting systems).

If you ask for VVPATs, you can't rebutt it with an argument that
misdirects into an esoteric debate about open source. You can only rebutt
by speaking to the issue. So they have to come up with a reason why they
don't want VVPATs and it might be a good reason or a lame reason. And this
is what you want: proper debate.

When you are dealing with something political you need to go right to the
heart of the matter and not get emotional or try to load up the issue with
other things. In this case, it seems to me that open source is one way to
achieve a certain result, but the "way" is not the issue, the "result" is.
You have to argue about the "result".

Geoff Vass

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wouters [mailto:paul@...net.nl]
Sent: Monday, 27 September 2004 20:56
To: Jeremy Epstein
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jeremy Epstein wrote:

> (1) I agree that source code should be inspected by someone truly
> independent and competent, and that the standards for approving voting
> machines should be stronger.  However, that's NOT the same as open
source.
> And I'd strongly discourage folks from calling for open source, as it
plays
> directly into the hands of folks like Diebold, who claim that the people
> (like me) who want Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) are really
> trying to kill free enterprise.

Free enterprise is not the issue here. Audit trails are. If it means that
somewhere someone cannot make a profit, then so be it. Unless you declare
democracy dead, and instate the Corporate Republic. The 'free market'
should not be a main consideration in voting security. If you cannot relay
that message to your government, then either you or your government is not
the right one for its task.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (3065 bytes)