On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 22:26, Cathal Mc Ginley wrote:
My letter doesn't advocate a Free Software solution, it criticizes a non-Free Software solution, while also (twice or more) drawing attention to the problem of knowing that the program you've reviewed is the program being used.
Well, my reading of your letter is that it does advocate a free software solution (perhaps I am not appreciating some subtlety, but if I don't - I suspect its intended audience won't either), but even if it didn't, a criticism is largely useless unless you advocate a better idea, so if you aren't advocating a free software solution, why muddy the water?
"Electronic voting is a bad idea - it's the inappropriate use of technology in the wrong place."
I think e-voting ok, but only with a voter verified paper audit trail. Simply saying that nothing should change makes us sound like Luddites, and will only serve to make it easier for them to dismiss us.
The ICTE submissions summary lists 9 instances asking for source code. The possibility of an "open source" solution has been raised in an article in the Irish Times (mentioned by Éibhear).
To be blunt, I really couldn't care less whether the source code is open, provided that there is a voter-verified paper audit trail. Advocating the former can only serve to distract attention from the latter - and that is bad for democracy.
Ian.