On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 10:05, pressinfo@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > In-Reply-To: <20040831203815.13871.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Diebold strongly refutes the existence of any "back doors" or "hidden > codes" in its GEMS software. These inaccurate allegations appear to > stem from those not familiar with the product, misunderstanding the > purpose of legitimate structures in the database. These structures > are well documented and have been reviewed (including at a source code > level) by independent testing authorities as required by federal > election regulations.
And the reason that something this critical isn't open source so that *everyone* that wants to audit it can is? There is no way I will use one of those to process my vote till it has been proven to not have back doors. Independent testers are nice, but not enough to prove beyond a doubt that there are no hidden entries, and that 1 + 1 still = 2 in your calculations. Especially with the way this election year is going, I don't trust *anyone*. Just my 2 cents worth.
-- Homer Parker /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign BOFH for homershut.net \ / No HTML/RTF in email http://www.homershut.net x No Word docs in email telnet://bbs.homershut.net / \ Respect for open standards
"Bill Gates reports on security progress made and the challenges ahead." -- Microsoft's Homepage, on the day an SQL Server bug crippled large sections of the Internet.