On 10 Nov, 09:08, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:41:37 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > NY Rejects E-Voting, DOJ Trying to Force The Issue
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| In March 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New York to comply with
> >| HAVA. Now, the DOJ is serving a motion to try to take away New York's right
> >| to select and acquire their own voting machine systems - in effect, to force
> >| e-voting machines on New York anyway.
> > `----
>
> >http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/09/1831248&from=rss
>
> > Watch how Microsoft tried to block NYC from using open source voting systems
> > (link at the bottom).
>
> Stop lying Roy. Stop it. You're not doing yourself, or Linux advocacy any
> good. You think by seperating your claim and putting a link further down
> that people won't bother to actually read it, so you can lie your ass off.
>
> The fact is, your link below does *NOT* try to block NYC from using open
> source voting systems. At best, it tries to block requirements for escrow
> of closed source code. It has *NOTHING* to do with open source. Nothing.
> And your lying to make it appear so is just pathetic.
>
> You're crossing over into Rex territory here.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> > Microsoft Muscles the NYS Legislature
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| Microsoft's proposed change to state law would effectively render
> >| our current requirements for escrow and the ability for independent
> >| review of source code in the event of disputes completely meaningless
> >| - and with it the protections the public fought so hard for.
> > `----
>
> >http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html
>
> Now where in that article does it say *ANYTHING* about blocking the use of
> open source voting systems? It doesn't. you're lying. As usual. In
> fact, it's quite the opposite. Microsoft's refusal to allow it's code to
> be escrowed should ENCOURAGE the use of open source software voting
> systems, but for some reason nobody seems to want to step up to the plate
> with that (not even open source companies like Red Hat, or open source
> friendly companies like IBM or Oracle).
>
>
>
> > Also in New York:
>
> > State legislators keep e-voting apps in public hands
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| Microsoft, whose Windows software is used in some of the vendors' devices,
> >| sought to amend the law to avoid the strict escrow provisions.
> >|
> >| [...]
> >|
> >| But Lipari had his worries before the matter was resolved. Earlier
> >| this month, in his blog, he called Microsoft the "800-pound gorilla
> >| of software development" as he called attention to its plans. Microsoft,
> >| he said, had been steadily lobbying legislators and circulating an
> >| unsigned document that would redefine the law.
> > `----
>
> >http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/062507-state-legislators-keep-e-v...
>
> Again, nowhere is microsoft trying to block open source voting systems.
It seems to me that there is an open source aspect to this. In the
article you quote, it says: "Microsoft's proposed change to state law
would effectively render our current requirements for ... the ability
for independent review of source code in the event of disputes
completely meaningless." That suggests to me that Microsoft do not
want source code to be reviewed in the event of disputes - they want
the source to be closed.
And anyway, why the hell is Microsoft proposing the law change? I'd
have thought voting system law is there to serve the interests of the
voters, not the manufacturers of voting systems.
|
|
