Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday June 15 2015, @12:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the conflict-of-interest dept.

Roy Schestowitz at TechRights reports:

Microsoft wages war on politics in all sorts of ways, sometimes through lobbyists, sometimes through 'former' staff, pseudo 'charities' like the Gates Foundation, and pressure groups like the Business Software Alliance.

Today we present information given to us courtesy of the California Association of Voting Officials. They complain about Microsoft lobbyists and they have expressed an interest in aligning for global issues, for they too realise that Microsoft cannot be ignored if society wants fair elections and ultimately pursues voting machinery that can be trusted.

Microsoft lobbying in this area is a scarcely explored topic. There is very little information about it out there, hence we hardly ever covered the topic. It is widely known, however, that voting machines in the US use Windows, which has back doors and therefore can never be trusted, with or without tampering by a human operator.

[...]Somehow, despite public will to induce transparency, accountability, audits, etc. on the process, decades later we are still [...] heavily dependent on a proprietary, secretive system (or set thereof).

[...]"We put open source language into voting system legislation", told us [sic] someone from the California Association of Voting Officials, "and the Microsoft lobbyists have it removed.

"This must be stopped as OS voting systems are a preferred security environment for vote tabulation... the alternative being Diebold / Dominion / Microsoft, etc."[...]

The head attorneys for President Obama's election report (which omitted open source voting system solutions even though the information was gifted to them) work for firms that lobby and/or represent Microsoft (Bob Bauer of Perkins Coie and Ben Ginsburg of Pattons Boggs/Jones Day)

Nate Persily was tasked with presenting the President with all information...but inexplicably failed to include any reference to open source in the report. When asked about this omission--and possible steps to remedy (addendum etc)--Persily went silent.

No members of the Presidential Committee were responsive...

In California--which is the frontline of the battle for open source voting systems in the USA--the lobbyist for the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials Barry Brokaw is also the lobbyist for Microsoft


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by orasio on Monday June 15 2015, @02:12PM

    by orasio (5302) on Monday June 15 2015, @02:12PM (#196490)

    What he said.

    Auditing is possible, open and easy for most voters, if you use paper. For electronic vote, it's impossible for closed systems, practically impossible for open ones.
    Universal accessibility is a lot easier to assess when dealing with paper. If anything, we have extensive experience there.
    Paper is a lot harder to forge than electronic, it just scales harder.

    Counting electronic votes is potentially faster than paper, but counting paper votes takes just a couple of hours per circuit. It's well worth the effort.

    Electronic preliminary counting, and electronic gathering of results, that can be a good thing, but actual electronic ballots have no use for a democratic election.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2