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) by VLM on Monday June 15 2015, @03:33PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:33PM (#196538)

    I have no real comment as to absolute level. As to relative level, yeah, I'd stand by those strategies being the best and most likely.

    Now if we had un-auditable windows PCs full of malware, then that would be the best bet, but not having them, the relatively best strategy is going to be as listed above.

    Aside from obvious legal hacks against the election process like gerrymandering.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:53PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:53PM (#196899) Journal

    I have no real comment as to absolute level. As to relative level, yeah, I'd stand by those strategies being the best and most likely.

    I looked into this quite a bit as my home state was trying to pass one of those voter ID measures a few years back. Nobody researching this issue has ever found even one single documented instance of this kind of voter fraud. People don't submit fraudulent votes in person, except by accident (ie, signing the wrong line in the poll book.) The risk is too high, and the reward of a single vote is far too low.