[Media] [LACTTE] Fw: Re: [Linux-aus] Grant request: Contribution to Senate voting source code FOI request review.

[Paul Gardner-Stephen]

Hello,

A related thing we may wish to consider is if the AEC don't wish to reveal
their source code, that they offer some mechanism for 3rd party systems to
be feed the votes that the AEC receives to allow verification of counting.
 That way they can have their precious source code, but democracy is still
upheld.

Of course, a problem that seems to be indirectly revealed in this is that
the AEC don't seem to have separated the network elements, i.e., the
electronic transmission of votes to the AEC counting system, from the
system that does the counting.  It may well be that this is what they are
trying to hide -- that a buffer overrun in their network code could
compromise the counting software.

Paul.


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Linux Australia Secretary <
secretary at linux.org.au> wrote:

>  So, coming at this from a Media and Subcommittee Team perspective (CC'd)
> this may be a very good opportunity for Linux Australia to write a Press
> Release around the issue, with the following messaging;
>
> - we support the release of the source code for transparency and deeper
> scrutiny
> - drawing the conclusion that if we can't see the mechanisms of
> government, how can we trust them?
> - denouncing the treatment of Michael Cordover as inappropriate and
> massive over-reaction
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On 18/07/2014 11:43 PM, Joshua Hesketh wrote:
>
> I absolutely agree :-).
>
> Nobody specific in security comes to mind. We could perhaps reach out to
> the RuxCon community. Otherwise just somebody like Tridge or Rusty may
> be able to weigh in?
>
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
> On 16/07/14 12:21, Josh Stewart wrote:
>
>  On 16 July 2014 at 11:56:56 am, Daniel Jitnah
> (djitnah at greenwareit.com.au <mailto:djitnah at greenwareit.com.au> <djitnah at greenwareit.com.au>) wrote:
>
>
>  Perhaps the Open Source Community should provide "Expert Independent
> advice" that opening software to scrutiny does not open system to
> hacking etc., but much to the contrary.
>
> Most likely many expert opinion can be obtained to counter the position
> taken by the AEC.
>
> LA could be well placed to facilitate the process of obtaining such
> advice.
>
>
> Personally I think this suggestion from Daniel is an excellent one!
>
> Do we know any experts in the community who can comment on the merits of
> being open source when it comes to security?
>
>
> --
> Josh Stewart
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> committee mailing listcommittee at lists.linux.org.auhttp://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/committee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> committee mailing listcommittee at lists.linux.org.auhttp://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/committee
>
>
>
> --
> Kathy Reid
> Secretary
> Linux Australia
> secretary at linux.org.auhttp://linux.org.au
>
>
>
> Linux Australia Inc
> GPO Box 4788
> Sydney NSW 2001
> Australia
>
> ABN 56 987 117 479
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Media mailing list
> Media at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/media
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/media/attachments/20140731/d6d6925c/attachment.htm