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

[Paul Gardner-Stephen]

Sorry, a corollary to what I have said above is that we should launch a
project to write a suite of open-source electoral counting software (if it
doesn't already exist).

I'd be happy to stand up and talk about this at LCA with a view to
launching a community effort to create such software if we thought it
useful.  I am also totally happy if someone else wishes to take the lead,
rather than add something extra to my plate.

Paul.


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Paul Gardner-Stephen <
paul at servalproject.org> wrote:

> 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/20140731/1b04dfea/attachment-0001.htm