Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

Re: Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

Crosbie Fitch — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:47:23 -0000

A machine cannot be a voting machine unless its workings (and source code) are visible and available for scrutiny by the public.

All other such machines are not voting machines and do not convey votes. Anything output from them must be discounted (fit at most for polls).

The judge is right.

Just because you use a non-transparent tool for a job that requires a transparent one, doesn't grant you a right to the toolmaker's trade secrets. However, there could be some redress if the tool was unfit for its described purpose.

One must doubt the competence of the party who procured the machine - whether they have a complete grasp of democracy and its requirements for transparency.

Re: Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

Steve_R — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:38:41 -0000

Gary: The government is an entity, just like a private corporation and is entitled to the same rights. If their is no legal doctrine that computer code developed under a government contract is in the public domain, then by logical extension there is NO legal doctrine that places the code in the ownership of the company either. In that case there can be no such thing as a "trade secret".

To use another example. I hire an architect to design a house. I pay him for that work and the drawings. Does the architect now have the right to sell those drawings and keep all the money collected for himself?

Re: Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

Monty Python — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:33:29 -0000

Dennis: Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!

Arthur: (Grabbing him by the collar) Shut up, will you. Shut up!

Dennis: Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.

Arthur: Shut up!

Re: Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

Gary McGath — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:01:22 -0000

Steve R. writes: "If the code was developed as a result of a government contract, the code belongs in the public domain." This is simply wrong. There is no legal doctrine that says that all computer code developed under government contract is in the public domain.

enigma_foundry writes: "Yes, another example of corporate property rights trumping such outmoded concepts such as freedom of the press or free and fair elections." Freedom of the press is itself an instance of those "corporate property rights" you despise. It does not imply the right to be given information.

Governments should not be using voting machines based on secret code. But when they do it, they (and we) are stuck with the consequences of that decision.

Whether there are any good solutions is questionable. Even if Jennings is a highly qualified software engineer and gets the code, that isn't likely to do her much good, as program bugs are very hard to spot just by reading the code. The problem is with not having an independent audit trail built into the system.

Re: Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

eee_eff — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:35:02 -0000

Yes, another example of corporate property rights trumping such outmoded concepts such as freedom of the press or free and fair elections.

It is part of a treend, and the moniker of 'Corporate Fascism' is entirely deserved.

Re: Trade Secrets Trump Election Transparency

Steve_R — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:56:21 -0000

I hope that everyone had a great Christmas or Hanukah and that we will have a tremendous new year.

Besides the obvious logical flaw exposed by Tim there is the issue of the company's so-called "trade secrets". If the code was developed as a result of a government contract, the code belongs in the public domain. Given that scenario, Jennings, as well as anyone else, should have a right to examine the code.

I would also advocate that any government that considers buying the software (even if it was not developed at government expense) should insist (before the software is bought) that the code be available for public scrutiny.