First, the conduct of elections is of interest to every citizen, and if computers are used to record, cast, store, handle, and count votes, then all software used should be completely open.
Second, if non-disclosure agreements are to be required, they should be administered simply as they are in other industries, and should explicitly allow disclosure in the event of discovering evidence that the law has been broken.
Third, commercial interests of vendors are already protected by provisions in the contracts of sale, and there is no public benefit served by creating additional legal protection for the secrecy of software used in voting systems.
9e. Protection of commercial interests
The EAC shall develop a process with manufacturers and holders of intellectual property to ensure protection of their commercial interests.[37] Other stakeholders such as states, parties, and citizens, have no right to know how our elections are conducted.
Wrong!
Democracy requires citizens to know and meaningfully observe how their votes are handled and counted, and if the votes are handled and counted by software, that software has to be public knowledge and open to public scrutiny.
Solution
Eliminate this section on disclosure.
9f. Ballot Definition Files
The software to be protected from disclosure includes ballot definition files.[38]
Wrong!
Ballot definition files must be routinely inspected before and after all elections by candidates, and should be publicly available at all times.
Solution
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
