|
|
|
|
|
|
by cottsak
4352 days ago
|
|
|
@mjec, "I am advised that publication of the software could leave the voting system open to hacking or manipulation" Shouldn't this "advice" demand substantiation or evidence? Surely it's not enough for one to just get "advice" right? If so then any Joe could lie to this officer and they could write the same thing. Also, what does that bit about "commercial-in-confidence" mean? |
|
|
I think so, and evidently so do others. Already a gentleman by the name of Brendan Molloy has put in an FOI request for the documents on which this advice was based: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/documents_informing_t...
> Also, what does that bit about "commercial-in-confidence" mean?
The AEC does conduct some elections on a fee-for-service basis - things like union elections. They use a version of the same system to tally votes in those elections too. They say that the two systems are totally inseparable, to the point where you can't just cut out the code used in industrial elections. They also say revealing the code (though keep in mind it would still be copyrighted, so couldn't be used by any other organisation) would cause them significant commercial disadvantage. Because they have particular efficiency in the way their software operates which causes them to be more competitive.
As you might suspect, I disagree with pretty much every part of what they claim there.