by ferros on 11/28/20, 1:06 AM with 7 comments
If voting software and machines were government owned and they wished to open source the software for the sake of transparency - would there be any good reason not to do this?
There would no doubt be some benefits to making the code publicly accessible, a lot of which we see from the open source world already.
Are there any risks that would outweigh some of the benefits of open-sourcing or making code visible?
I’m trying to counterbalance the argument for open source code.
by Foober223 on 11/28/20, 1:05 PM
The only reason to keep the source private is for obscurity. Making it harder to hack. It's not a good reason though. For things with high value and motivation to hack, hiding the source doesn't do much. The final compiled code can be treated as "source", read and understood, then hacked.
by crx07 on 11/28/20, 1:48 AM
by approxim8ion on 11/29/20, 8:53 AM
a) can't verify that the software made available to you is what is running on the machine you use and every single one being used?
b) can't compile it yourself before use?
by ThePowerOfFuet on 11/28/20, 6:44 PM
No.
by schwartzworld on 11/28/20, 2:59 AM
by probinso on 12/1/20, 3:13 AM