FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why We Need "Free Software" Voting Machines

by JEFF NICHOLSON-OWENS

Recently the New York Times carried an article by David Pogue endorsing what he called “open-source” voting machines–electronic voting machines running on software anyone can share and modify. The term “open-source” comes from the open source movement, a software development methodology which encourages wider dissemination of a computer program’s source code (the human-readable version of a program) so that bugs can be fixed faster and with less cost by leveraging the talent of the world’s programmers. The sentiment Pogue’s article expresses is laudable even if all the details in the article are specious–we do need voting machines we can trust and we need them before we run elections.

However, you can’t make voting machines more trustworthy by making source code to them available. The benefits for sharing and modifying voting machine source code lie elsewhere. The situation with voting machines (and any other publicly-used computer) is different than for computers which you control (like a home computer at your home). This doesn’t mean voting machine software should be proprietary– it should not be–it means that voters should not feel more confident in a voting machine because someone somewhere has access to share and modify the voting machine source code.

For computers you don’t control, computers where you don’t get the ability to inspect and modify the hardware and all of the software (like a voting machine or a public kiosk computer terminal), you will never know if software you trust is running. So you need a way to trust that that machine does what you want it to do and nothing else (voter-verified paper ballots perform this function for voting machines). Just the opposite is true for computers which you control completely (like a home computer). On your home computer you can change software, replace parts, reformat hard drives, and so on until you arrive at something that you trust.

A vibrant community of hackers (I’m using the word in the traditional sense of playful cleverness, not the mass-media sense referring to a ne’er-do-well) doing work on voting machine software will not help you to be totally sure that your votes will be recorded and counted accurately. But their work can help you know that your tax money is going toward something that will last because we can become more self-sufficient when we have the ability to improve our voting machines. We will no longer need to rely on a monopoly for software improvements and bug fixes (all software proprietors are monopolies because any bug fixes or improvements must come from only from them). There are talented computer programmers and hackers around the world who can chime in with help as well. A county could also hire consultants to modify the software. Like the NYT article says, this is an opportunity to benefit from the talents of a (justifiably) untrusting bunch of people.

But Pogue gets some things wrong: that article talks about how the “Linux operating system” has been shared and modified with a similar ethic– people around the world develop and share improvements ad hoc and collectively we benefit from a better system. But Linux is not an operating system and it never was; Linux is a portion of an operating system called a kernel. Also, championing sharing and modifying computer source code for ethical reasons did not start with the open source movement, in fact that movement mainly exists to benefit businesses. The copyright license that the Linux kernel is licensed under (called the GNU General Public License or GNU GPL) builds on the concept of share-and-share-alike; everyone can share copies of the Linux kernel and modify it to suit their needs so long as they pass on the same freedom to share and modify that they received. This license was the legal basis of the free software movement, a social movement which started over a decade before the open source movement. The “free” in free software movement refers to freedom, not price. By contrast, software proprietors extend no freedom to share and modify software (Microsoft’s Windows, for example, is a proprietary operating system; you are not allowed to share a copy of it with your friends, you cannot inspect its operation without source code, and you cannot prepare improved versions of Microsoft Windows or share them). But I think that Pogue’s heart is in the right place. We need accountability and we need to collectively check for and fix problems or improve the software in any way we deem necessary. The way to do this is with software which we all have the freedom to share and modify. The comparison to Microsoft (and all other proprietors) is apt– Microsoft will not share the source code to their operating system so nobody but Microsoft can really determine how it works.

We need complete source code for voting machines because we will want to make the machines do things that they weren’t designed to do. This could mean fixing bugs or adding features which we didn’t think of at the time we bought the machines. What if the county or state switches to an instant run-off voting system? What if same-day registration is made legal and we need to improve the software to deal with more voters? Nobody can know where all the bugs are and nobody can predict perfectly what features we’ll need. So you need all of the source code to the machine to be able to prepare for the unexpected. It would be horrible to learn that you can’t have a more progressive voting system because the voting machine proprietor is unwilling to cooperate with your needs.

But having a copy of the complete source code for the voting machine software not enough. We also need the source code to be licensed under an irrevocable license that permits sharing and modification under any circumstances so that we can legally make changes and legally share the program for our mutual benefit. Anything less than this is bad news and we should not pay for the machines until we get what we need. It would be awful to discover that we can only look at the source code, not modify it or share it with people who are willing to help us. The GNU General Public License is a fine license for this task because it uses copyright law in a clever way (called a “copyleft”) to make sure that the freedom to share and modify a program are never separated from the program.

I am on the voting machine recommendation committee for Champaign county in Illinois and I’ve brought up these concerns to the my committee. So far the voting machine recommendation committee has arrived at a consensus that we need a voter-verified paper ballot (and we’ve seen one pair of machines supplies this– fully human-readable paper ballots which can be hand-counted after the election). Our voting machine recommendation will go to the county board. The county board will make the final decision on what to purchase and then the county board will sign a contract with a vendor. Thus the county board holds the real power.

I want to make it a point of the purchase contract that we will receive complete source code under a free software license. Logically, there shouldn’t be any objection to this request from the machine manufacturers (ostensibly the copyright holder on the source code to their machines) because they will have our money when we purchase their machines. Diebold (makers of the troublesome touchscreen machines you have probably read or heard about) is an exception– Diebold’s machines run a variant of Microsoft Windows. Microsoft will most likely not share complete source code to any Microsoft Windows operating system with us. They will probably not do so under a free software license. Hence Diebold most likely cannot satisfy our need for complete corresponding source code to the voting machine software. I think that the recommendation committee can take a big step in the right direction by recommending a voter-verifiable paper ballot system which we all have the freedom to inspect, modify, and share. This system need not be a Diebold system, but fortunately there are other voting machines out there. In time, with effort and a focus on our social and electoral needs, we can arrive at a voting system we can trust which is not dictated to us by a for-profit institution.

JEFF NICHOLSON-OWENS (“Dr. NO”) is a computer consultant in Champaign, Illinois, and conducts the radio program “Digital Citizen” on community station WEFT-FM. He can be reached at jbn@forestfield.org.

Copyright 2004 J.B. Nicholson-Owens Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
W. T. Whitney
The Fate of Prisoner Simón Trinidad, as Seen by His U. S. Lawyer
Brian Platt
Don’t Just Oppose ICE Raids, Tear Down the Whole Racist Immigration Enforcement Regime
Paul Cantor
Refugee: the Compassionate Mind of Egon Schwartz
Norman Richmond
The Black Radical Tradition in Canada
Barton Kunstler
Rallying Against the Totalitarian Specter
Judith Deutsch
Militarism:  Revolutionary Mothering and Rosie the Riveter
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir Evoked a Lot More International Attention in the 1950s Than It Does Now
Adam Phillips
There Isn’t Any There There
Louis Proyect
Steinbeck’s Red Devils
Randy Shields
Left Coast Date: the Dating Site for the ORWACA Tribe
Charles R. Larson
Review: Bill Hayes’ “Insomniac City”
David Yearsley
White Supremacy and Music Theory
February 16, 2017
Peter Gaffney
The Rage of Caliban: Identity Politics, the Travel Ban, and the Shifting Ideological Framework of the Resistance
Ramzy Baroud
Farewell to Doublespeak: Israel’s Terrifying Vision for the Future
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail