E-Voting: Paul Krugman: Fear of Fraud:
It’s election night, and early returns suggest trouble for the incumbent. Then, mysteriously, the vote count stops and observers from the challenger’s campaign see employees of a voting-machine company, one wearing a badge that identifies him as a county official, typing instructions at computers with access to the vote-tabulating software.
When the count resumes, the incumbent pulls ahead. The challenger demands an investigation. But there are no ballots to recount, and election officials allied with the incumbent refuse to release data that could shed light on whether there was tampering with the electronic records.
This isn’t a paranoid fantasy. It’s a true account of a recent election in Riverside County, Calif., reported by Andrew Gumbel of the British newspaper The Independent.
Here is Gumbel’s account. It’s quite simply crazy:
On March 4, Floyd and Cassel saw the second Sequoia employee, Eddie Campbell, return to the registrar’s office and watched him pop into his pocket what looked like a PCMCIA card similar to those used to store votes on individual touchscreen machines. The Sequoia AVC Edge machines do not make a paper record of individual votes, and any record of total votes for a potential recount — vital in a race separated only by 45 votes — would only be stored on that kind of card.
Floyd shouted out: ‘Where are you going with that?’ But he received no answer.
Incredible.
Comments closed
Patents in an open source world
Patents: Newsforge: Patents in an open source world, by Lawrence Rosen (founding partner of Rosenlaw and Einschlag).
Interesting article, but I’m not sure summary point number 2 (‘continue to document our own “prior art” to prevent others from patenting things they weren’t the first to invent’) really helps, when the patent examiners clearly haven’t performed the simplest Google check. I’ve found obvious prior art in 30 seconds, by plugging 3 words from patent claims into Google in the past (and yes, I have a reasonable idea how to read patent claims by now).
Point number 3 is interesting, since it contradicts most other advice I’ve read regarding patent searches: ‘Conduct a reasonably diligent search for patents we might infringe. At least search the portfolios of our major competitors. (This, by the way, is also a great way to make sure we’re aware of important technology advances by our competitors.) Maintain a commercially reasonable balance between doing nothing about patents and being obsessed with reviewing every one of them.’
However, this comment really is interesting and raises something major that I’d never heard of before — users of proprietary software can also face a significant risk from the patent threat. In particular, according to the linked comment, Microsoft licensed some patented technology from a company called Timeline Inc., but the license was not sublicenseable — in other words, it did not grant their customers the rights to fully use the technology! (in fairness to MS, this was established later in court.) Result: href=”http://trends.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=39443&cid=96153″>MS SQL server OEMs and ISVs are now being sued.
Comments closed