Is it just a conspiracy theory or is it actually possible?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Again, these things are tested Thoroughly, by many people (independant ones too)

The same could be said for just about everything, like for example, Internet Explorer. Are you telling me that process guarantees that there are no exploits.

[storm1977 0]

no.... read my post.
I said no program writen by humans is perfect.
However IE is a bad example....
Many things Microsoft are bad examples.

I use Firefox or Mozilla.... again not perfect, but better!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[wmw999 2,177]

Quote

I said no program writen by humans is perfect.

I specialize in man-rated software; that means that there are errors that can kill people. We try to get as close to perfect as we can.

It's hugely expensive; it starts with spending years (generally) on the requirements to make sure you have all of them captured. Lots of meetings, informal, then formal, to record and address all errors, even perceived ones that most people disagree with.

Then you code it; inspect it; test it; inspect it again; have a highly-controlled delivery process (make sure that no last-minute "enhancements" make it in). For even a small change in an installed base, this can take weeks because of the manpower and study involved.

Then you test it again, using independent testers who are not part of the same organization that developed it -- their purpose is to interpret the requirements in their own way, preferably being as literal as possible. Every error they find has to be formally addressed, analyzed, and corrected. Then the process that allowed the error to be introduced has to be analyzed and corrected.

Then you test it again and again, in increasingly realistic environments.

It takes 3 years (on average) for a change to make it through this process in our shop.

I don't think that the voting machines went through this. They're not perfect, and they're undoubtedly better than Microsoft. But saying they shouldn't be investigated because there's no point is wrong, because with something as important as voting, there's always a point.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think that the voting machines went through this. They're not perfect, and they're undoubtedly better than Microsoft. But saying they shouldn't be investigated because there's no point is wrong, because with something as important as voting, there's always a point.

Given the scrutiny being applied to them, I'd be surprised if they have not indeed gone through similar examination.

[wmw999 2,177]

Quote

Given the scrutiny being applied to them, I'd be surprised if they have not indeed gone through similar examination

They would probably have been too expensive for states to afford if they had gone through all that. I'll bet they went through the steps, but not as many, and not as thorough, and with a far greater faith in the ability of the tools they selected to protect them from silly mistakes.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,476]

>Again, these things are tested Thoroughly, by many people (independant
> ones too)

And again, they will work perfectly on every day except election day (the RTC, or real time clock, knows the date.)

>You know how code works bill.

I do indeed. Useless stuff I put in code a decade ago is still there; if it works, no one messes with it.

>That would make the conspiracy too large and too difficult to maintane IMO.

It would take one man.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>That would make the conspiracy too large and too difficult to maintane IMO.

It would take one man.

Is his name, Jeb?