I haven't said much about the ongoing flap regarding Diebold's electronic voting equipment (reg. req'd.). I don't have objections to electronic voting per se, and there are plenty of other bloggers on the beat. However, Diebold's behavior is becoming so egregious that it requires some comment:

I will leave the discussion of free speech vs. copyright in this instance to others. Instead, let's talk about the asininity of a company whose value rests on trust going out of its way to destroy that trust by appearing to have something to hide. If you've only heard of Diebold in the context of voting machines, note that it also has a larger business focused on banking systems, particularly ATMs. Pay some attention when you're collecting your new format $20 bills, and you might observe their brand on the machine. Now, do you feel better or worse about the security of your money in that bank, having observed Diebold's corporate behavior in the context of voting machines? How do you think banking management will react next time they have to pick a vendor? How to destroy a brand, in one easy lesson. Would some battle scarred veteran at Intel please take the Diebold execs to dinner and pound them with a clue stick?

The entire premise of the flap is appalling in its own way. I obviously have no problem with the concept of intellectual property in the form of code, but for pity's sake, is there another place in a republic where it's more important that tools must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair than in voting equipment? Why isn't there a Federal level review board whose certification is required for all electronic equipment to be used in elections with Federal offices at stake? Any good reason why some of our tax dollars being spent by the NSA shouldn't support a few of their deepest security analysts seconded to that board, to work over the vendors' code bases? For that matter, isn't this the paradigm case where 'security by obscurity' is downright wrong, where the code should be openly published for analysis? And if the algorithms can't stand open scrutiny, what's that tell us?
5:36:26 PM    

This will undoubtedly do wonders for Bluetooth's word of mouth.

Via BoingBoing
10:41:57 AM    

Over at Robert Prather's place. Something to amuse or offend every point of view. Give it a look.
10:05:29 AM