Microsoft Moves To Change NY State Election Law

myspace-cn sends us to Bo Lipari's blog where it is revealed that Microsoft has moved forcefully into New York State with proposed changes to NY state election law drafted by Microsoft attorneys. A document has been circulating (PDF) among the legislators for a while now. The proposed changes would gut the source-code escrow and review provisions in current law that were hard-fought-for and passed in New York in 2005. Microsoft is siding with the makers of voting machines that run on Windows — the company doesn't want its code inspected by outsiders. From the article: "Now the software giant has gone a step further, not just saying 'we won't comply with your law' but actively trying to change state law to serve their corporate interests... Adding insult to injury, these changes are being slipped into a bill that may be voted on Monday or Tuesday, June 18 or 19."

Wrong

[Ramble (940291)]

No matter how sympathetic I am to Microsoft and no matter how much I like Vista. This should be illegal and it is most certainly wrong. Lets hope that NY state officials have the sense to stick with open source software.

Re:Wrong

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

Companies lobby all the time to get laws changed in their favor. This is just "business as usual."

The real cure is electoral reform, including campaign financing. As long as "lawmakers" (I use the term liberally) can be tempted by companies with deep pockets and the hope of a seat on the board of directors after the bums are thrown out, this will just keep happening.

This is a symptom, not the disease itself.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

Could you name one issue where current law diverges from majority opinion, backed by some recent survey?

Re:Wrong

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

"Could you name one issue where current law diverges from majority opinion, backed by some recent survey?"

Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that companies have more "access" to legislators than the electorate does.

Electoral laws need reform.

But since you asked - the current war in Iraq. Current law funds it - current public opinion is that the invasion was a mistake and to get out.

Another one - the deficit. Current law says its okay to run huge deficits, and to keep raising the legal deficit ceiling. public opinion is WTF [ttp]

The debt ceiling was raised just over a year ago. It's going to have to be raised again in the VERY near future.

Ten trillion or bust? More like Ten trillion AND bust!

Re:Wrong

[Martin Blank (154261)]

The Democrats control both houses and would have already done this if they didn't think it would get them kicked out of office at the next election.

No, that's a balance of power issue. Pulling the troops won't hurt the Democrats in the next elections -- not as a whole, anyway -- but Bush will veto any bill that contains a deadline, and Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority on the topic. What ends up happening (theoretically) is that the troops eventually don't get supplies, and due to that the Democrats get hurt. The president simply has the upper hand on this issue, regardless of the feeling of the populace or the majority party in Congress.

Re:Wrong

[daeg (828071)]

I think having full "cvs blame" on ALL legislation would be a great start to complete overhaul.

Currently we can see some of the evolution of a bill into law, but much of the direct personal responsibility is masked by committee changes. A lawmaker would be far, far more careful if he knew everyone (media, citizens, etc) could see exactly what changes he made, and when.

The "when" is important, for instance, a change of a bill a day before being voted on should be a major red flag.

Re:Wrong

[Original Replica (908688)]

I would like to see reform go even farther. How about, "only one specific topic per bill" no tagging anything on any bill, ever. There would be no need for a line item veto, because there would ever only be one line item. With the enormous bloat of our legislation we don't need to worry about the efficiency with which more law can be passed. But we do need to have clarity in what is being proposed, and voted on.

Re:Wrong

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

A lawmaker would be far, far more careful if he knew everyone (media, citizens, etc) could see exactly what changes he made, and when.

I have the impression there's a name [transparency.org] for that.
BTW, I think Slashdot and Transparency Intl. should collaborate more closely. Just a thought.

That is why we should have stuck with paper ballot

[Attila Dimedici (1036002)]

This is just one more reason we should have stuck with the paper ballot. Despite all the complaints about the 2000 election, there was a clear paper trail to follow. I do not believe that there is any way to make an electronic ballot that there is a way to make it so that the average person could be confident that the vote wasn't rigged. Even with open source software, unless you compiled the code yourself (or at least were present when it was compiled), how do you know that the "open" code is actually what they installed on the machine?

Microsoft shouldn't be in the voting business

[cyberianpan (975767)]

Any form of eVoting will raise trust issues. Without source code there cannot be trust of a complex computer program - testing won't work. E.g. maybe only when sysdate is 15.May.2009 will a particular "feature" manifest. Microsoft are a closed source firm so they shouldn't go near eVoting.

Re:

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

What's the big deal? It's already a BLUE state...

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Testing with source code or inspection doesn't work either.

The only thing that works is a verifiable paper trail, so arguing about open vs. closed source on voting machines is totally moot.

Re:Microsoft shouldn't be in the voting business

[Tatarize (682683)]

This is a match made in heaven though. The mission critical nature of eVoting combined with the fantastic security of Microsoft.

There's a reason so many Computer Scientists oppose eVoting, we think we could steal an election if we tried... and that's just a wee bit too easy.

Re:Microsoft shouldn't be in the voting business

[QuantumG (50515)]

The only thing that keeps the voting system honest is *people* who care more about the accuracy of the results than whether or not a particular party wins. In other words: little old ladies, and they're not the ones pushing for these devices. They're perfectly happy to keep counting the slips of paper.

rent-a-center, or Rent a Senator?

[v1 (525388)]

these changes are being slipped into a bill that may be voted on Monday or Tuesday, June 18 or 19."

Can someone explain why it is that politicians are allowed to "slip" completely unrelated items into bills that must be voted on all-or-nothing? They do this all the time, tacking on things that only a small minority want, onto a bill that is important and that everyone is going to pass because the main item is needed by most/all.

One reason I could see is if they believed that congress moved too slow to be able to vote on everything unless things were bundled like this. That's a sad excuse still.

The other reason I could see is that there may be too many cases where it was impossible to get a majority vote on any single issue without puting something into the pot for several different interests to help the bill pass.

Anyway, what is this process by which they can just tack on other unrelated provisions? And who gets to say what gets added? Just pay off a senator and it's in basically?

Re:rent-a-center, or Rent a Senator?

[quacking duck (607555)]

They're called riders [wikipedia.org].

Slashdotters may remember software patent proponents in Europe tried attaching a rider to an agriculture and fisheries bill a few years back allowing them. Because you know, software patents are SO relevant to fish stocks and pig farmers.

These damn things should be outlawed. The supposed benefits are far outweighed by those that think nothing of abusing the good intention of riders ("think of the children!" "it's to fight terrorists!")

microsoft for president!

[widget54 (888141)]

Lets cut out the well bribed middlemen and just elect corporations to run the country...think of the money it would save them!!!

how convenient

[hxnwix (652290)]

* Voting machine manufacturers want their code closed so that they can take bribes for deciding the winner.

* Microsoft wants their code closed in order to protect lock-in.

* Those in power take bribes from Microsoft and the voting machine manufacturers, and moreover, they want to be able to hand their offices to friends and supporters when their own terms are up.

Summary: things are happening that appear to be motivated by agendas antithetical to democracy.

Used car salesman

[sjames (1099)]

When the used car salesman if performing gymnastics to guide your eyes away from some aspect of the car, that's where you'd BETTER look if you don't want to be ripped off.

What we have here is a salesman who is desperate to keep us from examining the source of the OS.

Corporatism

[k1e0x (1040314)]

Here in Soviet Amerika, Microsoft and Haliburton write our laws. This is Corporatism, its Mercantilism, and its evil.. If we let it continue we will find ourselves homeless in the country our forefathers conquered.

Contact your NY state representative...

[feranick (858651)]

From Bo Lipari's blog:

"Take Action Now - It's urgent that you call your State Senator and Assembly representatives on Monday, June 18, at their Albany offices, and tell them they must not weaken New York State's escrow and review requirements. Remind them that the Legislature passed a strong law 2 years ago - they must not give in to pressure by voting machine vendors to undermine those protections.

Find your Assembly member's contact information here:
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/ [state.ny.us]
(Not sure who your Assembly member is? Click here to search by Zip Code)

Find your State Senator's contact information here:
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/s enators?OpenForm [state.ny.us]
(Not sure who your State Senator is? Click here to search by Zip Code)"

Why an OS?

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

Why an OS for an appliance computer? (Because a voting machine is basically an appliance computer).

I mean, what does a voting machine needs to do? Read a keyboard (or touch screen), write to a display device, print a receipt/results, read and write to a RAM card (to get the candidates and put the results).

So why do you need a whole goddammed operating system to do that? Are programmers becoming sufficiently incompetent to be unable to do those basic I/O tasks from scratch???

What's so difficult in booting from ROM? Set stack pointers, memory access registers, jump to start of POST routine and go.

It's not very hard at all.

So why do you need schwindoze (or schlinux) to do all those basic things????

Re:Life, liberty, and the pursuit of blogs.

[BakaHoushi (786009)]

It sounds like the only way to solve America's growing problem of corporations taking over is... a good old fashioned rumble.

Microsoft v. Wal*Mart!
GE v. Disney!
Halliburton v. Exxon-Mobile!

This sunday, sunday, SUNDAY, watch white collar workers get red in the face and a bad case of the Mondays! Marketers place ads all OVEr each other's faces! Accountants will be adding up plenty of lumps!

And for the finale, Steve Ballmer v. Eisner! Hold on to your seats, because somebody is gonna get CEOwned!

Re:Un. Bee. Leev. A. Bull.

[HermMunster (972336)]

This is just something Microsoft will have to live with. If they want to provide access to software for that sort of device and that sort of service they need to make the code accessible to the proper authorities, otherwise stay out of that business.

Re:Hahaha... these Americans...

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

I know they would still vote Bill Gates for president.

Not Gates, Ballmer.

I'd say if Microsoft gets away with this, there's a damn good chance McCain'll be your next President.

"the 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected."
http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/05/30/mccai n-comes-out-against-net-neutrality-says-would-hire -microsoft-ceo-steve-ballmer/ [thedailybackground.com]

Conflict of interests? What conflict of interests?