Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label source. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label source. Tampilkan semua postingan

Rabu, 23 April 2014

Meet TrustTheVote, A Project To Make Voting Open Source And Transparent

How was your last voting experience? Smooth? Perhaps not. The Open Source Election Technology Foundation wants to change that by making voting simpler and more transparent. Its chief effort, called TrustTheVote, is a push to develop airtight, open-source vote casting and tabulation software that can be paired with off-the-shelf hardware.

Open-source code and off-the-shelf plastic mean that TrustTheVote will, if it meets its goals, sell better, transparent voting machines to precincts at a fraction of the current cost.

Each major election cycle in the United States brings the same whispers: Irregularities in Ohio counties, odd voting machine behavior in Iowa, and constant fringe intrigue about which candidate is getting a secret electronic bump due to a distant relative’s relationship with a voting machine company. It’s not healthy for our democracy.

The democracy space is heating up. News came out this morning that Sean Parker has personally invested more than $9 million into a company designed to shake up American democracy. TrustTheVote has raised around $1.2 million to date in cash and a few million more in in-kind contributions. The group is looking to raise much more to staff up and get its product finished, onto hardware and into the wild of elections as quickly as possible.

TrustTheVote expects to have trials in the field by 2016 and a full rollout by the 2018 midterm election cycle. If that feels like a long way off, keep in mind that building voting technology is slightly harder than building other software — given the massive incentive for attack, the stuff has to be more than bulletproof.

ballot_1_home

UI mockup, via TrustTheVote.

I caught up with Gregory Miller, co-executive director and chief development officer of TrustTheVote, to discuss what ails American voting and his vision for the technology most Americans should use to cast their vote.

(Author’s note: Answers have in some cases been edited for length):

TechCrunch: What’s wrong with current voting machine technology?

Miller: Current voting machines are not high in quality of usability or ideally engineered for maximum disability accessibility. Many are also poorly designed in terms of ease of administration, leading to instances of election dysfunction labeled as “operator error” by voting machine vendors.

The biggest problem is how these machines are engineered to “pencil out” for commercial viability to the vendors. The majority of voting machines are based on technology (hardware and software) that is well over a decade, and in some cases, 20 years old. The technology employed and the innovation resulting is only as good as necessary to make for a profitable machine with a good margin (i.e., return on cost of goods sold). Accordingly, we would not say they are “inept,” but we do argue they are significantly weak if not downright vulnerable to problems, breakdowns, usability issues and compromise.

TechCrunch: Will TrustTheVote lower the potential of voter fraud?

Miller: The TrustTheVote Project work will significantly to increase transparency of elections operations, enabling greater public trust in election results. That transparency includes detailed information about both election administration and voting results and patterns. That information will enable the public to make their own judgment about fraud — both electoral fraud and voter fraud — as informed, fact-based, intellectually honest judgments, rather than in the province of conspiracy theorists.

TechCrunch: Is voter fraud a chronic problem in the United States?

Miller: Candidly, we’re not convinced that the machinery is the real culprit in elections abnormalities, irregularities or suspect results. You may have seen news breaking about voting machines being impounded for digital forensics in Hidalgo County, Texas, this past Wednesday. We believe the root cause of voter fraud or election fraud is social engineering. Today, it is very easy to point to the black box and make it the scapegoat. The TrustTheVote Project Election Technology Framework will turn black box voting into glass box voting, and we think shift the klieg lights off the machinery and on to the human processes.

Fraud has never been documented as anything other than occasional and rare. The same is true of electoral fraud. Admittedly, the perfect fraud, or hack or theft is the one that goes undetected. So we must be vigilant in monitoring, observing and verifying. The perception of belief of significant fraud persists due in part to the lack of any documentation of the actual events that could reveal fraud.

–

It’s an interesting moment for open source technology, given the recent Heartbleed flaw in OpenSSL, but I haven’t yet met someone predicting the end of open source as a method for creating software. And, especially since we’re discussing how to collect and tabulate votes, transparency is a good thing.

The alternative, according to Miller, is to re-up with old technology. According to him, “Voting machinery – the vast majority of what is currently installed across the country – will need to be replaced over the next 4-6 years as they reach the end of their life in terms of physical durability and reliability. Replacement choices (without the kind of alternative we’re developing) will continue to be expensive, closed-proprietary “black box” systems with some of the same weaknesses [emphasis original].”

That, it appears, is part of the reason that TrustTheVote wants to move briskly toward building its platform.

TrustTheVote has larger goals than mere vote tabulation, including analytics and demographics, but the core offering in its larger suite is that of making the process of voting itself unimpeachable, in my view.

The group is looking to raise around $6 million this year to fund its operations. TrustTheVote told TechCrunch that it has $1.3 million in commits so far for the year, including money from Facebook’s former Chief Privacy Office Chris Kelly. The group expects that it needs a total of $24 million over a four-year period to pull off its task. So, it’s looking to bring in $6 million yearly to keep itself afloat. It intends on spending raised funds to hire a number of product managers and build out its engineering team.

TrustTheVote has a cadre of old-school technologists on board, including Pito Salas (Lotus), and Hugh Dubberly (Netscape). In Miller’s view, “election technology framework is like an operating system,” so you need the mental capacity to execute something hard.

I don’t know if TrustTheVote will be able to pull off its goals and ship its open source software on large quantities of off-the-shelf hardware. But the organization’s drive is impressive. Miller believes that the majority of American voters will eventually cast ballots using TrustTheVote technology. By his estimation, that could happen as soon as 2020, a presidential election year.

The voting process in the U.S. will change forever if TrustTheVote can pull it off.

IMAGE BY FLICKR USER Charles16e UNDER CC BY 2.0 LICENSE (IMAGE HAS BEEN CROPPED)

Senin, 21 April 2014

Box Debuts ‘Box Open Source’ To Share Its Internal Tools With The Larger Developer World

Box today unveiled a new initiative called Box Open Source for sharing its own homegrown open source engineering tools with the larger programming community.

The project was announced this afternoon in a company blog post accompanied by a tweet from Box CEO Aaron Levie.

In a joint phone interview today, Levie and Box’s principal technical operations developer Benjamin VanEvery said that the tools being shared today have been in development and used by Box engineers for several years now. “All of these are projects that we’ve used internally, and we’re excited to share with people externally,” VanEvery said. “Some include code that we’ve ported over from our main application trunk, and others are projects we knew others would want from day one, and have been built to one day be able to open up to the community.”

In unveiling such a program, Box joins the likes of Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Netflix and others in having a codified place for participating in the open source community. These kinds of initiatives have a two-pronged purpose: For-profit entities “give back” by sharing their own nifty projects with others outside the company. The companies stand to benefit, too, as their own tools can potentially receive useful contributions from people outside of their own full-time engineering teams.

Box Open Source will have strict standards for maintaining the quality of its projects so that others can count on these tools continuing to work well, VanEvery said. For example, he said, each project on Box Open Source has unit tests included, and Box will reject any pull request that doesn’t include unit tests of its own. “We’ll constantly be running builds,” he said. “Quality is really important.”

The Python programming language is strongly represented in the projects debuting on Box Open Source today, with top billing given to Python-oriented projects such as RotUnicode and Flaky. This makes sense, as the Box Open Source launch coincides with the annual PyCon programming conference being held this weekend in Montreal.

Levie said that we can expect more rollouts in a variety of languages in the months and years ahead. “This is really kicking off a much broader initiative. It’s the first phase of what we think will be a journey to putting out more of our technology in a range of projects in the open source community.”

Senin, 24 Maret 2014

Developers asking for Omate smartwatch source code, MediaTek stalling?

MediaTek MWC 2013 -1

One of the key strengths of the Linux kernel is that it is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), an open source license which gives everyone the right to use and even modify the Linux kernel, with the condition that the source code is made available for any publicly released versions.

Since Android uses the Linux kernel, the GPL license also applies to the versions of Android which are released by OEMs and processor manufacturers. When an OEM or chip maker releases a version of Android which supports their products, they should, according to the GPL, also freely release the source code.

Unfortunately, from time to time, there are companies which don’t release the source code. They seem to have a mentality that their modifications to the source code are proprietary, which they aren’t, and although the Android source code was supplied to them for free, they don’t think they are obliged to give anything back, which actually they are. The GPL basically works on the basis that freely we have received and freely we should give. Without a version of Android for their processor, it is unlikely that they would sell very many units.

MediaTek withholds code for Omate smartwatch

There a millions of devices in the world today which run Linux (with or without Android) and, for the most part, the designers of these products have also released the relevant source code. One new device which is getting a lot of attention is the upcoming Omate TrueSmart, a smart watch which raised over $1 million in funding from Kickstarter.

The device uses a dual-core MediaTek MT6572 and this is where the trouble starts. A campaign has started on the Internet asking MediaTek to release the source code for the Linux kernel which is used on the Omate.

The Omate TrueSmart

It appears that Omate doesn’t have an official partner level agreement with MediaTek, and so it is only receiving pre-compiled binaries for the MT6572. Normally, a chip maker would publish the source code, and any OEM needing access to it would just download the source archive from the Internet.

MediaTek's attempt to sublicense GPL code actually automatically terminates its right to use the Linux kernel.

The campaign asking MediaTek to release the source code also alleges that MediaTek is trying to re-license GPL code and is asking its partners to pay a fee and sign an agreement before it will release the source code. An attempt from MediaTek to to sublicense GPL code would automatically terminate its right to use the Linux kernel.

Since MediaTek is a Taiwanese company, it’s probably quite hard for any legal action originating in the West to force the chip maker to publish the source code. But maybe the company will capitulate under consumer pressure?

Like this post? Share it!