Well think about it. Votes are counted by generating a record for instance for each vote. This one step.
Once all the records for each vote is counted, you have a set of programs to tabulate or tally this recordes. It's that simple, that's why. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Tito Mari Francis Escaño <[email protected]> wrote: > If the program is a mere "Count and Tally" why push it that we can ignore > checking the validity and functionality of the Automated Election source > code? > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> The system testers are not suppose to see the source codes. In general, >> they >> are not programmers but Systems Analyst Professionals. >> >> Triggers are difficult to develop but easy to test. You mention ordering >> of the >> candidates, that is the easiest to come up with in a test given the >> specified >> outcome. >> >> Remember, Election Automation Software is one of the easiest to develop. >> It is "Count and Tally", nothing complicated and convoluted. >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Danny Ching <[email protected]> wrote: >> > if you do not see the source code, you can test all you want and get >> > good/correct results. Unfortunately it does not preclude, "easter eggs" >> > or >> > hidden triggers that will initiate "special" programs that will favor >> > the >> > programmer's candidate of choice. >> > >> > Triggers like - voting for certain candidates in a specific order. I >> > doubt >> > if the testing centers will be able to test all, possible combinations. >> > All >> > a corrupt candidate has to do is bribe the election officer to feed the >> > election sheets in the right order, then BINGO, extra 500 votes, and >> > nobody >> > even knows or sees that it has happened. The election officer doesn't >> > even >> > have to know he's helping the candidate to cheat. >> > >> > I agree though that Source Code review should not be about the quality >> > of >> > the programming, but on its results. >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Oscar Plameras >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I think it's silly to spend so much money and time to test the >> >> Election System by reviewing Source code. >> >> >> >> From my experience, end users implement acceptance testing of the >> >> system by developing a series of test >> >> other than source code review.The main idea is to simulate scenarios >> >> of operations with input test data >> >> and pre-defining the expected results. Several scenarios are covered >> >> with the input data that's prepared. >> >> >> >> The Election system itself is a simple count and tabulate system and >> >> that is not difficult to simulate. >> >> >> >> Hardly no commercial developer will allow third parties to have source >> >> code access to their propriety >> >> software. And in general, commercial confidence protects the privacy >> >> of these codes.under the trade >> >> secrets act of countries. I think the Philippines is a signatory to >> >> that. >> >> >> >> And lastly, which source codes are they going to review. The >> >> application source codes? But application >> >> source codes interacts with system source codes. Are they going to >> >> review system source codes, too? >> >> What about the source codes of all firmware chips used in the system? >> >> Are they goind to review those source codes, >> >> too? How long is a piece of string? The code done by one programmer >> >> maybe anathema to another and so >> >> source code review leads to more controversies. As you know >> >> programmers are full of egos and one argument >> >> leads to another and another. The point is if it does the defined >> >> specifications, it does not matter how or why the >> >> code is written that way. >> >> >> >> Reviewing source codes is a mine field of difficult issues to deal >> >> with. >> >> >> >> The simplest and easieast is to test by outcome, not how the code and >> >> why the code is written that >> >> way. After all, we are interested in the integrity of the system not >> >> the integrity of the code. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Pablo Manalastas >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On SysTest Labs: It will do a testing of the binary executable. The >> >> > testing will be more scientific than the testing done by the Special >> >> > Bids >> >> > and Awards Committee (that awarded the contract to Smartmatic) but >> >> > will cost >> >> > COMELEC more than PHP70 Million. Note that this is software testing >> >> > of the >> >> > binary executable, not a review of the source code, and the two are >> >> > totally >> >> > different "animals". >> >> > >> >> > On Monday, October 5, 2009, CenPEG filed with the Supreme Court a >> >> > petition for mandamus, asking the Supreme Court to force COMELEC to >> >> > release >> >> > the source code of the election programs that will be used in May, >> >> > 2010 to >> >> > CenPEG and to all interested political parties and groups, as >> >> > provided for >> >> > by law (RA-9369). >> >> > >> >> > The text of the petition can be found here: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > http://www.cenpeg.org/POL%20PARTIES%20AND%20ELECTIONS/OCT%202009/Petition%20for%20Mandamus.pdf >> >> > >> >> > The lawyers for CenPEG are Atty Koko Pimentel, and Atty Pancho >> >> > Joaquin. >> >> > I mention their names here, because they render their services for >> >> > important >> >> > causes for free, and by advertising them, I hope to give them >> >> > business. So >> >> > if you need legal representation, please talk to them. >> >> > >> >> > ~Pablo Manalastas, for CenPEG~ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --- On Fri, 10/9/09, Drexx Laggui [personal] <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> From: Drexx Laggui [personal] <[email protected]> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [plug] The Death of Election 2010 Source Code Review >> >> >> To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List" >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 11:01 PM >> >> >> 09Oct2009 (UTC +8) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 21:21, Richard Paradies <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > But Note Caution: Not certain if it's the same >> >> >> company. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm pretty sure it is. SysTest is one of the companies >> >> >> *currently* >> >> >> accredited by EAC: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/voting-systems/test-lab-accreditation/eac-accredited-test-laboratories/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --And the list of the 5 testing labs in the above URL is >> >> >> most probably >> >> >> what is referred to in this news article: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20090824-221835 >> >> >> >> >> >> Excerpt: >> >> >> "Meanwhile, Ateneo de Manila professor Renato Garcia, who >> >> >> sits as >> >> >> consultant for the poll body's project management office >> >> >> (PMO) for the >> >> >> 2010 elections, said they have written letters to at least >> >> >> five of the >> >> >> international software certification bodies that can >> >> >> conduct a >> >> >> “formal, thorough review” of the poll automation system >> >> >> software. >> >> >> >> >> >> “One of the five international software certification >> >> >> bodies, have >> >> >> already expressed interest to do the formal review of the >> >> >> customized >> >> >> automation software. This body, we found out, has been >> >> >> conducting a >> >> >> software review for Canadian-based Dominion, the software >> >> >> provider for >> >> >> Smartmatic's poll machines,” Garcia said. >> >> >> >> >> >> “If we can get them, the certification will be easier and >> >> >> faster,” he added." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > For Immediate Release on 10/29/2008. EAC Announces >> >> >> Intention to Suspend >> >> >> > SysTest Labs >> >> >> > >> >> >> > WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Election Assistance >> >> >> Commission (EAC) today >> >> >> > notified SysTest Laboratories Inc. of its intent to >> >> >> suspend the laboratory’s >> >> >> > accreditation based upon actions taken by the National >> >> >> Institute of >> >> >> > Standards and Technology (NIST). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > August 8, 2008 – Letter from NIST to SysTest >> >> >> regarding initial reassessment >> >> >> > findings. Reiterates EAC’s earlier concerns by >> >> >> stating that SysTest has no >> >> >> > documented test methods, unqualified personnel >> >> >> conducting tests and concerns >> >> >> > regarding manufacturer influence. NIST notes the need >> >> >> for an on-site >> >> >> > assessment, requires SysTest to submit specific >> >> >> testing information and >> >> >> > update NIST regarding testing documentation. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > October 28, 2008 – NIST suspends accreditation of >> >> >> SysTest. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > EAC is United States Election Assistance Commission >> >> >> 1225 New York Avenue >> >> >> > N.W. - Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:36 PM, jan gestre >> >> >> > <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What's with this? >> >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> US-BASED SysTest Labs was declared as the winning >> >> >> bidder that will certify >> >> >> >> the source code of the software to be installed in >> >> >> the 82,200 precinct count >> >> >> >> optical scan (PCOS) machines for the May 2010 >> >> >> elections. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Poll Commissioner Rene Sarmiento said that out of >> >> >> the four international >> >> >> >> companies that participated in the bidding last >> >> >> week, SystTest Labs was able >> >> >> >> to comply with all the requirements set by the >> >> >> Bids and Awards Committee >> >> >> >> (BAC) of the Commission on Elections (Comelec). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Taken from >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --> http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/us-firm-wins-bid-review-pcos-source-code >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They're not allowing Cenpeg et al. but the awarded >> >> >> a bid to a US based >> >> >> >> firm? WTF. >> >> >> >> >> > _________________________________________________ >> >> > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> >> > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> >> > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> >> _________________________________________________ >> >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Danny Ching >> > >> > _________________________________________________ >> > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> > >> _________________________________________________ >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > > > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
