Sorry, what I mean is that a portion of the contract maybe invalid but it does not invalidate the entire contract?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> wrote: > I read this law. But do you know that a portion of the law may be invalid but > it does not invalidate the entire contract? > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> wrote: >> Good grief! Have you been living under a rock? >> >> RA-9369 Sec 12 mandates these provisions, to wit: >> >> “Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission >> shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and >> open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct >> their own review thereof." >> >> What COMELEC is doing is ILLEGAL. Plain and simple. Welcome to the >> reality that even constitutional bodies can do wrong. >> >> Go carry your trolling and one-liners elsewhere boy. >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> What do you mean by law? >>> >>> The problem is we are too pedantic. >>> >>> If only we are a little bit practical, pragmatic, and sensible. >>> >>> Then, change will come. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Oscar Plameras >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> You're right. >>>> >>>> You get what you deserve, as they say. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> So we're just gonna trade quips and one liners eh? Any two monkeys can >>>>> play that game. >>>>> >>>>> Then again, you still haven't proven that a blackbox test WILL work >>>>> and SATISFY the requirement (BY LAW!) for the source code review. Or >>>>> are you claiming invincible ignorance here? This ain't the forum for >>>>> that! >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> That's why we are in a mess. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a saying when you are in a hole, you stop digging. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> It's really up to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Duh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are conveniently forgetting that the PCOS is not just "Count and >>>>>>>> Tabulate". It also has features to ensure that the system is NOT >>>>>>>> tampered, whether during count or transmission, and that requires >>>>>>>> crypto. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Horses for courses my ass. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it were just simple to simply trust governments and people, there >>>>>>>> wouldn't be a need for a military, or for crypto at all. But you're in >>>>>>>> the real world, and not all can be trusted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Horses for courses. Military security is not comparable to a system >>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>> "Count and Tabulate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Paolo Falcone >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The system is indeed not designed to detect corruption, and neither >>>>>>>>>> does a source code review indicate that with all degrees of certainty >>>>>>>>>> the presence of a backdoor indicates corruption. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then again, only a source code review satisfies the requirement that >>>>>>>>>> there will be no backdoors in the inspected application, be it put by >>>>>>>>>> a corrupt programmer or a programmer in a hurry to get out of the >>>>>>>>>> office. A blackbox testing with the specifications can only get you >>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> far - that the system is compliant as per specification. Whether it >>>>>>>>>> exceeds or subverts the specification outside the test conditions is >>>>>>>>>> something that you can only get with a code review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Has anyone even wondered why the military is so anal about source >>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>> and algorithm review when designing military ciphers? Once the >>>>>>>>>> underlying mantra (Kerckhoff's principle) is thoroughly understood >>>>>>>>>> then one will understand why a blackbox testing SIMPLY DOES NOT DO >>>>>>>>>> THE >>>>>>>>>> JOB. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It amazes me that there are still some segments in society that won't >>>>>>>>>> extend the same level of scrutiny to the system that determines who >>>>>>>>>> will run their government. And would rather outsource the >>>>>>>>>> scrutinizing >>>>>>>>>> eyes to some non-stakeholder corporation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When it comes to reviewing software, you can automate all the tests, >>>>>>>>>> but at the end of the day, NEVER TRUST A MACHINE TO DO A HUMAN'S JOB. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> You should know that the system is not meant to detect corruption. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Danny Ching <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I should qualify that. Lest the prorammers in the list >>>>>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>>> you. Hehehe >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should at least be realistic enough to note that some >>>>>>>>>>>> corrupt officials are completely willing to corrupting anyone >>>>>>>>>>>> including programmers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do I trust pogrammers? Not all. Do you? Btw. Let's keep the >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>>>>> to technical stuff and let us not question each other's technical >>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities. Peace. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't trust programmers, you are in the wrong profession. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Danny Ching <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't trust programmers who hide their code. Although not all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers are honest, all it takes to expose anomalies in open >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is one honest reviewer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However in a close source system all it takes to corrupt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one corrupt programmer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't trust programmers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This precisely what's wrong with source code review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very true. Unfortunately, I do not trust the programmers if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check their work. The purpose of source code validation is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check the computer or it's software's trustworthiness. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do what it's told. It is human corruption I'm worried about. Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of computers that is a different problem altogether. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want people blaming computerization for failure of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean is the trustworthiness of the people running the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll say one thing from my experience, you can't use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human corruption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I see where you are coming from. It is not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worried about sir. It is the trustworthiness of the system. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exposure of the code will show that it is not doing anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ordinary. Besides. If the code is indeed simple as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking the cource code should be easy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tester does not need to know about programming to test and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a System. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, fooler mail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, Election Automation Software is one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easiest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is "Count and Tally", nothing complicated and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.. BUT... the purpose of source code review is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something beyond the count and tally thing which cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your simulation test.. as what danny said - TRIGGERS.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special keyboard hotkey, special packets, special ER and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger the manipulation of votes to do the dagdag-bawas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fooler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Paolo >>>>> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paolo >> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >> _________________________________________________ >> 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
