> Nick Corasaniti, *NYTimes*,  1 Sep 2021
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/politics/gop-us-election-security.html

> As Republicans continue to challenge the 2020 results, voting equipment is
> being compromised when partisan insiders and unvetted operatives gain
> access.

> "that previously unknown technical vulnerabilities could be discovered by
> partisan malefactors and exploited in future elections."

> "Security experts say that election hardware and software should be
> subjected to transparency and rigorous testing, but only by credentialed
> professionals."

I was incredibly offended by the supercilious tone of this NYTimes article,
especially as it indicated a complete disregard for the dubious history of
'Security through Obscurity':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

The 2020 election wasn't 'stolen', but that doesn't imply that our election
systems are in good shape—they aren't, and can't be, so long as we
disregard Kerckhoffs's Principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs's_principle

  "Secrecy, in other words, is a prime cause of brittleness—and therefore
  something likely to make a system prone to catastrophic collapse.
  Conversely, openness provides ductility."  Bruce Schneier

Since elections and voting are the fundamental aspects of a democracy, these
processes deserve the highest level of scrutiny by the largest number of
eyes. By definition, all of these processes—both *hardware* and
*software*—should be OPEN SOURCE, and significant efforts in the computer
science and crypto communities should be made to render these processes as
*transparent* and *auditable* as possible.

  "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how;
  but what is extraordinarily important is this--*who will count the votes,
  and how*." said in 1923; Boris Bazhanov The Memoirs of Stalin's Former
  Secretary (1992);

By admin