Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#71

Post by hnick »

linuxftw wrote: post #37
munificent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every cate…

> Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Well, this one is probably simple: government. I'm unsure whether it would be copyright, or trademark infringement, but if you release a product that tastes exactly like coke or pepsi, you'll probably find yourself in expensive litigation.

I'm pretty sure flavours and even recipes can't be copyrighted. Perhaps patented, but as others said that makes them public and protected for only a relatively limited time. Hence why formulations like KFC and Coca Cola are kept as a trade secret instead.

Branding and awareness is their real power, and a small time competitor has no real leverage there. And perception plays a huge role in flavour, so even if your product tastes the same, it won't.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#72

Post by raquo »

cdoxsey wrote: post #66
save_ferris wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.

Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequence…

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to see republicans as interested in fixing election problems after everything they have and haven't done since 2016.

They would have done that long ago if they wanted to, but instead they made themselves the primary beneficiaries of a broken election system, rampant gerrymandering, voter suppression and election fraud.

It doesn't matter which individual R's turn it is to temporarily go against the grain for some publicity, the republican committee and caucus will always vote with their party if they have majority to pass what the party wants. Partisan reductionism is the only proper attitude to this party.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#73

Post by deelowe »

linuxftw wrote: post #37
munificent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every cate…

> Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Well, this one is probably simple: government. I'm unsure whether it would be copyright, or trademark infringement, but if you release a product that tastes exactly like coke or pepsi, you'll probably find yourself in expensive litigation.

There are no legal protections for recipes.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#74

Post by MrEldritch »

maxxxxx wrote: post #19
tru3_power wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic question- but this is always something that interested me: do you have any blatant examples of a high level politician solely choosing a product to accommodate a donor?

Maybe one example: NASA is developing the SLS mainly to keep jobs in some districts. so billions are spent on something that's really not the right thing from a technical point of view. Same for voting machines: They are often either bought to keep jobs somewhere or because there is some connection between the vendor and decisions maker.

Another example is the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters - the reason they're there, essentially, is to keep Thiokol happy.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#75

Post by cdoxsey »

save_ferris wrote: post #70
cdoxsey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequence…

It's not that complicated: one party is committed to fixing this problem and has influential leaders backing such an initiative. Another party isn't even seriously trying. One GOP senator is interested in solving this problem? Good for that guy, but shame on the other 52 GOP senators that aren't. > And bills don't represent ideology anyway. Yes they do, that's why we vote for one party or another. Think taxes are too…

> Voter ID laws were designed explicitly to suppress minority votes and have been struck down time and again by the courts. They were not designed to solve a legitimate issue, because there is no evidence that rampant voter fraud exists in the US[0].

That is not what motivates many people who care deeply about this issue. Its partisan spin used to malign a contrary view. Believe it or not many Republicans are not racists hell-bent on denying minorities the right to vote. I know it seems impossible, but some Republicans even are minorities.

> What does exist, however, are coordinated ballot-harvesting efforts designed to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as was witnessed in NC-9 in this past election. But again, the GOP doesn't seem to be very concerned about this specific issue.

A lot of Republicans in California complained about ballot harvesting.

FWIW I agree that voter fraud not a major problem. And neither is vote hacking.

Both sides play footsie with these issues and its dangerous as it undermines the credibility of the system as a whole. If you believe elections are stolen or democracy is dead, then the American government is illegitimate. How long till we're advocating ignoring its laws, or overthrowing the regime.

Another civil war is the last thing we need in this country.

A slightly corrupt system that we collectively pretend is pristine is far better than the alternative.

Post reply on HN