Reply #3: Indeed.

[pagandem4justice]

While I'm sure that the official explanation will be that Diebold wants to protect their proprietary software from possible piracy, and that they believe a poor precedent will be set for governments to demand source code filings from developers, the argument doesn't fly.

First, the state has a vested interest in requiring the code be on file, as the company is serving as a state contractor in providing a service to the public at taxpayers' expense. Just as any publicly-funded agency is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny due to its nature of doing business, so should Diebold and other electronic voting firms be a bit more accountable to the public in terms of transparency than the typical software developer.

Second, I do not agree that the company's security or intellectual property rights will be infringed upon by merely being in state "custody." A legal argument against trusting a government entity with secret company information invariably is invalidated by the counter-argument that the company must have filed a patent with the federal government ... thus trusting a government agency in the first place with its information.

So yes, texpatriot2004, I too agree that they're hiding something.

:smoke: