Source codes and reviewers

This is not about exams but about computer programming.

I believe the views of Dr. Pablo Manalastas should give all some food for thought in the “boring” days ahead.


2 thoughts on “Source codes and reviewers

  1. Dr. Manalastas’ interpretation of making the source code “available and open” in Section 14 of RA9369 is centered around and limited by his Open Source orientation. Comelec thinks they comply with the plain meaning of “available and open” under their controlled environment scheme by including other pertinent factors such as protection of Intellectual Property Rights and National Security. He already brought this case before the Supreme Court which I beleive would render it moot.


  2. I’ve decided that the issue of source code review is a diversion (and you say it would be “moot”). You may well be right on on this one. I once thought that Comelec officials were taking too long to release the source code, but perhaps it doesn’t really matter.

    Instead, it seems that the relevant question is not whether the source code is “good,” but how to prevent some other code from running on the machines without the Board of Election Inspectors and the poll watchers having a clue as to such a happening. One obvious solution is to do a manual audit, which the law requires, and a random one too. Election lawyers would be interested in whether the manual audit would be done before or after proclamation, and exactly how “randomness” would be implemented.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s