Some call it "free software," while others refer to it as "open source." While neither is wrong, the nomenclature of shareware has become more partisan than its use. And because it can protect the rights of the user by removing the ability to collect data without the user's permission, it should be used to protect the rights of the voter.
The Free Software Foundation refers to it as such in an article written by Richard Stallman, a leader in the movement and creator of the GNU project, a major piece of Linux operating systems.
"As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source," Stallman writes. "Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately."
Counties should adopt a similar perspective as the free software view and begin using open-licensed code in their voting.
Most people can agree that voting is an essential part of the American political system, a right all citizens can practice as they see fit. Adopting such software will secure voting technology, allowing citizens to exercise their freedoms.
"When we call software 'free,' we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes," Stallman writes.
While the use of "free" could be misinterpreted as "without price," it does not mean that. Because price can still be applied, private companies can still harness the software, manipulate the code to match a county's election needs and then resell at a lower cost. This would remove the "security through obscurity" that has become the voting tech norm and does not allow for voting officials to be involved and double-check the systems which are meant to securely tally votes.
There are so many holes for votes to fall into, both intentional and unintentional. Uncounted ballot boxes have been found in trunks of cars months after an election. Mail-in ballots have been invalidated because of questionable signatures. And now citizens have to worry whether their votes are counted when a machine breaks down, or whether ballots are inaccessible to someone with a disability, or whether they're being hacked.
And free software has become a hot topic in California. The state's Department of Technology released a letter outlining its uses last month. Many county and voting officials have begun opening up to the possibility of a free software solution in voting technology. Secretary of State Alex Padilla created AB 360 as a state senator in 2013, which allows for certifying shareware-based systems. Even Los Angeles and San Francisco counties are working on freeware voting systems.
Many government systems are already running on freeware systems such as Linux, GNU, Android, Apache and Open SSO. But the state has to make more room for freeware. While voting systems will need support and maintenance — every technology does they will be cheaper to purchase and keep running if they are based on freeware. Instead of updating a system to match the security standards of the working year and then letting them lag behind until the next update, manipulating code with every change in the threat environment will keep machines secure long-term, and that's possible with freeware.
Counties are free to choose their solution from preapproved systems, so the state should start looking into more shareware options. Incentivizing the market will also allow counties to move in that direction as more systems need replacing.
In this case, free software is the answer. It not only protects the rights of citizens; it is also the responsible choice for counties. It will save tax dollars, be more manageable and can secure systems against threats that are coming. Threats are out there. It isn't a matter of whether the systems upholding the fifth-largest economy's government will be hacked, but when. If there is a more secure, reliable and cheaper way to handle that, instead of locking them tight, the state should fling the doors wide open.
