I'm a pretty casual computer user, and even I knew that the idea that the logs might be source code was an asinine assertion. I actually went back to re-read it to make sure I had read correctly, because it was so retarded.
And that's not even getting into the implication that the security and protection of proprietary software is more important than securing our election integrity. Proprietary software needs to be nowhere near processes such as vote tabulation (and there are good arguments for firing it into the sun altogether.)
Logs show what the application is programmed to log.
Although there is a scenario where logs may show exceptions and their stacktraces, containing names of classes and methods. But that's no valuable information and usually says little to nothing to those not having access to the source code.
It is clear that the argument is desperate and meant to be deceptive.
And why the fuck should exposing the source code be a "security issue"? This is RIDICULOUS. Son, that fucking thing is supposed to work in a straight forward manner. It's a fucking simple piece of code. And yes, even exposing the source code is irrelevant - encrypted data won't be easier to crack because they operate on keys. You have to expect your source code to be easily hacked anyway, and operate under the assumption that your encryption takes years, decades or the total lifetime of our Sun to be cracked.
If these companies are literally republishing their source code in its entirety at some point in their event logs, they deserve to have it all leaked in the courts.
Spoiler alert: They aren’t because that would be that would be a very very stupid thing to even try to do, if not actually impossible. The quoted person either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is peddling falsehoods because they know most people are dumb enough to buy it.
"argued that the logs “might be source code” and publishing them could be a security issue. "
Or this this makes us look really bad and guilty of fraud
I'm a pretty casual computer user, and even I knew that the idea that the logs might be source code was an asinine assertion. I actually went back to re-read it to make sure I had read correctly, because it was so retarded.
And that's not even getting into the implication that the security and protection of proprietary software is more important than securing our election integrity. Proprietary software needs to be nowhere near processes such as vote tabulation (and there are good arguments for firing it into the sun altogether.)
The simple answer is this:
Logs show what the application is programmed to log.
Although there is a scenario where logs may show exceptions and their stacktraces, containing names of classes and methods. But that's no valuable information and usually says little to nothing to those not having access to the source code.
It is clear that the argument is desperate and meant to be deceptive.
And why the fuck should exposing the source code be a "security issue"? This is RIDICULOUS. Son, that fucking thing is supposed to work in a straight forward manner. It's a fucking simple piece of code. And yes, even exposing the source code is irrelevant - encrypted data won't be easier to crack because they operate on keys. You have to expect your source code to be easily hacked anyway, and operate under the assumption that your encryption takes years, decades or the total lifetime of our Sun to be cracked.
Then they'll claim technical ignorance
They might be source code; they might be a tuna fish sandwich. We really don't know....
What is a stack trace?
That might look like source code to a lawyer, , but it isnt.
If these companies are literally republishing their source code in its entirety at some point in their event logs, they deserve to have it all leaked in the courts.
Spoiler alert: They aren’t because that would be that would be a very very stupid thing to even try to do, if not actually impossible. The quoted person either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is peddling falsehoods because they know most people are dumb enough to buy it.