Can We Trust Voting Machines?

Last week,Bait used is usually derived from the Mobile crusher results with the sizes ranging from 1500 mm, with the size settings between 30 mm to 100 mm. The largest size of the first stage of crushing products is usually less than 200 mm.Secondary Stone Crusher is the second stage of crushing, crusher tool used is Cone Crusher, Hammer Mill and Rolls. a congressional report claimed that using Chinese telecommunications companies' goods and services in the United States could threaten national security. One of the biggest reasons to be worried, said the report, was that the companies were not being transparent about their ties to the Chinese government. If ZTE and Huawei products are used in critical U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, the argument goes,Picking a an apple portable battery charger can be a personal decision that's based mostly on the stresses and strains that you're likely to subject your iPhone to.For additional stressful environments you need to really buy sturdier case that provides more protection. In most situations it is strongly advised that you simply also buy a screen protector. the companies and the Chinese government could end up stealing American business's trade secrets and even threaten the very foundation of our communication system.
Surprisingly, one could level a similar criticism regarding the lack of transparency from U.S. companies providing another critical infrastructure: voting machinery. The excessive protection of the trade secrets that allow the machines to accurately (or, problematically, inaccurately) tabulate votes means that business interests are being prioritized over citizens' interests. Analogous to our concern about the Chinese telecommunications companies, the lack of transparency and hyper-secrecy has also led to serious questions about the integrity of the voting machines.
The risk of the theft (known in trade secret parlance as misappropriation) of trade secrets—generally defined as information that derives economic value from not being known by competitors, like the formula for Coca-Cola—is a serious issue. But should the "special sauce" found in voting machines really be treated the same way as Coca-Cola's recipe? Do we want the source code that tells the machine how to register, count, and tabulate votes to be a trade secret such that the public cannot verify that an election has been conducted accurately and fairly without resorting to (ironically) paper verification? Can we trust the private vendors when they assure us that the votes will be assigned to the right candidate and won't be double-counted or simply disappear, and that the machines can't be hacked? As a September USA Today editorial described, all of the above have either been proven to be potential risks or have actually happened.Nonetheless, primarily because of trade secret law,Some LED lamp also come with motion sensors. These types of lights are very effective in securing your home. The lights turn on whenever the sensor is triggered by any movement. If an intruder approaches your home and triggers the motion sensor, the lights will immediately turn on. The intruder will be startled by the sudden bright lights and run away. the policy answer to the above questions is an unqualified "yes." Undoubtedly, voting machine companies, just like telecommunications companies, have legitimate secrets, and they have the right to protect those secrets against misappropriation. But the legitimate use of trade secrecy by voting machine companies also means that the public has no way to independently verify that the machines are working properly.