I feel that the Swarthmore College students who posted the Diebold security flaws were within their rights in posting the material on the internet for others to read. My main reasoning is that Diebold Electronic Systems provides a product that has direct correlation with the progression of our proud democratic system of governance. After vote recounts were warranted following the 2000 election, it became clear that the need for order (without flaws) in our vote submission system is crucial to the outcome of close elections. Appointing a political figure, especially the President of the U.S., is not "democratic" if the flaws of the vote submission system have any effect on the polls. America and American citizens take pride in this country much because of the high value we place on our right to vote. Our *fair* democratic election is what makes our country so wonderful, so united, and so unique. In the case of Diebold Electronic Systems, the students at Swarthmore College came across information that affected the entire nation; not just culturally, but politically. Only by understanding the Diebold system security flaws can we *insist* upon remedying the situation. With consequences that effect the entire nation, and the direction the countries political future at stake, we can't afford to assume that a corporation will solve the problem in a virtuous manner, rather than in the self-interest of the corporation and its finances. There are a lot of greedy corporations out there. While corporate greed in industries like music and movies won't necessarily affect our civilization's immediate future, it is unacceptable in areas such as the democratic voting system. Without the Swarthmore College students, Diebold may have never made efforts of fix the flaws of their systems. The result would have been a meaningless electoral process, and the appointment of a politician who may or may not have truly won over the majority vote of the people. I think Diebold's decision to ultimately repeal their suits against the students and the ISP that hosted the content was a result of the realization that the company would lose tremendous credibility if they followed through with the suits. After all, the students did not leak information that would impede the sales of consumer product, such as in the recent case of "Apple v. Does." They simply pointed out a flaw in our democratic process, and for that they should not be punished, let alone censored. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) provides an array of documentation pertaining to the Diebold case, all of which I found extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of the situation. Below I've included that link (EFF), among others:

EFF: (Collection of Related Articles and Court Docs)
http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/

SWARTHMORE ADMINISTRATION:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/news/releases/03/diebold.html

WIRED MAGAZINE:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60927,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65173,00.html

ONLINE POLICY GROUP: (Collection of Related Articles and Court Docs)
http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/