Re: vendors vowing to cooperate with disclosure?

From: Nancy Tobi <ntobi_at_democracyfornewhampshire_dot_com>
Date: Sun Apr 22 2007 - 08:06:16 CDT

If the Holt Bill attempts, for instance, to exempt COTS from their
disclosure clause, doesn't that have the appearance (ie reality) of special
treatment and therefore is unjustifiable?

I understand the practical application of what you are proposing, but how do
you deal with this type of criticism?

I've been looking on your site for the latest version of AB852. Can you send
me the pointer to the text of the bill?

Thanks Alan, for all you do. You are an American hero.

Nancy

On 4/22/07, Alan Dechert <dechert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nancy,
>
> > Sorry for being such a johnny come lately ....
> >
> Don't be sorry....
>
> > -but can you please tell me what you believe is
> > the intent of CA law for COTS?
> >
>
> I think I know the intent ... certainly I know what's intended in AB 852.
> In summary, for testing purposes, it's status quo regarding COTS. That
> is,
> any component the voting equipment vendor makes or modifies as part of the
> system under consideration, needs to be reviewed during federal and/or
> state
> certification. If they incorporate a component they did not make or alter
> (i.e., COTS), it is not subject to review. (keep in mind: this is a
> general
> description of how it is supposed to go. In practice, plenty of
> vendor-made
> or vendor-modified components get by without review... in fact, that's
> part
> of the reason we need AB 852).
>
> We don't plan to change that (what source code etc. needs to be reviewed)
> with AB 852. The difference here is that since AB 852 will require public
>
> disclosure of all the technical details, we'll also need to know what all
> is
> in the machine that the vendor incorporated but did not make. In general,
> vendors will need to supply more information because more people are going
>
> to be asking questions.... like "what are those switches on the system
> board? What position were they in when certified? What position are they
> supposed to be in."
>
> A basic difference between the people's informal certification process
> (contemplated in AB 852) and the formal certification processes (state and
> "federal") is that the people won't necessarily have a sample of the
> equipment to use. So, it makes sense that we should have everything
> clearly
> identified -- i.e., we can't just open up the box and look inside if we're
> curious about what graphics processor was used.
>
> Eventually, we'd like to see hardware used whose design is public. I
> think
> this is quite feasible, but will take some investment in terms of money
> and
> years to fully implement. In the mean time, it is reasonable to allow
> COTS
> without having to review or disclose, for example, all the microcode in
> all
> the processors used on a system board.
>
> Alan D.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>

-- 
Nancy Tobi
Co-Founder, Democracy For New Hampshire
Chair, NH Fair Elections Committee
Legislative Coordinator, Election Defense Alliance
nancy.tobi@gmail.com
www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com
603.315.4500

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Apr 30 23:17:09 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 23:17:16 CDT