Re: SB 1376 passes senate...

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 11:36:09 CDT

> It appears to only allow this during the time the system is under
> consideration for certification--not after it is certified unless a
> problem is identified, i.e. there is an "investigation or prosecution".
> And as I said, it appears to apply only to the "vote tally software",
> not the vote capture "firmware" in the DREs themselves.

(c)(5) says for any purpose necessary to fulfill provisions of
Election Code and as the chief election officer of the CA govt.
(that's the part about section 12172.5 of the Govt. Code).

Also, there are conflicting interpretations of "vote tally
software"... NASED seems to think that this means all software except
firmware. Many people assume that this is just tabulation software
(central server stuff), although I would urge the first
interpretation. It is too bad that they left firmware out of that
section of this law.

> The whole concept of "escrow" is wrong-headed, implying that the
> default situation is for the SoS not to have access to the code. I do
> not like that concept reinforced in public law--it will reduce the SoS
> leverage in arguing that he should have permanent and total access to
> the code.

I'm with you, Dave... however, you can imagine that if this law said,
"the SoS gets full access to all source code to do what he/she wants"
there would have been considerable opposition... and the escrow part
of this law is not much different than the (soon-to-be) old escrow
provisions from the Elections Code (19103:

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:23 CDT