Re: logic and accuracy tests

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Fri Aug 25 2006 - 16:47:48 CDT

At 02:00 PM 8/25/2006, you wrote:

>>>From: Paul Malischke <malischke@yahoo.com>
>>>Date: Aug 24, 2006 8:11 PM
>>>Subject: logic and accuracy tests
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>One major arguement that the clerks make against post-election
>>>audits of vote counts is that they do logic and accuracy
>>>pre-tests. How can we counter this argument?

To me the best answer to this is that L&A tests and even parallel
testing cannot reveal the presence of Trojan Horse software.
Tests--of any kind--can only test the advertised functionality of
software. There is no possibility of uncovering inserted software
that is designed to permit manipulation of the legitimate functions.
It's like trying to prove a negative--it can't be done.

Post election audits are conducted to ascertain whether any kind of
irregularity occurred in the election. This is a completely different
function than testing.

_______________________________________________
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 Thu Aug 31 23:17:09 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CDT