Re: NM looking to paper ballots

From: Nils Paz <Nils_Paz_at_raytheon_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 14:08:47 CST

We were just discussing the the validation of an OS in the thread : Re:
[OVC-discuss] Interesting, But What About the Election-Day Virus?

There are many well written papers that do a convincing job of explaining
how open source OS is more secure than proprietary OSes. Security is the
main point.
On your second question, see the discussion thread above it point to
something more concrete.
 
? Regards

charlie strauss <cems@earthlink.net>
Sent by: ovc-discuss-bounces@listman.sonic.net
12/09/2004 11:01 AM
Please respond to charlie strauss; Please respond to Open Voting
Consortium discussion list

 
        To: ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
        cc:
        Subject: [OVC-discuss] NM looking to paper ballots

Hi,
things are changing rapidly in New Mexico. Our governor has appointed
someone to oversea coming up election reform and one of the high bullet
points is paper trails.

They have been asking my group to supply input in terms of raw data not
advice (like which system have paper trails), And I'm getting a bit
concerned they are asking the wrong questions. (seeing trees not forrests
on the issue of ballot integrity)

Our SOS, the head of NASS, continues to tell everyone that New Mexico
already has paper trails and open source code. Neither is true excpet
under her peculiar defiintions. So clearing the air and getting to basics
(the forest) is what is needed specifics. But things are happening too
fast.

If you are motivated to do so, contacting the NM governors office would in
fact likely be met with interest.

I myself plan to call the key people and try to get meetings with them.

At the moment, in trying to respond to one of the tree-not-forrest
questions I'm debating how break down the Source code verus Binary issue
for them. That is I want to come to them with an ordered list of what is
needed in terms of priorities. The first four mandates are really easy
but then I need your advice:

1) stop buying current generation machines till issue is settled

2) you must have voter verified (paper) trails, preferably these are the
primary ballot.

3) if the primary ballot is electronic and not paper, then 1% of the paper
should be randomly re-counted.

4) you ought to have (true) open source

--- now the hard parts---

how do I explain that open source should include the operating system.
How do I explain that you somehow have to validate that the binary matches
the opensource and that it is what was run on election day

--- why these are tricky---
these are tricky because there is no good answer. these are gaping holes.
 so one is left in a weird position of arguing closing some holes and not
others. Sure one could try to be a hardass an insist on solutions for the
above. but that may be a non-starter if it eliminates too many
manufacturers.

Even OVC might have a hard time with assuring the binary run was the
certified binary. So would that only leave say the vogue automark and
OVC, the pure paper solutions? I like OVC but it would be suicide to
promote that as the ONLY viable solution. Let them come to that
conclusion themsleves.

So give me some tips!

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Dec 31 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST