Re: Stepping Stones -- Markamatic proposal. Secondround.

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 - 12:41:02 CST

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:15:01 -0700 (GMT-07:00), charlie strauss
<> wrote:
> So what would have fixed this would have been some real or virtual
> handshaking loop each time the data is transfered from one system to
> another. For example, even some simple checksums on the data sets
> would have been sufficient for access to validate that it had read
> the file with fidelity. A stronger form would have been for access
> to re-write the data it read in, and for an auxillirary (simpler)
> program to validate that the input and re-written data matched. The
> strongest from would have been for this re-written data to get
> passed all the way back to the original system the data was taken
> from so it would know the data had made it to the central tabulator
> intact.

The 2002 Voting System Standards (VSS) do address data integrity[1]
and recommend safe-guards like checksums, message digest hashes etc...
unfortunately only the Avante Vote-Trakker voting system and the
precinct counter for Diebold's TSx are qualified against the 2002
standards (and many of us still think that the qualification testing
is broke).

As I've suggested offline, since anything the OVC produces will be
qualified against the 2002 VSS (or what comes next), starting from
there and boiling out requirements would be a good start.

[1] Voting Systems Standards (2002), Volume I, 6.5.2, at 6-9. Available at:

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= 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 23:17:11 2004

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