Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 28, Issue 14

From: Laura Perkins <python_at_siriusthoth_dot_com>
Date: Wed Feb 07 2007 - 15:40:04 CST

That sounds reasonable as an emergency measure to me, Nancy.

ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net wrote:

> Subject:
> Re: [OVC-discuss] Comment re: 'Perfection' is the enemy of the good.
> From:
> "Nancy Tobi" <ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com>
> Date:
> Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:30:51 -0500
> To:
> "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>
> To:
> "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>
>
> This is a very simple, direct, and sensible response. In terms of
> emergencies, please note in our Request By Voters (RBV) that I just
> sent around, we had included a requirement for compliance with the
> federally mandated disaster recovery plans for IT systems (FISMA).
> This would mean that all IT-based election systems would have in place
> hand count paper ballot systems in case of IT failure. This would mean
> that our democratic elections would take place regardless of IT issues.
>
>
>
> On 2/7/07, *Laura Perkins* <python@siriusthoth.com
> <mailto:python@siriusthoth.com>> wrote:
>
> Ed Kennedy wrote: "Finally, remember that 'perfection' is the
> enemy of
> the good."
>
> I've been reading this discussion with interest and trying to find
> a way
> to jump in. I haven't had time to read the bill yet and I don't
> understand all of the technical issues being discussed. I do,
> however,
> want to react to this statement and the other post along that line.
>
> I also think we should be looking for something that can make our
> voting
> systems better in the short term, while keeping in mind that they can
> always be improved. However, by rushing to adopt HAVA at a national
> level, election integrity activists that pushed HAVA made every
> state in
> the union buy new voting equipment that turned out to be no good. We
> can't expect every state to upgrade their equipment every couple of
> years. There isn't that kind of money in budgets, and there isn't
> that
> kind of political will. We can work to improve systems on a local and
> state level, but I think before adopting sweeping new federal
> standards,
> we had better make damned sure they are the right ones.
>
> Let's wait and see if promising initiatives in places like San
> Francisco
> (currently working with OVC and their vendor, Sequoia, to make an open
> system there) can become models and be tested out a bit before
> trying to
> require something nationwide. If an emergency measure is needed
> before
> the 2008 elections, it should be something very, very simple and
> preferably something designed to be able to change when there's no
> longer an emergency.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laura Perkins
>
> ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >Send OVC-discuss mailing list submissions to
> > ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> >
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net>
> >
> >You can reach the person managing the list at
> > ovc-discuss-owner@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:ovc-discuss-owner@listman.sonic.net>
> >
> >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >than "Re: Contents of OVC-discuss digest..."
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: confused about COTS vs open hardware (Richard C. Johnson)
> > 2. Re: confused about COTS vs open hardware (Jim March)
> > 3. Re: confused about COTS vs open hardware (Edmund R. Kennedy)
> > 4. Alternate to Holt (Nancy Tobi)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [OVC-discuss] confused about COTS vs open hardware
> > From:
> > "Richard C. Johnson" <dick@iwwco.com <mailto:dick@iwwco.com>>
> > Date:
> > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:26:42 -0800 (PST)
> > To:
> > Open Voting Consortium discussion list <
> ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> > To:
> > Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > The goal is to have a completely open hardware and software system
> > with the hardware manufactured to Open Specification of parts which
> > themselves are in the public domain. No IP anywhere, except
> under GNU
> > license.
> >
> > That said, we still need to have Open hardware actually
> assembled. A
> > combination of PC/Linux with a scanner would do it. However, at
> this
> > point, both the scanner and the PC remain to be collected,
> designed,
> > integrated, and tested.
> >
> > Meanwhile, back at the home front, we have election problems
> that need
> > to be solved in order of priority. Bad, corrupt, buggy, and
> > proprietary software is a known problem, largely (not 100%) curable
> > with Open Source software. To me, as many others, it makes sense to
> > try to fix this known and curable problem now, on the way to the
> > ultimate goal of a completely open hardware and software system.
> >
> > Would you have us just wait through two or three more national
> > elections until the hardware solution is open and complete? I
> > appreciate purity and absolute openness; I am also an engineer and
> > would like to build as strong and secure an election structure as we
> > can today with today's materials and techniques and then
> incrementally
> > improve it.
> >
> > That means an Open Source voting application with as much as
> possible
> > of the firmware done in Open Source. That means paying heed to the
> > need for WORM media to transfer both indelible images of ballots and
> > data scanned from the ballots. It means using today's
> technology to
> > build in as much security as we can. So, the answer to your
> question
> > is no, we don't weaken anything by using Open Source voting
> > applications. We strengthen it. Is it at maximum security and
> > strength? Of course not. More remains to be done.
> >
> > The above is my personal opinion and is a direct answer to the
> > proposition that only absolute purity will make any difference
> at all.
> >
> > -- Dick
> >
> > */Ben Adida <ben@eecs.harvard.edu
> <mailto:ben@eecs.harvard.edu>>/* wrote:
> >
> > Alan Dechert wrote:
> > > Yes. I think that's a fair statement.
> >
> > Okay, so what I'm wondering then is: doesn't that
> significantly weaken
> > the advantages of an open-source voting system? If part of the
> > platform
> > is not open, the openness of what's left becomes almost moot.
> >
> > -Ben
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC-discuss mailing list
> > OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [OVC-discuss] confused about COTS vs open hardware
> > From:
> > "Jim March" <1.jim.march@gmail.com <mailto:1.jim.march@gmail.com>>
> > Date:
> > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:52:38 -0700
> > To:
> > "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> > To:
> > "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <
> ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/07, *Ben Adida* <ben@eecs.harvard.edu
> <mailto:ben@eecs.harvard.edu>
> > <mailto: ben@eecs.harvard.edu <mailto:ben@eecs.harvard.edu>>> wrote:
> >
> > Alan Dechert wrote:
> > > Yes. I think that's a fair statement.
> >
> > Okay, so what I'm wondering then is: doesn't that
> significantly weaken
> > the advantages of an open-source voting system? If part of the
> > platform
> > is not open, the openness of what's left becomes almost moot.
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> >
> >
> > Welll...not entirely. It's still better to be able to see how the
> > program SAYS it's behaving, and then you can compare that to
> > real-world behavior.
> >
> > In other words, it doesn't give you perfect transparency right
> away,
> > but it does make it easier to dig through the parts that aren't
> > transparent.
> >
> > In the case of a typical Diebold/Windows system, the non-transparent
> > parts are so enormous, sorting through them all is borderline
> > impossible. Every once in a while we catch some sort of closed-box
> > code doing something bizarre and/or nefarious but it's usually
> because
> > the code breaks in some weird way.
> >
> > A case of this cropped up just within the last few days
> regarding Skype:
> >
> > http://www.pagetable.com/?p=27
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [OVC-discuss] confused about COTS vs open hardware
> > From:
> > "Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com
> <mailto:ekennedyx@yahoo.com>>
> > Date:
> > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:08:14 -0800 (PST)
> > To:
> > Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> > To:
> > Open Voting Consortium discussion list <
> ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > First of all, Bravo Richard! I was just thinking of writing
> > something similar. I'll just cut to the point and say that
> election
> > security is a process not an end state. There will always be
> room for
> > improvement and we are tracking a moving target. Finally, remember
> > that 'perfection' is the enemy of the good.
> >
> > Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> >
> > --
> > 10777 Bendigo Cove
> > San Diego, CA 92126-2510
> >
> > 858-578-8842
> >
> > Work for the common good.
> > My profile: < http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
> > I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Richard C. Johnson < dick@iwwco.com <mailto:dick@iwwco.com>>
> > To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:26:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] confused about COTS vs open hardware
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > The goal is to have a completely open hardware and software system
> > with the hardware manufactured to Open Specification of parts which
> > themselves are in the public domain. No IP anywhere, except
> under GNU
> > license.
> >
> > That said, we still need to have Open hardware actually
> assembled. A
> > combination of PC/Linux with a scanner would do it. However, at
> this
> > point, both the scanner and the PC remain to be collected, designed,
> > integrated, and tested.
> >
> > Meanwhile, back at the home front, we have election problems
> that need
> > to be solved in order of priority. Bad, corrupt, buggy, and
> > proprietary software is a known problem, largely (not 100%) curable
> > with Open Source software. To me, as many others, it makes sense to
> > try to fix this known and curable problem now, on the way to the
> > ultimate goal of a completely open hardware and software system.
> >
> > Would you have us just wait through two or three more national
> > elections until the hardware solution is open and complete? I
> > appreciate purity and absolute openness; I am also an engineer and
> > would like to build as strong and secure an election structure as we
> > can today with today's materials and techniques and then
> incrementally
> > improve it.
> >
> > That means an Open Source voting application with as much as
> possible
> > of the firmware done in Open Source. That means paying heed to the
> > need for WORM media to transfer both indelible images of ballots
> and
> > data scanned from the ballots. It means using today's technology to
> > build in as much security as we can. So, the answer to your
> question
> > is no, we don't weaken anything by using Open Source voting
> > applications. We strengthen it. Is it at maximum security and
> > strength? Of course not. More remains to be done.
> >
> > The above is my personal opinion and is a direct answer to the
> > proposition that only absolute purity will make any difference
> at all.
> >
> > -- Dick
> >
> > */Ben Adida <ben@eecs.harvard.edu
> <mailto:ben@eecs.harvard.edu>>/* wrote:
> >
> > Alan Dechert wrote:
> > > Yes. I think that's a fair statement.
> >
> > Okay, so what I'm wondering then is: doesn't that
> significantly weaken
> > the advantages of an open-source voting system? If part of the
> > platform
> > is not open, the openness of what's left becomes almost moot.
> >
> > -Ben
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC-discuss mailing list
> > OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC-discuss mailing list
> > OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> > http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject:
> > [OVC-discuss] Alternate to Holt
> > From:
> > "Nancy Tobi" < ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com
> <mailto:ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com>>
> > Date:
> > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:12:50 -0500
> > To:
> > "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> > To:
> > "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>>
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is an alternative to Holt - originally submitted as request
> for
> > amendments, but now we understand Holt will never amend their
> bill, so
> > take it as an alternative plan.
> >
> > It is a reasoned, practical, fiscally responsible plan.
> >
> > Please take note of our proposal to reorganize the EAC in the full
> > document referenced at the URL below.
> >
> > Attached is a summary and the Request By Voters itself can be
> found here:
> > http://www.wethepatriots.org/HAVA/requestbyvoters.pdf
> <http://www.wethepatriots.org/HAVA/requestbyvoters.pdf>
> >
> > You can sign up on www.wethepatriots.org
> <http://www.wethepatriots.org> <http://www.wethepatriots.org>
> >
> >
> > Nancy
> > --
> >
> >
> > Nancy Tobi, Chair
> > Democracy for New Hampshire
> > DFNH Fair Elections Committee
> > PO Box 717 | Concord, NH 03301
> > www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com
> <http://www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com>
> > <http://www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OVC-discuss mailing list
> >OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> >http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> <http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net <mailto:OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Nancy Tobi, Chair
> Democracy for New Hampshire
> DFNH Fair Elections Committee
> PO Box 717 | Concord, NH 03301
> www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com
> <http://www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OVC-discuss mailing list
>OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
>

_______________________________________________
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 Wed Feb 28 23:17:11 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST