Re: The Bill -- version A

From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Wed Jan 25 2006 - 22:42:40 CST

Alan,

I don't want to offer any language, since I serve the current SoS.
But I think you think about want to changing your draft a little in
the following directions:

1) You want the SoS to make all of the code and related materials
public as part of the application for certification, i.e. the SoS
should be mandated to disclose the information at the time the
application is submitted, irrespective of what the vendor does. The
way you have written it, the SoS cannot certify until the code is
public; but at that point it is too late! We need the public to be
able to see the code before the certification decision is made, so
they can influence the decision.

2) I think you want the requirement that the code be made public to
apply retroactively to all currently certified systems, not just
future certification applications. If a vendor declines, then the
currently certified system is decertified.

3) You need to require all documentation, both user and technical
documentation, to be made available as well as code.

4) I think your draft should make it clear that the vendor retains
all other intellectual property rights he may hold except right to
keep the source code and ancillary information secret. That may go
without saying, but unless you say it you will be in for a lot of
useless argument.

5) You might want to require the SoS to put a system in place so that
the public can notify him/her of any problems discovered in the code,
or complaints--and to require that the SoS must evaluate all such
submissions in a timely manner. The public complaints, and the SoS
evaluations thereof, should become public after a suitable delay,
except maybe within a short period before an election. This is
important because the argument will surely be made that by making the
code public any security vulnerabilities will also be findable by the
bad guys. You need to be able to say that the same procedures and
conventions that work in other software contexts for the reporting
and correction of bugs and vulnerabilities will also be in place here
for voting system code.

6) I think you want to be careful in using the term "voting specific"
to describe the code that has to be disclosed. I know what you are
trying to get at, but you don't want to leave any room whatsoever for
vendors to argue that their code is not "voting specific". For
example, is the scanner code that converts scan images to bits in a
table "voting specific"? It is, after all, usable for other
purposes, e.g. digitizing standardized exam papers.

Best of luck with this effort,
David

On Jan 25, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Alan Dechert wrote:

> THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
>
> a) By June 30, 2007, the Secretary of State shall not approve a voting
> system for use in a public election until all details of the inner
> workings
> of the system are publicly disclosed.
>
> b) By June 30, 2007, while applying for voting system certification
> in the
> State of California a vendor shall have an implied or express
> provision
> granting:
>
> i) To any and all residents of the State of California the right
> to inspect
> and test such Voting System, to retain test materials, test
> results, and to
> freely publish the same openly.
>
> ii) The Vendor shall promise to refrain from exerting any
> copyright, trade
> secret, or other rights that it may have to hinder any resident of
> the State
> from exercising the right to inspect, test, and publish.
>
> c) The Vendor may require reasonable notice of public testing and may
> require that the tests be performed in a matter that does not
> burden the
> vendor with significant costs beyond those of making the Voting System
> available.
>
> d) The materials to be made freely available to the public include:
>
> i) All voting system specific source code
> ii) Detailed instructions for building the software, including
> compiler
> used, compilation scripts, checksums
> iii) For voting specific hardware, complete specifications,
> drawings and
> schematics must be made available
> iv) General purpose COTS components must be described in detail,
> including
> versions and dates of manufacture
>
> e) By June 30, 2007 the Secretary of State shall establish and
> maintain a
> page on the Internet to provide the following:
>
> i) Free download of materials pertaining to each voting system
> certified or
> under consideration for certification
> ii) A system for acquiring and processing input from the public
> iii) A reporting system to inform the public on findings, problems
> reported, problem resolution, comments from the Secretary of State,
> the
> public, and vendors
> iv) Standards used by the Secretary of State for evaluating voting
> systems
> including test plans and specific test cases employed
>
>
> For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the
> following
> meanings:
>
> a) "COTS" means Common Off-The-Shelf component that is manufactured
> in large
> quantities and is widely available.
>
> b) "General purpose COTS devices" -- a COTS component intended for
> use in a
> variety of non-voting systems
>
> c) "Voting specific" hardware or software means a component
> manufactured
> specifically for use in a voting system
>
> d) "Vendor" -- Any person, partnership, corporation, or other
> entity that
> offers a Voting System, whether for money or not, to the State of
> California, to any county or city of the State of California, or to
> any
> government agency.
>
> e) "Voting System" -- Any computerized machinery used in a Public
> Election
> to present one or more Contests to voters, to obtain voter choices, to
> verify voter choices, to store voter choices, to communicate voter
> choices,
> to tabulate voter choices, or to present partial or full results of
> one or
> more contests.
>
> f) "Source code" -- computer instructions written by programmers

_______________________________________________
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 Mon Jan 8 20:24:34 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 08 2007 - 20:24:39 CST