Re: Integrating two solutions (related to the Calif. bill thread)

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 04:03:40 CST

At 10:30 AM -0700 1/21/09, Jim March wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.

In response I write:

The alternative to an open-source OVC-style system is NOT HCPB.
Rather, it is the status quo of systems whose inner workings are
trade secrets. The question should not be whether an open-source
OVC-style system is perfectly secure. No system is perfectly secure.
Not even HCPB. Rather, the question is whether an open-source
OVC-style system is likely to be as strong as feasible with known
technology and software engineering techniques. In particular, does
openness about the innerworkings of a voting system engender more
trust in the system than does Federal certification, such that it is
worthwhile using an alternative California-state managed process to
Federal certification for open source voting systems.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss  list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at  http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Thu Jan 7 00:09:49 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 00:09:57 CST