Fwd: Joe's Notes from 7/12/2004 meeting with CA asst. SoS Carrel

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Thu Jul 15 2004 - 14:10:48 CDT

Arthur, could you add Bruce to the list? -Joe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Perens <bruce_at_perens_dot_com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:24:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Joe's Notes from 7/12/2004 meeting with CA asst. SoS Carrel
To: joehall@pobox.com
Cc: voting-project@lists.sonic.net

Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

>-They have issues with off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware... 1) it is not
>tamper-resistant (Alan mentioned plans for a cage) and 2) it doesn't
>look good and isn't light or easily packaged (Amy and Karl mentioned
>that they have experience (or contact with people who do) with
>delivering solid products).
The biggest problem I saw in the presentation was that the group did not
come in with a system integrator as partner, nor did we describe a model
for coupling the non-profit software research project with a for-profit
system integrator.

The model I think would work is for the academic project to create the
software, and then make it available to for-profit system integrators
who will combine the software with hardware and service. Our
presentation said very little about service, and it's clear that they
expect a lot of it - Diebold was said to have provided one
troubleshooter per three precincts, although this level of service would
probably not be preserved over time if they were able to get the bugs
out of their system. We can establish a competitive market for the
system integrators. It's not clear to me yet whether the software should
be certified as part of the academic project, or if the system
integrators should certify their particular hardit ware-software
combination, or whether we can do some combination of both.

Alan came in with a little cheeze-box PC which is great for a prototype
but not, IMO, sturdy enough to deliver as a real product. For an example
of what would work in a delivered product, please see
http://www.citadelcomputer.com/ . These things will stand being banged
and dropped and having coffee spilled on them, and have an optical
touch-screen. The detection mechanism is LEDs and photodetectors in the
screen frame, and the screen has a polycarbonate sheet in front of it
for protection. You can scratch or replace the polycarbonate without
disrupting the touch sensor.

The bad news is that they probably 10 times as much as Alan's device. I
haven't done comparison shopping, but I suspect that we would be talking
several times the price of consumer equipment to gain the reliability.



Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb2/
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT