Re: Joint paper for WPES 2004

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Sun Jun 06 2004 - 10:18:22 CDT

At 10:40 AM -0400 6/6/04, David Mertz wrote:
>We're looking for < 15 pages, right? The outline seems reasonable
>for that, just checking for how much detail a given thing covers.

At most 15 pages, excluding bibliography.

>>1. Introduction - Why a secret ballot? [< 1 page?]

----Arthur

>>2. Secret Ballot Requirements [<1 page?]
>>FEC rules/Timing of ballots kept/Contents of ballots kept/not linked

----David (or Doug?)

>>3. How Secrecy Could Be Compromised [2-3 pages?]
> ++ Introduce concept of covert channel
>>Recording clickstreams, sequence of voter information, timestamp of
>>voter information (EBI timestamped in file system or database).
>>Voter check-in system linked to registration data
>>Does smart card given at voter check-in contain any personally
>>identifying data?
> ++ At conference, Avi Rubin mentioned a Tempest attack. OVC
>doesn't solve this, but paper should probably make a mention.

----David (and others)

>>4. OVC System Overview [2 pages?]
> ++ Include a rundown of the design even as not specifically related
>to anonymity.

----Arthur

>>5. OVC Balances Security, Reliability and Privacy
>>Privacy issues in 2-D barcode...Obscuring done in 1-D barcode [1 page?]
>>Smart card; EBI; ballot ID; RII. Printed ballot/privacy folder;
>>BVA; multiple languages. [4 pages?]
>>Privacy issues in open source. [1 page?]
>>"Public" tallying; precinct results. (break down for Ranked Pref);
>>write-in. [2 pages?]
> ++ Improper vote disclosures via "special votes" (write-ins, patterns)

David and Arthur (and others)

>>6. Conclusions. [1 page?]

Arthur

>>7. References. [1-2 pages?]

Everyone.

>Do those seem about right for distribution estimates?

Lengths good, except Bibliography (instead of my "References") does
not count towards limit.

>I think I've worried about covert channels and timestamp/sequence
>leaks about as much as anyone, so probably section 3 makes sense for
>me to do. I haven't thought as much about the registration and
>smartcard issues though; so if someone else wanted those.

Good.

>I think anyone can do the overview, I'd be happy to, but don't care
>too much either way. The FEC rules I think I understand from Doug's
>characterization, but I have no special knowledge.

If Doug wants to do it, great. Otherwise if you can take a crack at
it, that will be helpful.

> Then again, it seems like a brief parameter.

Yes.

>I think Arthur, as presenter, should make the conclusion, and
>probably introduction.

I'll add those at the beginning and end.

>On the section 5 stuff, I'd particularly be interested in looking at
>the open source bullet; and probably the barcode one. The list of
>components and their various issues I mushed together in the
>abridgment, I guess the EBI/ballot-ID parts are one I've
>particularly discussed. The folder/BVA/languages, not so much;
>smartcard seems repeated from section 3, but maybe other issues will
>be addressed. The canvassing stuff I'll probably defer on too.

Write what you can. I'll write the rest, or others will.

>Is anyone else beyond Arthur and I interested in participating as
>co-author. I'm sure he and I can do it; but most certainly if
>someone like Charlie or Doug want to join, that would be wonderful
>(or other people).

Yes, certainly contributors welcome.

Thanks.

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
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT