Re: Avante Releases White Papers on AVVPAT...

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 21:47:01 CDT

On Jun 12, 2004, at 9:09 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
> There is a lot of useful information in these papers. However, there
> are
> many mistakes. There is at least one gross misrepresentation, namely,
> an
> argument against open-source for election software.

I agree with Alan on open source, of course (I think I've taken that
stance even more vehemently than he has). But I am very pleasantly
surprised at how well Avante has done (at least in their rhetoric) with
anonymity concerns:

> 1. The paper record must maintain voter’s privacy.
> • There should not be a time-stamp like some proposed systems produce.
> • There should not be serial number attached to the paper record.
> • The paper record must be individualized (i.e. cut). It must not be
> produced in a roll.
> • There should not be any printer ribbons or other means that can be
> used to reconstruct the sequence of votes.
> 2. The paper record must not be easily tampered.
> • No one should be able to produce another paper record post election.
> • Each paper record must bear a special check-code that cannot be
> tampered with even by the election officials or by the company that
> produces such system.
> 3. The paper record must not be defeated by forgery.
> • How would we know if a paper record is authentic or forgery? What
> if someone stuffed with other paper records after the election?
> • What if some one presents a paper record that they claim to be
> authentic?
> • AVANTE paper records are each incorporated with an encrypted
> printing specific to the selections.
> 4. The paper record must allow for authentication and traceable to
> the electronic records.
> • That is, there should be one-to-one correspondence with the paper
> records and the electronic records.
> • How do we know the same electronic records have not been printed
> twice?
> 5. Should the voters be given a paper record besides what are stored
> for audit and recount?
> • Some people are afraid that people can sell or buy votes.
> • Some people are worried that people will coerce others to vote a
> certain way.
> • Whether a voter should be given a paper record as part of their
> record of voting is a social and political decision to be decided by
> the political process and not by the vendors. Of course, there are
> both federal and state laws that can be enforced to protect such
> tampering as well.
> 6. Visually impaired voters should also have the benefits of voter
> verification similar to that of the paper records for the sighted
> voters.

It's almost like they cribbed from OVC's site (and my posts) :-).
= 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 23:17:14 2004

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