Re: Draft Standards for VVPAT in California

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:07:03 CST

> The draft standard requires "A device that will allow a voter to view
> his/her paper ballot image while preventing the voter from directly
> handling the paper ballot copy. "
> I've never understood this fixation on the voter not touching the
> ballot.

Looking over the draft, I have an hypothesis about this misguided idea
about voters not touching the ballot. I think those who come up with
these schemes are concerned about ballot stuffing with forged ballots.
They hope to prevent stuffing by preventing physical access to the
ballot box.

Assuming I'm right, I think this heightens the importance of pointing
out comparable anti-forgery measures for EVM2003. That is, ballots can
include cryptographic information on barcodes and/or
precinct-customized watermarks. I think we have another education
hurdle in letting politicians and reporters know that the "under glass"
schemes are only one--and not the best--solution to the danger of
forged ballots.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net! All the
gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
.cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains. Unite
         | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST