Re: Please find evidence of >80bit election

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 12:38:02 CDT

On May 5, 2004, at 1:24 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> expensive to do that kind of manual examination.
> What I am concerned about are errors in our software that result in
> end-to-end introduction of errors.

Right. I entirely agree.

But that's exactly why we're more interested in error DETECTION than
error CORRECTION. If our software writes the wrong ballot data, it's
not good to "correct" it using ECCs (thereby inventing some fictional
vote content). Rather, we just want to know that the encoding went
wrong, and proceed to (expensive) manual examination.

That said, CRC's don't do a whole lot here. It's much more likely that
our error is in our votes2numbers() function than in our
numbers2barcode() function (hypothetical name). Adding a verified CRC
to the wrongly encoded votes doesn't really solve anything.

---
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual property is to the
21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:16 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT