Re: TED SELKER: US Election Assistance Commission--Questions

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 19:58:22 CDT

> At first I thought, well continuous tape = Bad since it gives vote
> order. but then It occured to me that two things could be done to
> solve that issue. 1) do it just like OVC does. OVC shuffles the
> ballots AFTER the election.

Would this involve a razor blade and scotch tape, like I used to use in
splicing reel-to-reels?

> I principle one could re-record the tape and randomize the order of
> the items on the serial tape AFTER the election.

Oh... I guess the idea is that you transfer from tape 1 to tape 2, then
destroy (or at least sequester) tape 1 that reveals sequence. Of
course, the out-of-order tape transfer introduces another failure
point: are we sure it won't skip some vote in the transfer and/or
transfer some other vote twice?

> 2) alternatively rather that write to a tape, write to a write-once
> cd.

I don't know a way of doing that without preserving order. Can you
write to an arbitrary sector on an non-finalized CD-R? If that's
possible, it might make certain things easier for OVC's EVMix, since we
have some similar issues with the CD session used for EBIs.

I don't *like* Selker's sound recording scheme for verification. But I
think the narrow technical issue of recording ordering can probably be
handled procedurally. And Charlie likes to point out (accurately) that
many guarantees must be procedural, not wholly technical.
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT