RE: TED SELKER: US Election Assistance Commissio n--Questions

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 21:06:41 CDT

At 9:25 PM -0400 5/10/04, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>Ted Selker's theory is that an audiotape has a number of advantages
>over paper. It's easier to store and handle a cassette tape than a
>stack of paper. It's hardware to manipulate a tape than a stack of
>paper. And it's easier to record onto cassette tape than to print
>out and handle paper.
>These arguments are all true. But somehow it seems like a "crazy"
>idea. Perhaps I'm getting old?
>Ted doesn't address the privacy issues of the tape being sequential.
>I can't think of a meaningful way to address that -- if you
>reshuffle the recordings on the tape, you've eliminated the value of
>the tape as a "true" recording of the voting. Perhaps his answer
>would be that you lose that privacy? Of course, the tape doesn't
>record the time between voters, so there's some protection there,

The biggest problem with the audio tape is there is no feasible
automated way to reconcile the tape against the computerized vote

Best regards,

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 Mon May 31 23:17:32 2004

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