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

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 10:05:16 CDT

Right, but to play devil's advocate, (1) you'd lock the tapes in a secure
location (or locked box, etc.), the same as the paper, and (2) if the tape
is recorded over, there's physical evidence that it was manipulated (it's
apparently possible to deetct changes in signal levels, etc.), while
inserting a few extra ballots into a stack doesn't leave the same kind of

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of David
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] TED SELKER: US Election Assistance
Commissio n--Questions

On May 10, 2004, at 9:25 PM, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
> It's [harder?] 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.

It's not all THAT hard to re-record over a section of a cassette tape
(or even just erase it). If you pop out those plastic tabs, it's true
that you'd need to resort to the "extreme hacking" of attaching scotch
tape; but I'm not sure that's a perfect assurance.

> 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, somewhat.

Pretty darn weak protection, IMO. Sequence isn't *quite* a time stamp,
but it's close.

= 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 23:17:34 2004

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