Re: Brand new concept in audit trails

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 00:26:53 CDT

At 10:07 PM -0700 5/3/05, Jim March wrote:
>Joseph, the "complexity for the pollworkers" issue is why I'm
>leaning towards single printer, two-part forms that have to be split
>back at county elections HQ. This way, the voter is handling just
>"one sheet" and the paper is going into "one box" exactly in
>traditional fashion.

Two part forms use carbon or are carbonless ("NCR paper"). NCR paper
has a limited shelf-life and is sensitive to heat. Carbon copies are
sensitive to pressure until separated, and the carbon is a tremendous
amount of material to be recycled that contains vote data. I suppose
the county could make money by selling the carbons to the highest
bidder. ;-)

The question does arise whether individual votes are published or
whether only vote tallies by ballot type by precinct by in-place,
absentee or provisional are published.

I'd like to hear from privacy experts about the merits or demerits of
publishing individual votes (identified only by precinct and ballot
type, and perhaps by voting machine). I know that this is an issue
that Kelly raised on Sunday's OVC tech (not tek, please) meeting.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT