RE: New to group

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 10:01:41 CDT

Hello Jim and Clint:

I recall seeing a note from Arthur (?) that the
CueCats were used only as quick and dirty expedient to
get the demo up and running and that there was never
an intent to use them in the actual product. Oh yes,
they were for bar codes only. While we have had
extensive discussions about OCR versus bar codes,
generally bar codes came out on top because they could
be self checking and had a good information density
especially when '2d' bar codes were used. The other
side of the argument was that there was a modest
amount of suspicion about bar codes and that they were
not as user accessible as some folks would like
(including me). However, the argument for bar codes
usually sounded more persuasive IMHO. Lately I've
been suggesting that this sort of thing doesn't have
to be either/or but could be both. However, that was
actually in regards to other items like machine
initialization and the basic format of outputs. If
OCR isn't reliable, then including it as an option
doesn't make sense.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

--- clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com wrote:
> What is the error rate?
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] New to group
> > From: Fred McLain <mclain@zipcon.net>
> > Date: Mon, May 09, 2005 1:41 am
> > To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> > <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> >
> > Hi Clint,
> >
> > Welcome to the group. It's nice to see that you
> have an interest in
> > what we are doing.
> >
> > I'll have to take you to task on the scanner
> issue. The equipment we've
> > been using so far is a modified cue-cat scanner.
> This is a pretty darn
> > simple instrument that has no processor and works
> more or less like an
> > optical switch. It has a mystery chip that is
> surface mounted on the
> > PCB that makes me wonder, but I can't see any
> commercial sense in that
> > being an intelligent part. The software on the
> computer side is all
> > open source. If you can think of a way to hack
> the cue-cat I'd be very
> > interested in hearing about it. Even so, the
> paper ballots are there
> > and available for a hand recount. OVC advocates a
> partial hand recount
> > in any electronic voting system.
> >
> > -Fred-
> >
> > On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 13:52 -0700,
> clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com wrote:
> > > My name is Clint Curtis. I am new to the group
> so it will take me a
> > > while to get up to speed on what you are doing.
> > >
> > > What I have been proposing is simple open source
> software that is
> > > running on a non-networked non-propriety system.
> This system could be
> > > done entirely on surplus equipment and thus
> bring the cost to the
> > > states down to something that is hard for anyone
> to refuse.
> > >
> > > One key element is that it would print two
> receipts. One used for the
> > > official ballot which would be spot checked
> against the machine totals
> > > (counts should match exactly) and the other to
> be preserved for open
> > > inspection by any interested party (party as in
> person not necessarily
> > > as in political). In the event that the spot
> checks prove the machine
> > > totals to be in error, a hand recount can be
> mandated.
> > >
> > > I am not a fan of the scanning technology. The
> touch screens can be
> > > provided for next to nothing and can be equipped
> with a JAWS system
> > >
>
(http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_products/software_jaws.asp),
> which
> > > will make it accessible to the blind. Scanners
> are inherently
> > > proprietary and thus add an extra layer of
> invisibility that can be
> > > attacked by those with the money and motivation
> to do so. Might be
> > > useful to spot check the touch screen count but
> my experience using
> > > OCR, barcode, and positional mapping (while
> doing doc management at
> > > NASA and DOT) was that their reliability would
> be less than perfect.
> > > Have not looked at the systems in the last
> couple of years but I
> > > believe the totals would need to match exactly
> in order restore
> > > confidence in the voting system.
> > >
> > > That is where my position has been but I am
> eager to continue to monitor
> > > the discussion group and learn better ways.
> > >
> > > Clint
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OVC discuss mailing lists
> > > Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC discuss mailing lists
> > Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
858-578-8842
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
I blog now and then at:  <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
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 23:17:26 2005

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