Analogue sensor recording v paper verification

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Fri May 27 2005 - 10:31:31 CDT


There's a whole small army of vendors out there thinking they
have the next killer application for voting verification.

I think it is time we showed that analogue recording systems
are fundamentally flawed no matter what.

Here's my hit list of why these things are expensive snake-oil.

Thoughts, reflections, refinements?

Thanks, DW


There are advocates out there touting that non-paper
recording devices beats out paper verification.

IMHO - digital media used in this way is not equivalent or
superior to paper records. In fact digital records suffer from
several critical issues.

1) Analogue records are sequential and therefore reveal
    voting sequence and hence expose voter privacy.

2) Verification - the voter cannot know that the recording
     has actually taken place, from equipment malfunction,
     to omission of content, to markers that are not audible
     or invisible (line interpolation tricks), the recording
     can be tampered with without the voters knowledge,
     or contain information that breaches voter privacy.

3) Video or audio recordings are clumsy to handle and
     manage and cannot provide the same highspeed
     reliable processing as paper with optical scanning
     technology. They cannot be independently unaided
     human verified without the use of some electronic

4) Cost - paper technology is proven, available and
     low-cost while these other technologies are
     speculative and require far higher price points.

For further notes on VVPAT v VVAATT see:

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= 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 23:17:49 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:53 CDT