Re: Draft OpEd

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Tue Oct 24 2006 - 19:13:14 CDT

At 4:48 PM -0700 10/24/06, Alan Dechert wrote various suggestions.

Here's my next version.

Why Not Open Voting?

The principle of voting in the United States is that votes are cast
in secret but tallied in public. This principle is incompatible with
the current practice of using voting systems whose inner workings are
trade secrets owned by the voting machine vendors. Those same
vendors pay for their systems to be tested, and the results of those
tests are also trade secrets - you guessed it - owned by the vendors.
Something is wrong with this picture.

The usual claims for secrecy are that it somehow enhances security.
The evidence for security through obscurity is quite limited. For
example, the Apache web server compares favorably with Microsoft's
web server even though every line of the Apache source code is
publicly available. While the source code for Microsoft's web server
is not publicly available, it is available to large customers in
source code under license, but the source code of voting systems is
not even available for inspection by counties that purchase these
systems (but may be in escrow by limited third parties) and certainly
not for inspection by you or me.

We're all familiar with how the excuse of military security is often
used to cover up embarrassing information that has little security
value. Why wouldn't vendors use trade secrets as an excuse to cover
up flaws in their systems or merely shoddy workmanship? In fact, the
exposed Diebold source code has shown embarrassing details. We do
not know what lurks in the programming of the other vendors.
Fortunately, ES&S and Sequoia have promised San Francisco and Alameda
counties, respectively, that they will cooperate with source code
disclosure rules if the State requires it. However, the California
legislature and the California Secretary of State have not yet
promulgated disclosure rules.

The Open Voting Consortium (www.openvoting.org) is creating a
registry where vendors can publish voting systems technology. This
registry will include requirements for what must be disclosed, such
as software source code, specifications, documentation, and hardware
designs. While vendors may retain proprietary rights to the
software, vendors must allow testing, experimentation, analyses, and
publication by anyone. While anyone will be allowed to inspect the
software, of course not everyone has the skills to do so effectively.
But individuals or groups will be able to hire the expert of their
own choosing and to publish their analyses. Today the experts are
chosen by the vendors themselves or by election officials, and those
analyses are usually kept secret, and when released, are heavily
redacted (censored).
This secrecy makes voting systems vulnerable to inaccuracy, or worse,
fraud. In turn, voters lose confidence that their votes are counted
as cast and cast as intended.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was enacted in 2002 in the aftermath
of the 2000 Presidential election, when it became clear that our
current voting systems were inconsistent, unreliable and unfair. The
mandated updated Federal standards were not even created until late
2005, standards that are voluntary and do not require auditing or
adequate testing. No wonder most computer scientists have concerns
about existing voting systems and want paper ballots, or at least a
voter-verified paper trail, to enable recounts and auditing. Are the
newly purchased systems themselves inconsistent, unreliable, and
unfair?

While there may be some risk in publishing software developed in
secret and not designed to be published, continued secrecy is not the
solution. Rather the solution is replacement of the secret software
too fragile or embarrassing to publish with a more robust open source
voting system. Just as the security of Apache is enhanced by its
publication, the publication of an open source voting system will
help ensure that the system is secure and reliable.

It is a myth that anyone can make changes to open source software
like Apache. Certainly anyone can download Apache, make changes to
it, and run the changed version. But changing the official version
of Apache can be done only by a small number of people in a carefully
controlled process. Anyone can report a bug or a suggested
improvement. But any suggested improvement will go through levels of
analysis and scrutiny before it is adopted. And that scrutiny is far
higher than voting system vendors, testers, or inspectors can muster.

In a variety of industries, the government has sponsored research and
development work that has produced systems adopted by industry.
Military-funded research leads to the creation of products and
services that the military can buy. It is time for the government to
fund the creating of an open source voting system that vendors can
adopt to provide more choices to election officials to buy on behalf
of the voters. Those additional choices should not only be at the
initial procurement of the voting systems, but also for ongoing
maintenance and support, and for auditing and reporting systems. It
is reported than years ago an IBM salesman said to a prospective
customer, "Be careful not to get locked into open systems." Now IBM
is one of the biggest proponents of open systems. It is time for our
election officials to become proponents of open systems too.

(845 words)

Arthur Keller is a founder and board secretary of the Open Voting
Consortium and a precinct inspector in Santa Clara County. He can be
reached at arthur@openvoting.org

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Oct 31 23:17:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CST