Re: Architecture update on barcode obfuscation

From: <Adechert_at_aol_dot_com>
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 12:20:24 CDT

In a message dated 9/13/03 1:24:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

> Please see:
> I have updated the document to describe the XOR-with-repeated-ballot-id
> obfuscation method, following the suggestions of Jan and Ed.
> Btw. I endorse Jan's suggestion in a note a few moments ago that the
> checksum in Code128 is proper and adequate error correction (at least
> for the demo).
> Also, pay attention to Jan's mention that we are using Code128's compact
> representation of digits-only strings.
This is all quite excellent.

One word of caution for your architecture document. "Ballot style" is a kind
of reserved word in elections parlance. It refers to the mix of candidates
and issues that may appear on a given ballot within a jusrisdiction. So,
Sacramento County has 900 precincts but perhaps over 200 "ballot styles" due to the
fact that different contests (state/federal representatives, school boards,
etc) and different candidates may appear on ballots of different precincts
within Sacramento County. It doesn't mean that the *style* of the ballot is
different in the usually way we think of "style" -- it just means the contents of
the ballots may vary from precinct-to-precinct. It's probably okay to use the
term "ballot style" internally but you might want to consider using something
else. In any case, we want to make sure we don't use the term "ballot style"
publicy unless we're talking about the same thing elections people think we're
talking about -- else they'll think we're ignorant.


Alan D.
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue Sep 30 23:17:05 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 23:17:09 CDT