-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Researchers and registrars in weeklong e-voting debate Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:20:40 -0400 From: Paczkowski, John S <JPaczkowski@private> To: <dave@private>, <declan@private> Dave, Declan: It's a shame that they keep calling these Q&A sessions with the presidential candidates "debates." You want a good election year debate? One with a dozen experts and a well-informed audience mixing it up over a controversial topic, with well-framed and supported arguments replacing catch phrases and comebacks? Keep an eye on our e-voting roundtable all week (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/9851518.htm). Here's a sample of what's being said: If one set out to design systems to prevent checks and balances, it would be hard to outdo current paperless e-voting machines. Electronic voting in its current form is equivalent to handing over the counting of votes to private groups who count the ballots behind closed doors -- and then destroy them before anyone else can do a recount. -- David Dill, Verified Voting What about all those who are being encouraged to vote an absentee/mail ballot? They place their faith in the U.S. Postal Service, which handles their mail ballot by computerized processes. If they are delivered to the Elections Department, for decades, those ballots have been tabulated through computers (not networked). Yet, that voter has no idea whether his/her ballot has been counted in every contest because of the anonymity of the voter and secrecy of the ballot. -- Mischelle Townsend, Riverside County registrar of voters I am not against technology. I drive a car, get on airplanes and ride elevators. However, if the code in any of these was as bad as Diebold's software, I wouldn't. -- Avi Rubin, computer science professor One of my company's customers makes electronic slot machines, and hires us as one part of the independent verification process. The manufacturer, the casinos, and the state regulators all take the verification of software for these machines very seriously -- much more seriously than most election officials seem to take the verification of DRE software. -- Jim Horning, reader The question begs asking: how did all of these experts find such serious flaws that passed the scrutiny of the testers who approved the systems? As it turns out, it's not entirely the fault of the testers. The standards by which they are asked to rate and judge voting systems are highly flawed themselves and are severely outdated. -- Kim Zetter, Wired News At this point in time in the election cycle, there is no constructive value in perpetuating the debate. Election officials are conducting the election with the tools that they have. To continue discrediting these tools serves only to actively undermine the legitimacy of the election before a vote has been counted. To deride and malign election officials who are working tirelessly with the tools they have to conduct a transparent, fair and accurate election to the best of their ability in November serves no positive goal. It is a fair question to ask the motive of those who do either. -- Scott Konopasek, San Bernardino County registrar of voters ____________________________________________ John Paczkowski Good Morning Silicon Valley | http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/ <http://www.gmsv.com> SiliconValley.com | http://www.siliconvalley.com ----- Knight Ridder Digital 35 South Market Street San Jose, CA 95113 _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Oct 14 2004 - 20:46:06 PDT