Comments on: MrPikes, Election Officer Redux http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/mrpikes-election-officer-redux Fear It. Mon, 30 May 2011 14:03:52 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: MrPikes http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/mrpikes-election-officer-redux/comment-page-1#comment-55 MrPikes Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:26:21 +0000 http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/?p=42#comment-55 Thank you very much for taking the time to comment. My point about security is that we simply cannot know that the results are accurate, irrespective of how good Henrico County's chain of custody procedures are. Setting aside the fact that the machines communicate wirelessly using 128-bit WEP (lightweight), without an independently verifiable paper audit trail, we cannot objectively <b>prove</b> that the machines' totals reflect the voters' intent. It's not about one election. It's not even a question of whether or not any previous election conducted using DRE voting machines was ever compromised. It's not even necessarily about the malicious intentions of hackers or insider attacks. I don't know how many lines of code were written by Advanced Voting Solutions, but they sit atop millions of lines of Windows code. Implementing something that complex without providing a means of independent audit is breathtakingly irresponsible. Thank you very much for taking the time to comment. My point about security is that we simply cannot know that the results are accurate, irrespective of how good Henrico County’s chain of custody procedures are. Setting aside the fact that the machines communicate wirelessly using 128-bit WEP (lightweight), without an independently verifiable paper audit trail, we cannot objectively prove that the machines’ totals reflect the voters’ intent. It’s not about one election. It’s not even a question of whether or not any previous election conducted using DRE voting machines was ever compromised. It’s not even necessarily about the malicious intentions of hackers or insider attacks. I don’t know how many lines of code were written by Advanced Voting Solutions, but they sit atop millions of lines of Windows code. Implementing something that complex without providing a means of independent audit is breathtakingly irresponsible.

]]> By: VA Voter http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/mrpikes-election-officer-redux/comment-page-1#comment-54 VA Voter Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:02:28 +0000 http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/?p=42#comment-54 You gave some nice observations from an enlighted election official. You also left out praise to the security of the machines from county. Did the hackers win or lose this election? You gave some nice observations from an enlighted election official. You also left out praise to the security of the machines from county. Did the hackers win or lose this election?

]]> By: Kayseejones http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/mrpikes-election-officer-redux/comment-page-1#comment-52 Kayseejones Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:52:34 +0000 http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/?p=42#comment-52 I believe the "problems" we are trying to fix are: 1. Get rid of old, hard to maintain mechanical voting machines and those that have systemic problems like punch cards and optical scan paper that are unreliable. 2. Make vote counting accurate by having computers do the counting and accumulating as well as reporting to the next higher level. People aren't very good at counting accurately. 3. Create a system that is easy to use. 4. Create a system that is secure, documentable and auditable. Not necessarily in that order ... though I am not quite sure of the order. These problems must be solved while preserving the intent of a democratic election ... one-person one vote in secret without coersion. I believe computer-based systems are the answer. We use them for tasks ranging from grocery checkouts to babies' toys, and games teller machines. People will learn. The first tentative steps a baby takes are a frightening experience for the baby and the parent. But, it becomes second nature with experience. People who vote, do so only a couple of times a year, so the training process has long dead spots. Also, people who use the "techno-devices" generally have a choice. They can go where there is a machine they like and are familiar with or refuse to use them. That is a possible solution for voting. Set up a paper ballot with pencils somewhere. Aren't absentee ballots done like this? We don't want voters to choose the "refuse to vote" option. There is no question that we have a way to go before the process is second nature for everyone. The mechanical machines were still intimidating for some after many years of use, so maybe there will never be a time when "everyone" is comfortable with any technology. Good election judges are key to making that happen. Thank you Ant. Good IT designs and good ergonemetric designs are also key to making it happen. It won't happen overnight, but "let us begin" and let us not throw up our hands and lower this process to the level of the person least familiar with modern technology. Frankly, security, auditability and documentability are my greatest concerns. I think we can solve the other problems fairly easily. Kayseejones I believe the “problems” we are trying to fix are: 1. Get rid of old, hard to maintain mechanical voting machines and those that have systemic problems like punch cards and optical scan paper that are unreliable. 2. Make vote counting accurate by having computers do the counting and accumulating as well as reporting to the next higher level. People aren’t very good at counting accurately. 3. Create a system that is easy to use.
4. Create a system that is secure, documentable and auditable.
Not necessarily in that order … though I am not quite sure of the order. These problems must be solved while preserving the intent of a democratic election … one-person one vote in secret without coersion.

I believe computer-based systems are the answer. We use them for tasks ranging from grocery checkouts to babies’ toys, and games teller machines. People will learn. The first tentative steps a baby takes are a frightening experience for the baby and the parent. But, it becomes second nature with experience. People who vote, do so only a couple of times a year, so the training process has long dead spots.

Also, people who use the “techno-devices” generally have a choice. They can go where there is a machine they like and are familiar with or refuse to use them. That is a possible solution for voting. Set up a paper ballot with pencils somewhere. Aren’t absentee ballots done like this? We don’t want voters to choose the “refuse to vote” option.

There is no question that we have a way to go before the process is second nature for everyone. The mechanical machines were still intimidating for some after many years of use, so maybe there will never be a time when “everyone” is comfortable with any technology. Good election judges are key to making that happen. Thank you Ant. Good IT designs and good ergonemetric designs are also key to making it happen. It won’t happen overnight, but “let us begin” and let us not throw up our hands and lower this process to the level of the person least familiar with modern technology.

Frankly, security, auditability and documentability are my greatest concerns. I think we can solve the other problems fairly easily.

Kayseejones

]]> By: MrPikes http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/mrpikes-election-officer-redux/comment-page-1#comment-53 MrPikes Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:54:25 +0000 http://www.mrpikes.com/blog/?p=42#comment-53 Thank you so much for your thorough and well-considered reply. Our objectives are the same - fair, secure and (most importantly) accurate elections. My experience and education lead me to conclude that to realize these objectives we must reduce the complexity of our voting system to the greatest extent possible. I do not advocate, however, dragging it down to the lowest common denominator. There is, after all, only so much that one can do for a registered, gibbering torso. Somewhere between that and our current voting system resides the "sweet spot". A transparent, peer-reviewed system that the vast majority of voters understand and trust, that produces results that can be proven. Our current voting system could hardly resemble that less. Thank you so much for your thorough and well-considered reply. Our objectives are the same – fair, secure and (most importantly) accurate elections.

My experience and education lead me to conclude that to realize these objectives we must reduce the complexity of our voting system to the greatest extent possible. I do not advocate, however, dragging it down to the lowest common denominator. There is, after all, only so much that one can do for a registered, gibbering torso.

Somewhere between that and our current voting system resides the “sweet spot”. A transparent, peer-reviewed system that the vast majority of voters understand and trust, that produces results that can be proven.

Our current voting system could hardly resemble that less.

]]>