[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fw: New NIST draft on VVPATs and DRE audits
Preliminary Report: NIST Approach to VVPAT Requirements for the VSS 2002 Addendum (John Wack) http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/VVPAT%20Addendum%20-%20jpw%20-%203-2-051.pdf Although only a working draft this is definately a good step forward. It definately vindicates the trusted process model - being mostly the same - just some subtle but important differences remain. One thing I intensely dislike here is this notion of sealed ballot printers behind viewing screens. We're supposed to be inspiring trust here - and this whole approach smacks of distrust of the voters! We've gone from being trusted to fill in our ballot by hand and place in ballot box - to being unable to touch the ballot. I think the NIST folks are being unnecessarily anal here about the printing process. A regular inkjet printer here should be more than sufficient. You can emboss the paper to make that more secure - but basically each ballot can have a hash code on it that needs to match the electronic vote. And 100% scanning to me is the only way to go - as opposed to a limited audit of a small % of ballots. The time differential is negligable - if you are going to the trouble or scan 10% - while you are there - do the other 90% through the hopper - its already setup and running. Doing a 100% audit means you can relax the anal requirements on the printing side about inks and all that business. So long as they scan - they should be acceptable. Having all these anal printing needs means high cost over using a regular COTS printer. Also - they are not separating the printing from the eVote capture - that is a mistake - and misses the fact that the DRE can cheat over the VVPAT after the voter prints - especially if there is not going to be a 100% check and audit. Making a separation between DRE and the Printer using XML just makes sense. It also allows for the whole ballot to be scripted - and therefore the software can be reused repeatedly without re-certification. That's a big cost saver / effort saver - and means ballots can be implemented much more rapidly. DW
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]