[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Scytl company PNYX approach compared to TLV
I found this link off the NIST vote.nist.gov site. http://www.scytl.com/docs/pub/a/PNYX.DRE-WP.pdf Essentially these folks have implemented the MIT "frog" approach. This comes closest to the TLV approach - because it does provide a means for dual verification. However - there are serious flaws in their approach. First - while their "verification unit" (aka MIT 'frog') does an electronic verification - its just fancy flashing lights - compared to a real physical paper ballot print-out and direct human verification of that. Their argument that the paper can be tainted fails when you use OASIS EML to ensure only required information is passed between the voting unit and the verification unit. Again - this is a significant flaw in their design - they are not using XML formats that can be verified. Therefore their verification step is in question - since it too can fake out the voter (show them one thing - record another). Anyway - useful to know that people are at least trying to do it right! Maybe someone can suggest to PNYX that they upgrade their system to support EML 4.0 and direct voter verification?! DW
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]