[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] Draft position paper for EAC/NIST UOCAVA workshop
|
As a member of this TC I believe we need to be cognizant that
this is an OASIS TC, not an anti eVoting group (I am sorry if I step on toes
saying that but I participate in this TC to improve the ability of electors to
have confidence in elections using computers). If we are presenting this paper
as a TC work, we MUST address it from an EML stand point – NOT from a
standpoint of what we personally believe about computers in voting. There is no prohibition in providing voters a receipt for their
vote. There are many reasons and places where a receipt showing how a voter
voted would not be given but a receipt showing the voter voted and the vote was
received for processing is often given (an “I voted today” sticker at the
polling place is very common). Once I, as a voter put my paper ballot in the ballot box, I have
nothing that ties that back to me; nor do I ever get anything that allows me to
see that my exact vote was counted the exact way I think I marked it. So, I
refrain from drawing that parallel. The point on votes sold/influenced is a good one and holds true
for all unobserved voting (voting that does not take place in an environment
where the voter is given privacy by way of a controlled facility/process. The listed mitigation aspects seem correct, regardless of voting
method. I believe transparency and auditability are our primary points
and are the strengths most obvious for EML. I do not agree that a “paper ballot is required to ensure audit
trail and verification”; dual pathing and encrypting/signing offer techniques
that can yield an independent validation/audit. I don’t think it has not been
deployed in any election but we need to avoid mandating something based on
personal bias or lack of common usage. - Peter From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] John, Attached word doc. This follows the approach we used for the
previous NIST workshop. Notice they limit to 5 pages of content and PDF - so once everyone
is happy with content - we can generate PDF from this. I've deliberately made this high level - since they are calling
merely for topic input at this time - more formal papers and presentations
would be at the actual event. From my work with UOCAVA - and knowledge of the previous SERVE
project - the biggest challenge I see is that legislators have only a slim
grasp of the issues - have a hard time comparing e-voting and the internet with
say online banking - and so I've tried to break this down using pictures and
bullet points for now - to compare the similarities and differences. I see our audience here is beyond the technical one at NIST itself
- and more to the decision makers at the state and federal levels who need
clear answers. Obviously for the actual event we'd want to do something much more
formal. The deadline is COB July 16th on this - Friday - so our group here
needs to make quick review and comments so we can hit that. Thanks, DW |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]