Re: [election-services] Draft position paper for EAC/NIST UOCAVA workshop

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>]

Deadline extended to 30 July...

On Wednesday, July 14, 2010, John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi guys
>
>
>
> Juts a holding reply for now as I’m out most of today.  Will get
> back later with a detailed appraisal.
>
>
>
> Bottom line for me has always been that the TC stays out of all the
> political, academic and security issues around evoting.  EML is there as a
> technical tool to support whatever the customer decides he wants to do and we
> believe we can support pretty much any solution, etc etc…..   So when we stand
> up representing the TC we avoid these awkward issues whenever possible and put the
> ball back in the politicians court.
>
>
>
> So with that in mind I’ll send you my detailed comments asap.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David RR Webber
> (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: 13 July 2010 21:02
> To: Zelechoski,Peter
> Cc: eml
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Draft position paper for EAC/NIST
> UOCAVA workshop
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the record - I've based this all closely on the current FVAP
> requirements for internet ballot delivery - that my team and others are
> currently implementing for roughly 20 states who are working that program.
>   Therefore I'm not just making this up - this models what States and FVAP
> are currently doing for the 2010 election cycle for UOCAVA voters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've made specific notes in line below to your items.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, DW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message
> --------
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Draft position paper for EAC/NIST
> UOCAVA workshop
> From: "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
> Date: Tue, July 13, 2010 1:56 pm
> To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, "eml "
> <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The point is here that we want to show how EML can support eVoting -
> but also the challenges.  We're not trying to solve this.  It's a
> complex problem - that involves not just software but process and laws too -
> and that is why NIST is having the workshop - to understand what is available.
>  Similarly it would be wrong for us to say - eVoting is easy - here is how
> you do it with EML.   However - saying - if you do eVoting then here are
> the safeguards you need today - is prudent - so if people do
>
>
>
>
>
> this without those safeguards we are not at fault.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's a huge difference between a confirmation and a receipt.  Many
> states legally forbid receipts.  For FVAP they have also ducked even
> sending back an email saying "Confirm ballot received" or similar.
>  Now of course the point here is that in the banking world - you do get a
> receipt - in your monthly statement and your returned checks.  In the
> voting world there is no equivalent - that say
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/