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

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

Hi all, I will be co-chairing the session on Privacy and
Authentication, so I'll certainly be there. Unlike past workshops,
papers will not be selected and authors invited, I believe. I believe
most papers will be posted, as long as they meet some minimal
guidelines.  However, know that the number of attendees is capped
around 100, so if you want to be present, paper or not, you should
register now, as I expect it to fill up quickly. Of course, with me
there, I'd be happy to represent E&VS TC and EML, but know that I have
to represent my NSF grants and such too, so I'll be careful to
disclaim much of what I say, and try my best to represent our group
here. best wishes, Joe

On Monday, July 19, 2010, John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> David and I have had another iteration of the draft paper and it’s
> attached for your final comments please.  We’ve tried to accommodate all views
> expressed on the first version plus I’ve steered it away from us appearing to
> be any sort of campaigning group for evoting – see my views in email below.
> For the purposes of this submission we need to be agnostic on solutions,
> however if we get selected and asked to attend the workshop we could then
> develop our ideas in the open debate giving the audience the benefit of our
> experience.  But let’s get this paper finalised and submitted first.
>
>
>
> If anyone has got any further examples for the Experiences
> section please let me have details.
>
>
>
> Responses by this Friday please – 23rd July.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: John Borras
> [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 15 July 2010 10:57
> To: 'election-services@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Draft position paper for EAC/NIST
> UOCAVA workshop
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK  caught up now and thanks to all for their input so
> far.
>
>
>
> My starting point is which of the workshop topics we should be
> seeking to address.  I’ve annotated the topics list below with views that
> reflect my earlier comments, but are we agreed on that as the starting
> point?
>
> David – it’s not clear to me which of these, or all of them, you
> are attempting to cover in your draft paper?
>
>
>
> The sponsoring
> organizations seek to understand:
>
> ·
> Desired/required
> functional properties of UOCAVA remote voting systems  - Possible pointer to CoE Rec
>
> ·
> Advantages
> and disadvantages of different UOCAVA remote voting system architectures
> - Possibly
>
> ·
> Ways
> to express and compare risks, including using metrics  - No
>
> ·
> Risks
> associated with using the Cyber Infrastructures such as the Internet - Yes
>
> ·
> Risks
> associated with domestic and UOCAVA mail-in absentee voting - No
>
> ·
> Risks
> associated with remote electronic voting - Yes
>
> ·
> Domestic
> and UOCAVA mail-in absentee voting and remote electronic voting risk
> comparisons - No
>
> ·
> Experiences
> with remote electronic absentee voting systems – Possibly, eg UK pilots,  Dutch trials etc.
>
> The workshop
> organizers are soliciting position papers on these topics.
>
>
>
> I think we can address most of these selected points using the
> material in App B of our Spec document, see extract attached.  This
> expresses opinions that the TC has already signed up to but doesn’t get us
> deeply into the more contentious aspects of this whole debate.
>
>
>
> I would also suggest that we reference the Council of Europe
> Recommendation which is very explicit on all aspects of remote/unattended
> voting and provides “standards” to be followed on most of the above
> topics.  These are based on legal views supporting true democracy
>
>
>
> From: John Borras
> [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 14 July 2010 09:27
> To: 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Zelechoski,Peter'
> Cc: 'eml '
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Draft position paper for EAC/NIST
> UOCAVA workshop
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 summarizes your ballot - 6
> votes
>
>
>
>
>

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