[no subject]

I'm not suggesting that there should be 10 vendors building voting 
machines, what I'm suggesting is that all electronic voting machines 
should be reviewed by someone other than parties who have a vested 
interest in said company.  You can attack a monopoly on either axis.

>> Second, the systems should be reviewed by non-partisan technically 
>> capable people.
> 
> Obviously correct.
> 
>> Third, voting devices such as these should be randomly seized and a
>>  complete verification of the system be completed, again by a 
>> non-partisan group.  That's to say, they could walk into a polling 
>> place, anywhere in this country, select a machine and after
>> protecting the existing votes on that device, proceed to validate
>> and verify that it is functioning correctly.
> 
> That's crazy.  Even just considering the technical aspects, how does
> one "validate and verify".  If we knew how to do that we wouldn't
> have security problems any more.  I believe there is a meta-theorem
> which says you cannot validate a sufficiently complex system--and
> these are more than sufficently complex.

If they are that complex, they should not be used.  It's not bloody 
rocket science, you're counting votes.

> The whole point of a paper trail is that it protects against unknown
> attacks. Even if the bad guys come up with a diabolically clever
> attack which avoids detection by looking at the system, the
> electronic and paper ballots will not agree.  The attackers would
> have to subvert the hard copies, too, which we have a lot of
> experience preventing.  Furthermore, electronic fraud is done 
> wholesale and paper fraud is retail--it would be extremely difficult
> to get them to agree.

I'm also concerned with an inside job.  Sure, you get a paper trail of 
how people voted, but is that compared to the electronic totals?  How do 
you know the machine is tallying the same way it's printing?

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey


</pre>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<hr>
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00195" href="msg00195.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> jimpop at yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00072" href="msg00072.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> jcf at primeharbor.com (Chris Farris)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00141" href="msg00141.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> kafka at antichri.st (George Carless)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00146" href="msg00146.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> esoteric at 3times25.net (Geoffrey)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00178" href="msg00178.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> mhirsch at nubridges.com (Michael D. Hirsch)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<ul>
<li>Prev by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00187.html">[ale] Extraction of address and pages</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00189.html">[ale] how long will it take?</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Previous by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00178.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00195.html">[ale] Its over. Maybe</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Index(es):
<ul>
<li><a href="maillist.html#00188"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
<li><a href="threads.html#00188"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
</body>
</html>