RE: New NIST draft on VVPATs and DRE audits; Holt bill

["Michael Melio" <meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Neal:

I am inclined to agree with Al on this point, at least from
my cursory reading of the NIST draft.

Moreover, I am less inclined to hop on board the VVPAT
bandwagon, perferring instead the VVPB, principally because
all the major VVPAT producers (like Sequoia, ES&S, and
Diebold) are using DRE machines. And it is the results of
these machines, the electronic record that actually get
counted. It is also the same machines that have been hacked
by people hired by Tom Feeney (R) of Florida. See the
Clinton Curtis video testimony and affidavit to the same: 

http://rawstory.com/images/pdfs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf

And

http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/video-online-of-clin
t-curtis-testimony.html


Also, from all my readings, it is precisely these 3 voting
machine manufacturers that have been in the center of the
controversy about voter fraud...with their heavily partisan
ties and backing, suspicious lack of transparency,
connections to a particular President, etc.

Why would we continue to trust them with our election system
when they continue to lobby for secrecy, resist efforts at
transparency and verifiability, and collude with members of
one party?

Haven't we had enough of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia?


Sincerely,
 
Michael David Melio
Jefferson County, CO.
meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx
 
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we
discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and
monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear
or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations,
which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the
law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the
people's masters." --  President Grover Cleveland (1885 -
1889)

 
 

|-----Original Message-----
|From: AlKolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx]
|Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 10:50 PM
|To: 'Neal McBurnett'; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|Subject: RE: New NIST draft on VVPATs and DRE audits; Holt
bill
|
|Neal,
|
|I disagree with your evaluation, and have just published a
response
|at
|http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/2005/03/say-no-to-nists-v
oter-
|verification
|.html
|
|Cheers
|
|Al
|
|
|Al Kolwicz
|2867 Tincup Circle
|Boulder, CO 80305
|303-494-1540
|AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
|
|
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
|Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:31 PM
|To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|Subject: New NIST draft on VVPATs and DRE audits; Holt bill
|
|A major step forward from NIST - good input for Colorado
|legislation.
|
|The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
just
|released a draft of their input on VVPATs and DRE audits as
|requested
|by the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) of
the
|Election Assistance Commission.
|
| Preliminary Report: NIST Approach to VVPAT Requirements
for the
|VSS
| 2002 Addendum (John Wack)
|  http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/VVPAT%20Addendum%20-
|%20jpw%20-%203-2-051.pdf
|
|I think it is a very significant step forward.  Although it
is a
|draft, subject to who-knows-what from the TGDC and the EAC,
I
|think it
|encapsulates the major requirements necessary to have a
verifiable,
|auditable, DRE, and does so in a way that will be more
likely to
|be passed by legislatures both here and in other states.
|
|Legislators, clerks and vendors are all concerned that if
we have
|legislation that is overly unique in Colorado, everyone's
life will be
|more complicated.  So I'm working on a national level also,
and
|have
|asked EFF and CPSR for input.
|
|Here are the major requirements:
|
| R1. The DRE-VVPAT shall show the voter a paper record of
the
|voter's
|electronic ballot choices which constitutes a distinct
record of the
|voter's
|ballot choices.
|
| R2. The DRE-VVPAT shall permit the voter to compare the
paper
|and
|electronic records with maximum ease according to
established
|accessibility
|and usability guidelines.
|
| R3. The method for voter verification shall be accessible
to all
|voters.
|
| R4. The DRE-VVPAT shall permit the voter to accept or
reject the
|paper
|record and reenter ballot choices at the DRE-VVPAT.
|
| R5. The voter's privacy and anonymity shall be preserved
during
|the process
|of recording, verifying, and auditing ballot choices.
|
| R6. The DRE-VVPAT shall permit robust auditing, forensics
analysis,
|and
|full recount capability of its electronic and paper
records.
|
| R7. The DRE-VVPAT equipment shall be secure and resistant
to
|failures, and
|shall be usable in its administration.
|
| R8. Trained personnel, procedures, and consumables shall
be in
|place during
|elections to handle all aspects of VVPAT capability.
|
|It requires a paper trail suitable for hand counting.
|It requires export of the memory card info in a
well-documented
|format, so we can write our own software to count it and
audit it.
|
|It requires the ability to do "surprise audits" in the
middle
|of the day in the polling places.
|
|It includes barcodes, but they must be in a standard
barcode format,
|in a published format, with no encryption.  So again,
standard
|off-the-shelf hand scanners can be used to validate that
the barcode
|is the same as the printed text.
|
|It allows for machine scanning of barcodes, but only if a
sample of
|the barcodes are checked by hand against the printed text.
|
| 3.3.6.9.1 If paper records include encoded representations
of the
|human
|readable content on the record, at least 1% percent of the
paper
|ballots per
|individual DRE-VVPAT under audit shall be manually audited
to
|ensure that
|the human readable content is identical to the encoded
|representation. The
|manual auditing may use common industry-standard handheld
|scanning equipment
|to read and display the encoded information.
|
| 3.3.6.9.2 High-speed optical scanning equipment may be
used to
|machine read
|paper records so as to reduce the time necessary to compare
|electronic
|records with their corresponding paper records.
|
|
|I think the Holt bill in the US House, along with this NIST
proposal,
|should form the basis for Colorado legislation.  They have
the same
|general intent as the Mitchell/Madden bill, but I think
they say it
|more clearly and with much more input from folks around the
nation
|that care about this stuff.  There are things to be
improved, but this
|is a good solid place to start.
|
|Of course we do have to have Colorado specific input
requiring the
|counting of the paper trail for all recounts, etc.
|
|I've pointed before to Holt's bill (the "gold standard"
according to
|verifiedvoting.org) before, but here it is again, HR-500:
|
| http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-550
|
|I'll be meeting with Senate Majority Leader Gordon and
other groups
|on
|Wednesday, and CFVI folks are meeting tomorrow in Denver to
talk
|about
|this.  The Blue Ribbon Election Panel meets on Friday at
2pm, so this
|is the time to read, listen, learn, and act!  Let me know
what you
|think!  Come to the Blue Ribbon Election Panel
|
| http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/blue_ribbon.htm
|
|Cheers,
|
|Neal McBurnett
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
|Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid:
2C9EBA60