RE: Initial comments on Boulder County RFP #4717-06 for election system

["Paul Tiger - LPBC Publicity" <Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A quick comment here about a technical assumption made by Neal.

I very much doubt that the clerk or her staff made a conscious effort to
deny web indexing or that the PDF was intentionally created as to make cut'n
paste impossible. It is simply lack of knowledge and skill, and the office
of the C&R is not all to blame.
This PDF is a bitmap. The original document was either scanned or output as
a bitmap. Thus it can only be viewed and is not editable. Perhaps that is by
design. However, PDFs can be output in text format and locked to prevent
re-edits of the same document. That would prevent people from editing it and
attempting to re-publish it under the same letterhead with signatories at
the bottom. It would not prevent copy and pasting. This PDF is very
difficult to read; index; or reference electronically.

The Boulder County website is well known for data losses; disappearing
links; and lousy web forms. I refused to utilize the comment form, because I
was unsure that anything I wrote would be delivered to the intended, or even
saved at all.

Is it incompetence or planned obstruction? Who can tell? But I say that its
publication and short deadline for comments is a repeat of the lack of
candor that we've all come to expect from the Office of the Clerk & Recorder
of Boulder County.

Paul Tiger, Publicity Director of the Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
303-774-6383 voice and messages
720-323-0570 cell
www.LPBoulder.org
"The government that governs best, governs least."
                            Thomas Jefferson


-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 9:12 AM
To: Josh Liss; Linda Salas
Cc: Richard Harris; Joe Pezzillo; Myriah Conroy; Paul Walmsley; Stith
Bennett; kellen carey; Peter or Alison Richards; Scott A. Morris; Carolyn
Bninski; Ralph Shnelvar; Geof Cahoon; Mary Eberle; Ivan C Meek; Margit
Johansson; AlKolwicz; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; attendees
Subject: Initial comments on Boulder County RFP #4717-06 for election system

I submitted the comments below to
 http://www.co.boulder.co.us/clerk/elections/RFP/471706.htm

but that form is badly designed and completely destroyed all
formatting.  Please accept this form of my input instead, and provide
an RFP more suited to commentary, with more time allotted, as
discussed below.

Thank you,

Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60


To begin with, let me urge the Clerk and Commissioners to carefully
consider the other comments from the public, including especially
those from the ACLU, Joe Pezzillo, Ralph Shnelvar, and Al Kolwicz.

The timing and process of developing this RFP is deeply flawed.  I've
had out-of-town guests during the two business days (!) allowed for
comment.  The form in which the RFP was released makes study and
commentary very difficult, and provides yet another example of the
generally opaque way the Clerk is conducting elections.

The Clerk and or County evidently took special steps to ensure that
the PDF file cannot be searched online, nor can text be copied and
pasted to our responses.  This is unacceptable because it makes it
unnecessarily difficult to even check whether critical issues like
disclosure of source code, conformance with the lastest EAC Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines, etc is included.  It similarly makes it
difficult for vendors to respond.  This is unaccepable for any
government document.  In contrast, e.g., the state of Massachusetts is
about to require that all government documents be produced in the Open
Document standard.  Boulder should follow that lead, and require it of
its contractors also.  Public information must be easy to work with.

The clerk must re-issue the RFP in a form that can be easily searched
for keywords, and from which text can be copied and pasted.  The
public should be allowed much more time for commentary before the RFP
is issued.  The quality of Boulder's voting system depends on a good
RFP, and this is no way to produce it.

Similarly, the RFP itself must require that the vendor responses
be in a searchable format suitable for copy-and-paste.

Section 3.9: requires the vendor to describe compatibility of a DRE
with Hart's Ballot Now system.  But as the ERC documented,
Hart has refused to produce a spec for Ballot Now that includes
information necessary to describe such compatibility.
E.g. acceptable engineering tolerances for what a valid ballot must look
like are unavailable.

The RFP must require support for statistically valid audits as
described at
 http://www.coloradovoter.net/moin.cgi/ManualCountAudit

The evaluation should include preferences for Fully Disclosed, Open
Source and Free software as described at

 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/elections/disclosure.html

and for expert third-party security evaluations.

In section GC-25: the confidentiality requirements are overly broad
and harmful

Other quick notes:

 Clerk should demand HAVA requirement delay ala
   http://www.themmob.org/hava/havaactions.html
 Clerk should focuse RFP on minimum requirements of the law as recommended
  by Kolwicz.
 Clerk should give preference to Ballot Marking equipment
 Clerk should ask for hand-count systems like the Swiss system.

Finally, note that the citizens helped the clerk avoid disaster 2
years ago when the clerk wanted to buy DREs.  We successfully
predicted problems the last two years when the clerk didn't follow the
rest of our recommendations.  Please leverage the collected advice of
the citizens, which has been demonstrated to contitute the
best-informed and wisest input at your disposal.  Our democracy
ultimately depends on it.

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.8/215 - Release Date: 12/27/2005