Comments on: NIST Recommends against Paperless Voting http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-36246 Gary McGath Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:15:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/#comment-36246 <p>Either a paper or a paperless system can be cheated; but the paperless systems have two problems. (1) The cheating, even if more difficult to accomplish, is likely to be more widespread in scope, since multiple machines can be compromised with a single action. (2) There is no way after the fact to determine if there was a problem. The NIST report stresses this point repeatedly.</p> <p>Illegal registrants are a problem, but a different one. Each issue has to be dealt with.</p> Either a paper or a paperless system can be cheated; but the paperless systems have two problems. (1) The cheating, even if more difficult to accomplish, is likely to be more widespread in scope, since multiple machines can be compromised with a single action. (2) There is no way after the fact to determine if there was a problem. The NIST report stresses this point repeatedly.

Illegal registrants are a problem, but a different one. Each issue has to be dealt with.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-52029 Gary McGath Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:15:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/#comment-52029 <p>Either a paper or a paperless system can be cheated; but the paperless systems have two problems. (1) The cheating, even if more difficult to accomplish, is likely to be more widespread in scope, since multiple machines can be compromised with a single action. (2) There is no way after the fact to determine if there was a problem. The NIST report stresses this point repeatedly.<br><br>Illegal registrants are a problem, but a different one. Each issue has to be dealt with.</p> Either a paper or a paperless system can be cheated; but the paperless systems have two problems. (1) The cheating, even if more difficult to accomplish, is likely to be more widespread in scope, since multiple machines can be compromised with a single action. (2) There is no way after the fact to determine if there was a problem. The NIST report stresses this point repeatedly.

Illegal registrants are a problem, but a different one. Each issue has to be dealt with.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-36245 enigma_foundry Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:50:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/#comment-36245 <p><i>It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system.</i></p> <p> This comment barely deserves a response, but it is obvious to all who have followed Ed Felten's work that this is not true. Electronic systems can be compromised many weeks before the election, and there is no way to check. Also, paperless systems can be compromised at a much larger scale, by many orders of magnetude less people involved than a paper based system. <p> <i>The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats.</i> <p> No. There is a real problem with dual data paths, in that there can be only one winner in an election. What to do if the dual data paths give contradictory results? I prefer one path, closely watched and transparent. Transparency excludes all digital methods.</p></p></p> It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system.

This comment barely deserves a response, but it is obvious to all who have followed Ed Felten’s work that this is not true. Electronic systems can be compromised many weeks before the election, and there is no way to check. Also, paperless systems can be compromised at a much larger scale, by many orders of magnetude less people involved than a paper based system.

The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats.

No. There is a real problem with dual data paths, in that there can be only one winner in an election. What to do if the dual data paths give contradictory results? I prefer one path, closely watched and transparent. Transparency excludes all digital methods.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-52028 eee_eff Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:50:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/#comment-52028 <p><i>It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system.</i><br></p> <p><br>This comment barely deserves a response, but it is obvious to all who have followed Ed Felten's work that this is not true. Electronic systems can be compromised many weeks before the election, and there is no way to check. Also, paperless systems can be compromised at a much larger scale, by many orders of magnetude less people involved than a paper based system.<br></p> <p><br><i>The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats.</i><br></p> <p><br>No. There is a real problem with dual data paths, in that there can be only one winner in an election. What to do if the dual data paths give contradictory results? I prefer one path, closely watched and transparent. Transparency excludes all digital methods.</p> It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system.


This comment barely deserves a response, but it is obvious to all who have followed Ed Felten’s work that this is not true. Electronic systems can be compromised many weeks before the election, and there is no way to check. Also, paperless systems can be compromised at a much larger scale, by many orders of magnetude less people involved than a paper based system.


The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats.


No. There is a real problem with dual data paths, in that there can be only one winner in an election. What to do if the dual data paths give contradictory results? I prefer one path, closely watched and transparent. Transparency excludes all digital methods.

]]> By: Walter E. Wallis http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-36244 Walter E. Wallis Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:07:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/#comment-36244 <p>It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system. The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats. Then we need to approach the illegal registrants. This machine rage is just a cover for the illegally cast votes and everybody knows it.</p> It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system. The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats. Then we need to approach the illegal registrants. This machine rage is just a cover for the illegally cast votes and everybody knows it.

]]> By: Walter E. Wallis http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-52027 Walter E. Wallis Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:07:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/01/nist-recommends-against-paperless-voting/#comment-52027 <p>It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system. The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats.<br>Then we need to approach the illegal registrants. This machine rage is just a cover for the illegally cast votes and everybody knows it.</p> It is, suprisingly, as easy to cheat a paper system as it is a paperless system. The obvious antidote to cheating is independant parallel data paths, checksums and other proven tests for data corruption, then real world trials with attempts to cheat and rewards for successful cheats.
Then we need to approach the illegal registrants. This machine rage is just a cover for the illegally cast votes and everybody knows it.

]]>