Comments on: Secure Elections Are Too Much Work http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-36280 MikeT Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:47:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-36280 <p>Those of us prone to cynicism about democracy never find any shortage of reasons to be cynical! The powers that be just keep proving to us time after time that it's largely just a facade. The truth is, they are not concerned about how this might undermine the legitimacy of the elected government because the "elected government" is simply too well-protected by a myriad number of laws ranging from the districting system to the limit on the size of the House of Representatives to McCain-Feingold.</p> Those of us prone to cynicism about democracy never find any shortage of reasons to be cynical! The powers that be just keep proving to us time after time that it’s largely just a facade. The truth is, they are not concerned about how this might undermine the legitimacy of the elected government because the “elected government” is simply too well-protected by a myriad number of laws ranging from the districting system to the limit on the size of the House of Representatives to McCain-Feingold.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-55647 MikeT Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:47:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-55647 <p>Those of us prone to cynicism about democracy never find any shortage of reasons to be cynical! The powers that be just keep proving to us time after time that it's largely just a facade. The truth is, they are not concerned about how this might undermine the legitimacy of the elected government because the "elected government" is simply too well-protected by a myriad number of laws ranging from the districting system to the limit on the size of the House of Representatives to McCain-Feingold.</p> Those of us prone to cynicism about democracy never find any shortage of reasons to be cynical! The powers that be just keep proving to us time after time that it’s largely just a facade. The truth is, they are not concerned about how this might undermine the legitimacy of the elected government because the “elected government” is simply too well-protected by a myriad number of laws ranging from the districting system to the limit on the size of the House of Representatives to McCain-Feingold.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-36279 Gary McGath Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:47:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-36279 <p>Today the panel approved a more watered-down recommendation, which would apply the software independence requirement only to new machines. I don't know whether "new machines" means new units or new models.</p> <p>http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601754&subSection=Breaking+News</p> Today the panel approved a more watered-down recommendation, which would apply the software independence requirement only to new machines. I don’t know whether “new machines” means new units or new models.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601754&subSection=Breaking+News

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-55646 Gary McGath Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:47:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-55646 <p>Today the panel approved a more watered-down recommendation, which would apply the software independence requirement only to new machines. I don't know whether "new machines" means new units or new models.<br><br><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601754&subSection;=Breaking+News">http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle...</a></p> Today the panel approved a more watered-down recommendation, which would apply the software independence requirement only to new machines. I don’t know whether “new machines” means new units or new models.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle…

]]> By: Ned Ulbricht http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-36278 Ned Ulbricht Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:01:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-36278 <p>Latest news...</p> <p>From US ACM Policy Blog <a href="http://www.acm.org/usacm/weblog/index.php?p=444" rel="nofollow">TGDC Reverses Course, Finishes Meeting</a> (5 Dec 2005): <blockquote>As I suggested in yesterday's post the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) did revisit the software independent proposal during today's session. It was the first item, and by unanimous consent a revised resolution was approved requiring that the next generation of voting machines approved under the next Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). The revisions, as best as I can tell, were meant to address two main concerns from yesterday's session.</blockquote></p> <p>Anne Broache, <i>CNET</i>, confirms this news under the headline “<a href="http://news.com.com/Panel+changes+course,+approves+e-voting+checks/2100-1028_3-6140956.html" rel="nofollow">Panel changes course, approves e-voting checks</a>”. (Hat tip <a href="http://horning.blogspot.com/2006/12/better-news-tgdc-decides-si-is-good.html" rel="nofollow">Jim Horning</a>.)</p> <p>And Michael Hickins, <i>internetnews.com</i>, reporting under the headline “<a href="http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3647316" rel="nofollow">Election Officials Adopt Compromise on Standards</a>”, adds that:<blockquote>According to persons familiar with the situation, Rivest spent the evening lobbying members of the TGDC and crafted compromise language that was passed unanimously this morning.</blockquote></p> <p>So a cheer for Ron Rivest.</p> Latest news…

From US ACM Policy Blog TGDC Reverses Course, Finishes Meeting (5 Dec 2005):

As I suggested in yesterday’s post the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) did revisit the software independent proposal during today’s session. It was the first item, and by unanimous consent a revised resolution was approved requiring that the next generation of voting machines approved under the next Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). The revisions, as best as I can tell, were meant to address two main concerns from yesterday’s session.

Anne Broache, CNET, confirms this news under the headline “Panel changes course, approves e-voting checks”. (Hat tip Jim Horning.)

And Michael Hickins, internetnews.com, reporting under the headline “Election Officials Adopt Compromise on Standards”, adds that:

According to persons familiar with the situation, Rivest spent the evening lobbying members of the TGDC and crafted compromise language that was passed unanimously this morning.

So a cheer for Ron Rivest.

]]> By: Ned Ulbricht http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-55645 Ned Ulbricht Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:01:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-55645 <p>Latest news...</p> <p><br></p> <p>From US ACM Policy Blog <a href="http://www.acm.org/usacm/weblog/index.php?p=444" rel="nofollow">TGDC Reverses Course, Finishes Meeting</a> (5 Dec 2005):<br><blockquote>As I suggested in yesterday's post the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) did revisit the software independent proposal during today's session. It was the first item, and by unanimous consent a revised resolution was approved requiring that the next generation of voting machines approved under the next Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). The revisions, as best as I can tell, were meant to address two main concerns from yesterday's session.</blockquote></p> <p><br></p> <p>Anne Broache, <i>CNET</i>, confirms this news under the headline “<a href="http://news.com.com/Panel+changes+course,+approves+e-voting+checks/2100-1028_3-6140956.html" rel="nofollow">Panel changes course, approves e-voting checks</a>”. (Hat tip <a href="http://horning.blogspot.com/2006/12/better-news-tgdc-decides-si-is-good.html" rel="nofollow">Jim Horning</a>.)</p> <p><br></p> <p>And Michael Hickins, <i>internetnews.com</i>, reporting under the headline “<a href="http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3647316" rel="nofollow">Election Officials Adopt Compromise on Standards</a>”, adds that:<blockquote>According to persons familiar with the situation, Rivest spent the evening lobbying members of the TGDC and crafted compromise language that was passed unanimously this morning.</blockquote></p> <p><br><br>So a cheer for Ron Rivest.</p> Latest news…


From US ACM Policy Blog TGDC Reverses Course, Finishes Meeting (5 Dec 2005):

As I suggested in yesterday’s post the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) did revisit the software independent proposal during today’s session. It was the first item, and by unanimous consent a revised resolution was approved requiring that the next generation of voting machines approved under the next Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). The revisions, as best as I can tell, were meant to address two main concerns from yesterday’s session.


Anne Broache, CNET, confirms this news under the headline “Panel changes course, approves e-voting checks”. (Hat tip Jim Horning.)


And Michael Hickins, internetnews.com, reporting under the headline “Election Officials Adopt Compromise on Standards”, adds that:

According to persons familiar with the situation, Rivest spent the evening lobbying members of the TGDC and crafted compromise language that was passed unanimously this morning.



So a cheer for Ron Rivest.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-36277 Crosbie Fitch Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:31:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-36277 <p>I have been trying to point out to folk from time to time, that if proprietary e-voting becomes entrenched as the state's preferred electoral mechanism, that the only alternatives are as follows: 1) Revolution 2) Ad hoc paper-vote 3) Ad hoc p2p e-vote</p> <p>The first is extremely expensive. The second relies upon cooperation by the state and an ambulatorily motivated electorate. The third is a fricking doddle in comparison.</p> <p>cf http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78</p> I have been trying to point out to folk from time to time, that if proprietary e-voting becomes entrenched as the state’s preferred electoral mechanism, that the only alternatives are as follows: 1) Revolution 2) Ad hoc paper-vote 3) Ad hoc p2p e-vote

The first is extremely expensive. The second relies upon cooperation by the state and an ambulatorily motivated electorate. The third is a fricking doddle in comparison.

cf http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-55644 Crosbie Fitch Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:31:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-55644 <p>I have been trying to point out to folk from time to time, that if proprietary e-voting becomes entrenched as the state's preferred electoral mechanism, that the only alternatives are as follows:<br>1) Revolution<br>2) Ad hoc paper-vote<br>3) Ad hoc p2p e-vote<br><br>The first is extremely expensive. The second relies upon cooperation by the state and an ambulatorily motivated electorate. The third is a fricking doddle in comparison.<br><br>cf <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78">http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78</a></p> I have been trying to point out to folk from time to time, that if proprietary e-voting becomes entrenched as the state’s preferred electoral mechanism, that the only alternatives are as follows:
1) Revolution
2) Ad hoc paper-vote
3) Ad hoc p2p e-vote

The first is extremely expensive. The second relies upon cooperation by the state and an ambulatorily motivated electorate. The third is a fricking doddle in comparison.

cf http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-36276 Gary McGath Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:00:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-36276 <p>The Technical Guidelines Committee is answerable to the incumbents. Do you think they'd want fair elections?</p> <p>But the NIST report specifically declares decertification of existing systems to be outside of its scope. As you said earlier, the existing machines might be "grandfathered." So it wouldn't even require replacing any existing hardware. It would just prevent more untrustable systems from being installed.</p> The Technical Guidelines Committee is answerable to the incumbents. Do you think they’d want fair elections?

But the NIST report specifically declares decertification of existing systems to be outside of its scope. As you said earlier, the existing machines might be “grandfathered.” So it wouldn’t even require replacing any existing hardware. It would just prevent more untrustable systems from being installed.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/comment-page-1/#comment-55643 Gary McGath Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:00:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/12/05/secure-elections-are-too-much-work/#comment-55643 <p>The Technical Guidelines Committee is answerable to the incumbents. Do you think they'd want fair elections?<br><br>But the NIST report specifically declares decertification of existing systems to be outside of its scope. As you said earlier, the existing machines might be "grandfathered." So it wouldn't even require replacing any existing hardware. It would just prevent more untrustable systems from being installed.</p> The Technical Guidelines Committee is answerable to the incumbents. Do you think they’d want fair elections?

But the NIST report specifically declares decertification of existing systems to be outside of its scope. As you said earlier, the existing machines might be “grandfathered.” So it wouldn’t even require replacing any existing hardware. It would just prevent more untrustable systems from being installed.

]]>