Fw: The meaning of auditing, recount, and observation of canvass

["Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>]

Thought you'd all be interested in progress of Calif. Internet Committee.
The more they learn the more scared they get it seems.  Ken, you should
really like this.
-----Original Message-----
From: jefferson@pa.dec.com <jefferson@pa.dec.com>
To: Charles, Alfie <acharles@ss.ca.gov>
Cc: Alfie Charles <acharles@sos_2.ss.ca.gov>; Ben Duchek
<bduchek@wam.umd.edu>; Bernard Soriano <bsoriano@sos_2.ss.ca.gov>; Bob
Yudkin <ryudkin@us.ibm.com>; Brian Gangler <BGangler@sos_2.ss.ca.gov>;
Cameron O'Rourke <corourke@us.oracle.com>; David Jefferson
<jefferson@pa.dec.com>; Dwight Beattie <dwightb@co.sacramento.ca.us>;
Jacquie Canfield <jcanfield@worldnet.att.net>; James Wayman
<jlwayman@aol.com>; Jim Adler <jim@soundcode.com>; Jim Cunneen
<jim.cunneen@asm.ca.gov>; John Mott-Smith <jmsmith@sos_2.ss.ca.gov>;
Jonathan Nagler <nagler@wizard.ucr.edu>; Kaye Caldwell <kaye@ix.netcom.com>;
Kim Alexander <kimalex@calvoter.org>; Larry Sokol <Larry.Sokol@SEN.CA.GOV>;
Linda O. Valenty <Lvalenty@email.sjsu.edu>; Mark Reynolds <mark@ilumin.com>;
Michael Alvarez <rma@crunch.caltech.edu>; Mikel Haas
<mhaasxrv@rov.co.san-diego.ca.us>; Pam Giarrizzo <PGiarriz@sos_2.ss.ca.gov>;
Pete Adlerberg <Pete@soundcode.com>; Peter Pursely <ppursely@earthlink.net>;
Peter Schmidt <peschmid@cisco.com>; Philip Muller <muller@poltech.com>;
Rodota, Joseph D <JoeR@AcmeSoft.com>; Roger Dao
<Roger.Dao@gsa.co.santa-clara.ca.us>; Rom Lopez <romulo.lopez@asm.ca.gov>;
Stacey Morgan <stacey.morgan@asm.ca.gov>; Steve Cunningham
<scunning@cisco.com>; Steve Knecht <skglobal@earthlink.net>; Sylvia Ahern
<Sylvia_Ahern@sterling.com>; Thad Howard <thad@lstreet.com>; Tim Draper
<tim@drapervc.com>; Tom Hill <thill@sos_2.ss.ca.gov>; Warren Slocum
<WSlocum@jump.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 4:40 PM
Subject: The meaning of auditing, recount, and observation of canvass


>Help!
>
>Folks, I have a problem that I don't think has been addressed in any of
>our committee meetings.  I think this issue straddles both committees,
>so I'd like to hear from the nontechnical committee as well.  Feel free
>to send to the whole mailing list, not just me.
>
>We all have an expectation that it should be a requirement for Internet
>voting that the process be auditable, and that there should be a procedure
>for recounts, and that the recount procedure should be able to be observed
>by interested parties in some way that is analogous to the same processes
>for paper ballots.
>
>The problem is:
>
> What do auditing and recount mean in the case of Internet ballots,
> and what does it mean to observe the process?
>
>Does "audit" mean that the auditors watch a county employee type Unix
>commands that re-run the authentication, separation, decryption, and
canvass
>programs that were alo run the first time?  What can be learned from that?
>
>Does it mean that a separately-written set of software that does the same
>job as the primary software should be run instead, and its results compared
>to canvass results achieved with the first software?
>
>Does it mean that the auditors are given the code to read so they can
>check for programming errors?
>
>And is there any point to a 10% sample in a recount or audit procedure?
>It is probably faster to rerun the entire process on the full 100% than
>it is to generate a truly random 10% sample and then erun the procedures
>on the sample.
>
>Should we require that the electronic ballots be printed or punched on
>paper so they can be counted by the same mechanical machinery as the paper
>ballots being audited or recounted?  How retro!
>
>This seems to me to be an example of how Internet voting simply doesn't
>resemble the paper voting process, at least it seems to me.  Auditing
>seems to be meaningless!
>
>On the other hand, how can we try to sell a process that we claim is not
>auditable?
>
>This is not just my opinion.  An old friend of mine, a computer scientest
>at Carnegie-Mellon University who is also a lawyer and an election
equipment
>certifier for Pennsylvania and Texas, has made similar points.  See
>
> http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html
>
>This is an article on e-voting written in 1993, before the Web; besides
>the discussion of auditing, it is also very interesting for its outspoken
>opinions on other issues of relevance to us.
>
>Comments please,
>
>David
>
>
>
>