BBV - ES&S steals control of IEEE voting Mach standards board

[papau]

Voting Machine companies (Diebold/ES&S)steal control of IEEE voting Mach standards board - tries to Rush decision - prevent BBV input - and declare their system blessed by industry standards. - From Dill newsletter: http://www.verifiedvoting.org


IEEE VOTING SYSTEM STANDARD
---------------------------
A seemingly obscure standards subcommittee of IEEE may determine whether we have trustworthy voting systems or not. And things are not going well. IEEE is the "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers." It is a highly respected organization with a huge number of electrical engineers, many of whom have substantial expertise in computer-related topics. It is reasonable to expect that IEEE involvement in voting technology would be a good thing. There is an IEEE standards committee (called P1583) that is writing standards for voting systems, including security standards for DREs.
(http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc38/1583/) Although this committee may seem obscure, this standard may very well be the basis for future Federal regulation of voting equipment.

Recently, several voter-verifiable-audit-trail advocates with strong
technology credentials have joined the P1583 committee in an effort to ensure the standard requires an adequate level of security. I am one of them. Unfortunately, many of the current members on the committee are working very hard to prevent us from contributing to the standard. As we have gotten more involved, the tactics have become more extreme. The standard is now being rushed to a vote by the Standards Association, in an apparent attempt to freeze it before our most important suggestions can be incorporated. Many of
the suggestions we HAVE made are dismissed for the flimsiest of reasons, and rules seem to be made up on the fly to exclude us from the standards-writing process. So far as I can see, the committee is controlled by voting companies -- the chair of the committee works for ES&S, and even the IEEE Standards people on the committee, including the president of the Standards Association, voted with them as a block in a teleconference earlier this week. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has taken an interest in e-voting and in the behavior of the P1583 committee as well. They issued a press release on Friday (see http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20030919_eff_pr.php), along with an action alert for IEEE members (http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/IEEE/).

We can send a letter expressing your views, too (it will be especially effective if you are an IEEE member).

[papau]

1. Electronic Frontier Foundation 9/19 Press Release that Media ignored

Voting Machine Standard Generates Controversy
Electronic Frontier Foundation Advocates Secure Elections
Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Advisory

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today urged a technical association to stop balloting on a flawed proposal for an electronic voting machine standard.

EFF invited concerned parties to write letters to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), requesting an electronic voting machine standard that requires secure, voter-verifiable election equipment and technologies that support open democratic principles of governance.

"The IEEE voting equipment standard could impact dramatically the future of democratic systems in the U.S. and around the world," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "We urge the IEEE to take the measures necessary to rework the standard currently under consideration so that it includes benchmarks for secure voter-verifiable election equipment and addresses additional criticisms from the security community."

In the aftermath of the Florida election debacle, the IEEE took up the question of standards for voting equipment, creating a working group, called Project 1583, overseen by a Standards Coordinating Committee known as SCC 38. Once finalized, the U.S. and other governments worldwide will likely adopt the IEEE voting equipment standard, especially since IEEE sits on a technical advisory board established by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Members of the security community report that the current standard is flawed. P1583 is largely a design standard, describing how to configure current electronic voting machines, instead of a performance standard setting benchmarks and processes for testing the security, reliability, accessibility, and accuracy of these machines.

For example, the standard fails to require or even recommend voting machine designs that permit voters to verify their votes. One such method that is already available from multiple election machine companies is a provision that the machines produce a paper ballot for each voter that allows a voter to see a summary of her votes to confirm them. Agencies administering elections can then store paper ballots separately so they are available for audits in the case of dispute or for a recount.

EFF is also responding to reports of serious procedural problems with the Working Group P1583 and SCC 38 Committee processes, including shifting roadblocks placed in front of those who wish to participate and vote, and failure to follow basic procedural requirements like giving sufficient notice of meetings and deadlines, publishing agendas and minutes, and circulating current versions of the standard itself and the comments of others in a timely manner. Some participants claim that representatives of the electronic voting machine vendor companies and others with vested interests control the working group and committee leadership.

Links:
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/IEEE/
EFF action alert on IEEE voting machine standard
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20030723_eff_pr.php
Security researchers discover flaws in e-voting system
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20030702_eff_pr.php
Previous EFF action alert on e-voting
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/
EFF e-voting archive
http://www.ieee.org/
IEEE website
Contact:

Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
[e-mail]


http://www.eff.org/

[BevHarris]

10. ES&S involvement in the IEEE standards is inappropriate

You've got a for-profit vendor chairing the board that is supposed to set its own regulations!

Bev

[DEMActivist]

2. So...

David Dill, once again, gets his ass kicked by the voting companies and comes whining to the activist community for help.

Sorry, Professor Dill, you stepped on the activists one time too many.

[papau]

4. True - but any help from DU members of IEEE on BBV would help

I agree that Dill is a strong personality person that seems to find hard to accept what I see as obvious - namely the extent of the fraud and fact that their is only one solution. But stopping IEEE is a good idea.

By the way, Dill does whine that he has setup a page on his website verifiedvoting.org for comments on VoteHere's cryptographic voter verification technology for public review and comment.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/Voter-Verifiable-Technology.asp and has gotten "some static for even considering the possibility that there could be an effective voter-verifiable audit trail that is not a voter-verifiable printer, optical scan ballot, or simple paper ballot. Here are my current thoughts on the matter: There are technical questions and non-technical questions. It is a technical question to analyze the strengths or weaknesses of a given system, algorithm, protocol, or program against certain kinds of attacks. Non-technical questions include the political viability of such ideas, and (particularly) whether paper is better because voters can understand it easily.

These are different questions and may have different answers. In particular, it could be that a system seems technically to have nice properties, but is not accepted by voters for other reasons. This review of VoteHere's technology is concerned with the technical
questions. The non-technical questions need to be discussed, too (a lot). We are not currently endorsing VoteHere's technology on its technical or non-technical merits, whatever they may be. After a technical review, we might endorse or reject it as a technical solution. We won't presume to be able to settle the other questions -- we don't know any more than any other voters about them. We don't have any ties, financial or other, to VoteHere or anyone else in
the voting industry that would influence us, and that includes the fact that we don't have any research funding from any such sources.

For description of election equipment with voter verifiable audit trail send email to
"[e-mail]"."

[DEMActivist]

8. LOL, on this one point you are wrong

Dill is a strong personality person

David Dill's problem is a very WEAK personality which can't stand the thought that everyone doesn't like him. He plays all sides against the middle - which is his own ego.

[papau]

9. OK - a weak personality that protects his ego! :-)

However, he seems to gather solid info - and I for one would like the IEEE to not endorse paperless voting machine standards.

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Oh, I agree,

But I get tired of us doing all ther investigation, all the research, all the heavy lifting, feeding them all the evidence, then they don't know us and portray us as cranks, wincing with distaste when our names are mentioned in the same breath as theirs.

Worse, they don't give anything back and ask for more and more in the process.

As to the much vaunted VoteHere technology, if it doesn't produce a paper ballot it is no better than Diebold's crap, end of story. Wasting any time debating any system with no paper ballot is not something I will entertain.

As always, I speak soley for myself.

David Allen
Plan Nine Publishing
1237 Elon Place
High Point, NC 27263
http://www.plan9.org

[DEMActivist]

13. Uhhh, no....

You speak for me as well! :evilgrin:

Said much better than I did.

[donsu]

3. I'm forwarding this info

nt

[papau]

5. Thanks - some State News that Dill's newsletter included is

MARYLAND DIEBOLD SECURITY REVIEW
--------------------------------
Maryland commissioned a report from SAIC, a defense contractor with computer security expertise, on the security of Diebold touch screen machines. The state signed a contract to buy them a week before the appearance of the Johns Hopkins/Rice study that reported serious security flaws.According to an article by Kim Zetter in Wired News, the State announced that a redacted version of the report would appear Friday (it seems not to have, possibly because of the hurricane). The full article is at
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60486,00.html

California recall election. The recall had already stimulated some press interest in the electronic voting question, but this decision puts voting technology front and center (instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger). Some of the news articles I've seen lead readers to the false conclusion that California counties are required to upgrade to touch screen machines. Untrue! Central and precinct-based optical scan systems, and even a punch card system called the DataVote, have residual vote rates much lower than punch cards. According to the testimony of the ACLU's expert witness in the case, Prof.Henry Brady of the University of California at Berkeley, DREs are actually have slightly higher residual vote rates than the DataVote and precinct-based optical scan systems. (see
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/brady1.pdf)

Regardless of the scheduling of the recall election, California counties have to get rid of punch cards by March 2004. If this decision stands, it will not increase the pressure to upgrade, and it will not mandate the use of DREs. But it is a great opportunity to discuss voting machines!


MIAMI/BROWARD PRINTER PURCHASES
-------------------------------
The good news is that Miami-Dade county had a meeting to decide whether to buy voter verifiable printers for their ES&S iVotronic machines. The bad news is that they decided against doing so.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-dmachines12sep12,0,2413613.story?coll=sfla-news-miami

Other good news is that Broward county is now considered buying voter
verifiable printers for the iVotronic machines. The bad news is that they decided to defer discussion.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6777779.htm

Both counties have ES&S equipment, and the ES&S printers won't be certified in Florida before the November, 2003 election.

CONNECTICUT
-----------
A correspondent tells me that Connecticut will be conducting a trial of electronic voting machines on November 4, 2003 in 8 towns. One of the machines to be evaluated will be Avante's, which offers a voter
verifiable audit trail. It would help to make sure the citizens of
Connecticut understand the concerns about the integrity of electronic voting before that time.Here is an article about one town
http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2003/09/16/news/news02.txt


ARKANSAS
--------
Electronic voting seems to be a political issue in Arkansas now. A quote from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette "The National Organization for Women in Arkansas is trying to persuade Secretary of State Charlie Daniels to hold off purchasing touch-screen electronic voting machines until the new machines are proved trustworthy.
'I love computers,' said Lisa Burks of Hot Springs, vice president of
legislation for Arkansas NOW and president of NOW's Hot Springs chapter. 'I'm not a technophobe.' " This story has quotes from political groups, election officials, and R. Doug Lewis of the Election Center, who says (as usual) that everything is fine.
They fail to mention that computer technologists have said anything on the subject.

The full story is at
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Arkansas.php?storyid=41630

[papau]

6. Thanks - some State News that Dill's newsletter included is

MARYLAND DIEBOLD SECURITY REVIEW
--------------------------------
Maryland commissioned a report from SAIC, a defense contractor with computer security expertise, on the security of Diebold touch screen machines. The state signed a contract to buy them a week before the appearance of the Johns Hopkins/Rice study that reported serious security flaws.According to an article by Kim Zetter in Wired News, the State announced that a redacted version of the report would appear Friday (it seems not to have, possibly because of the hurricane). The full article is at
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60486,00.html

California recall election. The recall had already stimulated some press interest in the electronic voting question, but this decision puts voting technology front and center (instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger). Some of the news articles I've seen lead readers to the false conclusion that California counties are required to upgrade to touch screen machines. Untrue! Central and precinct-based optical scan systems, and even a punch card system called the DataVote, have residual vote rates much lower than punch cards. According to the testimony of the ACLU's expert witness in the case, Prof.Henry Brady of the University of California at Berkeley, DREs are actually have slightly higher residual vote rates than the DataVote and precinct-based optical scan systems. (see
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/brady1.pdf)

Regardless of the scheduling of the recall election, California counties have to get rid of punch cards by March 2004. If this decision stands, it will not increase the pressure to upgrade, and it will not mandate the use of DREs. But it is a great opportunity to discuss voting machines!


MIAMI/BROWARD PRINTER PURCHASES
-------------------------------
The good news is that Miami-Dade county had a meeting to decide whether to buy voter verifiable printers for their ES&S iVotronic machines. The bad news is that they decided against doing so.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-dmachines12sep12,0,2413613.story?coll=sfla-news-miami

Other good news is that Broward county is now considered buying voter
verifiable printers for the iVotronic machines. The bad news is that they decided to defer discussion.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6777779.htm

Both counties have ES&S equipment, and the ES&S printers won't be certified in Florida before the November, 2003 election.

CONNECTICUT
-----------
A correspondent tells me that Connecticut will be conducting a trial of electronic voting machines on November 4, 2003 in 8 towns. One of the machines to be evaluated will be Avante's, which offers a voter
verifiable audit trail. It would help to make sure the citizens of
Connecticut understand the concerns about the integrity of electronic voting before that time.Here is an article about one town
http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2003/09/16/news/news02.txt


ARKANSAS
--------
Electronic voting seems to be a political issue in Arkansas now. A quote from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette "The National Organization for Women in Arkansas is trying to persuade Secretary of State Charlie Daniels to hold off purchasing touch-screen electronic voting machines until the new machines are proved trustworthy.
'I love computers,' said Lisa Burks of Hot Springs, vice president of
legislation for Arkansas NOW and president of NOW's Hot Springs chapter. 'I'm not a technophobe.' " This story has quotes from political groups, election officials, and R. Doug Lewis of the Election Center, who says (as usual) that everything is fine.
They fail to mention that computer technologists have said anything on the subject.

The full story is at
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Arkansas.php?storyid=41630

[papau]

7. Thanks - some State News that Dill's newsletter included is

MARYLAND DIEBOLD SECURITY REVIEW
--------------------------------
Maryland commissioned a report from SAIC, a defense contractor with computer security expertise, on the security of Diebold touch screen machines. The state signed a contract to buy them a week before the appearance of the Johns Hopkins/Rice study that reported serious security flaws.According to an article by Kim Zetter in Wired News, the State announced that a redacted version of the report would appear Friday (it seems not to have, possibly because of the hurricane). The full article is at
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60486,00.html

California recall election. The recall had already stimulated some press interest in the electronic voting question, but this decision puts voting technology front and center (instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger). Some of the news articles I've seen lead readers to the false conclusion that California counties are required to upgrade to touch screen machines. Untrue! Central and precinct-based optical scan systems, and even a punch card system called the DataVote, have residual vote rates much lower than punch cards. According to the testimony of the ACLU's expert witness in the case, Prof.Henry Brady of the University of California at Berkeley, DREs are actually have slightly higher residual vote rates than the DataVote and precinct-based optical scan systems. (see
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/brady1.pdf)
Regardless of the scheduling of the recall election, California counties have to get rid of punch cards by March 2004. If this decision stands, it will not increase the pressure to upgrade, and it will not mandate the use of DREs. But it is a great opportunity to discuss voting machines!


MIAMI/BROWARD PRINTER PURCHASES
-------------------------------
The good news is that Miami-Dade county had a meeting to decide whether to buy voter verifiable printers for their ES&S iVotronic machines. The bad news is that they decided against doing so.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-dmachines12sep12,0,2413613.story?coll=sfla-news-miami

Other good news is that Broward county is now considered buying voter
verifiable printers for the iVotronic machines. The bad news is that they decided to defer discussion.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/6777779.htm

Both counties have ES&S equipment, and the ES&S printers won't be certified in Florida before the November, 2003 election.

CONNECTICUT
-----------
A correspondent tells me that Connecticut will be conducting a trial of electronic voting machines on November 4, 2003 in 8 towns. One of the machines to be evaluated will be Avante's, which offers a voter
verifiable audit trail. It would help to make sure the citizens of
Connecticut understand the concerns about the integrity of electronic voting before that time.Here is an article about one town
http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2003/09/16/news/news02.txt


ARKANSAS
--------
Electronic voting seems to be a political issue in Arkansas now. A quote from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette "The National Organization for Women in Arkansas is trying to persuade Secretary of State Charlie Daniels to hold off purchasing touch-screen electronic voting machines until the new machines are proved trustworthy.
'I love computers,' said Lisa Burks of Hot Springs, vice president of
legislation for Arkansas NOW and president of NOW's Hot Springs chapter. 'I'm not a technophobe.' " This story has quotes from political groups, election officials, and R. Doug Lewis of the Election Center, who says (as usual) that everything is fine.
They fail to mention that computer technologists have said anything on the subject.

The full story is at
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Arkansas.php?storyid=41630

[shirlden]

11. kick this one

:kick: