McPherson speaking against CA bill AB 2097 for open source code

[rumpel]

from OVC (Open Voting Consortium) e-mail message
In spite of opposition from SOS & Industry Lobbyists & Election Officials, the bill passed yesterday! (on edit: to be more acurate passed it's first test, as per Alan!)
more info on bill at:
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/


April 17,2006
The Honorable Jackie Goldberg
State Capitol, Room 2003
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 2097 (Goldberg) Voting System Certification- Oppose
Dear Assemblymember Goldberg: .

After reviewing Assembly Bill 2097, which would prohibit the Secretary of State, as of June 30,
2007, from approving a voting system for use in an election until its operation and specifications
are, publicly disclosed, I must take an oppose position on this measure

Public confidence in the voting process is critical and the Secretary of State supports all efforts to
increase the transparency, accuracy and security of voting systems in order to ensure the integrity
of the process. While maintaining the integrity of voting systems and processes is a key priority,
this bill and its requirements could cause serious disruption to the ability of elections officials in
California to conduct elections, The general public's access to information about voting
systems are legitimate topics for discussion and need further review before open source in voting
systems is mandated.

Allowing unqualified, non-expert access to source code and providing detailed instructions for
building voting systems software, could compromise the system security and result in the
manipulation of elections, There may be less severe alternatives to open source that may be
more appropriate at this time.

Due to the concerns mentioned above, I am unable to support AB2097.

If you or your staff have any further questions please contact roe or my Assistant Secretary of
State for Legislative and Constituent Affairs, Theresa Taylor Carroll at [phone].

Sincerely,

BRUCE McPHERSON
Secretary of State
cc: Members, Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee

[KyuzoGator]

1. You can't have "detailed instructions for building voting systems"...

...just "out there" for anyone to see. Hell, al-Qaeda might find these plans and build a voting machine of their own! Then where would we be?

Voting machines should be held to the exact standards as Las Vegas slot machines.

[In Truth We Trust]

2. K&R- Paper ballots and Hand counts NOW!!! Democracy NOW!!!

Nothing more and nothing less!!!

[rumpel]

4. I agree, the simpler the system-the better

However, these systems are here - now.

[rumpel]

3. Hearing: Alan's testimony

Alan Dechert’s Testimony in favor of AB 2097, April 18, 2006
Secretary McPherson’s assertion (April 17, 2006 letter):

Allowing unqualified, non-expert access to source code and providing detailed
instructions for building voting systems software, could compromise the system security
and result in the manipulation of elections.

This assertion is absolutely false. In fact, the opposite is true. Open systems are more secure.
You can’t achieve system security by hiding vulnerabilities. “Security by obscurity” has proven
not to work. Hackers can find vulnerabilities without this documentation.
Publication of these details will make voting systems more secure in the short run and in the long
run.

1) Long run: Exposed vulnerabilities will be seen by a large audience of
scientists and engineers. These problems can be discussed and then corrected.

2) Short run: These vulnerabilities are like landmines. If you were walking
across a field known to have landmines, would you prefer not to know where
they are located? Better to have them flagged so we can work around them and defuse them.

Election problems in 2000 and 2004: We have studied this issue as a nation and the State of California

1) US General Accountability Office (GAO-05-965 Electronic Voting Systems)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf
pg 51 cites Open Voting Consortium as a “key initiative” for making the voting system more
secure and reliable.

2) ACCURATE, National Science Foundation Center
http://www.accurate-voting.org/accurate/docs/2005_vvsg_comment.pdf
III. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC OVERSIGHT
The process for establishing voting technology must be reformed to provide transparency.
Transparency is the extent to which the process and technology used in elections is open for
inspection by members of the public, no matter what their situation or background.

3) CA Secretary of State report on open source
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/open_source_report.pdf
Lawyer and Carnegie Mellon computer scientist, voting machine examiner for 20 years in PA, Dr.
Michael Ian Shamos quoted: “all voting system software should be disclosed to the public.”

4) CA State Senate Hearings on open source
Bowen announces dates on "Open Source Voting" concept and how voting equipment is certified
California Chronicle , Jan 28, 2006
“If we want people to have confidence that their votes are being counted accurately, the process we
use to certify machines for use in this state and the systems themselves need to be open, accessible,
and completely transparent….”

5) SoS’s Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board, Security Analysis of the Diebold
AccuBasic Interpreter
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/security_analysis_of_the_diebold_accubasic_interpreter.pdf
Egregious security fault found in Diebold tabulator. Diebold repeatedly denied it. Vendors
conspired to black list Leon County FL elections chief. On Feb 27, Diebold Corporate
General Counsel told Leon County Board of Commissioners they would never sell systems to
Leon County as long as Sancho was in charge. This report vindicated Sancho. When
vendors say, “trust us,” should we?

These reports all point to the same idea: open up the system; get rid of the secret processes.

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/Alans_testimony_4-18.pdf

[EFerrari]

5. I hope it isn't too late to vote this @ss out of office. nt

[Amaryllis]

7. I so miss Kevin Shelley, and I am not even from CA....

[windy252]

8. Me too n/t

[nicknameless]

11. He hasn't done even one decent thing since being appointed.

He's clearly a dumbya bot.

:grr:

[garybeck]

6. link to bill :>

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2097_bill_20060330_amended_asm.html

[Wilms]

9. The only reason to not support Open Source Code...

is if you plan to get rid of e-voting entirely.

But, as you all may be aware, you can have "Open Source Code" and still have something going on that could be missed by those examining it.

And who says the "Open Software" is what is loaded into the machines?

And if you have the software, but not the hardware, there may be a huge limitation on what you can uncover.

[rumpel]

10. With EAC hearing & Q&A I have more confidence now to say

"good riddance e-voting".

:)

[nicknameless]

12. He was only appointed to that office to prevent clean elections.

:grr:

K&R