“Logic and Accuracy Testing” = “Partial Birth Abortion” = “Assault Weapon

[eridani]

All of these expressions have something in common, which is that they were invented out of whole cloth by people with zero relevant professional expertise for the sole purpose of obfuscating public discussion of the underlying issues.

“Partial birth abortion” is a term originally applied to a procedure known by real medical people as “intact dilation and extraction,” and subsequently conflated with just about any procedure that might be performed after the first trimester of pregnancy. The resulting confusion was of course 100% on purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

“Assault weapon” as the term is used today, mainly is based on whether or not a weapon looks scary instead of on any functional difference. However you want to regulate guns (if at all), it is seriously stupid to do so on the basis of their appearance.

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#21

My intention here is not to derail discussion about election reform into arguing about abortion or gun control, but to point out that reproductive rights advocates and 2nd Amendment advocates are fully aware of the obfuscatory nature of the terminology used in public debate about their respective causes, and take every opportunity they can to introduce technical precision back into the discussion.

We in the election transparency movement need to follow their examples with the use of the term “logic and accuracy testing.” John Washburn discussed this extensively at the Save Our Elections forum in Portland last fall. ( http://www.summit.oregonvrc.org/ I’m reconstructing from my notes—any corrective input from real computer professionals is welcome.) “Logic and accuracy testing” is term made up by voting machine vendors to bamboozle people who have no professional knowledge of programming or computer security. Real software quality testers have used the term “functional testing” for this kind of testing for the last fifty years. Functional testing is basically testing which answers the question “Does the software provide the functionality required by the software specifications?”

Functional testing is in no way shape or form the same as security testing, which is not done for voting machines, or even required for their certification. Washburn says that he has never known anyone in an elections department who has the professional expertise necessary to conduct full functional testing, and he points out that even if functional testing of voting machines was of the highest caliber, it still could not discover the presence of any software which is time-triggered or event-triggered. You’d have to inspect the source code and the compilation process for that, and vendors won’t let members of the public do that on the grounds of trade secrecy.

Why is this important? Because of the cheerful confidence that so many completely well-intentioned elections department people and members of the general public have in so-called “logic and accuracy testing”! The fundamental basis of their trust is a pile of steaming bullshit, and we have to start pointing that out on every occasion possible. Just as Planned Parenthood and NARAL put the expression “partial birth abortion” in quotation marks, and call out people who use it every chance they get, so must we treat the expression “logic and accuracy testing.”

Do it as of today!

[flyingobject]

1. good way to increase creditability

[GuvWurld]

2. Welcome to Manchuria

eridani wrote:

Why is this important? Because of the cheerful confidence that so many completely well-intentioned elections department people and members of the general public have in so-called “logic and accuracy testing”!

You are describing the Manchurian Nation.