[CAVO] Fwd: CAVO draft - response to LAFCO draft - Please comment

Sun May 31 21:18:59 UTC 2015

Brent, this response is excellent. /Larry

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932 

LinkedIn:  <http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD> http://lnkd.in/D9CWhD 

From: Brent Turner [mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 1:52 PM
To: CAVO
Subject: [CAVO] Fwd: CAVO draft - response to LAFCO draft - Please comment

Please comment - 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brent Turner <brent at trealestate.net <mailto:brent at trealestate.net> >
Date: Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:50 PM
Subject: CAVO draft - response to LAFCO draft - Please comment
To: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com <mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com> >

CAVO comments and points of clarification - 

1. Page 5 Section 2 " Introduction" - Paragraph 3 . " To best provide empirical evidence for the purpose of this study, LAFCo examined numerous reports regarding open source election software, existing proprietary voting systems, and current open source voting system projects elsewhere in the nation;-

and 

2. Page 6 Section 3- " Executive Summary " Paragraph 2 -While there is no complete open source voting system in place anywhere in the country, two 

counties are in the process of developing their own open source voting system: Los Angeles County, California, and Travis County, Texas.

It should be noted that this apparent and literal reference to Travis County, Texas and Los Angeles County, California should be clarified as those projects  are not yet confirmed as open source.  Microsoft's involvement with the Texas project, and OSET's involvement with the Los Angeles project, coupled with the project leaders failure to announce the specifics of the intended code, has led many experts to predict  the systems will not be utilizing open source, as defined by Open Source Initiative. 

3. Page 6/ Section 3 " Executive Summary " Paragraph 3 / - Bullet point 3 

While no one can reasonably claim that open source would be more secure than proprietary systems, advocates are firm in expressing open source software and technology is not inherently less secure than closed source software.

Page 25-  Paragraph 2 - It is important to note that LAFCo nor any of the experts interviewed for this report are claiming that open source software is more secure than closed source software; there is no possible way to make that claim. To this point, however, the experts interviewed for this report stressed that open source software can be just as secure as closed source software, and dispute the notion that open source software is more vulnerable to attacks and tampering. Furthermore, proponents of the new system state the transparent nature of open source software could allow more eyes to spot any problems or evidence of tampering as opposed to closed source software.

It should be noted that the use of open source CAN  in fact be reasonably claimed as creating a more secure environment for vote tabulation systems. This is not to state open source is a " panacea " toward security, but rather a necessary component inherent to the foundation of best security practices for voting systems. Certainly a smaller amount of more elegant code, with more " eyes on the code " and oversight of that code, may be argued as creating a better security environment                                                                                                     

4. Page 7 / Section 3 " Executive Summary " Paragraph 3 / Bullet Point 6  

The development of open source voting systems takes a considerable amount of time, money, and effort, most of which is undeterminable at this point.     

It should be noted that the word " undeterminable " should be revised to " undetermined " with the understanding the range of expense has been calculated by experts to be approximately 4 million dollars for a certified open source system. It should also be noted  a more concise calculation is quickly obtainable at minimal expense .      

5. Page 12 / Paragraph 3  " Contracting with an external company "   

OSET has already developed parts of the voting process that are open source—voter registration,for example—and aims to complete the development of ballot printers and tabulators next.       

It should be noted that the license announced by OSET as " Open Public License " does not meet the definition of open source as set forth by Open Source Initiative           

6.  Page 28 " Concluding remarks " paragraph 3    

LA County spent $150,000 for initial research, and another $15 million with IDEO to create the design of the ballot. If the CCSF draws upon their research and model, they would not need to spend as much in those 

areas—ideally,             

It should be noted that the 15m dollar " design " contract has been considered by many experts as " prima facie " exorbitant as in fact  lacking available deliverables, and may not be representative of an appropriate cost-measure. Also it should be noted the contract price  was quite possibly the result  of the " no-bid / sole source" nature of the contract      

 7. Page 29 " Concluding remarks"  Paragraph 3      

Additionally, although CAVO is eager to develop the system for the CCSF, we recommend putting out a RFI in order to expand the CCSF’s options (if the CCSF decides to create an open source voting system). The San Francisco/Bay Area is home to a plethora of tech companies, providing a wide range of options and valuable resources to develop the most effective open source voting system.   

It should be noted that CAVO is "available " to " develop "  or oversee the development of the CCSF system, rather than " eager " ,  and operates out of civic  duty rather than  business strategy.    An RFI is in keeping with the CAVO plan, which has been tendered as a catalyst for  the purpose of open source voting systems.  CAVO's position is to provide risk management and quality assurance as San Francisco moves forward in leading the state and country toward more secure and affordable voting systems                                                                   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150531/8ff0a438/attachment.html>