[CAVO] Fwd: Election Story

[Brent Turner]

Yes-- this is good thought albeit a tad futuristic.

I would contend that it matters whether or not the systems are proprietary
or open source

Costs matter   and public confidence does as well..   Even an appearance of
corporate involvement / control diminishes the soup imo



On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Brent Turner wrote:
>
> > As I explained to Ron Rivest - and he agreed--  an audit does not cure
> an insecure election.  The firs count comes from the software and bad
> actors can  use the passage of time toward artificial reconciliation.. i.e
> manicuring the stored ballots into conformity with the tainted software
> count
>
>
>
> I mentioned to Brent yesterday that there are digital protocols (ref:
> Bitcoin) that can verify transactions without using a trusted agent to do
> so. Such protocols are open source.
>
>
>
> This verifiability doesn't depend on whether the software is proprietary
> or open source, as long as the voting transactions are secure and
> verifiable. Nobody cares what I spend my Bitcoins on as long as nobody else
> can steal them from me and spend them instead, and as long as I can prove
> it.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CAVO [mailto:cavo-bounces at opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Brent
> Turner
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 1:15 PM
> *To:* CAVO <CAVO at opensource.org>
> *Subject:* [CAVO] Fwd: Election Story
>
>
>
> "If we have those, even with proprietary software, we can protect our
> election from being hacked," Barbara Simons maintained. "You can't hack
> paper." [image: http://www.ectnews.com/images/end-enn.gif]
>
> To be clear-- this is bullshit.
>
>
>
> As I explained to Ron Rivest - and he agreed--  an audit does not cure an
> insecure election.  The firs count comes from the software and bad actors
> can  use the passage of time toward artificial reconciliation.. i.e
> manicuring the stored ballots into conformity with the tainted software
> count
>
>
>
> Be mindful Simons works for Dill
>
>
>
> Here is the GAO giving direction to Dill
>
>
>
> http://accurate-voting.org/accurate/docs/proposal-feb2005.pdf
> See 3.3  Technology Transfer
>
> also see 5. Management Plan
> "one group that will be represented on the Advisory Board is the Open
> Voting Consortium"
> didn't happen
>
>
>
> Dr. Mercuri's complaint
>
>
>
> http://www.notablesoftware.com/ACCURATE/MyIntellectualProperty.eml
>
>
>
> Dill's control-  associated groups
>
>
>
> http://cavo-us.org/matrix.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170809/baaef2e0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170809/baaef2e0/attachment.gif>