[IP] important Workshop on Voter-Verifiable Election Systems

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:25:42 -0700
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: fwd: important Workshop on Voter-Verifiable Election Systems

Is there anything more central to a real democracy, than the
integrity (AND auditability!) of counting votes cast in secret
ballots?  That IS in peril!

In the wake of Florida's 2000 election debacle (and millions of
federal bucks allocated to "improve" elections systems nationally),
some counties and/or states have already adopted new computerized
election systems that DO NOT PROVIDE ANY ABILITY TO AUDIT the votes
cast based on original voter ballots!

There has already been at least one surprise, upset result in a
federal congressional election in one state, where no such
ballot-based audit was possible, and there may have been others.

--jim, Jim Warren
[self-inflating puff: founded the Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conferences;
Califiornia Senate Task Force on Electronic Access to Public Records (1996);
Soc.of Prof.Journalists-Nor.Cal.James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award;
Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award (1992, its first year);
Playboy Foundation Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award (1994); blah blah blah]

===

>Billions of dollars will be spent in the next few years on voting equipment.
>
>Unfortunately, some believe the new technology may *reduce* election
>integrity and voter confidence.  A proposed solution is to provide
>"voter verifiability", so that election results are guaranteed to
>reflect the intent of the voters.  [Computer-aided paper-ballot
>voting systems DO exist that can do this. --jim]
>
>The workshop aims to bring together people concerned about these issues.
>
>
>Workshop on Voter-Verifiable Election Systems
>July 28-29, 2003, Denver Colorado
>Adams Mark Hotel
>
>To maximize attendance by election officials, vendors, and
>technologists, the workshop is co-located and co-scheduled with the
>IACREOT Annual Conference, which is the dominant conference for local
>election officials.  This year, IEEE will also have a meeting of its
>election standards working group just after the workshop.
>
>The Workshop will be in two parts. Monday afternoon will be a more
>technical meeting and discussion, aimed at technologically oriented
>participants. Tuesday morning will be aimed at election officials as
>well as the media. The Monday discussions will be summarized on
>Tuesday by a panel. Tuesday will also feature some panel format debate
>on key issues of interest to election officials, which can be expected
>to engender lively discussion.
>
>We have worked out a general plan for the workshop and would now like
>to invite proposals for presentations and panels, particular on Monday
>afternoon.  Please email these to "elections@chicory.stanford.edu".
>
>Here are some examples of topics we might want to discuss in the Monday
>and Tuesday sessions.  More details will appear in subsequent mailings.
>
>Monday Afternoon:
>
>Vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems
>
>   Various weaknesses and specific attacks have been identified by
>   researchers-from malware scenarios to mechanical-but until now little
>   of this has been reported.
>
>Voter-verifiable election technology proposals
>
>   Various schemes have been proposed in the last few years, but there
>   has not been a focused forum for their presentation; remote or
>   Internet and other remote voting is a separate subject and would not
>   be included in this session. Examples include: printout under-glass,
>   printout in box, frog voting, secret-ballot receipts, non-printing,
>   etc.
>
>Debating the relative merits
>
>   Panel format debates on various technology choices, such as:
>   differences between audit systems and tally systems: two kinds of
>   voter-verifiable technology.
>
>
>Tuesday Morning:
>
>Summarizing the vulnerabilities
>   Summary of first session Monday.
>
>Summarizing the technology options
>   Summary of second session Monday
>
>Election officials on operational issues
>
>   Election officials have expressed various operational concerns over
>   the course of the public debate and this would be an opportunity for
>   them to be aired in a cohesive way.
>
>Brief presentations of solutions by vendors
>
>   There are several voting system vendors that have developed
>   voter-verifiable receipt printers solutions, none widely displayed to
>   date.
>
>Status of local efforts for voter-verifiable systems
>
>   Efforts have appeared in a half-dozen or more states, led by
>   government, scientists, and
>   other groups; those involved have had neither a forum in which to meet
>   each other nor
>   report their experiences.
>
>Potential outcomes:
>      o Creation of a community of interest
>      o Election official awareness/education
>      o Potential follow-on events
>      o Potential follow-on organization
>      o Impact on imminent standardization
>      o Press coverage
>
>ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
>
>Co-Chairs:
>David L. Dill           Stanford University
>Barbara Simons          USACM - Association for Computing Machinery
>
>David Chaum             SureVote
>Lorrie Faith Cranor     AT&T Labs Research
>Bill Gardner            Secretary of State of New Hampshire
>David Jefferson         Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
>Douglas W. Jones        University of Iowa
>Douglas Kellner         Commissioner, Board of Elections, City of New York
>Rebecca Mercuri         Bryn Mawr and Harvard University
>Peter G. Neumann        SRI International
>Rob Richie              Center for Voting and Democracy
>Peter Ryan              University of Newcastle upon Tyne
>Warren Slocum           Chief Elections Official, County of San Mateo, Calif.


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/