[E-voting] Terms of Reference ("TOR")

Dr J Pelan J.Pelan at gatsby.ucl.ac.uk
Sat Mar 13 15:35:31 GMT 2004


Fergus O'Rourke <sitecom at tinet.ie> wrote;
> To me, the lack of VVAT is not really an accuracy or secrecy issue.

That's good because we'll need to convince you and then the commission
that it *is* an accuracy issue. Please be sceptical and critical.

 The VVAT argument and the notion of accuracy are inextricably linked
 because in the absence of external verification (i.e. auditing) it is 
 impossible to comment on the accuracy of the system.

This has to be phrased in a robust manner. It is flawed when stated
succinctly because one could argue that the system could be end-to-end
tested with some form of VVAT which is removed for the election proper.  
That'd be better than what we have but that's not the principle we are
defending. So we have to embed the notion of auditing as essential to
accuracy but also that it needs to be a continuous process - applied
through-out to every machine and to every vote.

I hope to be able to throw another suggested submission into the mix later
this weekend and we can thrash then all about. Hopefully an agreed
submission will emerge quickly which we can all stand behind. Perhaps the
meeting has come up with something suitable already ?

--
John P.





More information about the E-voting mailing list