Re: Voting machine security

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 09:24:33AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: [...] > Without directly addressing the question of the quality of Diebold's > offerings, I actually don't think the criticism implied here is > entirely fair. If you're going to have voting machines, even precinct > count optical scann

Re: Voting machine security

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: [...] > Essentially no one would argue that is is "quite expensive". I > suspect that nearly everyone in the country would be happy to pay an > additional $1/election for more reliable results. Without seeing all of the expense (and l

Re: Voting machine security

Paul Hoffman writes: -+-- | At 9:24 AM -0700 8/18/08, Eric Rescorla wrote: | >(and because of the complexity of US elections, | >hand counting is quite expensive) | | This is quite disputable. Further, hand vs. machine counting is core | to the way we think about the securi

Re: Voting machine security

At 9:24 AM -0700 8/18/08, Eric Rescorla wrote: (and because of the complexity of US elections, hand counting is quite expensive) This is quite disputable. Further, hand vs. machine counting is core to the way we think about the security of the voting system. On a "complex" ballot, there are

Re: Voting machine security

At Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:57:38 -0400, John Ioannidis wrote: > > This just about sums it up: http://xkcd.com/463/ Without directly addressing the question of the quality of Diebold's offerings, I actually don't think the criticism implied here is entirely fair. If you're going to have voting machine

Re: Voting machine security

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, John Ioannidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This just about sums it up: http://xkcd.com/463/ > Only slightly better then suggested by the comic. McAfee anti-virus software was on the servers, not the DRE voting machines themselves. >From >