Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
Attendees: Alexis Scott-Morrison, Allan Eustis, Barbara Guttman, Bill Burr, David Baquis (U.S. Access Board), David Flater, John Cugini, John Kelsey, John Wack, Mat Masterson (EAC), Mohammad Mareuf , Nelson Hastings, Philip Pearce, Ron Rivest, Sharon Laskowski, Sharon Turner-Buie, Wendy Havens, Whitney Quesenbery,
Ron Rivest reported that a high level issue here with software independence- we have to be able to do audits - audits are how we detect errors. The auditing process itself is part of the whole package and must be usable by poll workers in a reasonable way and this must be tested. Ron and STS are looking to HFP for guidance on how best to do this from a usability stand point.
This topic about usability of SI and usability of audits was discussed in great detail.
ACTION: Write high level requirement that states systems should be auditable and vendor must document procedures. We should look at specifics, such as re-reading ballots. Vendors must provide process so test labs can perform necessary tests. We must document what makes an audit technically possible and usable. Write definition of durability for surviving 22 months as required for voting records.
John Kelsey was happy that the procedural defense was added to the paper and feels that this provided the SI requirement - this is the one where users without disabilities are asked to test the accessible systems for voters with disabilities. Whitney feels that it will not pass through the Holt Bill.
Whitney does not believe we have an existing accessible system that will receive high marks in the 3 columns of the evaluation process noted in the paper.
John Wack mentioned that David Wagner felt that with IDV systems, there were no accessible systems that were SI.
Ron was asked to clarify the definition of SI - errors are detectable in principle, either during voting stage by the voter, or later from evidence results of the audit. It does not require the voter paying attention to what's going on, i.e. it doesn't require that the audit be used but the auditing equipment should be trustworthy.
John Wack felt that we need verification for audits and forensics for recounts. For example, we would preserve a recorded record of the audio verification provided to blind voters.
David Baquis indicated the Access Board was in favor of having all voters be able to verify their votes at the time they vote. David felt that the audio recording of the verification could be played back for the voter as a confirmation that what they just heard was what was recorded for later auditing if necessary.
ACTION: Simplify table in paper and add an extra column. Review section 3.2 to implement/consider David Baquis' /Access Board comments. Ron Rivest will provide comments via email. Barbara pointed out that comments should include the section, whether its yes or no, and how to make it yes if feasible.
Next joint HFP and STS meeting, Thursday, March 1, 2007.
to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the TGDC is charged with directing
NIST in performing voting systems research so that the TGDC can fulfill
its role of recommending technical standards for voting equipment to
the EAC. This teleconference discussion serves the purposes of the STS
and HFP subcommittees of the TGDC to direct NIST staff and coordinate
its voting-related research relevant to the VVSG 2007. Discussions on
this telecon are preliminary and do not necessarily reflect the views
of NIST or the TGDC.]
policy / security notice / accessibility statement