more on a disturbing times editorial

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel Golding <dgolding () gmu edu>
Date: August 31, 2004 3:34:36 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] : a disturbing times editorial


For IP:

The problem that they are trying to solve is that military voters are
largely disenfranchised. Obtaining a paper absentee ballot in the 
military
is more difficult than most think.

First, you submit a standardized request for a ballot, which is 
forwarded to
your home state. Then, the home state will occasionally mail you an 
absentee
ballot. Or, more usually, they won't. Too much trouble, I suppose. Even 
if
they do send it to you, it may not catch up to you if you are away from
normal mail service. These are solved by the Pentagon's new system.

While the problems with electronic voting are significant, reasonable
digital signatures can not be manipulated the way that the writer 
describes
- they contain a checksum of the contents of the document (in this 
case, the
ballot). Moving the signature would invalidate the entire ballot, as the
checksums would not compare.

If all soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are issued private 
encryption
keys, with the pentagon holding the corresponding public keys, this is a
fairly secure method of voting and would prove voter identity far better
than those methods used at the local precinct or ward polling place.

As far as the concern about superiors influencing voting - this is also 
the
case for absentee paper ballots. Close quarters are a fact of life for
certain components of the military. It is a grave offense for superiors 
to
influence a subordinates vote - I have been subjected to considerably 
more
political pressure at various civilian jobs than ever in the military.

If people are as concerned about "our troops" as they claim, we need to
provide concrete solutions to secure their most vital civil right - the
ability to participate in our electoral system.

One valid criticism in this article is the lack of contractor oversight.
This is simple to solve - simply station a military judge or a
representative from the Federal Elections Commission on the premises 
while
vote counting occurs in order to certify the vote.

- Daniel Golding

On 8/31/04 2:07 PM, "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:

> ___
>
> Dave Farber  +1 412 726 9889
>
>
>
> ...... Forwarded Message .......
> From: Martha Baer <m.baer () comcast net>
> To: dave () farber net
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:58:39 -0700
> Subj: a disturbing times editorial
>
>
> The Pentagon's Troubling Role
> Published: August 31, 2004
>
> Barely two months before the presidential vote, Missouri's secretary of
> state has suddenly announced that he will allow military voters from 
> his
> state - one of the most pivotal in the election - to e-mail ballots 
> from
> combat zones to the Defense Department. E-mail is far too insecure to 
> be
> used for voting. Missouri and North Dakota, which announced a similar 
> rule
> yesterday, should rescind these orders right away. Missouri's action 
> also
> sheds light on the Defense Department's role in administering federal
> elections, a troubling situation that needs far more scrutiny.
>
> The Missouri secretary of state, Matt Blunt, decided last week that
> military voters in combat zones will be able to e-mail their ballots 
> to the
> Pentagon, which will then send them to local Missouri elections 
> offices to
> be counted. This system, which has not been used before, is rife with
> security problems, including the possibility of hacking the e-mailed
> ballots, which will not be encrypted. Earlier this year the Defense
> Department scrapped a pilot program to allow the military to vote over 
> the
> Internet, after concluding that it could not "assure the  legitimacy of
> votes" cast online.
>
> There is more cause for concern after the ballots arrive at the 
> Pentagon.
> E-mail voters will be required to sign a release acknowledging that 
> their
> votes may not be kept secret. When the people handling ballots know who
> they are cast for, it is not hard to imagine that ballots for 
> disfavored
> candidates could accidentally be "lost." And because the e-mailed 
> ballots
> arrive as computer documents, it is possible to cut off the voter's
> digitized signature, attach it to a ballot supporting another 
> candidate,
> and send that ballot on to the state to be counted.
>
> It is unclear how good the protections are to guard against tampering. 
> The
> e-mailed ballots will be handled by a contractor, Omega Technologies, 
> hired
> for this purpose, at the company's offices and without the election
> observers who are present at normal polling places.
>
> E-mail voting by military personnel also opens the door to coercion. 
> Many
> soldiers may have to vote on computers in places where their commanding
> officers may be present. They may also be reluctant to vote their
> conscience if they know that the Defense Department  could be reading 
> their
> ballots.
>
> The Missouri and North Dakota announcements call attention to the 
> larger
> issue of why the Pentagon is directly handling so many presidential
> ballots. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, a unit of the Defense
> Department, is charged with helping not only military voters, but all
> eligible voters overseas, a total of about six million people. But it 
> is a
> fundamental aspect of the American election system that handling and
> counting of votes is supposed to occur at the local level. The Defense
> Department should stop handling actual ballots, and instead help 
> military
> and other overseas voters send them directly to local elections 
> officials.
>
> In the 1960 election, there was widespread skepticism when Mayor 
> Richard
> Daley waited until hours after the polls closed to release the Chicago
> vote, and it turned out to be almost precisely what was needed to put
> Illinois in the Democratic column. It invites cynicism about our 
> democracy
> to operate a system in which employees who answer to the secretary of
> defense could control the margin of victory in a close presidential
> election.
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as dgolding () gmu edu
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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