U.S. To Certify Labs For Testing E-Voting Machines

InternetVoting writes "In a clear counter to the recent criticisms of secrecy involving Ciber labs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued recommendations (pdf) to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). NIST recommends the accreditation of two labs, iBeta Quality Assurance and SysTest Labs. The recommendation, emphasizing the need for transparency, includes on-site assessment reports, lab responses, and on-site reviews for each lab. These reports shed much needed light into the process of voting machine certification. Learn more from the Q&As About NIST Evaluation of Laboratories that Test Voting Systems."

Comments

Opaque Audits

[P(0)(!P(k) P(k 1))]

It sounded, prima facie, like progress was being made; but quoth TFA:

Currently, laboratories are using proprietary test methods and test cases to determine that a voting system meets existing federal standards. . . . By law, NIST must protect proprietary information. This includes details of a laboratory's specific testing methods and protocols.

Call me cynical, but auditing opaque processes with equally opaque tests doesn't change much; I foresee a holographic sticker labelled “certified.”

I'd wager, furthermore, they expect us to buy it at face value.

Re:Opaque Audits

[Rob T Firefly]

They do have a halfway decent excuse for that, though.

Why are laboratories using proprietary test methods?
Currently, no uniform set of tests exists to determine that a voting system meets federal standards. With the support of the EAC, in 2007 NIST will begin to develop a uniform set of non-proprietary tests to be used in conjunction with the next version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG 2007). The availability and use of these open tests will improve consistency and comparability among testing laboratories.

Even a baby step in the right direction counts at this point.

Re:Opaque Audits

[P(0)(!P(k) P(k 1))]

Even a baby step in the right direction counts at this point.

I think you're being too soft on your own government. Government isn't a child in need of coddling: it's a cynical and self-aware machine that studies to persist at your expense.

Re:Opaque Audits

[Billosaur]

When you think about it, the lack of standards is probably what has caused the current crop of voting machines to be such dismal failures. While I'm not sure I trust Diebold anyway, given their political connections, they probably would have done at least a halfway decent job on their machines if there were a set of standards to measure them against. It's not enough for the US Government to send out a Request For Proposals outlining what they are looking for, unless the functionality and security can be defined against some kind of standard. If the standards had existed first, maybe the machines would not have all the loopholes and omissions which make them such trash currently.

Re:Opaque Audits

[truthsearch]

And if standards exist, maybe more companies can compete equally for the contracts.

Why is it

[gillbates]

That politicians can't grasp the immediately obvious? Why do they even bother with electronic voting machines when:

• The voters don't want them, and,
• They cost more and are less reliable than paper ballots, and,
• The technical community thinks they're dangerous to democracy.

How could any politician come to a conclusion that electronic voting machines make sense? There is no compelling reason to use electronic voting machines at all. The only possible explanation I see is that counties which bought electronic voting machines had county officials on the payroll of the voting machine makers.

The fact that they've been purchased seems to suggest that politics is already not quite as transparent as it should be.