On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:42:47PM -0400, Ian Grigg wrote:
Trei, Peter wrote:
Frankly, the whole online-verification step seems like an
unneccesary complication.
It seems to me that the requirement for after-the-vote
verification (to prove your vote was counted) clashes
rather directly
Brian McGroarty wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:42:47PM -0400, Ian Grigg wrote:
It seems to me that the requirement for after-the-vote
verification (to prove your vote was counted) clashes
rather directly with the requirement to protect voters
from coercion (I can't prove I voted in a
On 1081373018 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Paul Zuefeldt wrote:
Maybe the receipt should only allow the voter to check that his vote has
been counted. To get the detail you could require him to appear in person
with his receipt AND a photo ID or some such, then only allow him to
Firm invites experts to punch holes in ballot software
The company's software is designed to let voters verify that their ballots
were properly handled. It assigns random identification numbers to ballots
and candidates. After people vote, they get a receipt that shows which
candidates
Trei, Peter wrote:
Frankly, the whole online-verification step seems like an
unneccesary complication.
It seems to me that the requirement for after-the-vote
verification (to prove your vote was counted) clashes
rather directly with the requirement to protect voters
from coercion (I can't prove
Ian Grigg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trei, Peter wrote:
Frankly, the whole online-verification step seems like an
unneccesary complication.
It seems to me that the requirement for after-the-vote
verification (to prove your vote was counted) clashes
rather directly with the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Firm invites experts to punch holes in ballot software
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Trei, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:17 PM
[SNIP
