here's a link to the article:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,88178,00.html?nas=PM-88178want to write a letter to the editor ... her email is:
[email protected]Computerworld has totally missed the point with their article on BBV ... while a brief mention of a verifiable paper audit trail was made, they appear to be entranced by technological gibberish ...
<snip>
Ted Selker, an associate professor at MIT's Media Lab, professes to be "as worried as the next guy about security." But he maintains that verification can be provided without paper, and he has developed what he claims is a secure voting architecture that uses multiple redundant software components.
<snip>
what good is redundancy when only one company controls the software ?? no mention was made, of course, of Diebold's relationship to the Republican party ...
the article fails to provide any reason whatsoever to oppose a voter verified paper trail ... it's virtually cost free and eliminates a substantial amount of risk and a substantial amount of mistrust ... there's no reason not to do it !!
the article did bring up an interesting point that may not get enough attention:
Selker said IT professionals need to get involved locally, but he wants to broaden the conversation to include how technology can improve other parts of the electoral process, such as voter registration.
"In 2000, between 1 and 3 million votes were lost in registration database problems," he said. "It's the top place votes get lost, and we're not focused on this."