Reply #33: That it went down is not surprising. The WAY it's going down is.

[Wilms]

I was aware that the software was sent off to the ITA (Independent Testing Authority) that certified it previously, asking them for clarification about the seemingly fed-certification-busting presence of "interpreted code".

As I posted above, I had no idea that the software was sent off to UC Berkley, too. Perhaps someone can point out to me where that had been announced, but I missed it, or, McPherson didn't inform us.

McPherson's decision was based, at least in part, on the analysis/recommendations of Berkley, not of the ITA, from whom we've yet to hear. As a side note, the security measures being added may well be a product of Diebold.

UC Berkley isn't an ITA. (That may well be to Berkley's credit! ITA accreditation has been the source of misgivings.) Berkley does not have the certifying (/decertifying) authority that is the domain, collectively, of the (3)ITA's, NASED, and the EAC, or the state's BoE through even tougher standards.

Let's keep in mind. The ITA HAD certified this equipment. It was CA (Shelley) that pulled the plug on it for use in this state. But the ITA HAD, indeed, certified this equipment! That status, while challenged, was not changed. I suppose the ITA could choose to not do anything in response to the "interpreted code" issue.

Let's also keep in mind. It's not the prime directive of an SoS to "no-matter-what" prevent certification. Quite the opposite could be argued. There are no CA laws against DRE's.

Bowen's charge that McPherson "punted" by sending the software was premature. Now, however, it would be fair given his use of Berkley consultation without comment from the ITA. He ought to be busted for that, but like I say, the ITA has previously certified it. They can tell a state, "if you don't like the job we did, don't use that equipment", though I think they/NASED/EAC ought to be busted.

Finally, keep in mind that McPherson's certification is conditioned on software upgrades that Diebold will make. Once that's done, they HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE ITA FOR TESTING. That may provide the opportunity for a confrontation over the interpreted code.

I don't know which if any of the VVPAT printers have been certified. But CA has VVPAT. That was Bowen's baby. McPherson, I recall was Pro-VVPAT until Bowen's bill went to the Govs. desk, at which point he recommended against signing.