Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

EAC To Assume Oversight Of Voting System Testing And Certification

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-11-06 12:30 AM
Original message
EAC To Assume Oversight Of Voting System Testing And Certification

EAC To Assume Oversight Of Voting System Testing And Certification

By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA

July 10, 2006

According to Section 231 of the Help America Vote Act, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is mandated to provide for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting systems. As the first step in the process the EAC is required to first develop a program for accrediting independent, non-Federal testing laboratories. Responding to a staff recommendation released at a public meeting in Denver, CO last August, the EAC adopted a Voting System Certification & Laboratory Accreditation Program. Under this program the accreditation and oversight of the Independent Testing Authority would pass from the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) to the EAC. That transition is expected to be announced later this month.

Accreditation of laboratories will be undertaken by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). NVLAP was established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 1976 to accredit laboratories that are found competent to perform specific tests or calibrations and to foster and promote a uniformly acceptable base of professional and technical competence in the laboratory community. According to Tom Wilkey, executive director of the EAC, seven laboratories have applied for accreditation along with the three currently accredited by NASED. The accreditation is expected by this Fall.

The current testing and certification procedures originated in a March 1975 report, Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying, which highlighted 'the lack of appropriate technical skills at the State and local level for developing or implementing written standards, against which voting system hardware and software could be evaluated.' It was nine years before another report, Voting System Standards: A Report on the Feasibility of Developing Voluntary Standards for Voting Equipment appeared. In 1984 Congress funded the Federal Election Commission to begin what ended up being a six year process of creating the first national performance and test standards for punchcard, optical scan, and direct recording electronic voting systems. The resulting body of work was the first set of Voluntary Voting System Standards issued in 1990.


While standards had finally been established, there was no mechanism for testing and certifying voting systems to those standards. Under considerable influence from R. Doug Lewis and his Election Center, a testing and certification process was undertaken by NASED, a private organization with no government oversight. There are currently three certified laboratories that collectively constitute the Independent Testing Authority or ITA: Ciber, Wyle Labs, and Systest. Arguably this designation is a triple oxymoron. Their independence is compromised by the fact that the testing that takes place is paid for by the vendors, in effect making them the ITAs clients. The testing process that does take place and the standards to which voting machines are tested are considerably weaker than other accepted standards for the security of computer-based products. The testing is done in secret and detailed results of the testing are not released for public scrutiny. As for the ITA being authoritative theres little to support such a designation. While the testing of voting system software has been done by several different companies over the past decade the one consistent element is that the testing has always been done by an individual named Shawn Southworth (pictured at right), operating out of Huntsville, Alabama and currently employed by Wyle Labs. Who is Shawn Southworth and what are his qualifications? We are not allowed to know. Like the rest of the process, Mr. Southworths credentials are shrouded in secrecy.

Computer scientist Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins University had this to say about the Independent Testing Authority:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-11-06 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. ITA would pass a system even if a serious flaw was found (Avi Rubin)
"hey are fraught with conflict of interest and incompetence. In fact, had they shown up, they would have been raked over the coals by some of the voting system examiners that attended the summit. For instance, an examiner from Pennsylvania wanted to know how come so many systems that passed the ITA testing still had serious security and even operational flaws. The Systest representative, who had the misfortune of representing his entire industry alone, replied that they were only required to test against the standard. When pressed about whether or not the ITAs would fail a system if a serious flaw was found, the reply was that a memo would be written, but that the system would still pass. I couldn't believe it. The company that was tasked with certifying machines for elections in the United States would still pass them, even if a serious flaw was found, as long as the machine did not violate any aspects of the standard. Unbelievable."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 19th 2017, 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC