NIST - Technical Guidelines Development Comm.: 4/20-21/05 Plenary Meeting

[Wilms]

http://vote.nist.gov/MeetingMaterialsApr20.html

[LatePeriduct]

1. I wonder what kind of hearing this will be...

The plot thickens.

[rumpel]

2. Thanks for finding this. We should keep an eye on this. Here's their

major points from the minutes:

- NIST staff initially prioritized resolutions to focus on the most important tasks first.

- Building on the work of the 2002 VSS, the eventual goal is to produce the best standard possible - one that is testable and precise.

- The future (long-term) standard will be organized differently from the 2002 VSS.

- A significant initial goal is to help the states get through the 2006 election. To that end, NIST will offer guidance on gaps in the 2002 VSS in areas such as security, wireless technology, and human factors in voting systems.

- The NIST proposed approach in the short term will be to fill in the gaps in the 2002 VSS and correct errors. At the same time, NIST will develop a draft of the long-term redesigned standard.

- The highest-priority resolutions and resolution tasks are addressed in the April 2005 work product as an addendum to the 2002 VSS. These are the tasks that impact the 2006 election cycle and focus on improving the 2002 VSS by filling in the gaps, correcting errors, and also addressing critical issues facing the state such as ensuring that installed voting software is the same as the software that has been tested.

- In addition to the April 2005 addendum that will likely take the form of in- line changes to the 2002 VSS, a draft of the new redesigned voting system standard will be developed in parallel. The plan is to complete a redesigned standard in November 2005.

snip

"This guidance is critical to the completion of a draft of voluntary voting system guidelines that the Committee will receive for review in April. The time required to accomplish the Agenda items means that the Committee cannot take public comment at this meeting. However, there will continue to be opportunities for the public to comment on relevant issues. Comments and position statements should be sent to [e-mail] where they will be posted on the NIST voting web site http://vote.nist.gov. The comments we have received to date have been posted and reviewed by NIST staff and TGDC Committee members. As I mentioned in my introduction, this is the third plenary meeting of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee."

[rumpel]

3. and here are the presentations.

http://vote.nist.gov/April2021Presentations.html

Quite amazing was the "existing wireless set-up map" for me, because I did not know how it worked, and Shelley had outlawed it here.


Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) Meeting
April 20-21, 2005
NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland
Presentations

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 Session – Location: Building, Admin. 101, Red Auditorium

10:10 AM
Overview of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, VVSG (Version 1), (Mark Skall)

11:10 AM
NIST Report: Conformance Clause, VVSG (Version 1), ( Lynne Rosenthal )



11:30 AM
NIST Report: Human Factors Requirements, VVSG (Version 1), (Sharon Laskowski)

1:30 AM
NIST Report: Overview of Security Requirements, VVSG (Version 1), (John Wack)

2:30 AM
NIST Report: VVPAT Requirements, VVSG (Version 1), (John Wack)

3:50 PM
NIST Report: Wireless Requirements, VVSG (Version 1), (David Cypher)

4:50 PM
NIST Report: Software Distribution & Setup Validation, VVSG (Version 1), (Nelson Hastings)

Thursday, April 21, 2005 Session – Location: Building, Admin. 101, Red Auditorium

9:10 AM
NIST Report: Glossary, VVSG (Version 1), (Lynne Rosenthal)

9:40 AM
NIST Report: Error Rate Qualification Testing, VVSG (Version 1), (James Yen )



10:30 AM
Overview of the Draft VVSG (Version 2), (Barbara Guttman)

11:05 AM
Voting Process Model, VVSG (Version 2), (David Flater)

11:25 AM
Analysis of the 2002 Voting Systems Standards (VSS 2002), (Alan Goldfine)

11:40 PM
Standards Architecture, VVSG (Version 2), (David Flater)

12:00 PM
Logic Verification, VVSG (Version 2), (David Flater)

12:20 PM
Coding Standards, VVSG (Version 2), (David Flater)

1:40 PM
Abstract Test Suite VVSG (Version 2), (David Flater)

2:00 PM
Performance-Based Approach to Human Factors, VVSG (Version 2), (Sharon Laskowski)

[AuntiBush]

4. What the...

:wtf: Ok. Carter better do something here. This computes in a bad way.

[Kip Humphrey]

5. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines?!!!

Can anyone enlighten me? VVSG?

[Helga Scow Stern]

6. Doesn't that mean

that they are just suggested, that they can be complied with or not.

[Wilms]

8. It a tangled story for which I lack a good grasp, but for which I've links

Lynn Landes
Technical Issues and (No Federally Mandated) Standards (last edited March 22, 2004)

http://www.workablepeace.org/voting/eco.htm


Federal Standards Commissions

Federal Election Commission: Voting System Standards/Guidelines
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/vss.html

Election Assistance Commission: Voting Standards
http://www.eac.gov/voting_standards.asp?format=none


Non-Governmental Standards Organizations

Election Center: An International Association of Election and Voter Registration Officials
http://www.electioncenter.org

National Association of State Election Directors (NASED): Voting System Certification
http://www.nased.org/certification.htm


Independent Testing Authority (NASED Certified)

Ciber
http://www.ciber.com/index_var.cfm?pageid=/services_solutions/stategov/main.cfm?id=govboth-testing

SysTest Labs
http://www.systest.com/services/ita/index.htm

Wyle Laboratories
http://www.wylelabs.com

[Wilms]

9. NIST: National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)
http://vote.nist.gov

NIST: National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

What's New

Voting System Testing LAP News

Laboratories interested in the NVLAP Voting System Testing (VST) laboratory accreditation program (LAP) should monitor the activity on http://vote.nist.gov and http://www.eac.gov.

Laboratories that are interested in reviewing draft NIST Handbook 150-22, which contains specific technical and administrative requirements for this program, should contact NVLAP for a copy. A Federal Register Notice to announce the establishment of the NVLAP VST program is in the works.

NIST supports the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/whatsnew.htm# as chair of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC.htm .

The TGDC makes recommendations to the EAC on voluntary standards and guidelines related to voting machines.

The http://vote.nist.gov web page will provide voters and the election community with frequent updates on all HAVA-related activities at NIST.

Posted April 21, 2005

http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/whatsnew.htm


NVLAP Inquiries:
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
URL: www.nist.gov/nvlap

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
Standards Services Division
NIST
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140

General NIST Inquiries:
mailto:[e-mail]

[Wilms]

10. National Software Reference Library

National Software Reference Library

NSRL and Voting System Software

The NSRL has been mentioned in 2004 in conjunction with voting initiatives, most notably in
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chairman Soaries' remarks about Electronic Voting Security Strategy.
http://www.nist.gov/cgi-bin/exit_nist.cgi?url=http://www.eac.gov/docs/Voting%20Security%20Strategy.pdf

In July 2004, NIST scientists gave a report explaining the use of the NSRL technology as applied to voting systems. http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/documents/vote/July132004-EAC.pdf


Other involvement is noted on the NIST Software Diagnostics & Conformance Testing Division website.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897


The most recent special data set describing voting software files comprising
multiple product versions from several vendors is available at
http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/votedata.html

(The file format is described in Data Formats of the NSRL RDS.)
http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/documents/Data-Formats-of-the-NSRL-Reference-Data-Set-13.pdf


For information about voting activities at NIST, please use this contact.
http://vote.nist.gov/maincontact.html


For technical information about the NSRL, please use this contact.
http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/Contacts.htm


http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/vote.html

[Wilms]

11. Election Community Testimony & Position Statements

Election Community Testimony & Position Statements
http://vote.nist.gov/ECPosStat.htm

Submit a position statement
[e-mail]

Written comments to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) are posted here chronologically. In addition, NIST held Public Hearings on September 20, 21, and 22, 2004 to gather data and information relative to the work of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. The oral and written testimony from those hearings is posted here as well:
TGDC Public Data Gathering Hearings: Oral and Written Testimony (9/20-22, 2004)

Any mention of commercial products within NIST web pages is for information only; it does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST. NIST is providing the unedited public comments on relevant voting issues for reference by the public; any viewpoints or positions expressed by comment authors are not necessarily those of NIST.


Written Comments and Position Statements Submitted to the TGDC:


Comment on Wireless Requirements, James C. Johnson

Comment on Voter Verification Issues, National Assoc. of State Election Directors

Comment on Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (April 2005), Diane Cordry Golden

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Disposition of 2002 VSS Requirements, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Usability and Accessibility Requirements, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Security Testing, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Wireless Communications Requirements, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Interim Conformance Clause, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Direct and Indirect Verification, ES&S International

Comment on NIST Preliminary Report: Software Distribution & Setup Validation, ES&S International

Comment on Voter Perceptions and Political Deceptions, Mike Swinford

Comment on PVC Proposals, David Webber

Comment on Untrustworthy Logic, Fernando Morales

Comment on Current Audio Accessible Ballots for the Blind, Ann Pimley

Comment on TGDC Resolution #12-05, Kathy Dent

False Statements, Minuscule Progress … What Next?, Fernando Morales

Comment on Council of Europe E-Voting Standards, David Webber

Comment on Voting Technology Standards, National Committee for Voting Integrity

Trusted Ballot Processing Systems, David Webber

Phone Based Voting System for the Visually Impaired, Mark Headd

Comment on A Recount Worthy of Trust, Lee Ohringer

Comment on Election Integrity, Thelma Davidson

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 35-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 15-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 14-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 12-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 05-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 04-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on TGDC Resolution# 03-05, Fernando Morales

Comment on a Fair Voting Process, David Scenga

Comments on TGDC Resolution 02-05, Fernando Morales

Dr. Williams' Violation Acknowledgement, Fernando Morales

Comment on Electronic Voting, Verda W. Ingle

Paul Craft's Questionable Behavior, Fernando Morales

Comment on Electronic Voting Machines, Rady Ananda

Comment on Resolution 12-05, Jen Porter

Comment on Verifiable Paper Trail, Randolph A. Gaul

Comment on Voting Systems and Procedures, League of Women Voters of the United States

Comment on Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail, The Election Center

Comment on Paper Ballots, Clyde Michael Morgan

Comment on Post Election Vote Verification, Fernando Morales

Comment on 2004 Voting Equipment, Fernando Morales

Comments on Transparency and Security, Fernando Morales

Comments on Paper Absentee Ballots, Fernando Morales

Comment on IEEE P1583 Conflict of Interest, Fernando Morales

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, NEDAP

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Voting Standard, Barbara Simon

Voluntary Voting Guidelines, Fernando Morales

Recommendations on Verification Systems, Democracy Systems Inc.

The "Perfect Voting System", David Biddulph

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Standard, Charles E. Corry

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, Al Kolwicz

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, Pete Klammer

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, Rebecca Mercuri

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard: Part 1, Part 2, Vincent J. Lipsio

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, David Aragon

Comment on the IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, Stanley A. Klein

2002/2005 VSS Issues re: Accessibility, AVANTE International

2002/2005 VSS Issues re: Accuracy, AVANTE International

2002/2005 VSS Issues re: Accuracy-Security-Reliability, AVANTE International

Paper Trail, Derek Archer

Electronic Voting, Allen Gordon

Register Tape, Craig Della Penna

Electronic Voting, Chen Ling

Paper Audit Trail, Matt Weatherford

HAVA Testimony, James Salsman

Trustworthy Electronic Voting, Thomas Vitolo

Electronic Voting, Nathaniel Gray

E-Voting, David Querin

Voting Comment, James Hourihan

Easter Eggs/Types of Certainty, Stephen Samuel

Voting Booth Standards, Haley Moore

Electronic Voting System, David Wheeler

Paper Trail, Peter Hacke

Building Trust and Confidence, Christopher Hundt

Comment on IEEE P1583 Draft Standard, Jim Adler

[LatePeriduct]

7. Oh my gosh....Please....

This whole event is an obvious ploy, wireless access and more "reccomendations". Write this entire thing off as the fraud it is, and demand the attention of Jimmy Carter.

Only way to go is divest them, divest every last drop from the voting companies. Bleed them dry and force them to be held accountable!!!!

[eomer]

12. Shocking admissions about issues with NSRL

In a July, 2004 report to the EAC, an NIST employee (who is apparently a member of the NSRL staff at NIST) makes some shocking admissions.

Here is what NSRL is:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has run the National Software
Reference Library (NSRL) project since 2000. The NSRL provides the means to match files that
are found on a computer with known files from software applications, thus making it possible to
verify that two files are either the same or different.

In other words, the goal of NSRL is to be able to verify that software being run on some machine being used in an election is the same version in all respects as some known and escrowed version, presumably a version that was certified.

Here are the admissions:

The NSRL staff has begun to identify research issues in this field. Issues include:
1. There can be differences in the hashes made from software distribution media vs. hashes
made from the certified installation.
2. If there is any setup after the hashes are made, how are valid changes tracked and
managed?
3. Can it be possible and/or practical to have on-location, time-of-certification hashing by a
trusted agent?
4. Given system specifications, can the hashing technology provide the requested
verification within time, space and security constraints?

These admitted issues represent fatal flaws in the approach.

One basic consequence of these issues is that you can't use the NSRL approach to verify software that is actually installed on a machine. You can only use it to verify software that is still on the installation media (a CD for example). That makes NSRL of dubious value if not outright irrelevant.

The fact that they are just identifying these issues in July, 2004 for an approach they have been working on since 2000 and the fact that apparently they don't have any answers indicates that their whole approach was defective and, one might even say, recklessly careless. To support the latter assertion, I identified issue (2.) the other day when I applied about 2 hours of effort to this general subject even though I had never thought about the subject, ever before. These are really basic aspects of the design that should have been identified in the first week of work on the project. I mean, come on, you work for 3 or 4 years on a project and then start to think about whether the goal should be to confirm what is on a computer or to confirm what is on a CD? I would expect an organization with the resources and reputation of the NIST to do better but I guess I would be wrong.

And to make it worse, there are other fatal flaws in their approach that they either haven't thought of or are not admitting publicly.

This NSRL and, in the larger picture, the VVSG program of the EAC and NIST are a train wreck in progress and the victims are all voters in the country who vote on or have they votes counted by a computer.

Here is the link to the report that both excerpts come from:
http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/documents/vote/July132004-EAC.pdf

[Wilms]

13. What you figured out one afternoon, took them four years.

LOL! And they get paid!

Here's the public comment page:

Election Community Testimony & Position Statements
http://vote.nist.gov/ECPosStat.htm

Submit a position statement
[e-mail]

[eomer]

14. Thanks for the links

I'll probably submit a position paper when I have the time to do it justice.

[tommcintyre]

15. Baker (and cronies) mentioned NIST several times during the National Elect

Election Reform hearing on Monday. Enough so to get my "antennas" up enough to Google NIST. It seemed Baker et al were connecting: "technology changes so fast, so don't get locked into something now (VVPB)", encryption as a <better> solution, and let's wait for NIST guidelines".

I was already suspicious of the agenda, and what role NIST was meant to play in it. Now I am even more so. I doubt it is a coincidence that this NIST hearing is coming up so quickly after the Election Reform Hearing.

Also, it is worth noting that Munro, owner of the encryption system, is on the Election Reform Commission.

Also, this article MAY tie in somehow:
It is from just before the Dem Nat Convention. It mentions how Kerry has decided to go with an encryption system, as opposed to insisting on a paper trail (the then current DNC and Dean position). I'm not concluding anything from this (other than the obvious that Kerry made a mistake). Maybe it's a coincidence - maybe not. I just think it's worth knowing - as we act, and watch this all unfold.
"Effort afoot to address e-voting at convention
The Democratic Party is eager to wrestle with the issue of electronic-voting system security and integrity"
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/story/0,10801,94751,00.html

I think we need to watch this possible connection very carefully. We may be being set up for a switcheroo from, among other things, VVPB (or at least VVPAT) to encryption. I'm going to try to re-watch the hearing this weekend - taking all the new info in this thread into account.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Links to hearing, etc.:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x359815

I also recommend you read the press conference transcript to get a better understanding of who has what agenda:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x360617

[Wilms]

16. What a post, Tom.

The Baker Hearne Commision whining about "Voter" fraud was bad enough.

But the electronics fascination relative to a voter data base was perhaps worse. All these credit card data bases getting hacked don't inspire confidence.

Still worse was what I caught on BradRadio. A women testify about using biometrics and BRAIN WAVES for ID puposes.


I was WTF. Perhaps I should cast my vote using a brain wave.

[tommcintyre]

19. "biometrics and BRAIN WAVES" an attempted diversion and discredit...

that back-fired. One of the right-wing plants on the panel lobbed it at Dill. He smashed it back with a very strong answer. ;)

[Wilms]

20. Cool! I hadn't heard the retort.

Do you know who she was?

[tommcintyre]

21. Actually, I thought I remember an older "he" saying it.

But, with so much info overload, my mind may be playing tricks on me.

If I recall, correctly, Dill just answered that it wasn't his area of expertise (thank God!). Then he took the opportunity to tightly summarize all the reasons we should use paper now. He was on a roll by this time!

[torque]

17. damn, more secret scams n/t

[torque]

18. Ok, I get it now. This is the group setting up the federalized

election system that the Carter-Baker IQ-deficients' are ranting about?

The plan is to "electronically control" elections by (federally) centralizing and "standardizing" the processes, thereby removing any chance that light may be shined in dark places. It would eliminate, unconstitutionally, the states rights to hold honest, transparent, recountable paper ballot elections.

The ID bills proposed (see Georgia's ID bill) would disenfranchise millions of (disproportionately black, hispanic, non-residents such as college students, and the elderly and infirm) legal-age voters and so bring us a more neo-con favorable, "fair and balanced" electorate.

Easy fraud ahead folks! Under the protection of the "law", however unconstitutional, even a sub-80 IQ neocon would be able to steal "elections"! I can see clearly now, the scam is on...

[rumpel]

22. On the "public comments" I see only ESS and Avante International from

the vendor site.

and thought who the heck is Avante?

Googled and find they are heavily on wireless!

(Not that I am obsessing on wireless):blush:

[Wilms]

24. I am.

And proud of it, too.

[tommcintyre]

23. NIST is underfunded - Election Assistance Commission is stacked

http://www.rense.com/general51/paap.htm
Man, this is like deja vue all over again! I was doing research to see if NIST has been noted to be compromised by Bushco. This article is from a year ago this month. It sounds very familiar to the new commission - even some of the players are the same:

Republicans Walk Out Of
Fed Hearing On Voting Machines
While Some Civil Rights Groups Support 'Paperless' Elections
By Lynn Landes
4-13-4

snip
" It appears that voting technology is a topic that the Republican leadership wants to tightly control. It is without doubt that Republicans own most of the companies that manufacture, sell, and service voting machines. And President Bush and the Republican Congress appear determined to control and limit oversight of the elections industry. The Bush Administration has stacked the Election Assistance Commission with supporters of paperless voting technology, while the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) got walloped with a $22 million budget cut in fiscal 2004, which means that NIST will have to cut back substantially on its cyber security work, as well as completely stop all work on voting technology for the Help America Vote Act. <The same NIST that Baker and his cronies kept saying we should wait for their recommendations until??? hell freezes over? Also, a member of the Election Assistance Commission was the lead-off panelist.>

With no mandatory federal standards or certification in place and no funding available, the Bush Administration and Republican-controlled Congress have ensured that their friends in the elections industry maintain control of voting technology and, in effect, election results.
snip

" Only one panelist at Friday's hearing spoke out against paperless elections, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri..." <David Dill was the only one in the Voting Technology and Election Administration panel last Monday.>
snip

" Jim Dickson continued to insist that the blind could not vote without touchscreen machines, despite the fact that the paper ballot template with an audiocassette (a combination that is used in Rhode Island, Canada, and around the world), is a simpler and easier solution." <This is the same Dickson who testified last Monday, who Andy said is rumored to be on the Diebold payroll.>
more
---------------

Clearly, we need to make a stand!

They say, if you don't have a plan, you will become part of someone elses' I know I don't want become part of their plan! So we need to make our own.