I spoke too quickly?

As one astute commenter notes in my previous blog post on the TGDC meeting, a second resolution presented again by Ron Rivest today was accepted, thanks to revisions that grandfathered in existing machines. This is not quite as good as yesterday’s resolution, but it’s still quite good. So I must at the very least take back my harsh words about Stephen Berger, who obviously voted in favor of this new resolution.

Nice job, Ron, and good work to the TGDC as a whole.

2 thoughts on “I spoke too quickly?

  1. It isn’t clear to me whether no new software-dependent units could be installed under this proposal, or whether new units of of already certified models would still be allowed. Do you have a sense of what’s meant?

  2. Gary,

    As far as I know, the TGDC’s recommendations are not binding (that would require a serious change in the law, since States get to do what they want regarding elections.) Thus, the TGDC has to walk a fine line of recommending something that will be workable enough.

    In an ideal world, NIST will then recommend standards based on this recommendation, and the EAC will adopt these standards, so that future federal money is conditioned appropriately. But of course, we’re not quite there yet.

    It’s the trend I’m happy about, in particular the fact that this approach allows for open-audit voting based on cryptography.

Comments are closed.