In addition, Google has been cutting for a while and has not been caught in the public. It is in that "Google classifies about 10,000 of its workers as 'temporary operational expenses,' which means their positions are not official and could be eliminated without public notification."" top
dslmodem (733085) writes "After the E-voting turmoil in this mid-term election and NIST's rejection, here comes IEEE the engineers. I've got an email from John Keaton, a Senior Manager in IEEE Strategic Research and Planning. It includes a link to a survey on E-voting. Here are the questions.
1. How familiar are you with electronic voting technology?
2. Have you ever voted using electronic touch screen voting technology?
3. Ignoring for a moment intentional fraud, how reliable do you think electronic voting is at accurately recording the votes of people using it?
4. Some people have argued that electronic voting is susceptible to fraud because people can tinker with the software that records the votes. Others think this fear is misplaced, arguing that electronic voting is harder to manipulate than paper ballots. How vulnerable do you think electronic voting systems are to fraud?
5. Some people have proposed improving the security of electronic voting technology by requiring that voters have the opportunity to verify the accuracy of their vote with a physical (e.g., paper) record of their vote. This will allow voters to confirm that his or her vote was recorded properly and allow hand recounts of the election. Opponents claim that such systems would be unnecessarily complicated, cost extra and would not improve the process. They also claim that hand recounts are less accurate than electronic recounts. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that printed verification of votes should be a mandatory part of electronic voting systems?
6. Looking beyond specific voting technology, how important is it for the federal government to adopt specific national voting technology standards?
7. Virtually all of current electronic voting systems use proprietary software. While the manufacturers test and verify this software, the process for doing so is not transparent and the code itself cannot be viewed by the public. Some people see this as a legitimate competitive advantage for the companies involved and note that the software is extensively tested by independent testing authorities prior to deployment. Other people worry about the lack of transparency in the process and point out that, after testing by outside groups, authorities have found weaknesses in some machines. How concerned are you about the use of proprietary software in voting machines?
8. One suggested solution to the lack of transparency is to mandate that only software disclosed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC-the agency responsible for enforcing election laws) can be used in voting machines. Supporters think this will ensure the integrity of the software. Critics are concerned about the loss of trade secrets and question whether the FEC can adequately police the software. How important do you think it is for the FEC to inspect the software used in voting machines? (my comment: Democracy is all but performing elections in secret. If any company wants their trade secrecy, they should not work in this field. However, FEC should provides those transparent-software vendors with some incentives. )
9. Some voting machines have remote communication devices built into them, including Web access. These devices allow for quick tabulation of the votes and remove local voting officials, who may not be well trained in the new technology, from the vote-counting process. However, some people are worried that remote access could allow people to disrupt or alter vote tallies remotely without being detected. Do you think Congress should ban remote access technology from all voting machines?
10. Please provide any comments and opinions you have on the topic of voting technology, especially electronic voting technology." top