That's it. Nothing. No mandatory code reviews. No cybersecurity analysis. No versioning reqs. Absolutely nothing.
-
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
not criticizing, but https://www.eac.gov/testing_and_certification/ … is something that voting system companies go through. It's expensive and
2 replies 8 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Slestac @EmilyGorcenski
requires adherence to VVSG standards, which include code history, reviews, style guides, etc
1 reply 4 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Slestac @EmilyGorcenski
and that's just at the federal level. Some states have additional certification requirements that manufacturers must meet.
2 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
I'm wrapping up a job at ES&S, and we submit all systems through this process. Don't know if statutorily required
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @Slestac @EmilyGorcenski
Spoiler alert: it's not required by the feds. The first V in VVSG is "voluntary."
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Some states require federal certification. Others have their own standards. Some none at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The current VVSG guidelines aren't terribly strict. The allowed mean time between failure is 163 hours.
1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes -
And (a) failure can be "loses all votes", and (b) this MTBF means up to 9% of equipment can fail on election day.
1 reply 4 retweets 10 likes
good lord
-
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @ffish
so, this would be THE prefect application of open source. Yet I'm only aware of commercial ventures.
2 replies 2 retweets 11 likes -
Yep
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.