EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | James Johnson
Organization : | N/A
Post Date : | 9/30/2005
Section Comments
Section : | 6.7
Page no. : |
Line no.: |
Comment : | The principal justification for treating short range optical different from radio frequency wireless was to protect against these remote threats from outside the poling place. In an open space, or a room with windows, optical is just as venerable as RF. Certainly it could be argued that the signal could be encrypted to prevent outside users from communicating with the machine. The same arguments were made for RF and found insufficient. This is why their use on Election Day has been prohibited. Unless windowless polling places with non reflecting walls are mandated similar threats exist with optical. Will direct line-or-sight paths be required in the precinct between the voting terminal and the Register Judge? Because IR devices are line-of-sight, a clear unobstructed path is required between the transmitter and the receiver. Unless the Election Official is seated close to the machine being communicated with they will have to either move or clear voters to make an unobstructed path. This would seem to eliminate any convenience the official would derive from using short range optical. The only obvious solution to this is to raise power levels such that reflected signals would still reach the receivers. Operating multiple devices concurrently in the same room would cause some signal interference if the controllers are pointed in the same direction. This will increase the error rate, requiring either the power level to be increased or the distance to be shortened. [Statements submitted to NIST Technical Guidelines Development Committee]