,
5 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
@VerifiedVoting 1/ Can we agree that there is historical imprecision in the terminology? The phrase "voter verifiable" that been used interchangeably with "voter verified." They are not the same thing. An audit trail in an untrusted environment should not be trusted unless it has been verified.
@VerifiedVoting 2/A verification requires a positive affirmation. Verifiability requires only the ability to be submitted for that affirmation. One is potential, the other is accomplishment. This stems IMO from @philipbstark description in e.g., stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprin…
@VerifiedVoting @philipbstark 3/"A risk-limiting audit of an untrustworthy paper trail...is 'security theater.' " The confusion stems from an inserted phrase "or any audit that purports to ascertain voter intent for an electronic record or from an artifact that the voter did not have the OPPORTUNITY to check"
@VerifiedVoting @philipbstark 4/Plainly, when there is a risk that an artifact is compromised, the voter must actually check, There is otherwise no basis for trusting the paper trail. @philipbstark clarified this most recently in his letter to GA legislators opposing BMDs as unauditable.
@VerifiedVoting @philipbstark 5/My hope is that @VerifiedVoting and others revise language to reflect this understanding. It is otherwise confusing to lay ppl who are not trackiing all of this. The consequence of not doing so is that ppl will be led to believe math automagically corrects 4 unverified items.
