This is a key point in @RonWyden 's letter - OR's dep SOS asserts authoritatively that the Voatz system is more secure than other methods? Why? Because the WV SOS said so. Why did the WV SOS say that? Because Voatz said so. 1/
context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def…
context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def…
We are told we need to listen to election officials because they know how to run elections. This is true, but most aren't security experts, nor is that their job. Yet *some* election officials rely on the unsubstantiated, unfounded claims of security from voting... 2/
...system vendors to make statements about the security of their systems. In other words, some election officials use their platform as experts on election administration to assert baseless claims about election security that come from for-profit vendors trying to sell their...3/
...products, like Vial did here. Now the WV SOS and the Dep SoS of OR have both conferred on Voatz a seal of approval which is then used to push the product into use even though Voatz has not been subject to ANY PUBLIC testing or evaluation at all.
