1/ Deja Vu; this time in NV. Let's be clear from the start: their's is an "App" and no designation of "tool" changes that. Let's stop playing word games here. The fact that its pre-loaded & may not use mobile connectivity is the only "difference." Thread/ thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada…
2/ It's nonsense to get caught up in nuanced definitions over App vs. Tool in order to separate their upcoming caucus from Iowa. This is lipstick on the pig. An "App" is the digerati abbreviation for "software application" distributed over mobile networks (e.g., "5G" services).
3/ So what's the differences in NV? A) It's pre-loaded & configured by IT support & iPads are distributed (that's good: no downloads on uncontrollable devices). B) The App performs the caucus math and produces results that *may* be (hopefully) manually transmitted...
4/ But that's where it ends. Although it appears they have 2 more weeks than Iowa had, they *still* suffer from much of the same product management missteps, the first & foremost being doing *nothing* to engender *trust* (communication + transparency) in what they're doing...
5/ Many of the same issues experienced in Iowa with @ShadowincHQ, *appear* to be present here again: lack of adequate testing (all aspects); transparent code vetting; training (read the article in #1 above); security audit; and above all, resiliency planning.
6/ They say only a fool makes the same mistake twice. So, let's start with the DNC (and in this case plus the NDP) immediately being transparent: A) *who* developed the App? B) *who* vetted the code? C) *who* tested the App and Service? 🤔And...
7/ ...D) How will results of the App (or 'tool' 🙄) be reported: manually or by network? E) If the latter, how will it be secured and how will the receiving server securely receive and protect the data? (Recall: we found the Iowa server was *also* behind in security patching)...
8/ ...F) *who* exactly reviewed & signed-off on this App (including those at the DNC)? Which security experts were brought in to (re)configure the NV solution (as the article above describes)? In short, if the DNC & NDP want to improve *trust* in all of this, then...
9/ ...do the right things: A) communicate and be totally transparent. B) name names. C) identify organizations involved, D) clearly describe the system- how it works & why you believe it will be different than the @ShadowincHQ Iowa disaster, and...
10/ ...E) disclose who the vendor is and whether its still @ShadowincHQ or their work handed over to another vendor. F) do this now with 14 days to go. Otherwise this is potentially another #failure in the making. In fact, we're going to make some predictions here...
11/ We (sadly) predict (but hope we're wrong) that A) the DNC & NDP will *not* engender any trust by failing to completely answer these questions above, and *not* be transparent in all aspects & B) there *will* be troubles using the App (and such will not be fully disclosed).
12/ Please prove us wrong. Otherwise, there will be very serious questions about *why* this money was spent to build unnecessary Apps in the first place. Stay tuned. /End
