Conformity Magazine - June 2008 - (Page 31)

Fewer systems being certified means that there is less testing volume to support the VSTLs. Since VSTLs will see fewer voting systems for testing, laboratory personnel will have less experience testing those systems. Testing labs will also have a harder time justifying test automation and other improvements. So people involved in the testing and certification process get less practice and cannot justify developing better tools, like writing test automation software. Various state reviews and testing efforts are adding further to vendor cost, draining resources that might be used for further development and system improvements. Taken as a whole, it is clear that the path to further improvements is not by simply continuning to do more of what has already been done. In some cases, the changes that have already been made need time to manifest their impact before we can know what further changes might be needed. In other cases, the results have proven to be inefficient or counterproductive. The following is a short list of some trends that have clearly proven to be counterproductive: • Testing in quality has a long and ignoble history. It is widely understood that quality is best designed in, not tested in. However, in the arena of elections, the trend continues to be to test in quality. Perhaps it is an example of the old adage, “When you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail.” Writing new specifications has become a knee-jerk response in an effort to bring about improvements. Little consideration is given to the question, “Are new specifications the best, or even a good tool, to bring further improvement?” and cost of certification. National and state efforts operate with little coordination. Certification costs at the national level have gone up an order of magnitude since 2000. Those costs seem destined to go up another factor of two to four. It may soon cost $2-6M to get national certification. The additional cost of state certification has not been estimated, but is considerable. Further, not all states cooperate in the national certification program, preferring to run their own programs. The question needs to be asked, “Is this the best way to spend this money?” • Another negative trend is the continuing escalation of time • To this point, voting system specifications have been created without guidance from a total systems objective or justification that the benefit will justify the cost. The result is an unending accumulation of more and more requirements, without any support that they result in better voting systems, or in better elections. developed in isolation from the procedures that will guide the use of the systems. This trend results in two great problems. First, systems are over-specified, increasing their cost and complexity. In other cases, assumptions are made that issues will be covered by administrative procedures. When this fails, important loopholes and vulnerabilities are created. What is needed is a coordinated development of system specifications and use procedures for each individual voting system. In some cases the best way to address an issue is in use procedures. In other cases, the best way is to address the issue in equipment specifications. For security, accuracy and other critical issues, the best approach will have redundancy, fault tolerance and defense in depth. Some issue should be covered in both system specifications and use procedures. in isolation from the evaluation methods that will determine system compliance. As any test engineer knows, a tremendous variance can be created in different test methods to the specifications. In many ways, writing specifications without test methods is like writing a book without a dictionary; the result is vague and subject to wide misunderstanding. To have effective specifications, the reverse should be done; first, write test methods, and then decide what specifications will result in the desired outcome. Stephen Berger is the principle of TEM Consulting, and can be reached at stephen.berger@ieee.org. FAST Link www.conformity.com/1840 One_FourthAd_Confrom6_08:Layout 1 5/1/08 10:31 AM Page • Up to now, voting system specifications have been Spectrum Solution # 2,185 Custom Robust Filter Plate • Plate mounted in custom, magnesium alloy housing • Capacitors encased in potting for higher reliability • Custom removable rubber “boot” supplied with part to protect contacts during shipping & handling • 2500pF PI capacitance • Current rating 5 amps Got an EMI challenge? • Working voltage 100VDC, Get going by calling DWV 250VDC 888.267.1195 or visiting • Voting system specifications to this point are developed Spectrum project starter at specemc.com/getstarted Signal & Power Integrity JUnE 2008 Conformity 31 http://www.conformity.com/1840 http://specemc.com/getstarted http://specemc.com/getstarted

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Conformity - June 2008

Conformity - June 2008 Contents Editor's Note 700 MHz Auction Raises a Record $20 Billion FCC Modifies PCS and AWS Power Limit Rules for Broadband Wireless Commission Designates Spectrum Test Bed FCC Releases Report on Wireless Competition Commission Proposes $5 Million Fine for Slamming Using EDX for Non-Destructive Detection of Lead in Consumer Products ESD Open Forum Challenges in Testing - Improving Election Security and Accuracy Part 1 Challenges in Testing - Human Body Model: The Hidden Challenges High-Speed Signal Integrity Considerations for ESD Components Focus On...EMC Components Buyer's Guide FCC Levies $2.6 Million Fine for Junk Faxes FDA Updates Guidance on its Product Review Process EU Issues Updated Energy Star Regulations EU Repeals Directive on Veterinary Electro-Medical Equipment New Product Announcements Updated Standards List for the EU's PPE Directive CPSC Announces New Effort to Keep Out Hazardous Products CPSC Actions in the News IEC Standards Update UL Standards Update Product Reviews Telcordia Standards Update From Our "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department Looking Back: Items from Past Issues of Conformity Advertisers

Conformity - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.