e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)

[Tim May]

On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:56 AM, Sunder wrote:

> Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution,  
> usually
> less than 320x200.  Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say
> 3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture.
>
> Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you carry  
> a
> good camera into the booth with you.
>


1. Vinnie the Votebuyer knows the _layout_ of the ballot. He only needs  
to see that the correct box is punched/marked. Or that the screen  
version has been checked.

Pretty easy to see that "Bush" has been marked instead of "Gore."

(For a conventional ballot. For a printed receipt is likely in the  
extreme that the text will be large, at least for the results.)

2. I don't know about cellphone cameras, but my 1996-vintage one  
megapixel camera has more than enough resolution, even at the "not so  
great" setting (about 360 x 500) to pick up text very well. (I used it  
to snap photos of some things with labels attached, for insurance  
reasons.)

3. If Vinnie is serious about this votebuying (I'm not even slightly  
convinced this would happen nationally, for obvious logistical and "who  
cares?" reasons, plus the inability of Palm Beach Jews to punch a  
conventional ballot, let alone work a digital camera and send the  
images to Vinnie), he can provide a camera he knows will do the job.

Google shows that as of May 2003 the high-end cellphone cameras use  
CCDs with 640 x 480. This will become the baseline within a short time,  
certainly long before any of the "receipt" electronic voting systems  
are widely deployed.

(e.g., this article at  
<http://www.what-cellphone.com/articles/200305/ 
200305_Easy_Snapping.php>)

But the resolution of today's very inexpensive digital cameras, and  
probably those in today's cellphone cameras, is more than enough to  
handle a ballot or reasonable-font receipt.

--Tim May