You are on page 1of 1

I urge a NO vote on SB 1515.

I am a computer software professional with over two decades of experience in microprocessor and electronic circuit design and software development. I am currently employed at Mentor Graphics Corporation, a local EDA Electronic Design Automation! company as a software development engineer. "rior to Mentor, I wor#ed at Intel Corporation, in the areas of EDA and microprocessor design. Neither Intel nor Mentor are in any way involved in or associated with this testimony. This testimony is solely my own.! Extensive research conducted in the areas of computer security and Internet voting leads to the conclusion that technology to secure integrity of Internet vote simply does not exist. $his is not an exaggeration, it is a fact %ased on several other %asic facts easy to understand %y a computer professional and a layman ali#e. It is not a matter of unfamiliarity with technology or an opposition to it, as I hope my credentials demonstrate. $his article http&''www.theguardian.com'technology'()*+'oct'+)'online,fraud,costs,more,than,*)),%illion, dollars states that online fraud costs the global economy significantly more than $1 billion annually, despite intensive academic research and industry development. Many other popular press and peer,reviewed pu%lications corro%orate the story& internet is not a secure place for financial transactions. -hat could persuade us to thin# that it is a safe place for casting %allots. /nline commerce continues %ecause someone usually the %an#! foots the fraud %ill. !y first "uestion to the proponents of Internet voting is# $ho $ill foot the %bill% for voter fraud on the Internet& I don't mean the dollar cost of elections( I mean the political loss of candidates and measures defeated by fraudulent votes& I don0t thin# voters will %e willing to foot it. -ho, then. A political party. -hich one. A candidate running for office. Do you see the a%surdity of voting in the presence of inevitable fraud. 1ec. *. *! e! of the 2ill addresses the integrity and transparency of the system. In the light of what we #now a%out the cost of Internet commerce fraud, what conclusions does the esteemed wor# group convened %y the 1ecretary of 1tate according to this 2ill hope to arrive at at the end of the study. Does it hope to find or develop a technological %rea#through which would once and for all put to rest worries a%out hac#ers, malicious insiders secretly placing 3%ac# doors3 in the voting software or hardware, viruses, tro4an horses, phishing schemes etc. etc. etc.? 2ut any conclusion short of 3we0ve found a cure to the Internet fraud once and for all3 will fall short of the mar# as set %y this 2ill& 3to increase the confidence of electors.3 $hus I as# again& when findings are reported %efore the Decem%er deadline, what findings do we thin# they will %e. )an $e really hope for a brea*through in Internet secutiry& By $ho& Spending $hat amount of money on research& +emonstrated convincingly to the public by $hat means& If anything less is expected as the outcome of the study committed %y this 2ill, then we might as well as# the 1ecretary of 1tate to convene a wor#ing group to find out if house fires and floods are dangerous, and if drunk driving poses any ha5ard to pu%lic safety. -e #now they are dangerous. Correct. -e also #now that Internet is insecure. $o ensure the proposed Internet voting system is auditable and accountable, and to secure a bac*up system in case of a massive computer system failure or a denial of service attac* , as unli#ely as that may %e in the minds of the legislators, the State $ill have to maintain the e"uivalent of the current paper ballot voting system( in parallel to the ne$ Internet one. In other words, the cost of the Internet system, whatever it may %e, $ill add to, not replace, the cost of the present system. $hat means cost savings touted by this Bill are pure fiction. $han# you for your consideration.