一家研究选举安全的机构批评内华达州民主党计划在党团会议中使用数字工具，称内华达州可能会遇到与爱荷华州上周在投票应用程序上遇到的许多问题相同的问题。
开源选举技术(OSET)协会周日在推特上发布了一个链接，链接到一个来自内华达州独立报其中详细说明了内华达州民主党(NDP)将如何在2月22日的州党团会议上使用数字“工具”。
这自主的报道称，NDP的工作人员对该工具和爱荷华民主党2月3日的党团会议上使用的应用程序进行了区分。A有问题的应用程序这没有经过适当的测试，编码问题导致了爱荷华州选举结果的延迟。
“似曾相识；这一次是在内华达州，”OSET的第一条推特上写道。“让我们从一开始就搞清楚:他们的是一个‘应用程序’，没有‘工具’的名称会改变这一点。我们不要再玩文字游戏了。唯一的“区别”是它的预装&可能不使用移动连接"
该研究所驳斥了NDP对“应用”和“工具”的区分，认为两者之间的任何区别都是表面的。
“为了把他们即将举行的核心会议从爱荷华州分离出来，而陷入应用和工具之间微妙的定义之中，这是无稽之谈，”OSET解释道。“这是猪身上的口红。“应用”是分布在移动网络上的“软件应用”的数字缩写(例如，“5G”服务)。”
OSET指出，爱荷华州使用的应用程序和NDP计划使用的工具有两个关键区别:第一，后者是“预装的[和]由信息技术支持配置的”，包含该工具的iPads将被分发。其次，该工具本身完成计算核心小组结果的工作。然而，这就是分歧结束的地方——根据OSET的说法，这对于内华达州来说并不是一个好兆头。
OSET说:“尽管他们在[的时间似乎比爱荷华州多了两周，但他们仍然遭受着许多相同的产品管理失误，首先，他们没有做任何事情来建立对他们所做工作的信任。”。
OSET还写道，在爱荷华州使用的应用程序的同样问题似乎存在于内华达的工具中:“缺乏足够的测试(所有方面)；透明的代码审查；培训(阅读上面#1中的文章)；安全审计；最重要的是，弹性规划。”
该组织还呼吁NDP更加“透明”，并回答了关于该工具的诸多问题:谁开发了该工具？谁测试过了？如何使用它来报告核心小组的结果？
“简而言之，如果挪威信贷银行和NDP想要在所有这些方面提高信任度，那就做正确的事情，”OSET建议道。“A)沟通和完全透明。b)姓名。c)确定所涉及的组织，D)清楚地描述该系统——它是如何工作的&为什么你认为它将不同于爱荷华州的“影子内阁”灾难，以及E)披露该供应商是谁，以及该供应商是“影子内阁”还是他们的工作移交给了另一个供应商
该机构预测“挪威信贷银行和NDP银行不会因为没有完全回答这些问题而产生任何信任”，并且在核心会议日这款应用会有问题。
“请证明我们是错的，”在帖子的最后一条推文中写道。“否则，将会有一些非常严肃的问题，为什么这些钱首先被用来构建不必要的应用程序。请继续关注。”
根据其官方网站，位于加州帕洛阿尔托的OSET研究所专注于“研究、开发和使创新的选举软件成为公共技术...为了提高验证、准确性、安全性和透明度...并确保选票被计为已投”
新闻周刊联系内华达民主党就OSET的评论发表评论，但是在发表之前没有收到回复。
2020年2月4日，在爱荷华州得梅因市，德梅因市议员兼选区主席卡尔·沃斯在他的手机上向摄影师展示了一款用于党团会议结果报告的应用程序，此前他曾试图从爱荷华州民主党总部第55选区投递党团会议结果包，但未成功。
ELECTION SECURITY INSTITUTE CRITICIZES NEWLY-UNVEILED NEVADA CAUCUS APP AFTER IOWA DISASTER
An institute that studies election security criticized the Nevada Democratic Party for planning to use a digital tool for its caucuses, arguing that Nevada was likely to run into many of the same issues that Iowa did with its voting app last week.
The Open Source Election Technology (OSET) Institute began its Twitter thread Sunday with a link to a story from The Nevada Independent, which detailed how the Nevada Democratic Party (NDP) will be using a digital "tool" on the day of that state's caucuses on February 22.
The Independent reported that NDP staffers made a distinction between its tool and the app that was used by the Iowa Democratic Party for their caucuses on February 3. A faulty app that was not tested properly and had coding issues led to delays of the Iowa results.
"Deja Vu; this time in NV," OSET's first tweet read. "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.'"
The institute dismissed the NDP's distinction between an "app" and a "tool," arguing that any difference between the two was superficial.
"It's nonsense to get caught up in nuanced definitions over App vs. Tool in order to separate their upcoming caucus from Iowa," OSET's explained. "This is lipstick on the pig. An 'App' is the digerati abbreviation for 'software application' distributed over mobile networks (e.g., '5G' services)."
OSET noted that there were two key differences between the app used in Iowa and the tool the NDP is set to use: First, the latter is "pre-loaded [and] configured by IT support," and the iPads that contains the tool will be distributed. Second, the tool itself does the work of calculating the caucus results. However, that was where the differences ended—which does not bode well for Nevada, according to OSET.
"Although it appears they have [two] 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," OSET said.
OSET also wrote that the same issues with the app used in Iowa appeared to be present with Nevada's tool: "lack of adequate testing (all aspects); transparent code vetting; training (read the article in #1 above); security audit; and above all, resiliency planning."
The organization also called for the NDP to be more "transparent," and an answer a plethora of questions about the tool: Who developed the tool? Who has tested it? How it will be used to report the results of the caucus?
"In short, if the DNC & NDP want to improve *trust* in all of this, then do the right things," OSET suggested. "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 E) disclose who the vendor is and whether its still @ShadowincHQ or their work handed over to another vendor."
The institute predicted that "the DNC & NDP will *not* engender any trust by failing to completely answer these questions" and that there will be problems with the app on Caucus Day.
"Please prove us wrong," read the final tweet in the thread. "Otherwise, there will be very serious questions about *why* this money was spent to build unnecessary Apps in the first place. Stay tuned."
According to its official website, the Palo Alto, California-based OSET Institute focuses on "researching, developing, and making innovative election software public technology ... in order to increase verification, accuracy, security, and transparency ... and ensure that ballots are counted as cast."
Newsweek contacted the Nevada Democratic Party for comment on OSET's comments but did not receive a reply before publication.
Carl Voss, Des Moines City Councilman and a precinct chair, shows photographers the app that was used for caucus results reporting on his phone after he unsuccessfully attempted to drop off a caucus results packet from Precinct 55 at the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters February 4, 2020 in Des Moines, Iowa.
