[NFBCS] Resolution 19 on electronic ballot delivery: am I over-reacting?

[Aaron Cannon]

This resolution saw a great deal of discussion in our state caucus yesterday as well. I expect there to be a great deal of discussion on this today. I hope that it does not pass.

Aaron 

--
This message was sent from a mobile device


> On Jul 17, 2020, at 16:52, Mike Gorse via NFBCS <nfbcs at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Justin. I hadn't looked at the resolutions, so now I feel blind-sided, which, obviously, is something that can happen to someone who doesn't look at the resolutions. Anyhow, I'm not really a security professional, but I agree with Curtis's comments, and your concerns seem reasonable to me.
> 
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, Justin Ekis via NFBCS wrote:
>> 
>> Hey there folks, 
>> First, to introduce or perhaps reintroduce myself. I’m a student majoring in Cyber Defense at southwest tennessee community college. I’d love to get to know any blind folks working in the information security field. 
>> I was just reviewing the resolutions for this year, and I’m very concerned by some wording of resolution 2020-19. I wish I had seen this tuesday evening or yesterday, so I could consider this some more before sending in my notice that I want to speak tomorrow. There is a phrase which is repeated in two whereas clauses, that I find quite inappropriate. 
>> WHEREAS, the majority of media coverage of the increased use of electronic ballot delivery systems as a result of elections being changed from predominantly in-person to predominantly vote-by-mail as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has misinformed the public by referring to it as online voting, by focusing almost solely on the unsubstantiated claims of so-called security experts, by failing to include the perspective of the disability community, and by failing to state that an accessible way to vote-by-mail is required by federal law; and
>> 
>> WHEREAS, the media does not hesitate to question the motives and credibility of the National Federation of the Blind or other disability advocates but assumes that the so-called security experts have no biases or advocacy goals of their own:. 
>> I have a serious problem with what I see as denigration of information security professionals with the phrase "so-called security experts." I thoroughly agree with the spirit of this resolution, and all of the rest of the language. However, the security professionals are not the enimy, and should not be disparaged by this organization. I think such blanket statements can only be harmful. Their ownly advocacy aim is the pretection of our elections. It would be far better to reach out to the industry to collaborate on ways that both the accessibility and security needs can  both be addressed. If I had a voice in the industry, I would be communicating that to them as well. 
>> I’m very open to feedback from more experienced members on this issue. I’m up against the deadline and have to send in my request to speak immediately, but I am open to withdrawing it if I can be convinced otherwise. 
>> Best regards, 
>> Justin Ekis. _______________________________________________
>> NFBCS mailing list
>> NFBCS at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFBCS:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/mike%40straddlethebox.org
> _______________________________________________
> NFBCS mailing list
> NFBCS at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFBCS:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantproductions.com