Electronic Voting in Ireland - A Threat to Democracy

bonkey

In other recent news, the US have pulled the idea of using internet-voting for overseas voters, following a government-comissioned study which found that it was just not secure enough.

Right decision, taken for the right reasons : Analyse, get the decision, and go with it.

Why can't our government do things that simply????

jc

pooka

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, this topic was just brought up on Questions and Answers, though quite unsatisfactorially in my opinion. No-one pointed out that noone knows how these machines work, or whether or not they're secure. Rather poor, that. At least someone pointed out the storage cost (50,000 euro per year per constituency!).

I thought it went well, considering. Certainly for anyone from the public watching that debate, it will be apparent that the proposed electronic voting is untrustworthy.

I thought my point (I was the chap with the beard; it was about how difficult it has been to get information on this system) should have made it clear that we have only a limited understanding of the system, and that this is a problem in itself.

From the access we have been able to get, things look quite bad; one example of the seemingly amateur way this whole system has been developed is that while three entities - the developers, the code reviewers, and the testers - were working together on tracking problems with the system, they did not even use a formal bug tracking method.

Unfortunately Margaret didn't get to rebuff the Minister's points about e-voting, and Bowman interrupted her before she could discuss the addition of a voter verified audit trail. Also, the debate was rushed because Bowman wanted to get through his topics, which is a shame considering that so much time was spent on less important matters (the presidency and that bloody jungle thing).

It was a good day for the ICTE (http://www.evoting.cs.may.ie). When you're dealing with the media, you have to be aware that important points just won't get made. Considering the time given to it, the debate went well, and I think the public are rather uncertain about this system. Hopefully this will help to keep it in the spotlight.

Cian

PS. I haven't read this thread before, but with regards to the barney over formal methods: I would agree that using them for large, complex systems is not an option. However, the PR-STV count rules could certainly be formally analysed and specified; this would aid greatly in the trustworthiness of the count software. It would also be a good exercise in throwing up requirements implicit in the legislation. As Sparks points out, however, all that can go in the bin if the system is not open to public scrutiny. From what data we have been able to gather, it looks like the specification document for the count has undergone 8 revisions, going from a very tight spec to something that looks quite messy. I hate to think what the code looks like at this stage.

Sparks

Originally posted by pooka
I thought it went well, considering. Certainly for anyone from the public watching that debate, it will be apparent that the proposed electronic voting is untrustworthy.

Having watched it, I'd have to say that that's not a fair conclusion. The case wasn't decisively made

I thought my point (I was the chap with the beard; it was about how difficult it has been to get information on this system)

*sound of cogs turning*
Ah! Right, with you now...

should have made it clear that we have only a limited understanding of the system, and that this is a problem in itself.

Er, no. I could see what you were trying to say but only because I knew it beforehand. You were referring to "the information" rather than saying exactly what was being sought from the department. To be honest, I did rather get the impression that the initial panel presentation didn't go according to plan - there was the potential there to list off the key problem points, which was sadly missed. But then, that's easy to know sitting on the couch with a mug of tea in your hand - sitting in front of a hundred people under hot lights and TV cameras is something else altogether.

From the access we have been able to get, things look quite bad; one example of the seemingly amateur way this whole system has been developed is that while three entities - the developers, the code reviewers, and the testers - were working together on tracking problems with the system, they did not even use a formal bug tracking method.

*sound of Sparks choking on his tea*
They weren't even using something like Bugzilla?

Unfortunately Margaret didn't get to rebuff the Minister's points about e-voting, and Bowman interrupted her before she could discuss the addition of a voter verified audit trail. Also, the debate was rushed because Bowman wanted to get through his topics, which is a shame considering that so much time was spent on less important matters (the presidency and that bloody jungle thing).

Yes, that really pissed me off I have to say. Grand, fine, you've got Michael D on and you want to get to be the first to ask him live on air whether or not he's going for the job - but FFS, the voting is just as important. And that last question - why do RTE feel the need to bring in the kind of humour you normally see reserved for the worst parts of the letters page in the Irish Times?
:rolleyes:

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
Why can't our government do things that simply????

That's rhetorical right?

To back down now would be deeply embarrassing and the money could well prove to have been wasted and when Fianna Fail have just had a good opinion poll result and seemed to be getting away from the broken promises theme, they don't want to be seen wasting 40 million on a system that is being proven to be poorly thought through and not the best available. Also there is a PR contract for 4.5million, which probably has been commited to.

pooka

Originally posted by Sparks
Having watched it, I'd have to say that that's not a fair conclusion. The case wasn't decisively made

Ah well. Shame.

*sound of Sparks choking on his tea*
They weren't even using something like Bugzilla?

Nope. No bug IDs, just informal descriptions. Fixes without regression testing. A complete disaster, really. Hm. I'm being overly technical on the Politics board. My apologies. )

Cian

Sparks

Originally posted by pooka
Ah well. Shame.

True, but it's just one programme. There'll be others. Perhaps having a list of central points expressed in single short sound bites to go through would be helpful?

Nope. No bug IDs, just informal descriptions. Fixes without regression testing. A complete disaster, really.

Oh for crying out loud....

Hm. I'm being overly technical on the Politics board. My apologies. )

On this point, I think that the technical details are the important point. Evoting itself, as a concept, is sound - it's the implementation that's the problem.

Besides, it's a computer bulletin board, I think at least some technical knowlege can be assumed

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
To back down now would be deeply embarrassing

US Administration is backing down in an election year.....so I don't think its that embarrassing.

You comission an independant review...which you know will say "no, its still not secure enough", and you withdraw the project from use out of concern for the validity of the electoral process, until such times as its accuracy can be acceptably proven.

Nothing embarrassing about that. Saying its in the best interests of democracy isn't even that much of a spin.

and the money could well prove to have been wasted

It has been wasted.

However, do you admit that now, or wait till more has been wasted, and the machine comes back to bite you in the ass after it has rendered some election questionable or invalid??????

and when Fianna Fail have just had a good opinion poll result and seemed to be getting away from the broken promises theme, they don't want to be seen wasting 40 million on a system that is being proven to be poorly thought through and not the best available.

If it was well thought out, and the best available, it was still a waste of 40 million.

You don't back down saying "our system is not good enough", you back down saying "no system at present is good enough, and that includes the one we backed".....which isn't actually untrue.

Its a case of "when" and not "if" that this system will bite the government in the backside. Bearing that in mind....I would have thought "sooner rather than later" is the way to go...especially when they have a small buffer of goodwill to cash in on.


jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
Its a case of "when" and not "if" that this system will bite the government in the backside. Bearing that in mind....I would have thought "sooner rather than later" is the way to go...especially when they have a small buffer of goodwill to cash in on.

I tend to agree, the development of the system has serious flaws leading to a system that isn't going to be transparent enough to prevent errors being made or the outside chance of maliscious intervention being detected. The government do appear to be backing themselves into a corner by continuing to defend the system, when all the issues in evoting forum and in the media. It will take courage from the government to admit the system isn't up to best international standard, i hope there is that courage in government.