Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?

bminish · 28-02-2004 1:13pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
A balanced article imho from the NY Times 28-02-04

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/politics/campaign/28VOTE.html?th

you have to register

Can you please post the article. The NY times Privacy policy is not the best and I have no intention of registering with them.

some excerpts

The company has worked to fix all security issues that researchers have described, said David Bear, a Diebold spokesman. "Those things have not only already been addressed," he said, "they were implemented."

1/ Would this have happened at all if there wasn't so much public discussion about the large security holes that existed the first time it was used in a live election. This is not about if these security holes were exploited but about the fact that they existed in the first place

2/ Who gets to re-audit the 'fixed' software ?

According to above claims this system is now at least one stage further on in it's development than the Nedap system proposed for our elections.
Most of the various problems with diebold system would have come to light before live election use if they had allowed for proper open and independent testing, why are we potentially going to make the same mistakes with the Nedap system ?

If the system works properly and is as trustworthy as it is supposed to be why not allow open and independent inspection to all aspects of the system by anyone who want's to look at it, surely this could only benefit the Gov by helping to restore trust, The software people by uncovering any problems that may exist before it gets used in live elections and the general Public by helping to restore trust in the system

... say the conspiracy theories are bunk......

This debate isn't about conspiracy theories in the US its about how secure and trustworthy the Nedap system is.
Yet again you are not answering the issues put to you

.Brendan

(who is not a conspiracy nut, but does not trust FF any further than I can throw a brick )

williamgrogan · 28-02-2004 8:34pm

New York Times - from the "free view section"

Electronic Vote Faces Big Test of Its Security
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: February 28, 2004

ENNESAW, Ga. — Millions of voters in 10 states will cast ballots on Tuesday in the single biggest test so far of new touchscreen voting machines that have been billed as one of the best answers to the Florida election debacle of 2000. But many computer security experts worry that the machines could allow democracy to be hacked.

Here in Georgia, along with Maryland and California, an estimated six million people will be using machines from Diebold Election Systems, which has been the focus of the biggest controversy.

Independent studies have found flaws in Diebold's system that researchers say might allow hackers or corrupt insiders to reprogram the touchscreens or computers that tally the votes, without leaving a trace.

Without a paper record of every vote or some other way to verify voters' choices after the fact, these experts warn, elections may lose the public's trust.

"People complain about hanging chads," said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a co-author of the first study that found security flaws in the Diebold machines. "But if an electronic machine has malicious code in it, it's possible that all of the chads are hanging — and then you have to question every vote."

The company has worked to fix all security issues that researchers have described, said David Bear, a Diebold spokesman. "Those things have not only already been addressed," he said, "they were implemented."

For more than a year, Diebold also has been fighting conspiracy theories popularized on the Internet that say its Jetsons-at-the-polling-place wares serve as cover for an ongoing effort to stuff electronic ballot boxes on behalf of the Republican Party.

Diebold executives, along with outside computer security experts who are seeking to fix the voting machines, say the conspiracy theories are bunk. The company's chief executive, Walden W. O'Dell, did not help matters, though, when he sent out a fund-raising letter for the Bush campaign last summer saying he was committed to "helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president next year."

The conspiracy talk took off not long after the November 2002 election here, when two Georgia Democrats, Gov. Roy Barnes and Senator Max Cleland, were defeated in upsets.

It was the first time in the United States that new touchscreen machines from Diebold had been used in a statewide election. And several months before the election, the software on the machines received patches that had not been vetted by independent testing authorities.

But even the state's most ardent Democratic officials say that while the races were particularly ugly the vote counts were accurate.

"Listen, I have looked at this election every which way," said Bobby Kahn, who is chairman of the state's Democratic Party and who served as Governor Barnes's chief of staff. "I would love to say that it was hacked. That's just not the case."

Those who keep Georgia's election system running admit that the process two years ago, particularly the late patching, was flawed. "We did things some ways we'd rather not do if we had the time to do them in," said Britain Williams, a professor emeritus of computer science at Kennesaw State University and a consultant on voting to Georgia and other states.

But the Georgia Center for Election Systems, which he helped found here and which assists the Georgia Secretary of State, was working under a deadline, Election Day.

"We did not have the luxury of a calm schedule there, to put it mildly," he said.

The patched software code, he said, was inspected after the election and passed muster. "I'm happy to say that when we went back after the fact, we found that we had not made any bad decisions," he said.

Mr. Williams insisted that Georgia had addressed its shortcomings from that election and was continuing to improve the processes that will make voting run safely and smoothly.

Electronic Vote Faces Big Test of Its Security

Published: February 28, 2004

(Page 2 of 2)

The computer security experts — and an increasingly vocal group of skeptics, including presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich — say they are not so sure. They argue that electronic voting from any of the current systems on the market opens the door to mischief and election fraud going beyond anything seen in the world of paper ballots and mechanical voting machines.

In one exercise conducted for Maryland, computer researchers showed that with hand-held computers and quick fingers, they could open the touchscreen machines and even reprogram them to make votes for one candidate count for another.

In response to such concerns, California's secretary of state, Kevin Shelley, has demanded that all election system companies in his state add printers to their machines by the 2006 elections so that votes can be verified. Mr. Williams and some other states' voting officials oppose adding printers, arguing that the move is untested and would be expensive and that the printers would be a maintenance nightmare.

Proponents of the computer voting systems argue that the critics underestimate the degree to which good procedures can compensate for imperfect security. In Georgia, Mr. Williams said, individual precincts publish paper summaries of each machine's results, providing an audit function.

"We don't have to make the system a hundred percent secure," he said. "What we have to do is make the security bar so high that anybody will say, `To heck with that.' "

But Mr. Rubin, the principal author of the first Diebold study, argues that when the stakes are sufficiently high, people will go to extraordinary measures to beat a system. In an interview, he cited the Breeders' Cup betting scandal in 2002, when a programmer for the race track system exploited a hole for counting wagers to win a Pick Six bet worth $3 million. The programmer, Chris Harn, and two accomplices were sent to federal prison.

And Mr. Rubin and other experts point to a conspiracy among slot machine workers who rigged the devices with software patches that shifted the odds when a particular sequence of coins was entered. The fraud went undetected from 1992 until 1996, after the ringleader, Ronald Harris, won a $100,000 jackpot with an accomplice in Atlantic City. Mr. Harris, a gaming regulator at the time, was convicted of racketeering.

These are merely the cases that have come to light, Mr. Rubin and David L. Dill, a security expert at Stanford University, warned in a recent article on electronic voting in a technical journal, IEEE Security & Privacy.

"We know about the Harris case only because he was caught, but how many times have such crimes occurred without being detected?" they wrote. "We'll never know."

In a telephone interview, Mr. Dill said the same concerns apply to any voting system that does not allow a verifiable audit. "We don't have any way of proving the absence of fraud in any of these elections," he said.

In Georgia, officials say that despite occasional glitches voting has greatly improved in the 300 statewide and local elections that have been held since touchscreens were introduced. Undervoting — in which people go into a voting booth but do not cast a vote, usually because of some mistake or flaw — has dropped considerably with the use of touchscreens, they say, from nearly 5 percent in 1998 to less than 1 percent in 2002. And statewide polls suggest that most Georgians prefer the new voting system.

Mr. Williams and others at the Kennesaw State center acknowledge some frustration with the security flaws. But they attribute the problems to the fact that voting systems were, until recently, a cottage industry with software-writing practices more like those found in small business than in first-rank corporate environments.

Diebold Election Systems, a subsidiary of Diebold Inc. of North Canton, Ohio, was, until 2001, a stand-alone company known as Global Election Systems. Larger companies like Diebold swooped in to buy the smaller companies after the election fiasco in Florida put pressure on states to upgrade their systems.

And when Georgia went looking for voting machines, Mr. Williams said, it found that Diebold produced "the best system on the market."

Sparks · 28-02-2004 8:50pm

So basicly, independent experts say the diebold system is suspect, and the only source that counters it is diebold itself?
Call me more cynical than skeptical, but I don't believe they can be taken as being independent, since finding that the diebold machines are in fact insecure would mean they would be out of a job and facing financial ruin.

williamgrogan · 01-03-2004 9:04pm

Tom McGurk - Sunday Business Post web site Sunday the 29-02-04

This is an excerpt from

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-131462479-pageUrl--2FMisc-2FEzine.asp

{underlines mine} {my comments}

Here he was attempting to sell the benefits of his new ultramodern hands-free electoral gadget,the great new instant poll machine.

... Bertie, like some psyched-up political Del Boy `down the market' trying to flog off his latest contraption

Last week it was Russian answer phones, yesterday Japanese video recorders and today, today folks, line up, line up please for your Dutch voting machines!

... a widening gap between the electronic advocates and the paper trailers ...

... the electronic poll question strikes at the very notions of trust and integrity.

Visibly and undeniably under the old system citizens voted on paper, counted the votes, checked the votes and then retained the votes for further checking. All arguments and disputes had a fail-safe resolution, another count.

...... and for once too it was a visibly a defining if not humbling and learning process for them as they waited long hours among the people they hoped to represent. {Ah! the old ways were best, begorrah!}

Even more importantly, the old system symbolised the democratic order of things, …. Nor should one ignore the importance of ritual to the whole process. {the process is more important than the actual purpose?}

The actual counting process was hugely important because its ritual and its ceremonials ….

In rural Ireland in particular,{where the plain people of old Oirland live} the socialisation and the communal crossroads that these occasions created were part of the very fabric of society.The count,the tally-men,the sandwiches and the cups of tea, the whole wider theatre of the occasion was something that enhanced the importance of both the democratic system and the wider political process in the lives of these communities.

Like any human gathering for any common purpose, the partakers left nourished and invigorated.{Norished and invigorated after 3 days of counting bits of paper???}

...who can claim that the arrival of the electronic polling booth is going to improve democratic involvement? {Eh? I thought that it was just a mechanism for recording and counting votes?}

Indeed, does it not send out a subtextual message from the politicians that they want to speed up {Tom’s opposed to speeding things up} this tiresome process, and that we should get on with it as they don't have hours and days to hang around waiting for our verdict?

...... we will no longer have a real vote {again the mechanism is more important than the purpose} in our hands, merely a small disturbance in cyberspace.

We won't be able to hold our vote, feel it or look at it. {the tactile, pagan, smell aspect?}

Do they really think that after the long and often bloody journey our ancestors had to make to arrive at this point in our political lives that this will be adequate to our historical and cultural appetites? {I didn't know anyone died so we could vote using paper in particular?}

Instead they have now decided that our democratic process will be reduced to a function of one of their machines {I can almost hear the music from Metropolis} about which they know nothing more than what the manufacturers have told them. And if and when one of them comes a cropper during the polling, as the American experience has shown will frequently happen,who do we, or rather they, send for then - a computer expert {and of course we all hate experts, especially the new hight priests - the programmers} or perhaps just a pencil and a piece of paper? {what? he doesn't even approve of ink?}

{of course, Tom's a lefty of the old school}

I think this article is pure Luddism.

Sparks · 01-03-2004 10:13pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I think this article is pure Luddism.

Yup, it is. It also misses the very important points that according to the FF proposals for the next election:

1) Noone in the country will be able to legally know how the votes are counted;

2) Noone in the country will be able to legally challange results if, say, Bertie gets four thousand votes more than there were on the register;

3) No constituency can stand more than 30 candidates;

4) Noone will trust the results because of the first two points.

williamgrogan · 01-03-2004 11:01pm

So far the “evidence” that eVoting is unreliable (presumably we mean unreliable beyond an acceptable level as 100% reliability is impossible.)

“134 missing votes in Florida” - it turns out when you examine the matter that there were no Democratic Party candidates on the ballot.

A section of email correspondence where I feel I could rebut by displaying a similar email that turned out not to have been an indication of a fault.

An “upset where 2 Republicans got elected for the first time in 128 years”. Even the Democratic Party chairman said there was no basis to any claim of hacking and an explanation exists in the loser’s actions before the election.

A programmer, an employee of the eVoting equipment supplier loaded a program that was not properly vetted. Big deal! I’m sure there are many examples of similar lapses of security in manual systems. I know that whole bundles of votes have been mislaid and put into the wrong candidates pile in Ireland alone.

Many of the stories relate to systems that scanned the printed votes and transferred them to computer, not relevant to us.

I cannot see from what total of polls the stories of problems are taken. I can see that the list includes voting from many minor and local elections in the states and various referenda and minor and even school board elections. There could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual election events, by that I mean voting machines X elections. Obviously the “activists” will report every possible suspicion without any context. This certainly isn’t science. Saying that there were say 50 “problems” or more often than not suspected problems without saying from say 1,000,000 events is useless.

Where the above stories are posted they do not give the complete background so that the slant/spin would give the most unfavourable reading. None of the “activist” web sites puts any effort into supplying the pro-eVoting opinions of computer scientists and election officials who support eVoting. One would get the impression reading the anti-eVoting websites is that most IT Experts are opposed to eVoting. The opposite is the case.

In all the reading I have done I haven’t come across a single case where anyone has attempted to, never mind succeed in, corrupting an election or even a single vote. Not one single accusation of fraud.

Some eVoting companies web sites. Balance is essential in forming any opinion.

http://www.essvote.com

http://www.diebold.com/

http://www.sequoiavote.com/

PS India’s next General Election in April/May will mean nearly 700,000,000 people voting via eVoting.

PPS It’s interesting that one of the most quoted “experts” on VVAT has this to say about Open Source…….

But Rebecca Mercuri, a computing expert on e-voting machines and a research fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, said that open source alone is not a panacea for the fundamental security problem with computers -- which is that there is no way to confirm that the software is doing only what it's designed to do and not something else. "A crappy open-source system that can be modified readily is no better than a closed-source system. In fact it could be worse," she said. "When you have open-source software, people can modify it and change it however they want." Mercuri said open-source systems give people a false sense of security because malicious code that could alter an election still can be installed in the operating system on which the voting program is running or in the compiling programs that turn source code into an operational program. What's more, election officials have to make sure the system is implemented correctly, and have to find some way to ensure that all of the code they review is actually the code that runs on the system. Pointing to recent events in California where Diebold Election Systems placed uncertified software in 17 counties without the state knowing it, Mercuri said that "open source provides no additional protection from people who are intent on putting uncertified software in machines used in an election." But even with extra precautions, she said, there still is no way to catch all types of sophisticated Trojan horses that might be slipped into code. This is why Mercuri was one of the first computing experts to stress the need for a voter-verified paper audit trail to provide a backup for votes

williamgrogan · 01-03-2004 11:44pm

Similarities between anti-eVoting (pro-VVAT), anti-MMR, the “Face on Mars”, area 51, Homeopathy, Acupuncture etc………

No balance, totally one sided web sites
Hysteria; Our democracy is threatened v huge rise in Autism
Anti-technology (anti-modern medicine v anti computers), Luddism, New Ageism
Paranoia
Anti-establishment
Far fetched conspiracy theories, e.g. “Rob-Georgia”, CEO of Diebold friend of Bush v the witch hunt of Dr Wakefield
A small number of experts are constantly quoted; e.g. Wakefield v Mercuri
Anti “Big Business”
Activist Camps; anti-MS, pro Linux, pro-Open Source, anti-globalisation? v anti-Vaccine, anti-“Big Pharm”, nature is best, CAM, etc.
Exaggeration: Opposing MMR in case there is any chance what so ever that it may cause a problem v opposing eVoting for exactly the same reasons. Perfection sought.

Consider how lazy most journalists are, eVoting is announced by the Government and they all wake up (or were dragged from the nearest pub) and asked to write something about eVoting so they write one sided articles that they cull from the web.

I wonder how many journalists are now using the web for research? If it’s a lot then an obvious problem is that a search for anything on the web tends to throw up thousands of daft web sites. Try an experiment: Type in “Homeopathy”, “Acupuncture”, “Fluoridation”, “Electronic Voting” (the first hit here is Rebecca Mercuri) and count the percent of hits say on the first page that support the eccentric viewpoint. Also interesting is that “MMR” is almost all positive but that may be due to the fact that anti-MMR is not an issue at all in America.

This debate isn't about conspiracy theories in the US its about how secure and trustworthy the Nedap system is. Yet again you are not answering the issues put to you

Excuse me, this thread is to examine whether the pro-VVAT movement is akin to the anti-MMR with its anti-Science, anti-technology and pro-nature, simple way of life and seeing conspiracy theories everywhere and that is what I am trying to do. I think I have clearly shown the parallels AND how people can get conned into believing in conspiracy theories.

ecksor · 01-03-2004 11:53pm

I'm surprised you haven't quoted all the expert computer scientists who are vocally opposed to VVAT.

williamgrogan · 02-03-2004 9:30am

I'm surprised you haven't quoted all the expert computer scientists who are vocally opposed to VVAT.

I think you miss the point. The anti-eVoting people ONLY do this. What I am doing is pointing out that fact and trying to balance their obvious bias. I have certainly come across plenty of them. Most people can name Dr Wakefield, virtually the only scientist stating that MMR might cause Autism, how people can name Scientists doing research that opposes this proposition?

Approaching this with a view to knowing the truth as opposed to inventing another scare story, one would examine all opinions and evidence. That's not done by the anti-eVoting lobby nor the anti-MMR activists.

When did you last hear a computer expert on radio saying he supports eVoting? Why, because the media always want negative stories and would regard it as a success if eVoting failed and was posponed, irrespectiove of the truth. The media is NOT interested in the truth. Most people reading this thread would accept that point.

williamgrogan · 02-03-2004 1:02pm

Oops - here's at least a balanced "expert"

Simon Nugent, researcher on e-democracy at TCD (actually I'm not quite sure he still is) was on RTE news this morning. His interview was balanced and can be heard here.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0302/morningireland.html

Summary........

supports oversight commission
a lot of confusion is being kicked up
re bugs & hacking - seems to think as most computer scientists he has spoken to[/u] that they are secure
paper trail - jury is out, no paper trail by June, the commission to decide
there is an audit trail within the Dutch system that can be examined afterwards
he says the USA technology is not as good as the one we are using
he wants to wait for the commission opinion re VVAT
"balance of reality"
he says 1% of votes are cast in error at present and cannot see how the new system could be this bad
the programming required is "not rocket science"
source code has been examined by experts and was found to be OK
Internet voting not soon

ecksor · 02-03-2004 2:49pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I think you miss the point. The anti-eVoting people ONLY do this. What I am doing is pointing out that fact and trying to balance their obvious bias.

But the way to do that would be to post those points of view yourself. You've been giving us the POV of the e-voting companies, but weren't vested interests the undoing of Mr. Wakefield's credibility? Perhaps you are the one missing the point here.

I don't recall posting references to experts on this subject at any point in the past

Here's an example you could have used if you were well up on computer security. Bruce Schneier's opinion is well respected internationally (his cryptography work is excellent) and he is a critic of the security of e-voting systems. Therefore he is often quoted by those who support VVAT. Now, I'm not aware of any vested interests that he has in the subject of voting (but I'll admit that I haven't looked either), but the man has a history of presenting and publishing about the importance of managed security and just happens to own a very large managed security company. So, that would be a place for you to start making a comparison.

In that regard, I'd be more inclined to look closer to home to Mr. Ross Anderson, who I respect an awful lot. (He's professor of Security Engineering at Cambridge). He chaired a working group looking at e-voting for the fipr and they appear to have produced an interesting set of results here: http://www.fipr.org/eDemocracy/

I have certainly come across plenty of them.

Biased people or experts? Nobody is disputing that you've come across plenty of biased people or luddites, it's your leap of logic that extends the argument to everyone who calls for VVAT that has a gap, which you haven't addressed.

If you mean experts, then by all means post some references to them. I couldn't get that interview by Simon Nugent to play unfortunately. I'm impressed with his versatility though, most people with the expertise to assess the security of an electronic voting system wouldn't also have the skills to become the chief executive of the chambers of commerce of ireland.

Sparks · 02-03-2004 6:46pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
So far the “evidence” that eVoting is unreliable (presumably we mean unreliable beyond an acceptable level as 100% reliability is impossible.)

Okay, and once again you are arguing a point that noone else is arguing.

Let me reiterate, if I may.

No-one is saying that eVoting itself is a bad thing. In fact, I've already said it's a good thing because it's faster, more efficent and more accurate.

What is being said is that this specific implementation is not good enough. And since this specific implementation uses the same components as the diebold systems, examples of their failings were provided.

Now can you argue the merits of the Nedap system proposed for use here? Or must you resort to unfounded allegations of hysteria and illogical thinking for those who believe the Nedap system is unacceptable?

A programmer, an employee of the eVoting equipment supplier loaded a program that was not properly vetted. Big deal!

Correct, a very big deal, especially since that same company had at least one employee with a criminal record consisting of more than twenty cases of fraud.

I can see that the list includes voting from many minor and local elections in the states

I'm not sure I'd call a mayorial election minor, given the scale of those elections.

There could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual election events, by that I mean voting machines X elections. <snip> Saying that there were say 50 “problems” or more often than not suspected problems without saying from say 1,000,000 events is useless.

I've heard this logic before, from people examining O-rings from shuttle launches before Challanger. It was reasoned that since there were two O-rings, it didn't matter that the first one was a third or half-burnt through becuase there was an adaquate safety margin. However, as Fynmann pointed out later, the fact that there was damage at all was cause for significant worry because there wasn't meant to be any.
Which is the case here. Just because it's a "minor election" does not mean that faults are tolerable. There shouldn't be any. Especially not security faults.

One would get the impression reading the anti-eVoting websites is that most IT Experts are opposed to eVoting. The opposite is the case.

That is an unfounded allegation though, isn't it?

Some eVoting companies web sites. Balance is essential in forming any opinion.

A pity then, that instead of providing an independent source which has the technical ability to evaluate the eVoting systems on their technical merits, you can only provide links to people whose paycheck is dependant on their systems being found to be impeccable....

PPS It’s interesting that one of the most quoted “experts” on VVAT has this to say about Open Source……. [/B]

What is said there is not only correct, it's not a negative statement regarding Open Source. In equivalent terms, she's saying that seat belts are good, but don't protect you from a rocket-propelled grenade. In other words, they do their job, but deliberate attacks with sufficent resources can still prevent them from saving you.
Which is the same with open source. If someone gains physical access to the election boxes, then software isn't going to help much.

That's not an excuse to use insecure software.

Sparks · 02-03-2004 6:51pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Similarities between anti-eVoting (pro-VVAT), anti-MMR, the “Face on Mars”, area 51, Homeopathy, Acupuncture etc………

Are all incorrect. All the above are dismissed by the majority of qualified professional experts - but VVAT is not.

Excuse me, this thread is to examine whether the pro-VVAT movement is akin to the anti-MMR with its anti-Science, anti-technology and pro-nature, simple way of life and seeing conspiracy theories everywhere and that is what I am trying to do. I think I have clearly shown the parallels AND how people can get conned into believing in conspiracy theories.

You might think so - but you'd be incorrect. Qualified independent professionals have stated that there are problems with the eVoting system proposed for use - not eVoting in general. In fact, the very fact that they are promoting VVAT is the proof that you are incorrect, because VVAT is a component of electronic voting. You cannot promote it without promoting eVoting.

In short, therefore, there is no objection to eVoting, but there is to the specific implementation planned for use here, and that objection to the specific system is based on that specific systems technical details.

So it's not like the anti-MMR debate, where the anti-MMR side's research was sloppy, disputed by the majority of qualified independent professionals, and whose primary proponent had a vested interest in discrediting the MMR.

Sparks · 02-03-2004 6:53pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Approaching this with a view to knowing the truth as opposed to inventing another scare story, one would examine all opinions and evidence. That's not done by the anti-eVoting lobby nor the anti-MMR activists.

Once more, what anti-eVoting lobby? There is no such group pusing for a VVAT, because a VVAT requires eVoting.

When did you last hear a computer expert on radio saying he supports eVoting? Why, because the media always want negative stories and would regard it as a success if eVoting failed and was posponed, irrespectiove of the truth. The media is NOT interested in the truth. Most people reading this thread would accept that point.

So basicly, you're saying that the media lies and that's why we hear no experts on the radio saying they support eVoting?
So why are we seeing experts on TV current affairs programmes supporting eVoting?

Sparks · 02-03-2004 7:01pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
re bugs & hacking - seems to think as most computer scientists he has spoken to that they are secure

That is in error. No computer expert in this country has legally gained access to see the source code proposed for use in the upcoming local elections. Nathean Technologies got to see an old build of the software, and concluded there were significant problems with it's security, and that those problems would not be fixed for the election, but even they don't have access to the current build.
So there is no person in this country or any other who can say that they have legal access to the source code and are not in the pay of Nedap (and thus are independant).

paper trail - jury is out, no paper trail by June, the commission to decide
there is an audit trail within the Dutch system that can be examined afterwards

The commission has been specifically prohibited from recommending any system other than the proposed one - which means that they cannot recommend that a VVAT be used. As such, they're nothing more than lip service to accountability.

he says the USA technology is not as good as the one we are using

Was he an employee of both diebold and Nathean Technologies or Nedap? Because otherwise he can't say that. All that can be said by someone not being paid by the government at this time is that both diebold and nedap use the same software components to build their systems.

he wants to wait for the commission opinion re VVAT

Then he hasn't read the statement by Minister Cullen saying that the proposed system cannot be changed by the commission, and that the most that they can do is to run tests on the software.

the programming required is "not rocket science"

No, it is not. However, it's not digging ditches either.

source code has been examined by experts and was found to be OK

No it wasn't. HAve I linked to the report those experts gave? If not, Bonkey has linked to it in the Politics thread on eVoting. Basicly it points out serious security flaws which will not be fixed before the election according to Nedap.

Sparks · 03-03-2004 10:56am

Originally posted by Sparks
The commission has been specifically prohibited from recommending any system other than the proposed one

I need to correct this - the situation has changed in the last 24 hours according to a story in the Irish Times today:

A commission set up to inquire into electronic voting will have the power to recommend its postponement or abandonment when it produces its first report, even though the system has cost €40 million to date, the Government has insisted.

The Cabinet decided at its weekly meeting that the new body, headed by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Matthew P. Smith, will be able to hire as much technical expertise as it needs before giving a verdict before May 1st on the security and accuracy of the voting machines.

The other members of the Electronic Voting and Counting Commission are Mr Kieran Coughlan, clerk of the Dáil; Ms Deirdre Lane, clerk of the Seanad; Mr Danny O'Hare, the former head of Dublin City University; and Mr Brian Sweeney, chairman and former chief executive of Siemens Ireland.

The Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr John Purcell, who are usually chosen to join such inquiries, were both excluded, although the Government insists this had nothing to do with queries both have raised about electronic voting.

I'm not overly impressed by this commission though - I would have expected that a commission set up to review a specific implementation of eVoting would have more technically qualified people making the decisions, rather than unqualified people who have to effectively learn everything the technical experts know in a fraction of the time the experts learnt it...

Egalitarian · 03-03-2004 2:07pm

The notion that pro-VVAT is equivalent to anti-MMR indicates a serious deficit in understanding of the gulf that exists between scientific expertise and democratic accountability. There are important differences between the two, and we are in danger of peddling experts as the arbiters of political decisionmaking and, paradoxically, diminishing the authority of specialists within scientific research.

The speculated MMR link to the onset of autism follows a long line of bogus anxieties where the public have distrusted the veracity of scientific experts. The inability of scientists to convince the public that they can be trusted stems from the spineless manner in which scientific committee after scientific committee pander to the perceived anxieties of the public by peddling populist compromises,eg the Stewart enquiry advised restricting child usage of mobile phones despite evidence of harm. The motto 'on the word of no one' which underlies scientific skepticism stresses the role of science as a detached arbiter of the natural world. The scientist demands to be persuaded by evidence that may be replicated in experiment after experiment, and until such time then we relegate claims like Dr Wakefields to opinion and speculation.

This is very different when we come to look at the question of how to organise society. The question of e-voting is not simply a matter of trust in science but also a problem in democratic accountability. Whilst I do acknowledge that many of the arguments against e-voting share many luddite prejudices and are akin to distrust of technology, we diminish our arguments for the paramountcy of the scientific method if we do not limit this principle to the natural sciences. In the realm of politics, law and economics, the principle of equality overrides the privilege afforded to scientists. In the election of legislators and due process in the courts, technological mechanisms which restrict our ability to observe and challenge the democratic and legal process contradict the basic tenets of a democratic society. In this vein, I regard the move towards e-voting in the same way that I see the push to 'professionalise' juries in complicated cases. Both replace the citizen with a technician or expert.

The key flaw in the debate surrounding MMR and e-voting shares a common heritage. Both sides do not understand the difference between the natural sciences and social sciences. If you ignore this distinction, then you end up in either camp depending on your personal prejudices. I am far more convinced by arguments that do not belittle Enlightenment advances in human reasoning. The scientific method and democracy may be old-fashioned principles, but this does not tarnish their relevance to advise scepticism today.

There are far too many scientists and politicians meddling in the personal decisions of the public, like the barrage of diet/smoking/sex sermons, without any solid facts or information to back these up. Whilst the precautionary principle, ie the restriction of scientific discovery based on fear of the unknown, is the mantra of anti-GM, anti-MMR, anti-evoting. What this indicates, is that we need to understand that science and politics do not mix. The politicisation of science is not just the result of Micheal Martin or concerned 'scientists', but also scientists own fault for wanting to please the public to allay their distrust. We don't need defensive scientists using the e-voting issue to degrade democracy in the name of science. It's far more persuasive if scientists stick to natural science, and join the rest of us as equals when debating democracy and voting.

williamgrogan · 03-03-2004 3:14pm

The notion that pro-VVAT is equivalent to anti-MMR indicates a serious deficit in understanding of the gulf that exists between scientific expertise and democratic accountability

The lumping of the two into the same category is not just about Science. Furthermore there is a difference in opinion between scientists as to the “remit of Science”. Dr Reville who writes in the Irish Times as one of their major science writers claims science has no business examining religion. I completely disagree with that. We have had a similar debate re “Can a Skeptic be religious?”

Am I correct in saying you think there are limits to Science? You are not in favour of computer programs instead of juries then?

The speculated MMR link to the onset of autism follows a long line of bogus anxieties

Thanks, that’s another link.

Personally I think that part of the problem lies with scientists not being prepared to engage in debate and to state their positions clearly. Richard Dawkins is one of the few exceptions, e.g. Creationism is total bullsh1t but how many biologists are prepared to say that, how many Science teachers. Cowards!

Some of the non-science reasons people oppose eVoting (or want parallel paper trails that demolish its raison d’etre are reminiscent of what happened when the car was introduced when a man with a flag had to walk in front if them), are; conspiracy theories, that FF are so crooked that they plan to subvert democracy by introducing non Open Source programs that only their cronies in the business world have access to, lack of balance , exaggerated risks and general anti-establishment.

The relevant experts are not just scientists or programmers but there is a need to get the opinion of systems analysts, those with knowledge of the implementation of large computer systems, business people, civil servants and politician’s. Who would want to live in a country where the Taoiseach was a programmer?

PS

You have opened a can of worms with some of the other points you have made.

Sparks · 03-03-2004 6:28pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Personally I think that part of the problem lies with scientists not being prepared to engage in debate and to state their positions clearly. Richard Dawkins is one of the few exceptions, e.g. Creationism is total bullsh1t but how many biologists are prepared to say that, how many Science teachers. Cowards!

Okay, that I take some exception to. Some people have the sheer luxury of being able to give an absolute opinion on something. Scientists and engineers generally don't. A business manager makes a mistake and the company loses money. A scientist or an engineer makes a mistake and the world watches challanger explode on takeoff, or the tacoma narrows bridge collapse. The stakes are higher and the penalties greater. And you wonder why they take their time and won't give a definitive opinion without solid evidence?

Some of the non-science reasons people oppose eVoting (or want parallel paper trails that demolish its raison d’etre are reminiscent of what happened when the car was introduced when a man with a flag had to walk in front if them), are; conspiracy theories, that FF are so crooked that they plan to subvert democracy by introducing non Open Source programs that only their cronies in the business world have access to, lack of balance , exaggerated risks and general anti-establishment.

William, you're arguing at thin air. We're over here, saying that eVoting is a good thing, but for specific reasons and saving paper isn't one of them, and the current proposed system doesn't measure up.

The relevant experts are not just scientists or programmers but there is a need to get the opinion of systems analysts, those with knowledge of the implementation of large computer systems, business people, civil servants and politician’s.

Why? What possible qualifications could business people, civil servants and politicians have to carry out a technical evaluation of a computer system?

williamgrogan · 03-03-2004 8:06pm

William, you're arguing at thin air

I was replying to Egalitarian who implied that the entire debate was a science one.

Why? What possible qualifications could business people, civil servants and politicians have to carry out a technical evaluation of a computer system?

They have some common sense for starters and the experience of making real world decisions. It’s not all about finding the most technically competent system. Cost is also important as are practical matters. I would be very reluctant to toss the project out to the Open Source community. I’m sure so would most civil servants.

An analogy is that if you bring along a mechanic to vet a 2nd hand car he will always find reasons not to buy it.

So far I am far from convinced that any of the eVoting systems are defective from a realistic perspective. Every system is defective in some way. I have made the point that eVoting systems will evolve and become even better but we have to start somewhere.

You did elect this government to make these decisions for you. Including the fantastic ban on smoking coming in this month.

The anti-eVoting lobby are effectively lying by putting such a spin on their stories that they are discredited.

A parallel paper based system is so obviously idiotic that it must be wrong. William of Ockham would be spinning in his grave.

Egalitarian · 03-03-2004 10:08pm

I am disturbed by the desire to single out the luddite similarities between anti-evoting, pro-vvat and MMR panicmongers. I totally agree that their arguments share a cynical distrust of technology, but I think that some are rightly worried by the idea of an opaque electoral process. This is why I think there is limited benefits to mixing these two issues. Even if the voting process is vouchsafed by industry experts, I think there are disadvantages accruing from electronic voting. As you guess, I am not happy with replacing jurors or tallymen with software. Voting is a public process, much in the same way that the court trial is. In the legal and electoral process we demand that representatives of society are able to observe the process in its entirety. These mechanisms of democratic acccountability ensure that government is legitimate. I do share your concerns that in these cynical times, conspiracy theories and loss of authority in institutions of the state lie close to the surface of much of the drivel against evoting or pro-vvat. However, I am unconvinced that we should accept electronic voting simply because there are some stupid arguments against it. It would be far better if we were able to challenge this cynicism, without recourse to knee-jerk responses.

The more I consider this issue, the more I feel uncomfortable with the focus on technical aspects of the electoral process. I do not give 2 hoots about the technical safety or otherwise of e-voting, but I am desperately concerned that there is a great deal of cynical guff. On this occasion, I do not think that anti-technology is the driving force behind the pro-vvat, but it seems that you are correct in highlighting the conspiracy theory mentality. While the focus remains on technical discussions, it is clear that this political problem of democratic legitimacy will not go away. It seems to me that the e-voting panicmongers are using the issue to vent frustrations of their own making re their inability to inspire voters. This will only add to the legitimacy problems of government and the Dail, and do nothing to resolve democracy.

Skeptics must not fall into the trap of aiding and abetting the disease of cynicism which is crippling innovation today, but we must also avoid defending the indefensible. Transparency in the electoral process is not negotiable, however that's not to say electoral anonymity is sacred. In this debate, I would be wholly in favour of e-voting if and only if ballots cast could be checked. Now that would be a change worth arguing for!

williamgrogan · 03-03-2004 11:20pm

I don’t fundamentally disagree with anything Egalitarian says in his previous post (other than juries should be replaced with software

). I think you have contributed a new angle on this that is very important. I have described it as anti-establishment.

I fully agree that the voting should be more transparent but not via the Luddite suggestion of paper. I have supported the idea of loading the entire ballot onto the web for downloading. Talk about useful data. I’m nearly salivating.

There is a problem related to secrecy but that could be resolved.

My father made a point tonight that the opposition at present is the worst in Irish history and instead of attacking the government on matters that are important it has got stuck into this argument and made itself look like a bunch of old fashioned 1970’s striking type setters.

The pro-VVAT lobby and the anti THIS-eVoting solution are effectively attacking eVoting whether they wish to or not. If the commission votes to block the chosen solution, eVoting is dead for a generation. The money is spent, we should implement it, the risks are minor and no greater than MMR.

PS

The thought struck me tonight that the Americans vote on many many more things than we do. Besides their congress, senate and presidential elections they have local councils, school boards, by-laws, judges, mayors, public prosecutors and more. The handful of suspicious voting results must be compared to this large number of elections, many of which are not as important as out own General Election and where security is understandably more lax. Reality sucks!

Sparks · 04-03-2004 9:25am

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I was replying to Egalitarian who implied that the entire debate was a science one.

Perhaps, but the point stands - you're argueing that those who state that they require a VVAT are anti-eVoting, which is analagous to saying that those who require an airbag and seat belt are anti-driving.

They have some common sense for starters and the experience of making real world decisions.

Sorry, that's assinine. Technical experts have as much common sense as the next individual, and as much experience in making real world decisions. Or do you think they're grown in test tubes to full maturity and never live in the real world with the rest of us working stiffs?

The fact is that this commission was set up to carry out a technical review of the proposed eVoting system, and those on the commission are not only political appointees of the FF and PD parties (and earning a substantial sum from those appointments), but are unqualified to do the stated job of the commission.

It’s not all about finding the most technically competent system.

Actually, it is. The cost is irrelevant - we're talking here about a fundamental component of the democratic system of government, if not the fundamental component. Saving pennies here at the expense of security and verifiability would be idiotic at best. And since the auditor general has been specificly not asked to sit on the commission, who on the commission is qualified to make a determination on cost anyway?

I would be very reluctant to toss the project out to the Open Source community.I’m sure so would most civil servants.

Firstly, I doubt there are more than a handful of civil servants who know what Open Source means, let alone how it works; and secondly, noone is asking that the problem be "thrown out to the community". I'm saying that the source code should be freely available and a mechanism for pointing out flaws be in place, as is the case in the austrailian eVACS system I pointed out a few posts back - not that we start another linux to reinvent the wheel.

So far I am far from convinced that any of the eVoting systems are defective from a realistic perspective. Every system is defective in some way. I have made the point that eVoting systems will evolve and become even better but we have to start somewhere.

Yes, and that somewhere must be better than the paper system in security and verifiability. Forget speed. Forget cost. Security and Verifiability are the key metrics here. We already take days and tens of thousands of euro to run an election, so imporving on that would be nice - but not if it comprimises the electoral process to do so, because if that's considered acceptable, you might as well just throw darts at a list to pick the executive.

You did elect this government to make these decisions for you.

Excuse me, I most certainly did not. Restricting the freedom of information act, lying in the dail, overturning fifty years of governemnt policy on defence to take part in an illegal war and now comprimising the electoral system so that elections can be undetectably manipulated and the results left legally unchallangable were not what the government was elected to do - and I didn't vote for them anyway.

The anti-eVoting lobby are effectively lying by putting such a spin on their stories that they are discredited.

Prove it or retract that, if you please. And remember, there is no anti-eVoting lobby.

A parallel paper based system is so obviously idiotic that it must be wrong. .

On the contrary, it is so blatently necessary that I'm becoming ever more convinced that you cannot be aware of the facts of the matter to insist it is unnecessary. It's not even a political question in fact, it is a technical one.

Sparks · 04-03-2004 9:37am

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I fully agree that the voting should be more transparent but not via the Luddite suggestion of paper. I have supported the idea of loading the entire ballot onto the web for downloading. Talk about useful data. I’m nearly salivating. There is a problem related to secrecy but that could be resolved.

And once more, you've missed the point. VVAT is an independent record of the vote cast, made before the data enters the database. Loading the data from the database to a printout or the web is not the same thing and is not a mechanism to provide transparancy.
That's not a matter of opinion - that's a simple, straightforward technical fact.

My father made a point tonight that the opposition at present is the worst in Irish history and instead of attacking the government on matters that are important it has got stuck into this argument and made itself look like a bunch of old fashioned 1970’s striking type setters.

A point that might be wholly correct - but it also wholly irrelevant to the argument. Argue the merits of this specific case, if you please.

The pro-VVAT lobby and the anti THIS-eVoting solution are effectively attacking eVoting whether they wish to or not.

No, they're not. The pro-VVAT lobby is a pro-eVoting lobby. And I've yet to see any serious opposition to eVoting itself.

If the commission votes to block the chosen solution, eVoting is dead for a generation. The money is spent, we should implement it, the risks are minor and no greater than MMR.

Incorrect. And you've not proven any different, but I have.

williamgrogan · 04-03-2004 10:25am

… you're argueing that those who state that they require a VVAT are anti-eVoting, which is analagous to saying that those who require an airbag and seat belt are anti-driving.

as I already posted……….. its more like replacing the air bag with cotton wool on the basis that you don’t trust the computer to inflate the airbag

Incidentally there are those who are anti-driving yet do not overtly say so, they just hope to put so many restrictions on driving that effectively the car is dead.

Technical experts have as much common sense as the next individual, and as much experience in making real world decisions.

Your very reply includes the phrase that undermines your argument. “Technical Experts” are obviously just that, they are not experts in management, the running of elections, purchasing, business, politics, and do not have the experience to make such a decision. Do you not think the civil servant Peter Green is an expert in his own field? Or are you so arrogant that you only think “Technical Experts” are experts?

The fact is that this commission was set up to carry out a technical review of the proposed eVoting system, and those on the commission are not only political appointees of the FF and PD parties (and earning a substantial sum from those appointments), but are unqualified to do the stated job of the commission.

The above also indicates your unrealistic and anti-establishment world view, which I believe is more relevant to your pro-VVAT/Open Source stance than any technical considerations. You are not pro-VVAT because of technical considerations, you are because you are an anti-establishment conspiracy theorist. As a Skeptic I see this as the basis for many illogical opinions.

You say “.. the technical considerations are ALL that is relevant ….the cost is irrelevant

I won’t even bother to reply to this obviously non-real world position which is typical of someone brought up in a test tube.

I would be quiet confidant that the civil servants looked into Open Source. Other than Australia I see no other country using such a system. Maybe you know otherwise.

You did elect this government to make these decisions for you.

One of the snags of English is the lack of a plural you. Yee did! Then again maybe you are not a democrat?

I have already proved here in writing that many of the “examples” or “anecdotal stories” given by the eVoting lobby, which certainly does exist, are either exaggerated or are posted without the full story which when investigated show no actual problem. I ‘m not going to repeat them in detail; the 134 supposedly “missing” votes where there was no Democratic candidate, the “upset” that was implied as a huge failure of the equipment that was confirmed as a fair result by the campaign manager of the losing side, even the claim of an “upset” was rubbish because the losing candidates shot themselves in the foot with an attack on the President in the days before the election, the cull of trivial to-be-expected hardware problems from school board, town mayor and other minor elections in the USA etc….

My comment re the poor quality of the current opposition is relevant. Because they have no policies that they can present to the electorate they dream up a spacious one, attack FF where I agree they are vulnerable, on their integrity. But use as a whipping boy the (civil servant) chosen eVoting system.

Read Tom McGurk’s piece or listen to Joe Duffy, Vincent Brown or Connor what’s his name who hankers back to the good old days of voting with blunt pencil at the cross-roads.

I predict that in the next election, several of the DRE machines will turn out to be faulty when they are turned on, some will break down during the day, some eejit will drop his, another twit will loose the keys, many losing candidates will claim that they were the subject of a) a FF conspiracy b) lax security c) software failings…..

However, overall the election will run smoothly, the voters will express delight with the new system, the result will be in within 24 hours, the result will be within 3% of the last set of opinion polls, there will be no spoiled votes and the opinion of the anti-eVoting, pro-VVAT, pro-Open Source will be consigned to the dustbin along with the “Face on Mars” and the anti-MMR brigade.

What’s your prediction?

Sparks · 04-03-2004 11:01am

Originally posted by williamgrogan
as I already posted……….. its more like replacing the air bag with cotton wool on the basis that you don’t trust the computer to inflate the airbag

That's just wrong. I'm trying to point out that supporting VVAT means supporting eVoting. There can be no VVAT without eVoting. You cannot criticise eVoting by saying that a VVAT is necessary.
Have I stated my point clearly?

Your very reply includes the phrase that undermines your argument. “Technical Experts” are obviously just that, they are not experts in management, the running of elections, purchasing, business, politics, and do not have the experience to make such a decision. Do you not think the civil servant Peter Green is an expert in his own field? Or are you so arrogant that you only think “Technical Experts” are experts?

Yes, I am so overwhelmingly arrogant that I think only technical experts are technical experts.

Let's go through this again. The commission is, according to the Minister, there to provide an independent assessment of the proposed system.

Not an assessment of eVoting.
Not an assessment of VVATs.
Not an assessment of the deployment of the system for the election.
Not an assessment of proportional representation.

Just an assessment of the technical suitability of the proposed Nedap system.

In other words, a technical evaluation - a task for which none of the appointed members are qualified.

The above also indicates your unrealistic and anti-establishment world view

I have neither an unrealistic nor an anti-establishment world view, not that it matters. Kindly argue against my point, not my personality, if you would. Or can. I'm rather tired of your accusing me of various irrational beliefs without any substantative argument, merely because you cannot find a rational argument to support your own statements.

I would be quiet confidant that the civil servants looked into Open Source.

On what basis? We are talking, let us not forget, about a system which let multi-million euro projects go to tender with no more than the scribbles on the back of an envelope as preperation, according to government Ministers.

Other than Australia I see no other country using such a system.

How many states would be required? After all, I can point to one state using eVACS - you can point to none which will use the proposed system, because the software in the vooting booths will be a new build for that election and will never have run anywhere else before then.

One of the snags of English is the lack of a plural you.

Very well - but my point regarding the actions of the FF/PD government lying outside their stated mandates prior to the election stands.

I have already proved here in writing that many of the “examples” or “anecdotal stories” given by the eVoting lobby, which certainly does exist, are either exaggerated or are posted without the full story which when investigated show no actual problem.

No, you have not. You have listed a single case (the 134 votes) case and given an explaination. Everything else you have merely poo-pooed and deigned not worthy of a response - which is not the same as proving that they do not represent a problem.

Because they have no policies that they can present to the electorate they dream up a spacious one

Sorry but that holds no water - the opposition parties did not initiate the opposition to the proposed Nedap system, it was started by a number of ordinary citizens with technical qualifications who were highly unhappy at the technical faults in the system. For example, from late 2002:
http://www.p45blogs.net/blog_snorkeller/archives/000308.html

the opinion of the anti-eVoting, pro-VVAT

You're just not listening are you? You, by definition cannot be pro-VVAT and anti=eVoting. You, by definition, are pro-eVoting if you're pro-VVAT.

What’s your prediction?

That a politcally appointed commission will return the "correct answer" to Cullen, who will push for the deployment of an untested, insecure electronic voting system. Voter turnout will fall by up to ten percent as a direct result of correctly perceived mistrust in the voting system. There will be no recounts. There will be a press release flurry when an obvious error is pointed out in the results from one constituency or another, but by that point it will be too late as primary legislation will prevent the challanging of the results and we will have at least one local offical who we know should not have his post, but who is protected by law from challange. The next election will see an even smaller voter turnout as a result, and our democratic system will become an unfunny joke.

williamgrogan · 05-03-2004 4:03pm

From the Dail yesterday.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Cullen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. Detailed planning and preparations for the countrywide use of electronic voting and counting at the European and local elections are proceeding. To date, 5,190 voting machines have been delivered to returning officers, software has been subjected to continuous testing, training of returning officers and their staff is continuing, and a public education and awareness campaign on the new system is under way. In addition, the Government this week appointed an electronic voting and counting commission to make reports to the Ceann Comhairle, the first to be received not later than 1 May 2004, on the secrecy and accuracy of the Nedap-Powervote system.

My Department and independent local returning officers have exercised responsibility under successive administrations for the safe, accurate and efficient conduct of elections in Ireland. The Nedap-Powervote electronic voting and counting system has been designed, tested and proven in practice to meet these requirements. Systems embodying a so-called voter verifiable paper audit trail have not.

Only a small minority of electronic voting systems in use worldwide incorporate this function. In Brazil, one of the countries which has most extensively adopted this approach, the Superior Electoral Court has now determined that the use of a paper trail should be phased out and reliance should be placed on electronic storage of votes only. Those advocating use of a parallel paper trail in Ireland have offered no evidence or practical experience of how voters interact with this system in the real election situation. In contrast, my Department has piloted the Nedap-Powervote system on two occasions and commissioned surveys demonstrating high voter satisfaction with it.

The accuracy of the electronic voting and counting processes envisaged for Ireland has been extensively tested and verified. Tests involving a comparison of paper ballots and electronic votes have also been carried out and may be repeated as required to provide reassurance on the accuracy of the system. Use of a parallel paper system would involve a dual system in which constant confusion would arise as to whether the electronic data or the paper ballot would represent validly cast votes. In addition, the need to use printers throughout polling day would increase the likelihood of system malfunction, as occurred in a Belgian pilot scheme in 2003, following which the printer function has been abandoned.

With regard to the making available of the election management source code, I have indicated that this matter will be examined later in the year when the system, including a profile to cover presidential elections, will have been fully completed.

Election administration expenses have always been met from the Central Fund rather than voted by the Dáil. Section 37 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 applied this arrangement to the costs of acquiring electronic voting and counting systems. Following a Government decision of 30 October 2002, a letter of intent to purchase the voting machines, subject to certain conditions, issued on 28 January 2003. The commitment to purchase the voting machines was essentially conditional on the conditions in the letter of 28 January 2003 being met. The final contract was signed on 19 December 2003. Some €31.65 million has been spent to date on system hardware. The estimated cost of the system software is €467,000. Training is ongoing and cost details are not yet available. The total estimated cost of the project, excluding training costs,
is €44 million, including VAT.

The voter education and awareness campaign is estimated to cost €5 million of which €1 million is VAT. This programme will include approximately €1 million to promote awareness of the polls in June and encourage the electorate to vote.

The campaign will also include a mail shot to every household in the country. The cost of the awareness campaign at the general election pilot for electronic voting was €263,000, and not €80,000 as has been wrongly quoted. This is consistent with the cost of the current campaign which is for the whole country and also incorporates the voter awareness campaign and the national mail shot.

The introduction of electronic voting and counting is a desirable modernisation of the electoral system. It will improve the efficiency, speed, accuracy and user-friendliness of elections. It will also eliminate the democratic wastage associated with spoilt votes.

Mr. Allen: How can the Minister reconcile his bluster regarding the technological strength of the system with the statement released yesterday by the Irish Computer Society - which is the policy committee - and its chief executive for software engineering who said that any electronic voting system must include a paper-based voter verified audit trail because it is the only way to prove or disprove the accuracy of the electronic count? How does the Minister match that statement from the Irish Computer Society with the Brazilian experience?

If the Minister is so strong in his belief in the technological strength of the system, will he tell me how the software will address the petitions function and how it will be applied in the case of a court challenge to an electoral decision? Will he give me a straight answer to that question? The Minister should put aside his bluster about the strength of the system because he is on shaky technological ground. He is creating a crisis of confidence in the electoral system which can only be put right by the Government admitting that
some major outstanding questions have not yet been answered.

Mr. Cullen: If Deputy Allen wants to align himself with the group that held the press conference yesterday, that is fine.

Mr. Allen: My questions have nothing to do with the group.

Mr. Cullen: The Deputy specifically asked me about the group.

Mr. Allen: The Minister should not misrepresent me. I said the Irish Computer Society.

Mr. Cullen: I disagree with the group.

I told you Mr Cullen wasn't an idiot!

ecksor · 05-03-2004 4:19pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I told you Mr Cullen wasn't an idiot!

Well, that settles it then. Only an idiot would possibly do something that wasn't in the national interest, hm?

Sparks · 05-03-2004 8:35pm

Originally posted by williamgrogan
From the Dail yesterday.

I'm rather surprised you brought this up to be honest, it does your argument no good whatsoever....

Mr. Cullen: I disagree with the group.

I told you Mr Cullen wasn't an idiot!

No, he's an unqualified lay person who just said that the professional opinion of the main Irish professional body in IT is worth less than his on IT matters.

No, idiot doesn't quite cut it, we need a grander word for people like that....

williamgrogan · 05-03-2004 10:19pm

No, he's an unqualified lay person who just said that the professional opinion of the main Irish professional body in IT is worth less than his on IT matters.

I'm glad to see your attitude to the ICS has changed since their first press statement (20-02-04) on the matter when the anti-eVoting (sorry, anti-everyone-except-the-Aussie-Open-Source-pro-paper one) forum slagged it off.

As it so happens I have yet to read the latest ICS press release of the 4th? (I couldn't find it on their web site) if someone could point me to it.

PS

Martin Cullen is the Minister. Presumably he is an expert Minister. Remember you can always hire in experts!

PPS

Maybe none of you are old enough to remember when the ICS regarded PC's as toys. When I first joined I had to fight to get PC's recognised as computers.

Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?

Comments