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

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
When the ICS made its first statement on eVoting they were attacked by the “anti-eVoting as proposed by the government” lobby.

Where? By whom? Can you provide a reference?

…. And we have seen how poor that has been in the UK vis a vis mothers being incorrectly jailed on the opinion of a highly qualified individual.

And yet, expert witness testimony is still accepted in every court because it's the most dependable source of detailed technical evaluations.

As far as I know I never once wrote “Luddite” in upper case.

Is that a defence or an acknowlegement?

Because if I load a hacked program to steal votes I make the program print what’s on the screen and then record something else. The same can be said of a bug. Therefore the entire “window on printer/looking at screen/comparing it to paper” technique is useless!

Excuse me?
Without the paper, your hacked programme can now decide who's in charge and noone can prove interference.
With the paper, interference can be detected and the actual result determined.

How is this useless? It does exactly what it's meant to, even in your hypothetical situation!

In fact that little window and the whole rigmarole of checking the screen against the ballot is a waste of time and money. It does not tell the voter that what he voted is what was recorded.

What? The paper the voter is looking at is the independent record of what he voted! How the hell can you look at the record and say that that doesn't tell you what was recorded????

I’ll answer that if you will answer this. Have you seen the hardware designs of the braking system of your car? [/B]

Yes, I have the maintainance manuals, the electrical and hydraulic wiring diagrams, the engineering diagrams and the actual braking system itself. I can check that it works, maintain it and know when to repair or replace it.

Now answer my question if you would, please.

Hackford

Riddle me this: If the people calling for VVAT in e-voting are luddites and tied to political parties with agendas of their own, maybe you can explain to me why two groups with this view are the Irish Computer Society and Irish Citizens for Trustworthy E-voting, whose members have no party affiliations and who are all computer scientists and academics.
Seems to me you've been badly misinformed about the nature of these groups.

davros

OK, all the points have been made, the votes have been tallied and it's a rather resounding defeat for the motion (5182 to 1).

Anyone who hasn't been convinced a hundred times over that there are sound reasons to consider VVAT just ain't going to be convinced.

Besides, y'all are keeping me up late reading these mega-threads

johnlambe

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Now suddenly everyone wants to check the source code, print copies of the ballot papers, do parallel running "for a few elections" and generally go into denial about the normally accepted risks associated with technology.

We don't advocate abandoning VVAT after a few elections - a random sample of constituencies should be audited at every election/referendum. This would deter tampering.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Then there most certainly will be a discrepancy between the counted paper votes and the computerised totals what do we do?

The paper ballots from an individual machine (or a small number of machines in cases where the number of voters per machine was very low (for secrecy reasons)) would be compared to the electronic records for that machine. Comparing such a small number of votes would make it quite clear if they did not match, especially if there is a paper vote which is not in the electronic record (in that case, you don't even have to count correctly - it is clear from seeing this individual paper ballot and the electronic record).
(See http://evoting.jlambe.com/recommend/vvat.html - the section "Conducting an Audit").
If they do not match, then you know that the system has failed.
Without a VVAT, one would not know that the result was wrong. Is that better?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This has to be repeated on every DRE or the effect would be negligible.

A more efficient and easier way to rig an election would be tamper the count centre PC.
Since agents are not shown the results from each machine individually before they are combined on the count centre PC, altering votes at this stage cannot be detected.
For the same reason, even if one voting machine recorded all of its votes for the same candidate, this probably would not be noticed.

Also, the software in the DRE could be modified before it the machine is assembled or before an update, though that is less likely, since updates would probably be rare (it could use a 'trigger' to start it throwing votes towards a selected candidate).

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Personally I would have gone straight to Internet and ATM’s

How would you ensure secrecy of Internet voting (for example, that the voter isn't voting in the presence of a vote-buyer)?
See this post.


Since you're unbanned, why haven't you responded to any of my posts on the Ignorance thread (this is where he was banned)?

williamgrogan

I have already said why I will not go back to a thread on democracy that bans people for disagreeing with them, unless I get an apology. I pointed out that by being banned that I could not then respond to attempts at rebuttal of my previously posted points and that this might give my opponents the idea that I accepted their rebuttals. I do not want the risk of a repeat.

I don’t think any person who believes in democracy and free speech should post on a thread that bans someone unfairly. Did you think I posted something that deserved banning?

Anyway I have said that I am now finished with this thread. I think I have said enough above that will answer your points.

williamgrogan

This is the bit that was excised from the other thread. I felt it was relevant as I was trying to point out that I had made relevant points which were supported by evidence and reasoning but accept its editing out.

Here’s my opening comment on the VVAT=MMR thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1421288#post1421288

What’s wrong with it, other than you disagree with it?

BTW I’m not the one who falsified the vote at the top of that thread.

If every last IT professional in the country wanted VVAT (not that that is the case), I would still oppose it. Things of this nature are not just black and white. You could never prove that the “cost” of VVAT is justified. To say that I continue to push things that have been proven is not a logical statement.

As regards providing evidence, I did. I discovered that many of the stories doing the rounds of the anti-eVoting sites were incomplete, just like MMR. I found out by trawling through newspapers that the reason there was 134 “missing” votes was not that the equipment malfunctioned but that there was no Democratic candidate on the ballot so obviously people walked away without voting. I discovered that most of the events I examined that were claimed to be evidence of equipment malfunction were no such thing. What’s wrong with the quality of that?

I have also clearly listed parallels between anti-MMR, anti-eVoting and pro-VVAT.

1) web sites that list stories that when looked into are lies or slanted
2) fear of technology
3) exaggeration of the risks
4) leave things alone, MMR the bodies natural immune system – VVAT, paper
5) anti-technology. MMR is a chemical, eVoting uses computers
6) anti-big business – many pro eVoting are only if not in the hands of businesses they want open source. (Diebold have 13,000 staff)
7) anti-Microsoft – Windows was attacked as was Access
8) anti “right-wing”, Bush, anti Republican. The Republicans don’t seem to have a problem with eVoting
9) Most of the public do not have a problem with MMR nor with eVoting. (There wasn’t a single complaint after the 400,000 people voted during the last election)
10) No evidence that MMR is dangerous, not a single solitary example of hacking with eVoting
11) MMR is used in 90? countries, eVoting will have its billion’th vote cast this year.
12) Conspiracy theories abound. With MMR it’s the “medical establishment hushing up the risks and wanting to make money from vaccines”. With anti-eVoting it’s, “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Or “Rob-Georgia” nonsense.
13) Anti-establishment. The government are all a bunch of crooks.
14) Cost. The anti-MMR solution=3 jabs=3 times the cost, the pro-VAT-several 10’s of millions for the printer and the elaborate cabinet (and of course 21ft of curtain).
15) Total lack of balance. I was virtually the only one opposing VVAT on another thread and I was banned! Free Speech my arse!
16) Like MMR activists the VVAT want a perfect solution which is impossible.

Are the above not valid parallels?

I have pointed out real flaws in the Mercuri system. I am the only person who has. Mercuri does not even support Open Source. She said “Computers are fundamentally insecure”, however so is everything. With VVAT there are more technical problems (paper jamming in the printer and after before entering the box, ink, printer set up, paper changing, all the moving parts, more training, more skills etc.). More costly. A major logical flaw where a bug or a hacked program would print what is displayed but could record something else. 21ft of curtain. 54 sq ft of space needed. More transportation. Longer set up times etc.. The pro-VVAT lobby claim that no amount of testing will do them yet totally contradict that by saying that they will only need to count a random sample of the printed ballots. That’s just another test. I agree a perfectly valid test, but just another test. However, the opinion polls are also a very good “reasonableness” test. They are consistently accurate to within 3%.

I also completely reject the notion that I am “goggling”. I posted references to New York Times articles, New Scientist, Dail Eireann, Tom McGurks seriously Luddite article in the Sunday Business Post, a picture of the Mercuri Heath Robinson contraption, eVoting machine company web sites and what I felt were balanced articles and even a radio program. I also referred to newspaper articles that reported no serious problems after 10,000,000 voted on Super Tuesday.

Sparks said, “Seems that more votes than voters were recorded” which seems to indicate a problem with the eVoting equipment or software and yet a reading of the article most definitely does not say that. No problem was reported with the eVoting equipment of any description. Yet when I point this out he accuses me of belligerence. I suppose it’s understandable that when someone refers to an article that he says proves one thing and when you point out that in fact it proves the exact opposite he will get annoyed.

I most definitely did not say that everyone is a Luddite who opposes eVoting. But even my opponents agree that many are. The pro-VVAT is predominately coming from the opposition parties so it is linked to political parties and is (understandably) political gamesmanship. Furthermore and in particular the Labour Party, the Green Party and the Trade Union movement have been supporters of the opposition to technology in the past and I gave an example of this, Murdock’s replacement of typesetting with computers. They fought the introduction of those computer systems with violence. I don’t even have to comment about the Green Religion who want us all cycling to work and living in Tee Pees.

I do think that the last ICS response was an ill thought out knee jerk reaction, just like their first statement.

Are all the above points are not perfectly valid?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
A major logical flaw where a bug or a hacked program would print what is displayed but could record something else.

Can you clarify how this is a flaw please. This is exactly the point of the VVAT.

I challange you to make your point without referring to people, groups of people or MMR, but just arguing actual technical details (which this is).

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This is the bit that was excised from the other thread.
<snip>
Are the above not valid parallels?
<snip>
Are all the above points are not perfectly valid?

No and no. And frankly I'm tired of correcting you on obvious flaws in logic, erroroneous data and listen to you argue from authority on one line and decry the largest professional bodies in Ireland as incompetent the next, all while you've as much as admitted that you have no qualifications to speak of and no idea of how the proposed system works. I've read as you defame others, slander professionals and refrain from logical rigour at every available opportunity.

So here it ends. The vote is in and provides the most succint argument I've seen on this to date. Your point is in error, it has been shown time and again to be fundamentally wrong.

johnlambe

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Anyway I have said that I am now finished with this thread. I think I have said enough above that will answer your points.

You haven't answered any of them - that's why I posted them.

BTW I’m not the one who falsified the vote at the top of that thread.

How do you know it is falsified?
How would we prove that it is not?
There is an inconsistency in advocating non-transparent voting systems (including Internet voting) but not accepting the results of non-transparent voting systems.

By the way, do you think these ones are falsified too:

• Foot.ie
• Can we trust unverified voting data?

(I amn't saying that they aren't - I don't know, but I don't find the results implausible).

1) web sites that list stories that when looked into are lies or slanted
3) exaggeration of the risks

It is not unusual for web sites and other media to be dishonest or slanted on any issue.
(I can't vouch for the accuracy of web sites which I have nothing to do with, but since you're attacking the VVAT lobby, why aren't you attacking our web sites?)
I think that most of the lies relating to the Irish system are coming from Minister Cullen. (Or do you defend Minister Cullen?)

4) leave things alone, MMR the bodies natural immune system – VVAT, paper

That would only be relevant if the reaons were similar.

2) fear of technology

5) anti-technology. MMR is a chemical, eVoting uses computers

That's probably relevant in relation to people who oppose e-voting, but people who lobby for VVAT, necessarily don't oppose e-voting.

6) anti-big business – many pro eVoting are only if not in the hands of businesses they want open source. (Diebold have 13,000 staff)
7) anti-Microsoft – Windows was attacked as was Access
8) anti “right-wing”, Bush, anti Republican. The Republicans don’t seem to have a problem with eVoting

The changes which we are campaigning for don't change that (we're campaigning for addition of a VVAT - there's no need to stop using MS products or Nedap/Powervote software and hardware).
Use of Access, etc., is a side issue.
Anyway the proposed system for Ireland is not supplied by Diebold.

9) Most of the public do not have a problem with MMR nor with eVoting. (There wasn’t a single complaint after the 400,000 people voted during the last election)

I don't have a problem with e-voting either, but you were talking about VVAT.
Most of the Irish public (58%) do want a VVAT, according to a poll published in last Sunday's Sunday Business Post.

10) No evidence that MMR is dangerous, not a single solitary example of hacking with eVoting

There are a lot of examples of failures (not necessarily hacking, but hacking, by its nature is unlikely to be discovered).
For example, see the section 'The case of the "Jumping X"' on http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=997.
While this obviously wasn't fraud, it shows that a machine could, by a fault or software bug, throw a plausibly small proportion of votes to a particular candidate.
There could just as easily be a bug which could cause a machine to record a vote wrongly while displaying it correctly.

11) MMR is used in 90? countries, eVoting will have its billion’th vote cast this year.

The comparison is not relevant. If MMR causes brain damage or other effects, they can be seen to have occurred. If an election is successfully rigged, we wouldn't know (otherwise it wouldn't have been very successful).

13) Anti-establishment. The government are all a bunch of crooks.

Irrelevant - we call for a VVAT regardless of the level of integrity shown by the current government.
(Anyway, are you telling us that they are honest?)

14) Cost. The anti-MMR solution=3 jabs=3 times the cost, the pro-VAT-several 10’s of millions for the printer and the elaborate cabinet (and of course 21ft of curtain).

21ft of curtain. 54 sq ft of space needed. More transportation. Longer set up times etc..

Where did you get that figure from (10’s of millions)?
Who advocated a 21ft curtain or 54 sq. ft of space in Ireland? You mustn't have read my suggested implementation.
Are you referring to the Mercuri method?
Dr. Mercuri says, on her web site, "they need not be so elaborate".
VVAT does not require any changes to the polling booth - only to the machine.

15) Total lack of balance. I was virtually the only one opposing VVAT on another thread

That's because so few people with any technical knowledge oppose VVAT.

16) Like MMR activists the VVAT want a perfect solution which is impossible.

If you had read my suggested implementation of a VVAT, you would have seen that I acknowledged that it is not perfect. It is much better than the existing system.

She said “Computers are fundamentally insecure”, however so is everything.

That's why we want a VVAT. If you assume that the system could be tampered, a way of detecting tampering makes sense.

With VVAT there are more technical problems (paper jamming in the printer and after before entering the box, ink, printer set up, paper changing, all the moving parts, more training, more skills etc.). More costly.

We believe that ensuring the continuance of democracy is worth a certain cost. Anyway, the Nedap machine already has a printer (admittedly, it is used much less than it would be for a VVAT).

A major logical flaw where a bug or a hacked program would print what is displayed but could record something else.

That would be detected in an audit. If someone tampered with a system to make it do that, there would be a reasonably high risk of being caught. You don't seem to understand the concept of VVAT.
If a bug causes the two to be different, then at least you know that there is an error. A lot of the paper ballots will have been verified by the voters, while the electronic records won't have been.

The pro-VVAT lobby claim that no amount of testing will do them

Testing cannot detect fraudulent modifications made after the test and is unlikely to detect fraudulent modifcations designed to escape detection in testing (e.g. throwing votes after a trigger).

...yet totally contradict that by saying that they will only need to count a random sample of the printed ballots.

A high risk of fraud being detected is generally enough to deter it.

That’s just another test. I agree a perfectly valid test, but just another test.

It is an audit. Combined with the voter checking the VVAT printed ballot, this enables the system to be verified by the voter and the agents (as the paper system was verified).
It can detect things altered votes which would not otherwise be detected.

However, the opinion polls are also a very good “reasonableness” test. They are consistently accurate to within 3%.

Seats have been decided by less than 3%.
Results are sometimes significantly different to the opinion polls.
In any case, even if the results from a DRE system with no VVAT were not reasonable, there may not be much one could do about it.


Anyway, my previous posts were pointing out flaws in your arguments relating to e-voting - I am not particularly interested in the MMR vaccine, so I haven't responded to some of your points.

Now, all the above was avoiding addressing the points I made.

williamgrogan

In view of the ongoing interest I will make one post a week to this thread IF others post after me. BTW I did start this thread.

The vote is in and provides the most succint argument I've seen on this to date

This is an interesting point to make. Sparks is saying that the fact the vote was corrupted on this thread is the “most succinct” argument to be made in favour of VVAT. [...]. There is no comparison between the importance of this debate and a General Election, no comparison between the security of the computers and software to be used, no comparison between the physical security (no police in the polling stations), no comparison to the jail term for fiddling in a General Election, yet Sparks thinks that the ability to corrupt this thread’s vote is the best proof that eVoting needs VVAT. [...].

The first point is that this thread is specifically about comparing the anti-MMR lobby to the pro-VVAT and anti-eVoting lobby. Whether I am right or wrong about this is strictly speaking nothing to do with VVAT itself. The way VVAT is being pushed IS similar to other “movements” such as the anti-Nuclear, anti-MMR etc.. BTW many of the anti-MMR people say that they are not anti-vaccine.

MMR could be dangerous, eVoting could be bad for democracy but I tried to show that the way these two campaigns are fought is typical of the anti-MMR (and indeed the anti-Fluoridation, anti-Globalisation, anti-Nuclear, anti-Everything) debates are fought, including the bad tempers, the threats, the insults, the hysteria and the charges of illogicality and bias.

I have tried to think why people are anti-eVoting and pro-VVAT. I considered that many are traditional Luddites and gave examples of particular people who will miss the “fun of the count down at the crossroads”. I pointed out that many are simply anti-establishment and many posts clearly support this. Many are socialist & anti-big business. There is an element of anti-Globalisation and even anarchy. The Open Source people also have their own agenda.

Many who propose VVAT say that they are not anti-eVoting but I disagree. Electronic Voting means electronic voting and not electronic AND paper voting. The reason it’s called electronic voting is that the voting is done using electronics and not the traditional method which used paper. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously propose a solution to a problem that included the problem. As an experienced Systems Analyst I would disagree with such an obviously poor solution. eVoting was intended to get rid of paper and manual counting, to leave this in is obviously contradictory.

The more I think about the entire VVAT proposal the more convinced I am that it is Luddism. A normal human, genetically based, deep felt abhorrence to change.

I would ask anyone fighting for VVAT. Do you really think there is a reasonable chance that a bug or other failure in the DRE or counting programs will cause an election to have a different outcome, that we will end up with a different government than we should have or that some Irish politician will pay a programmer and that this programmer will be able to write a hacked program and then bribe someone else to install the hacked program and that he will be able to do this without detection to ensure he wins? Do you think that it is likely that a political party will try and subvert the will of the Irish population by launching such a conspiracy?

Do you REALLY think this is likely?

Would you say that the odds of this happening are about the same as MMR causing Autism?

That would be detected in an audit.…..

One of the specific proposals re VVAT is that the user can look in the window and see confirmation that his vote was recorded properly. I have shown that this is illogical. Now what you are saying is that he can hope that if it isn’t then IF a random count is done on HIS ballot box AND some other fraud or conspiracy isn’t carried out then he can be sure. Useless! (e.g. the fraudster could bribe whoever selects the boxes to count to cheat, if it’s a program that too could be hacked etc.)

Actually one of the illogical consequences of VVAT paranoia is that in itself it does not provide complete proof and that IF pro-VVAT people are correct and there is a risk no matter how remote then the same logic would argue that the risk however remote would apply to the implementation of VVAT and its corruption. Maybe even the opposite. I could argue that VVAT INCREASED the risk through over complication for example or excess confidence caused by it. To put it another way, if the risk is great that someone will corrupt an election then the same risk applies to corruption of VVAT as a precautionary measure.

A high risk of fraud being detected is generally enough to deter it.

I agree with this. “Generally” is an important word though. However, we have lots of other methods to detect any fraud so by your logic they should also deter fraud and therefore we don’t need VVAT. In fact this is one of the reasons I oppose it.

Seats have been decided by less than 3%

No one knows which constituency that they should carry out the fraud in. Seats have been decided by less than 3% but we never know in advance which ones. Therefore the fraudster cannot use this information. You are computing probabilities after the event which is useless.

I would like someone to come up with a reasonable scenario that may lead to actual change of government. Does it really matter that say one TD successfully hacked the system to win? Would it matter to him enough to risk jail? For €50,000 per year? Most of them are already earning more than that anyway. Would there be such a TD? If there was he would first have to get elected by his party. A FF candidate would have to be either a sitting TD or get elected as a candidate. No easy task. OK, he could be a non party TD but then one independent TD with no previous history is unlikely to get elected simply by vote rigging. If the Monster Raving Looney Party or the Christian Coalition or the ones that believe in levitating get elected as the Government after eVoting is introduced I will accept you win the debate.

Back to strictly ISS relevance. Everyone who holds an opinion on anything thinks that their opinion is based on training, knowledge, logic and experience. However, we all disagree with each other on almost everything.

Is it not a reasonable suggestion to make that people do NOT hold their opinions on anything other than hunches, prejudices, upbringing and predispositions caused by their genes etc.. Maybe there are genes whose effect is to make people more “down-to-earth”, more reasonable, more balanced as opposed to being more theoretical, more determined to create a perfect world. Otherwise, how can there be Catholics, Protestants & Scientologists, Socialists and Free Marketers, anti-technology (e.g. Greens) and pro-technology (e.g. Businessmen) etc..

This thread is specifically about looking at VVAT and anti-eVoting from a Skeptical perspective. I did not want it completely hijacked by the activists from the anti-eVoting threads, some of whom seem to be involved in the boards.ie web site to the extent that they could alter the vote on this thread. I think it is important that the Irish Skeptics Society control their own sub domain of boards.ie, or boards.ie is not where we should be debating.

Why does the pro-VVAT petition not have an option to vote the other way? A one sided vote is of little use. Although it is an “activists” standard. I was asked to sign a petition last week calling on more money for the disabled. I refused of course.

Should the link from “your web site” to the boards.ie forum not have a warning that if you disagree with this VVAT business or call anti-eVoting people Luddites that you will be banned from participating? Is this not important if free speech is an important element of your policy position?

I referred to other web sites that are anti-eVoting because they are the basis for a lot of the stories “doing the rounds” and were quoted by those trying to put forward evidence of the failure of electronic voting machines. All systems can fail and electronic ones are no different. Where was your campaign when there were correctable failures in the previous manual system? Why did you not campaign to “save” the 1% of spoiled votes most of which were accidentally spoiled? Why now get very worried about very rare problems of the nature you elude to when the voting is via electronics if it’s not the electronics, i.e, Technology itself that is the problem?

At present there is no Audit Trail. When the paper votes are counted there is no link back to those who voted. Recounting what may not actually be the votes legitimately cast is useless. You are trying to fool people by saying the manual recount (which is only actually done because it is so inaccurate) is some sort of guarantee that the votes were all cast legitimately and not as a result of ballot box stuffing.

Even with the printout agreeing with the recorded votes we don’t know that these FF programming geniuses didn’t ALSO stuff copies of ballots into the boxes as well as hack the programs. I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that no matter what system you come up with it is open to fraud. VVAT just adds another old fashioned, non-technical, costly and un-necessary element.

davros

Couple of minor edits above. Comments about posters rather than the topic under discussion are absolutely prohibited.

Regarding who control this forum: of course the Boards admins have the power to step in and do whatever is necessary to ensure the smooth running of this fantastic resource. I'm sure the poll hack would have been reversed if we had asked but I was happy to let it stand after Sparks pointed it out. After all, the result of the poll had been clear for a long time and it was a rather elegant argument in favour of independent audits.

By the way, I'm not involved one way or the other with the VVAT campaign and I haven't expressed an opinion up until now since I feel my views have been well-represented by others. But for what it's worth: as an electronic engineer and a professional programmer with many years' experience of real world systems, I would not trust the output of a voting machine any further than I could throw the machine itself. I support the idea of electronic voting, but the implementation can be hugely improved.

williamgrogan

Paper based ballot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/international/asia/21TAIW.html?th

johnlambe

Originally posted by williamgrogran
No one knows which constituency that they should carry out the fraud in.

They could decide this based on opinion polls.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Does it really matter that say one TD successfully hacked the system to win?

It does to anyone who values democracy.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Would it matter to him enough to risk jail? For €50,000 per year?

Apparently, (judging by the findings of the tribunals) it can be much more lucrative than that when you include the bribes.
And they were willing to risk jail to make money in other illegal ways.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Would there be such a TD? If there was he would first have to get elected by his party. A FF candidate would have to be either a sitting TD or get elected as a candidate. No easy task.

A dishonest TD??? Never.
Are you suggesting that FF would not select a dishonest candidate?
Look at who they selected before.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
If the Monster Raving Looney Party or the Christian Coalition or the ones that believe in levitating get elected as the Government after eVoting is introduced I will accept you win the debate.

But even then, it might not be possible to prove that the result was wrong. We might have to just accept such a result. (It might or might not be detectable on thorough investigation, depending on how it was tampered).

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Why does the pro-VVAT petition not have an option to vote the other way?

If it did, it wouldn't be a petition - it would be a poll.
And there are polls already - Sunday Business Post, Foot.ie, Boards.ie, Ogra FF.
The Ogra FF was rigged, but ended up with a majority against "electronic voting" (not clear whether they're talking about e-voting in general, or this system in particular) anyway.
You claim that this one is rigged and if it is, the other Boards.ie one could be too.
But are they all rigged, even the SBP one.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
A one sided vote is of little use.

It's not a vote.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
At present there is no Audit Trail.

The ballot papers filled in by the voters serve the same purpose as VVAT ballot papers printed by a voting machine.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
When the paper votes are counted there is no link back to those who voted.

There isn't supposed to be. There would be link from a VVAT ballot paper printed by a voting machine back to the voter either, nor should there be a link from the electronic record of the vote. (For obvious reaons of secrecy).

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Recounting what may not actually be the votes legitimately cast is useless. You are trying to fool people by saying the manual recount (which is only actually done because it is so inaccurate) is some sort of guarantee that the votes were all cast legitimately and not as a result of ballot box stuffing.

We aren't. To my knowledge, ICTE and others opposing this system have not claimed that the manual recounts or for any reason other than to correct inaccuracy or error in the counting.

Incidentally, Minister Cullen has claimed that printing a copy of the electronic record of the votes (during the count) and counting them is some sort of guarantee that the votes were all cast legitimately.
(He claimed that it serves the same purpose as a VVAT audit).

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Even with the printout agreeing with the recorded votes we don’t know that these FF programming geniuses didn’t ALSO stuff copies of ballots into the boxes as well as hack the programs.

That would be much more difficult to do than just tampering with the machines.
The boxes are in the presence of agents until they are sealed and again before they are opened. They are guarded in between. (The same security as the paper system.)
(An electronic system with a VVAT is more secure than the paper system since rigging requires falsifying both records).

Originally posted by williamgrogran
One of the specific proposals re VVAT is that the user can look in the window and see confirmation that his vote was recorded properly. I have shown that this is illogical.

You haven't - you've just stated that it is.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Now what you are saying is that he can hope that if it isn’t then IF a random count is done on HIS ballot box AND some other fraud or conspiracy isn’t carried out then he can be sure. Useless! (e.g. the fraudster could bribe whoever selects the boxes to count to cheat, if it’s a program that too could be hacked etc.)

On the same web page I referred to in my previous post, in the section "Deciding Where To Audit", I stated that the process of selecting where to audit must be transparently random and suggested that the lots be could be drawn by agents. In fact, the candidates themselves could draw them. (It's not in their interest to help their opponent rig the election).

Do you think someone would take, say a 25% chance of getting caught?
You suggest yourself that jail would deter them. Jail is a strong deterrent if and only if there is a reasonably high risk of getting caught. (VVAT at least greatly increases the risk of a fraudster getting caught).

Originally posted by williamgrogran
However, we have lots of other methods to detect any fraud so by your logic they should also deter fraud and therefore we don’t need VVAT.

You haven't mentioned any which are as effective as VVAT. (And the proposed system is particularly insecure even for a pure DRE system).
More importantly, see my last point below.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
Actually one of the illogical consequences of VVAT paranoia is that in itself it does not provide complete proof and that IF pro-VVAT people are correct and there is a risk no matter how remote then the same logic would argue that the risk however remote would apply to the implementation of VVAT and its corruption.

Large scale corruption of the VVAT is much more difficult.
As in the paper system, it is most vulnerable in transit from the polling station to the count centre. To tamper it then, you would have to bribe the people guarding the boxes.
With the proposed system, you could rig an election in all constituencies by bribing one person.
To effect corruption of the VVAT in transit, you would have to bribe more than one person to rig one polling station.
Security could be further improved by carring the VVAT ballot papers separately from the ballot modules (possibly with a different agent travelling with each) or the voting machine providing a secure hash of the list of votes at the end of polling and the full list of votes later being published.

Originally posted by williamgrogran
I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that no matter what system you come up with it is open to fraud.

Of course it is.


All this misses the point that we believe that voting systems should be transparent - the voters and representatives of the candidates have a right to (between them) see for themselves that their votes are recorded and counted correctly.

davros

For anyone who can watch video over a broadband connection, can I recommend an interesting talk given by Peter G. Neumann: Risks in Computer-Based Elections (scroll down a bit, find the talk and click on the "128k"). Neumann is the moderator of the famous Risks Digest which has been collecting anecdotes of the perils of relying on computers since 1985.

(And you might even see the back of my head in the video )

williamgrogan

Boring article about how 6,000,000 people in Texas eVoted without a problem.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040322005433&newsLang=en

PS Was that you, the black guy on the left?

williamgrogan

I watched the video clip Davros linked to and I feel obliged to comment on it.

The speaker, Peter Neumann’s entire career is based on the fact that computers are insecure, so obviously he pushes this agenda at all times. He said that “people who advocate internet voting are out of their minds”. He is totally pro-Mercuri. One of his quotes was “I was on the committee that oversaw Rebecca’s thesis, I am very partial to this thesis, I think it’s a wonderful thesis.”

One of his stories to indicate voter fraud was a story about Edgar Alan Poe getting bottles of whisky for voting for a particular candidate! Mind you he is old enough to be a contemporary of Poe’s.

He clearly says that even with Mercuri’s mechanism that eVoting is unacceptable. He is clearly anti-eVoting. If this is how Mercuri also feels then pro-VVAT IS anti-eVoting as I have said all along. Regarding eVoting he says, “We have created a monster”. He seems to advocate voting using pebbles to vote as some African tribes do!

He thinks that multiple physical keys are acceptable to protect the ballot box that holds the printed ballot papers but not good enough to protect the DRE’s.

His description of the purpose of the “Mercuri” window to guarantee that what you voted is what is recorded ignores the logical flaw that a bug or the hacked program could be programmed to do this.

He thinks computer security is “impossible to solve”. Talk about bringing a mechanic to check out a car! He used the word “magical” to describe how computers work on a number of occasions.

His “lack of a recount problem” is nonsense. The purpose of recounts with paper is to correct the very common human counting errors. Of course you can recount the electronically recorded votes but it’s fairly pointless as computers don’t count incorrectly.

I think Neumann is actually anti-computer or at best that they are a curate’s egg. He said, “Computers are wonderful and can be used for the benefit of mankind but I have been cataloguing the risks for years and years and years and when you scratch the surface you find it’s not that easy.”

We do agree on one thing, he said “that the exit polls are extremely important” as a check on the voting. Does this not solve the problem that detecting a fraud big enough to put the Monster Raving Looney Party into power will fail the Exit Poll test and deter someone from hacking?

He said, “Not matter how complex you build the system there will always be flaws in it”. Therefore VVAT solves nothing.

Neumann also rejects “Formal Methods” because as he said it’s useless because such a program may not be the one running on the DRE as it’s been replaced by the FF hacker. So according to Mercuri Open Source is no good and according to Neumann neither is Formal Methods. VVAT is [edit: to remove therefore] also useless and promoted by those that think it is useless because even using it is not sufficient to guarantee a 100% true election. I have made this point before. If you are opposed to eVoting for a set of reasons then pushing VVAT is pointless for exactly the same reasons. I honestly believe that many of those who “follow” Mercuri & Co and are not critically analysing their positions and are slavishly following them because they are “Doctors”.

I wonder is academia anti-Microsoft? We know computer systems are not perfect but nothing is. Our only consideration is it better, more accurate and faster than paper and the answer is clearly yes, yes and yes.

I think that these academics are anti-eVoting from a philosophical position. Maybe they have taken Godel’s Theorem [edit: sorry silly me] too seriously? They argue against eVoting using the same logic as the anti-vaccination people do and use the same logic that those who think there may be a god use.

This entire anti-eVoting “movement” is an academic one that has no bearing on the real world where we all accept the lack of perfection. We couldn’t function otherwise. This is partly why we do not allow academics to run countries. Neumann even said that most electoral fraud problems had nothing to do with the actual voting system.

Computers land aeroplanes, run the transfer of money internationally, handle the sales of all shares and now most businesses, allow robots to trundle around and explore Mars and will be successfully used for voting despite the doom mongers. There will be problems, just as there was with Spirit but they will be solved and will be trivial.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
His description of the purpose of the “Mercuri” window to guarantee that what you voted is what is recorded ignores the logical flaw that a bug or the hacked program could be programmed to do this.

Once again; The purpose is to ensure that a falsely recorded vote can be detected after the fact. You keep mentioning this bug or hacked program that could falsely record the vote, and yet you're not explaining how to mitigate this problem without a VVAT.

His “lack of a recount problem” is nonsense. The purpose of recounts with paper is to correct the very common human counting errors. Of course you can recount the electronically recorded votes but it’s fairly pointless as computers don’t count incorrectly.

Computers fail unexpectedly for all sorts of weird reasons. You can't honestly be claiming infallibility here. And don't lead us down your path of brakes and aircraft systems, are you claiming infallibility or not?

He said, “Not matter how complex you build the system there will always be flaws in it”. Therefore VVAT solves nothing.

It neatly mitigates a very dangerous risk. It isn't perfect or flawless, but that is not the same as saying it solves nothing or doesn't help.

So, that's an illogical leap.

So according to Mercuri Open Source is no good and according to Neumann neither is Formal Methods. VVAT is therefore also useless ...

Another illogical leap. VVAT doesn't rely upon open source or formal methods. They just happen to be 3 different things that are mentioned in relation to e-voting systems that you've seen, but they're for solving 3 different problems.

... and promoted by those that think it is useless because even using it is not sufficient to guarantee a 100% true election.

Who said 100% ? Are you trying to misrepresent the position of pro-VVAT so that it is easier to argue against them?

I have made this point before. If you are opposed to eVoting for a set of reasons then pushing VVAT is pointless for exactly the same reasons.

Firstly, being opposed to e-voting and being in favour of VVAT are almost orthogonal given the wide range of opinions I've seen, I honestly don't understand why you keep pushing that angle.

Secondly, this is another debate tactic that's growing very tired. You keep claiming to have "made this point", when you have not made any such point. Repeating yourself over and over isn't making a point.

I wonder is academia anti-Microsoft?

I would say that some academics are pro-Microsoft and some academics are anti-Microsoft. What do Microsoft have to do with this? Is this another illogical introduction of another irrelevant factor? Bravo.

We know computer systems are not perfect but nothing is. Our only consideration is it better, more accurate and faster than paper and the answer is clearly yes, yes and yes.

It certainly isn't as transparant, and you yourself keep bringing up the problem of bugs and hacked programs, so I don't see how you can turn around and say this now.

I think that these academics are anti-eVoting from a philosophical position. Maybe they have taken Godel’s Theory too seriously?

That was theorem, not theory. He did prove it you know, and a fan of logic should know exactly what its implications are.

I would say that in a computing context you should know better that Turing's halting theorem is the more relevant interpretation of that result, and it is a very real illustration of why we'll never be sure that a non-trivial computer program is completely correct.

This is not a theoretical oddity as you might have some onlookers believe (nor is it the crippling obstacle that others would have you believe, I'll grant you), it is a very real consideration when trying to think about finding flaws in a system.

They argue against eVoting using the same logic as the anti-vaccination people do and use the same logic that those who think there may be a god use.

You're comparing logic on what basis here? Your systems of logic don't seem to be very logical.

This entire anti-eVoting “movement” is an academic one that has no bearing on the real world where we all accept the lack of perfection. We couldn’t function otherwise.

The problem isn't "lack of perfection" any more than it is about the 100% figure you quoted above, so I'm going to suspect you once again of trying to misrepresent the opposing argument. The problem is that it is nowhere near being adequate, which is a very different thing.

This is partly why we do not allow academics to run countries.

This is relevant how? Incidentally, there is no law against academics running countries, and it's a fairly unfortunate example since Ireland is a country that was led by an academic at one point in our very recent history.

Neumann even said that most electoral fraud problems had nothing to do with the actual voting system.

And he's right. This negates the need for VVAT or has an impact upon it how exactly?

Computers land aeroplanes, run the transfer of money internationally, handle the sales of all shares and now most businesses, allow robots to trundle around and explore Mars and will be successfully used for voting despite the doom mongers. There will be problems, just as there was with Spirit but they will be solved and will be trivial.

And problems will be detected how?

williamgrogan

More good news about eVoting:

An election day survey regarding the new touch-screen voting system showed that voters overwhelmingly have confidence in the electronic systems, Konopasek said. About 70 percent of voters participated in the survey, he said.

On those who participated in the survey, 98.7 percent said the system was very easy or easy to use, and 91.8 percent were extremely confident or confident that their vote was recorded correctly, according to the registrar's office. Also, 96.7 percent of voters said the voting system was much better or better than other voting systems they have used, officials said.


http://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1080137542,90120,

dogs

After dilligent research, williamgrogan posted:
More good news about eVoting:

Also, 96.7 percent of voters said the voting system was much better or better than other voting systems they have used, officials said.
[/i]

http://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1080137542,90120,

It's a shame you didn't look just a little further... A quick google returned this interesting page.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/8093359.htm

San Bernardino County Registrar Scott Konopasek said the computer program took much longer to load than officials had expected. After running absentee results, hours passed without any more ballots being counted.

Essentially it took quite some time for the voting system to process all the votes. This, of course, is no indication of tampering. But if you were to poll those voters again how many would show the same level of confidence ? Are you happy to accept a significant delay in publishing the results as "unexpected processing overhead" ?

I think this thread has deviated quite some way from its original purpose. You asked if pro-VVAT people were the same as CAM beleivers. I think exactly the opposite is true. Pro-VVAT people want verifiable eVoting. If on the other hand you want to put blind faith into a closed system and trust the outcome .... perhaps you'd be interested in some sugar pills I have, reasonably priced

williamgrogan

I support the idea of electronic voting, but the implementation can be hugely improved.

I never said it couldn’t be improved. In fact I said the opposite. I said it will improve, like all computer systems. Look at all the computer programs that came out years ago and their current implementation. VVAT would not be an improvement.

Funny, I wouldn’t trust a person manually counting as far as I could throw him either.

An irony is that “big-business” that supplies the vast majority of eVoting machines must be falling about the place laughing at the notion that they will “be required” to supply several million dollars worth of printers, cabinets & curtains to go with their already expensive DRE’s. The next thing we’ll find is that Diebold is supporting the VVAT lobby! They have already said they could supply VVAT. Maybe the entire VVAT was a big-business conspiracy?

Does Mr Lambe think there was a hardware or software problem when the “134 votes went missing” in Florida or the “upset after 128 years when two Republicans got elected in the states?”. Does he think Diebold were trying to “Rob Georgia”? These slanted stories are being quoted as “evidence” of machine failures when there are perfectly valid and non conspiratorial reasons why those events happened as they did. (Of course you could glibly say that, “but how do we know?”, but I can also say “how did we know with paper?”) I see Eamon Gilmore repeated the myth that the Georgia election was “suspect” even though I have read the campaign manger for the loosing Democrats say that the election was fair and above board.

It’s interesting that Sparks poo pooed my analysis of the type of problems that might arise because I based it on a Dot Matrix printer, yet John Lambe suggests using the existing Dot Matrix printer that already exists on the machines. However, the most cost-effective solution would be to use the existing matrix printer in the Nedap machine for printing the paper ballots. (see http://evoting.jlambe.com/recommend/vvat.html)

I think reading John Lambe’s solution indicates clearly how very complicated the actual implementation of VVAT would be. (see same link as above).

A very common problem any Systems Analyst faces is that a user asks for something that appears very simple to the user but whose implementation may be impossible for various reasons; it may simply be illogical (very common), cost benefit analysis, the co-operation of the humans, complexity of the hardware or software, complexity to non-trained users (e.g. voters), etc. I suspect that part of the reason I am a skeptic is probably related to my experiences as an Analyst. My natural instinct when a proposal is put to me is to be skeptical or even negative. I always ask questions like, “is this necessary?”, “are you sure?”, “why do you think this?”, “what are you actually trying to achieve?”, “is there a better way?”, “is it worth it?” etc. In fact a very basic requirement for any Systems Analyst is to be a Doubting Thomas.

BTW I think John’s analysis does show that he put a great deal of effort into it and I commend him for that, but I still think it’s un-necessary, too complicated and not to be recommended.

Even if VVAT showed an error on a machine during a random check, at what point would an error necessitate a complete re-running of elections? Say 10 of the votes on one of the (possibly) randomly chosen machines was shown to be possibly wrong, say because there were 10 less paper ballots as electronic ones (which could be caused by an un-noticed paper jam). What would that mean? There is an entire complex area of decision making that may mean eVoting is impractical. I would imagine that every election would throw up errors that would cause arguments. With paper ballots no matter how many spoiled votes were cast or no matter how many ballots were cast that may not have come from the voters the election still stood. Would 1% of the total ballot in error from eVoting be acceptable? It was up to now. The underling problem is that VVAT may make the system so overly complex that it undermines eVoting completely, which of course may be the objective of many of the anti-eVoting lobby. I have already said that holding data on two mediums is a receipt for argument.

I cannot see any diagrams or hardware systems component drawings or costings to go with John’s description, particularly the paper handling mechanisms. I did come up with an estimate and explained where I got it. I think several thousand per DRE is not unreasonable.

I think the VVAT proposal is sterile without a finished design to replace the now admittedly “too elaborate” Mercuri one and an accurate costing.

Back to more ISS related matters.

Why do we form and hold opinions?

A point I keep coming back to in all threads is why people hold the opinions they do. Anyone with children will tell you that when you tell them that something is wrong they will often deny this but then later you will see that they have accepted what you said. They are obviously convinced but do not want to admit to their “stupid parents” that they were correct. I think adults are also like that.

If say a group of people are sitting around a table in a pub and someone says, “John, you’re a programmer, what do you think of VVAT?”. John, who lets say hasn’t considered the matter (this all cropped up, for most people, four weeks ago), knows computers make mistakes so without thinking too much about it he says, “Yes it’s a good idea”. Now WG chips in and starts pointing out flaws. Well – John THE PROGRAMMER isn’t lightly going to admit he was wrong. So throughout the debate he looks for more and more reasons to support his new viewpoint. He may or may not change his mind but I suspect that whether he does or not is NOT just related to the pros and cons but how much of a public climb-down will there be, how flexible he is at changing his mind, how stubborn he is etc are just as important.

It is possible that ideas that immediately sound sensible get a foothold and are more difficult to dislodge than ideas that are complex and counter intuitive.

If there are 7,000 DREs and over a million voters and a million printed ballots then it is inevitable that there will be discrepancies.

PS

I read the other day that they discovered a gene in 1996 that determines how much a worrier a person is likely to be. “…By contrast, a fascinating 1996 study actually linked a gene (called SLC6A4) to individuals who are highly susceptible to anxiety, pessimism, and negative thinking. Other pioneering research, by Jerome Kagan, Ph.D., has revealed that children who are high-strung and highly aroused early on often become tense, shy worrying adults…..”

PPS

The chap who seems to have developed the Electronic Voting in Ireland website (http://evoting.cs.may.ie/) and has a link to it from his own website www.beecher.net refers to it as “Oops, another campaign this time against Electronic Voting in Ireland.”. I thought you lot were in favour of eVoting – better tell your website designer.

williamgrogan

Yipee! I’m not alone!

Today’s (06-04-04) Irish Times had an article which I give an abstract from below

Time for a rational debate about the future of electronic voting



Ill-informed "experts" are not helping the debate on e-voting, write Annrai O'Toole and Brendan Tangney

....

Computer-based information systems are used in every facet of modern life. Why? Because they provide more accurate and cost-effective methods of information processing. This central point seems to have been lost.


So-called "experts" making ill-informed arguments about computing systems.

...

Computers are used in aircraft, cars and navigation systems because they are less prone to errors than humans. Yet, to listen to some "experts" going on about the unreliability of computing machines is like being back in times when rail was being introduced and they thought it wouldn't be safe for humans to travel faster than 20 m.p.h..

If computer error or failure was the cause of road deaths or aircraft crashes there would be an almighty hue and cry, and rightly so. Yet computers do their job silently, effectively and with fewer errors than humans, every day.

More frustrating than these Luddite views is the complete absence of data about how error-prone the current manual system actually is. It is full of errors. .........

....

The second critique of electronic voting is based on the argument that there are sinister forces (shades of the X-Files) that will deliberately tamper with the system to change the outcome of the election.

....

Is there a way in which any voting system, either manual or computerised, can made 100 per cent safe from unwanted interference? No there isn't. If someone wanted to corrupt the manual vote then, given enough resources, they would find a way. We are not suggesting that this has ever been done; we are merely pointing out that it could be done.

However, the difficulty in corrupting the Nedap machine is at least as difficult as corrupting the manual system, if not more so. The Nedap machine is not similar to a PC. It runs specialised software and hardware that is not accessible to anyone outside of the manufacturers. Equally, the manufacturers take an exhaustive set of precautions to make sure that none of the software or data in the machine can be tampered with. To corrupt the computerised system would firstly require detailed technical knowledge of the Nedap machine (and therefore collusion with the machines' manufacturers) and access to the Nedap machines, presumably by the collusion of the returning officers.

....


Annrai O'Toole is the CEO of Cape Clear Software. He was also founder of IONA Technologies. Brendan Tangney is a senior lecturer in the department of computer science in Trinity College Dublin.


PS

I know neither of the people who wrote this article.

ecksor

It's quite disappointing that those two published such an article. Arguing security through obscurity has been universally discredited and they can't seriously be comparing the quality assurance done for airplanes with the testing that this system has had if they've looked at the technical details of the system in any depth.

On a non-technical note, I don't share their automatic trust in governments or companies. Aside from the argument about the likelihood of abuse or whether such a view is paranoid or not, focusing such trust in a few areas is a design flaw for a voting system no matter what is behind it.

ecksor

Brendan Tangney and Joe McCarthey discuss this issue on http://www.rte.ie/rams/radio/latest/rte-todaywithpatkenny.smil (about 73 minutes and 30 seconds in). Tangney said he was objecting to the way that the debate was progressing, but had nothing to say on the particular piece of software being used in the voting machines and hasn't analysed it.

I agree with him that we need a better risk assessment, but there doesn't seem to be a clear way of providing that assessment.

His comment about how the count software could be open sourced and how the system could be done is fine doesn't seem to bear any relation to the proposed system here.

Very odd.

At any rate, worth a listen.

williamgrogan

All software no matter who writes it and how it’s designed has bugs, how else can you explain the Mars probe that crashed into the planet 3 or 4 years ago because one sub routine had its measurements in Imperial and the others in Metric? €250,000,000 worth of a spaceship turned into debris because of a bug. NASA uses highly trained Scientists that use cutting edge technologies and yet still cannot write code without a big stupid class error that a junior programmer wouldn’t make. I was gob smacked when I read the cause.

Why should the security of eVoting be orders of magnitude stronger than the previous paper system? Is this not like the guarantees sought by the anti-MMR people? People take the risks that their children will get brain damaged from Measles (~1/100,000) or become sterile from Mumps (Much higher risk?) but run a mile from MMR because of the very remote risk or no probably risk that it might cause Autism.

There is judgement called for as there is in everything we do. None of us can calculate the odds of a mad FF hacker or a bug or an epidemic of stupidity from election workers but it must be remote. So we live with the imperfect system.

A functioning imperfect system is much better than a non existent theoretically perfect system. If this wasn’t true then we couldn’t board a plane. It’s this lack of balance that exists in the VVAT lobby. Non computer people cannot judge this which is why many non technical people have jumped on the VVAT band wagon. The reason some computer people and I suspect those involved in the more theoretical end of things, such as the Computer Scientists look at it from a very theoretical perspective. That’s totally obvious watching Neumann in action.

The truth, the practicality, the solution, like it often does, lies in the middle. This middle ground is occupied by the people who run things, the bosses, the business people, the politicians & the civil servants.

On Pat Kenny, Joe McCarthy said that there was a difference between mistakes that the people made when voting and those the machine makes. I completely disagree. The whole idea is to get the vote that the voter wants counted as accurately as possible. If there is no validation in a manual system then tens of thousands of people are disenfranchised by their unintentional accidents whereas in eVoting there is validation and their vote is corrected by them and recorded properly. The correction of errors and the level of errors is all that matters here not what caused the error.

The point made that the systems requirements of eVoting are trivial is very important. The point about “paper” being “comfortable” and “touchy feely” is accurate in my opinion. Brendan Tangney’s point comparing the BSE scare to the furore about eVoting is a unique perspective.

They all agreed “that the technology shouldn’t dictate whether you can spoil your vote” but it did, pencils allowed spoiled votes which the law didn’t cater for, computers on purpose don’t. It’s ironic that the anarchists who seem to despise democracy want the right to spoil their votes. Which is better considering what the purpose of voting is and the alternatives?

By coincidence Iona Technologies was up 4.5% today.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
All software no matter who writes it and how it’s designed has bugs, how else can you explain the Mars probe that crashed into the planet 3 or 4 years ago because one sub routine had its measurements in Imperial and the others in Metric? €250,000,000 worth of a spaceship turned into debris because of a bug. NASA uses highly trained Scientists that use cutting edge technologies and yet still cannot write code without a big stupid class error that a junior programmer wouldn’t make. I was gob smacked when I read the cause.

Which only calls into question the fact that there's no way to discover a problem if it occurs with the Irish e-voting system.

Why should the security of eVoting be orders of magnitude stronger than the previous paper system? Is this not like the guarantees sought by the anti-MMR people? People take the risks that their children will get brain damaged from Measles (~1/100,000) or become sterile from Mumps (Much higher risk?) but run a mile from MMR because of the very remote risk or no probably risk that it might cause Autism.

There still hasn't been a risk assessment done that enables us to make any sorts of comparisons or estimates like this.

There is judgement called for as there is in everything we do. None of us can calculate the odds of a mad FF hacker or a bug or an epidemic of stupidity from election workers but it must be remote. So we live with the imperfect system.

How do you define 'remote'. How do you judge that the risk is remote. Finally, how remote is remote enough?

What's wrong with accepting that risk safe in the knowledge that VVAT will help us to spot any foul play? You want us to take that risk and not introduce a check to find any problems.

A functioning imperfect system is much better than a non existent theoretically perfect system. If this wasn’t true then we couldn’t board a plane.

Whatever system adopted will be imperfect. You keep saying that and nobody disagrees. The issue isn't about imperfection. It is that the system is nowhere near adequate.

It’s this lack of balance that exists in the VVAT lobby.

Apparently this is the perception, but I don't believe it is the reality. It is the very simple problem of no way to detect a problem if it occurs, and there is no way to guarantee that a problem will not occur. Anyone can understand this.

Non computer people cannot judge this which is why many non technical people have jumped on the VVAT band wagon. The reason some computer people and I suspect those involved in the more theoretical end of things, such as the Computer Scientists look at it from a very theoretical perspective. That’s totally obvious watching Neumann in action.

I don't know what you're getting at here. The principle that we can't guarantee a bug free system is based on very theoretical principles, but you're not actually disputing that principle.

On Pat Kenny, Joe McCarthy said that there was a difference between mistakes that the people made when voting and those the machine makes. I completely disagree. The whole idea is to get the vote that the voter wants counted as accurately as possible. If there is no validation in a manual system then tens of thousands of people are disenfranchised by their unintentional accidents whereas in eVoting there is validation and their vote is corrected by them and recorded properly. The correction of errors and the level of errors is all that matters here not what caused the error.

I thought he was agreeing that this was a benefit of e-voting, and I also agree.

The point made that the systems requirements of eVoting are trivial is very important. The point about “paper” being “comfortable” and “touchy feely” is accurate in my opinion.

VVAT is only necessarily paper because a non-paper based VVAT hasn't been widely accepted yet. I'm all for a non-paper based VVAT that stands up to scrutiny and you even said you would be sympathetic to such a thing. However, such a system hasn't been widely accepted yet, and neither yourself or Brendan Tangney has proposed or defended one yet. Therefore, as messy as paper is, it is the best we have at the moment.

However, we can't rule out the possibility now that even if a good non-paper VVAT was found that people would still want paper. I can see a point to this since the non-paper ones are quite complicated to understand. I could see the point of someone arguing that you shouldn't need to trust experts about the checks and balances of a democratic system.

Brendan Tangney’s point comparing the BSE scare to the furore about eVoting is a unique perspective.

Agreed. However while it is relevant to the wider question you sometimes get at here, I don't think we can make any judgements about risk aversion when the risk isn't clear.

They all agreed “that the technology shouldn’t dictate whether you can spoil your vote” but it did, pencils allowed spoiled votes which the law didn’t cater for, computers on purpose don’t. It’s ironic that the anarchists who seem to despise democracy want the right to spoil their votes. Which is better considering what the purpose of voting is and the alternatives?

By coincidence Iona Technologies was up 4.5% today.

Just because it did doesn't mean it should. The ability to abstain is a separate debate introduced by this system and not relevant to VVAT. I see that anyone who disagrees with you is still an anarchist who despises democracy though.

williamgrogan

E-Voting : Banotti says goodbye with warning about electronic voting

....and goodbye to you too.



and welcome in the future, probably one without "Fine Gale"

(not a bad week - we lost a smoker and a Luddite)

is "Luddite" OK to use again?

Anyone want to start a petition to get the Irish Times to ban Iona Technologies?

williamgrogan

Electronic voting source code released


14:22 07 April 04

NewScientist.com news service

A US company that makes electronic voting machines has taken the unprecedented decision to make public all its proprietary computer code for its devices. It hopes this will assuage the fears of voters and computer experts that the technology cannot be trusted to carry out free and fair elections

..................

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994862

ecksor

I guess they see this as a selling point, and fair play to them. I can't see the source to our system being released since the contract has already been signed.

williamgrogan

There still hasn't been a risk assessment…

You are the people that say there is an unacceptable risk – so you prove it!

I see that anyone who disagrees with you is still an anarchist who despises democracy though

No…….. but do you agree that anarchists, anti-globalisation’ists, old socialists, anti-business, anti-government & those that suppress free speech seem to support the anti-eVoting and pro-VVAT position?

Eamonn Gilmore TD made a speech in the Dail recently attacking the eVoting bill but Eamon & Co held up Romania as an example to us all until the people rose up and executed their “leaders” on a wonderful Christmas day some years back.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You are the people that say there is an unacceptable risk – so you prove it!

To which I counter that you are the one that tries to make the argument that the risk is acceptable and even negligible - so you prove it! I did offer to try to work out a risk assessment on this forum in open discussion, but you discontinued that. I don't know how far that would go, but it would be an interesting way of discussing the issues surrounding e-voting in my opinion.

I can't find anyone who knows how to do a proper risk assessment of a voting system. However, I'm not comparing risks with other systems, talking about opponents misunderstanding risk or anything else that requires such an analysis to back it up. That was all that my comment was in relation to, and you have to admit (or at least I would have thought so) that you can't just make the statements you have comparing with the risk of completely different events if you have no way of measuring these risks.

The argument which backs up the statement that the risk is unacceptable is that we can't quantify it and that there is no method in place to discover if something unwanted has happened. I.e, the risk is unnecessary, unquantified and easily avoidable, therefore it is unacceptable.

No…….. but do you agree that anarchists, anti-globalisation’ists, old socialists, anti-business, anti-government & those that suppress free speech seem to support the anti-eVoting and pro-VVAT position?

I have no idea. Anyway, a certain group of people supporting a cause doesn't mean that all people supporting that cause are in that group of people.