no E-voting for you!

Spacedog

E-voting's out this june...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0430/evoting.html

serves then right for not developing an open source system, begging for trouble imo!

Villain

See here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157499

arcadegame2004

A pity. But then I suppose they couldn't risk using it if the presently proposed system had flaws. I don't think the paper-trail issue is important. The paper is the annoying aspect of the present system, leading to endless recounts and legal challenges. I hope, for that reason, that they eventually come up with a foll-proof E-voting system to end the laborium of election recounts.

flogen

not to get into the technical side or anything, but FF were fools for saying they were going to use this before any commission was setup on it. If theyd sat on the fence, said they were thinking about it, and running tests and then this report came out, they would get off scot-free. Instead they jumped the gun demanded it was to be used, said it was flawless and now have to go 180 on it... serves them right tbh.

Flogen

Karoma

hurrah!
also on:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/30/ireland_evote/

secret_squirrel

Thank god it got squashed. Evoting has to be open and as transparent as possible.

What I want to know is why wasnt the Aussie model followed? They managed to develop an open source system from scratch in 6 months at the cost ofr $125k. (see here. And we've already pissed €40m up the wall. Heads should roll.

ressem

For a machine that's to have been selling for years on the continent, even the basic obvious hardware precautions didn't seem to be met
http://www.evoting.cs.may.ie/Documents/ZerflowReport.pdf

like actually marking the Cast Vote button as such, or stopping someone from pasting on their own ballot sheet, console that could be opened using common keys, data stored as plaintext.

Not really suprising then that the software and procedures shows some flaws.

From today's report:
There's been no independent end-to-end testing of the system that we'd be using.
...there appears to have been no systematic testing and certification of the “hardening” of the PCs notwithstanding their susceptibility to either inadvertent error or deliberate manipulation by those with access to them;

And they haven't even been provided with the full source code yet, 2 months after the commission was founded.

Cork

It is a pity that the system is not going ahead. It was a system that has worked in Irish elections.

But it was opposed by opportunist opposition TDs, cranks and those who had some genuine concerns.

The Minister should have addressed and re-assured those with genuyne concerns and ignored opportunist opposition TDs and the cranks.

jd

Originally posted by Cork

The Minister should have addressed and re-assured those with genuyne concerns

How?

ecksor

Cork,

Indeed, he should have 're-assured' those with genuine concerns by showing that he had some inkling that he understood those concerns and was interested in making positive steps to resolve them. He never did. There are gaping problems with the system that he showed no intention of having fixed.

His statements on this issue are at best misinformed or at worst deliberately misleading. Your post is also one of the two, perhaps misinformed due to the misleading comments of the minister which you need to be more critical of?

If you claim that the system has worked in previous elections despite the lack of auditability that was clearly evident to anyone who cares to examine the details of the system and despite the report yesterday then you have to ask yourself why you should expect that such a statement should be taken at face value.

vorbis

since someone said the aussie system was open source i went looking for the source.
Here it is eVACS is the name of it. Minister Cullen can download it below.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/evacs.tar.gz

secret_squirrel

Originally posted by Cork

But it was opposed by opportunist opposition TDs, cranks and those who had some genuine concerns.

Assuming this is not a troll.

So Cork you think it is oppurtunist for our elected representatives to attempt to preserve the democratic ideal by preventing a system that had numerous flaws being implemented?

You say the system has worked before???? With the lack of an audit trail, no published/audited code how do you know that? Can you PROVE it worked???? No? I didnt think so.
The potential for abuse of electronic voting demands
1. A machine that works and that can be proved that it works and minimises the risk of interference with a vote.
2. A minister/department that actually understands the Technology and importance of having a system that can be audited, and reviewed.

If we dont insist on these kind of measure we will be disenfranchised before we even realise it.....

Tuars

If I was Nora Owen I'd be asking some questions about her surprise seat loss at the last general election.

Cork

Originally posted by Tuars
If I was Nora Owen I'd be asking some questions about her surprise seat loss at the last general election.

Why? Eletronic voting worked.

In Ireland - we have no many doubting tomas's it is amazing.

An independent audit trail? When some opponants of this system use eletronics in their daily lives - Do they Ask for an independant audit trail?

How many of these people go into their banks and examine banking systems?

Sure, they are legitimate concerns that needed addressing but some concern that was was raised was by cranks.

Cranks that would put Victor Meldrew to shame.

qBot

Originally posted by vorbis
since someone said the aussie system was open source i went looking for the source.
Here it is eVACS is the name of it. Minister Cullen can download it below.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/evacs.tar.gz

I'm not convinced open source is the way to go either. Sure you can argue that it will be less susceptible to bugs and more secure etc etc. But who's to say the government won't alter the code to give themselves more votes. If the system is open source, it is a lot easier to do. The bulk of the code is right in front of em, they only have to change a line or two. Saying that though, closed source isn't fully trust worthy either. Can u really trust the companies who write it.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but could u imagine such a system in place in more unstable countries where governments would do anything to stay in power. You don't know who will be in power of this country in ten/twenty years down the road, we might fall victim to a corrupt dictatorship:D .If u can't find a system that works in every given situation then that system shouldn't be used at all. IMO, the problem lies with e-voting not with whether the source is open or closed.

vorbis

at some point qBot, you must trust something or someone to count the votes!
All the concerns you mention are in our existing paper based system so I fail to see the actual problems.

Tuars

Originally posted by Cork
Why? Eletronic voting worked.

How do you know? I read that there was a discrepancy of 1200 votes between the returning officers tally and the machines in Dublin North but we have no proof either way since there is no backup record.

An independent audit trail? When some opponants of this system use eletronics in their daily lives - Do they Ask for an independant audit trail?

Yes they do. The most obvious example is your bank statement issued on paper. There are other safegards too.

Sure, they are legitimate concerns that needed addressing but some concern that was was raised was by cranks.

So legitimate concerns should be ignored because they are raised by people that you label 'cranks'. If you want to win an argument you'll have to learn to debate the issue and not the messenger. Best of luck with that.

Tuars

Originally posted by qBot
I'm not convinced open source is the way to go either.

I think the major concern with the system would be bugs rather than manipulation. That would be my concern anyway. Making the code open source would go a long way to help find the bugs.

I agree it would do little to prevent fraud. After all who's to know if the the code running in the machine is the same as the code on paper. To prevent this we need the same safeguards, checks and balances, and independent oversight that we have with the present system.

qBot

Originally posted by vorbis
at some point qBot, you must trust something or someone to count the votes!
All the concerns you mention are in our existing paper based system so I fail to see the actual problems.

Well maybe, but the difference is that whatever malpractice is being carried out cannot be done on a grand scale without a record. With the existing systems you have a paper trail. With a computer based system, there is none. Even if u could print out the results cast through the computer system their is no way of telling whether they are legititmate votes and haven't been interfered with in any way.

Cork

Originally posted by qBot
Well maybe, but the difference is that whatever malpractice is being carried out cannot be done on a grand scale without a record.

What record exists for pay as you go type phones?

Manual bills are not sent out.

Most people accept their phone charges - never the less.

Audit Trails are only of use is certain circumstances.

If a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Cork
[BIf a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money. [/B]

there is NO system that cannot be manipulated... the only way to insure that it hasn't been manipulated is to keep the possibility of checking to verify the results

Tuars

Originally posted by Cork
If a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money.

I agree but the Independent Commission (or cranks according to you) found that the system could be manipulated. Also, experience with computers and technology in general would suggest that a paper trail would be advisable, at least starting out.

We should be aiming for a system that gives us the best advantages of electonic and paper voting. It is not an either/or situation. Our aim is to improve the electoral process and enhance democracy not to blindly follow the techno dream.

qBot

Originally posted by Cork
What record exists for pay as you go type phones?

Manual bills are not sent out.

Most people accept their phone charges - never the less.

Well i know what calls i've made and i will have a general idea of how long i was talking on those calls. So if my remaining credit is no where near what it should be, ill know about it. Plus o2 and meteor allow u to view any calls and text messages you've sent through their web sites. If I have a sneaking suspicion i've been overcharged i can check it out there. How can i check with an electronic voting system if it recorded my vote correctly.

Secondly, whether i get over/under charged for a call i make doesn't have much significance to my future or the countries future. Comparing billing systems with voting systems is not comparing like with like.

Audit Trails are only of use is certain circumstances.

If a voting system cannot be manipulated - an audit trail is a waste of money.

Problem is there is no software in the world that is bug free. So u can't state that a voting system cannot be manipulated. Software is by it's nature susceptible to bugs.

gandalf

Well don't you just love it when you go away on holiday, don't follow the news and get a geniune surprise when you read the paper after landing at Dublin Airport today.

I am actually surprised that the commission went against this, I was convienced that they were there to rubber stamp the decision to use electronic voting. The incompetience from the government has been staggering as has their arrogance. Cullen should resign over this and there should be other scalps as well. They have spent €58 million (according to the Irish Indo today) without checking it "does what it says on the tin".

Cork you are wearing your rose tinted glasses again (or whatever colour FF use) this whole process has been a farce from day one with professionals who know computer systems raising fears that the system was not given the type of testing that something as important as our right to vote should have.

One thing I am looking forward to now is having all these FF and PD canvassers coming around looking for my vote in the upcoming elections I am going to enjoy making their lives a misery.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Hmmm Bertie must have pissed off "Sir" Tony recently.

What the Government ministers said

ADVERTISEMENT



"The system has undergone extensive independent testing."

Martin Cullen on February 25.

"The system has been independently verified and will be the most accurate, and therefore the most democratic, system we have ever had."

Charlie McCreevy in the Dail, February 17.

"The system has been independently verified as safe and reliable."

Mr McCreevy again on February 17.

"This system is secure, reliable, and can be trusted by the Irish people."

Charlie McCreevy.

"The manner in which we transfer surpluses to subsequent counts is not correct and does not give a true reflection of the vote, but the computer will do that."

Mr McCreevy, speaking about manual counting of votes on February 17.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1173969&issue_id=10812 Registration needed

As I said previously Cullen should go and by the looks of those comments McGreedy should go as well because he lied.

Gandalf.

Victor

Eh, they are still advertising it on radio - "safe, secure and accurate".

Originally posted by Cork
It is a pity that the system is not going ahead. It was a system that has worked in Irish elections.

Didn't the Commission find an error in the count software?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Cork you are wearing your rose tinted glasses again (or whatever colour FF use) this whole process has been a farce from day one with professionals who know computer systems raising fears that the system was not given the type of testing that something as important as our right to vote should have.

Did not all political partys not support the system before the last election? Leaving U turns aside - electronic voting is on the way.

The government set up the commission and the commission sided on the side of caution.

I see no problem with that.

Hand Counting really is on the way out. John Dennehy and Mildred Fox awaiting days for a result is crazy.

The glitches with eletronic voting will be ironed out. I personally would have prefered to see its introduction.

Manually seperating the votes of 3 ballots? There really has to be a better way.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Cork you really do amaze me sometimes. The government lied saying that the system was secure and tested when it obviously wasn't and they have wasted money (yet again!). I think even you would agree that if someone lied they should resign from their position. I mean if I made a mess of this size where I work then I would quite rightly expect my contract to be terminated.

As for e-voting of course it will come in but with a transparent process in place with some sort of audit system to allow for system glitches not the "wink and nod" approach that this government have been using along with their "we know best" attitude without proof.

So Cork you would like to see the introduction of the current flawed system, well its nice to see you value our right to vote so highly. I'm sure those that died in 1916 would be proud of people like you who take the right to an independent accurate vote so lightly. By the way just in case you don't realise I was being sarcastic.

Gandalf.

dahamsta

Originally posted by gandalf
So Cork you would like to see the introduction of the current flawed system

Of course he would. The best way to get a corrupt party into power is to use corruption.

Ye're worse to encourage him...

adam