E voting machines to be destroyed

Seth Brundle

bcirl03 wrote: »

More waste by the Fianna Fail muppets!

And to make matters worse it's taken them this long to decide they are dumping them.

gandalf wrote: »

Aww but this time its a Green Party muppet fronting it

GP == FF

SerialComplaint

alegrabaroque wrote: »

I used the machine in Meath. It worked fine. I can`t understand this at all? We voted - it counted the votes. It was better and clearer to use. What is there bloody agenda this time? Maybe the counters wanted to keep there jobs?

You're right. You don't understand.

This is nothing to do with counters jobs. In fact, the machines require more manpower than the older manual system, because each of the 7,000 machines requires an additional dedicated operator beside the machine on voting day to enable/disable it for each voter.

The agenda is the loss of transparency in the count process. You might want to go do a bit of research (fiasco.ie is a good starting point) before you post again.

Firetrap

Ridiculous. They should just send a lad around to the storage facility with a can of petrol and a match. Kaboom! Problem solved.

The Raven.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They should have sold the machines to the NY State Board of Elections when they had the chance.

I heard John McGuinness, on RTE News At One, saying that he first suggested this. What if they had sold them to NY, and they were later found to be unreliable, as they would have already known that here? Was that not the reason they were not used here? Why else would they have wanted rid of them? Surely that would have been fraudulent, and would have cost the Irish a lot more, apart from the embarrassment?

zootroid

alegrabaroque wrote: »

I used the machine in Meath. It worked fine. I can`t understand this at all? We voted - it counted the votes. It was better and clearer to use. What is there bloody agenda this time? Maybe the counters wanted to keep there jobs?

From the Irish Times:

A report from the Commission on Electronic Voting had found the body had not been in a position to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the Nedap Powervote system, which it said was "effectively self-auditing".

"Experts retained by the Commission found it very easy to bypass electronic security measures and gain complete control of the 'hardened PC', overwrite the software, and thereby, in theory, to gain complete control over the count in a given constituency," the Commission reported.

The Netherlands and Germany had considering using electronic voting, but both have abandoned it over security concerns.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0423/breaking37.htm

zootroid

The greens have been in government for two years now. When they were in opposition they were against electronic voting. So it has taken them two years to come to the decision to get rid of them?

JohnMc1

The Raven. wrote: »

I heard John McGuinness, on RTE News At One, saying that he first suggested this. What if they had sold them to NY, and they were later found to be unreliable, as they would have already known that here? Was that not the reason they were not used here? Why else would they have wanted rid of them? Surely that would have been fraudulent, and would have cost the Irish a lot more, apart from the embarrassment?

The NY State Board of Elections was very interested in them. According to the news they did work in the few areas they were in. Just scrapped because people preferred the pencil ballots.

O'Coonassa

alegrabaroque wrote: »

I used the machine in Meath. It worked fine. I can`t understand this at all? We voted - it counted the votes. It was better and clearer to use. What is there bloody agenda this time? Maybe the counters wanted to keep there jobs?

Maybe if they got e-voting working there'd actually be a better style of democracy and they're scared of it.

Darragh29

Looks like Minister Lenihan has finally found the benefits of e-bay!

http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&item=270379480484

The Raven.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Looks like Minister Lenihan has finally found the benefits of e-bay!

http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&item=270379480484

Lol !! Excellent! No secondhand state cars or jets on there yet !!

jimmycrackcorm

The whole debacle is yet another example of Public Service incompetence. Why was it not fully trialled for a period sufficient to determine its suitability? Why 25 year storage leases instead of 3 year or 5 years?

alegrabaroque

SerialComplaint wrote: »

You're right. You don't understand.

This is nothing to do with counters jobs. In fact, the machines require more manpower than the older manual system, because each of the 7,000 machines requires an additional dedicated operator beside the machine on voting day to enable/disable it for each voter.

The agenda is the loss of transparency in the count process. You might want to go do a bit of research (fiasco.ie is a good starting point) before you post again.

Don`t be so patronising. I don`t understand peoples problem with it, theres no threat to democracy. You have seen what computers and software can do haven`t you, this is relatively basic? It is a load of crap and it must suit someones agenda.

Seth Brundle

Computers can and should be able to handle voting. However, there is a loss of transparency if no hard copy of the vote is made. Do you really think that some of our politicians would not try to manipulate the vote given the chance?

alegrabaroque

kbannon wrote: »

Computers can and should be able to handle voting. However, there is a loss of transparency if no hard copy of the vote is made. Do you really think that some of our politicians would not try to manipulate the vote given the chance?

Should we be attracting people like this into politics? Like I keep saying drasticly drop there numberation and we`ll see a change.

Should we really be in the position where we have to assume our politicians are crooked?

Davidth88

Although in concept these machines were a nice idea , after all it's pretty cool to be able to produce a result for an election 5 mins after the polling finishes.

However very poorly thought out.

One thing about elections is that not only to they have to be fair and open they have to be SEEN to be fair and open.

You walk up to a ' black box ' and press a few buttons , how do you know that exactly who you voted for was recorded correctly.

The big question about doing any computerised project , is ' do we need to do this , will it actually make things better , or are we doing it just to look cool ' . What exactly was the reason for this project ?

The old system worked fine , and is working fine . There was no real need for this project in the beginning .

DIdn't they use these in the election in 2002 in Fingal and Meath ? The question would then have to be , why did someone then go and order ALL the machines before the trial was fully analyised / debated.

oscarBravo

alegrabaroque wrote: »

Don`t be so patronising. I don`t understand peoples problem with it, theres no threat to democracy.

Again, I'll ask the question: how do you know? What assurance do you have that your vote was even recorded in the machine's memory, never mind counted?

You have seen what computers and software can do haven`t you, this is relatively basic

It's a relatively basic computing problem, but it's an extremely complex security problem. It's instructive to note that the vast majority of expressions of concern about electronic voting come from people who have a detailed understanding of both technology and security issues.

kbannon wrote: »

Computers can and should be able to handle voting. However, there is a loss of transparency if no hard copy of the vote is made.

...and there's a potential loss of secrecy if a hard copy is made. What happens to the hard copy? The voter can't take it home, any more than they can take home a copy of their ballot paper under the current system. So they put it in a box, where it needs to be counted anyway in order to check that the electronic count is correct.

But what if the machine prints a different selection from the ballot the voter cast electronically?

Indeed, what happens if the voter claims that it printed a different selection from the electronic ballot?

The system we have works, and works very well (albeit not perfectly). More to the point, it can be seen to work very well. We don't need electronic voting.

SerialComplaint

Davidth88 wrote: »

Although in concept these machines were a nice idea , after all it's pretty cool to be able to produce a result for an election 5 mins after the polling finishes.

The machines weren't networked, so the ballot modules from each machine had to be transported to the count centre, uploaded, and then the count could be done. This was another 'weak link' in the process.

Davidth88 wrote: »

DIdn't they use these in the election in 2002 in Fingal and Meath ? The question would then have to be , why did someone then go and order ALL the machines before the trial was fully analyised / debated.

Give Minister Cullen a call and ask him why he signed the final contract with Powervote on the day after Joe McCarthy spilled the beans to the Dail Committee in Dec 2003?

kbannon wrote: »

Computers can and should be able to handle voting.

Not really. There are two directly conflicting requirements. Anonymity (to protect the secrecy of the ballot), and traceability (to protect the integrity of the count). People often wheel out the 'sure don't we use ATMs all the time' arguement, while forgetting that ATM transactions are intrisically tied to an individual's account. It is essential to protect the secrecy of the ballot that a voting transaction CANNOT be tied back to an individual.

The only solution to this is paper-based, i.e. a voter verifiable audit trail. And this trail is only of value where it is treated as the primary record, so it has to go through the counting process as well.

alegrabaroque wrote: »

Don`t be so patronising. I don`t understand peoples problem with it, theres no threat to democracy. You have seen what computers and software can do haven`t you, this is relatively basic? It is a load of crap and it must suit someones agenda.

Yes, I agree again that you don't understand people's problems with it. I certanly have seen what computers and software can do, having spent 25 years in the IT industry. I have seen how the entire set of votes for a constitutency sit in one single MS Access .mdb file, so a simple file rename with 'here's one I prepared earlier' replaces the entire set of votes for a constituency, invisible to anyone except the person sitting at the count PC.

I and many other IT professionals (including the Irish Computer Society) took the view that there was no benefit and huge risks involved in automating our voting system.

Please let's not rehash the arguements of six years ago. Go read the report from the CEV and fiasco.ie, then you'll be in a position to put an educated view in your posts.

alegrabaroque

SerialComplaint wrote: »

The machines weren't networked, so the ballot modules from each machine had to be transported to the count centre, uploaded, and then the count could be done. This was another 'weak link' in the process.



Give Minister Cullen a call and ask him why he signed the final contract with Powervote on the day after Joe McCarthy spilled the beans to the Dail Committee in Dec 2003?


Not really. There are two directly conflicting requirements. Anonymity (to protect the secrecy of the ballot), and traceability (to protect the integrity of the count). People often wheel out the 'sure don't we use ATMs all the time' arguement, while forgetting that ATM transactions are intrisically tied to an individual's account. It is essential to protect the secrecy of the ballot that a voting transaction CANNOT be tied back to an individual.

The only solution to this is paper-based, i.e. a voter verifiable audit trail. And this trail is only of value where it is treated as the primary record, so it has to go through the counting process as well.




Yes, I agree again that you don't understand people's problems with it. I certanly have seen what computers and software can do, having spent 25 years in the IT industry. I have seen how the entire set of votes for a constitutency sit in one single MS Access .mdb file, so a simple file rename with 'here's one I prepared earlier' replaces the entire set of votes for a constituency, invisible to anyone except the person sitting at the count PC.

I and many other IT professionals (including the Irish Computer Society) took the view that there was no benefit and huge risks involved in automating our voting system.

Please let's not rehash the arguements of six years ago. Go read the report from the CEV and fiasco.ie, then you'll be in a position to put an educated view in your posts.

Read them before i posted that! still maintain its a load of rubbish. If they didn`t get thicko`s to set it up we wouldn`t have this issue.

How do big companies manage to maintain security, by your logic there is no security policies at all? I`m actually learning this right now its pretty basic stuff.

SerialComplaint

alegrabaroque wrote: »

Read them before i posted that! still maintain its a load of rubbish. If they didn`t get thicko`s to set it up we wouldn`t have this issue.

How do big companies manage to maintain security, by your logic there is no security policies at all? I`m actually learning this right now its pretty basic stuff.

So please do educate us all and explain how the conflicting requirements of anonymitity (unique to the voting process) and traceability can be addressed?

jmcc

alegrabaroque wrote: »

If they didn`t get thicko`s to set it up we wouldn`t have this issue.

And if they didn't get complete bozos to design the security model of these steaming piles of crap and idiot politicians and civil servants to waste taxpayer money on them, we would not have this problem.

How do big companies manage to maintain security, by your logic there is no security policies at all? I`m actually learning this right now its pretty basic stuff.

What do you know about security then? And where the hell are my fries, kid?

Regards...jmcc

SeaFields

I believe many people are inadvertently going off topic here.

The issue of software, security, audit trails etc. are one that should have been fully, totally and exhaustedly explored by the government before €50m of tax payers money was spent on these now useless machines. It is not for us to debate these here on boards now. €50m didn't matter at the time though because we were awash with money and a measly €50m was a drop in the ocean.

The issue here, I believe, is the total incompetence of our politicians. It takes the economic situation we are in now to show how little regard these b@stards had for tax payers money and they all jumped on that big bandwagon of never-ending wealth. It shows the lack of accountability in our political system and the lack of balls our government leaders have. I ask ye now - what would happen in any other European country to a politician who cost his/her country this much money due to stupidity? And the civil servants behind the mess?

Heres a quote...
"The delivery of electronic voting and counting presents many challenges for my Department and its partners, but I am determined to make the benefits of the electronic system available as early as possible. Electronic voting and counting will improve the efficiency, speed, accuracy and user friendliness of elections. It will also eliminate the democratic wastage associated with spoilt votes. It is a desirable modernisation of the electoral system and I look forward to its successful implementation at the June 2004 polls."

Martin Cullen, Dail Debate, 3rd Feb 2004

Just over 5 years later they are going, quite literally, in the bin.

Heres another thing - ministersoffice@dast.gov.ie

Its Cullen's email address. Lets show the the real benefits of electronic devices and all flood his inbox with calls for his resignation. Perhaps Dempsey could take some flack as well. :mad:

Rant over...:)

VO

This is another monumental f**k up by the Minister for Helicopters, Martin Cullen. This guy would not last p*ssing time in the business world yet he is continually elected. If he had any moral fibre he would have resigned long ago but a Fianna Fail politician with morals is a rare as hen's teeth.

Seth Brundle

Green Party U-Turn?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0424/1224245303423.html

Mr Gormley refused to accept his predecessors as ministers for the environment, Noel Dempsey and Martin Cullen, were guilty of a huge waste of taxpayers’ money by acquiring e-voting machines before their reliability had been properly checked.

“I am not in the business of reprimanding colleagues. I am not the Taoiseach. It is up to the Taoiseach in relation to colleagues and the way that they have behaved, but certainly I would say that, at the time, they were probably following best international practice.”

http://www.greenparty.ie/index.php/en/news/news_archive/green_party_calls_on_cullen_to_resign_over_e_voting_fiasco

The Green Party has called on the Minister for the Environment to resign in the wake of the report from the Independent Commission on Electronic Voting.
Ciaran Cuffe TD, the Green Party Local Government spokesperson stated today that, ?Minister Cullen has pursued the issue of electronic voting with a volatile combination of arrogance and naivety. He must stand down in the wake of the Commissions? concerns regarding the verification of the accuracy and secrecy of the ballot.?
Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent TD, added, ?Minister Cullen?s judgment is seriously flawed and his position is now untenable. He must now resign.?

One wonders if the storage contracts will still be paid despite us going back to "stupid old pencils"!

ART6

kbannon wrote: »

One wonders if the storage contracts will still be paid despite us going back to "stupid old pencils"!

And who will get the €50 million contract for pencils in which the lead is found to be missing, necessitating that they are then stored in a warehouse belonging to a certain minister's friend for twenty five years before the son of John Gormley decides to scrap them.

r0nanf

kbannon wrote: »

Green Party U-Turn?

Excuse the plagiarism but I've just copied some of that post and emailed it to Ciaran Cuffe asking him to clarify his position, and whether he believed his government colleague was still naive and arrogant...

Seth Brundle

Nice one!

JohnMc1

kbannon wrote: »

Computers can and should be able to handle voting. However, there is a loss of transparency if no hard copy of the vote is made. Do you really think that some of our politicians would not try to manipulate the vote given the chance?

There is always a chance of Voter Fraud no matter what system is in place. In the paper ballot method used here paper ballots that don't have FF as #1 can easily be crumpled up and put in the garbage bin or put through a shredder.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There is always a chance of Voter Fraud no matter what system is in place.

Yes, there is - but that's not a compelling argument for introducing a whole new set of attack vectors to an already pretty secure system.

In the paper ballot method used here paper ballots that don't have FF as #1 can easily be crumpled up and put in the garbage bin or put through a shredder.

That's all but impossible to do. Have you ever observed a manual count?

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, there is - but that's not a compelling argument for introducing a whole new set of attack vectors to an already pretty secure system. That's all but impossible to do. Have you ever observed a manual count?

If you think Voter fraud is not possible with the Paper Ballot system you are very naive.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If you think Voter fraud is not possible with the Paper Ballot system you are very naive.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was difficult. If you think differently, please explain how - and how the electronic system addresses this - rather than resorting to name-calling.