E voting machines to be destroyed

mike65 · 23-04-2009 12:02PM #1

Finally.

Seems they can't find anything else to do with them.

Het-Field · 23-04-2009 12:07PM

Well they are still sucking thousands and thousands of euros from the state's coffers to keep them stored ina warehouse in Westmeath.

Another white elephant spearheaded by Martin Cullen !

mike65 · 23-04-2009 12:09PM

Nope he got landed with that one! Noel Dempsey had that bright idea.

peasant · 23-04-2009 12:25PM

nope, not destroyed ...not quite yet.

Somebody else still has to make some more money out of this debacle :mad:

Environment Minister John Gormley said a task force is being set up to oversee the disposal of the voting and counting equipment and the end of storage arrangements.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0423/evoting.html

They need a "task force" even to fill a skip

bcirl03 · 23-04-2009 12:31PM

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 · 23-04-2009 12:35PM

Aww but this time its a Green Party muppet fronting it

jprender · 23-04-2009 12:38PM

Surely the Govt had signed lease agreements for the storage space on some of these units.

Even if the machines are destroyed, I would bet that they will be paying the storage costs for some time yet (depending on length of lease agreement).

Nodin · 23-04-2009 12:44PM

mike65 wrote: »

Finally.

Seems they can't find anything else to do with them.

Make them into 80's arcade machines. Youngsters can experience life as it was then, with a major smouldering away on the side, as some gouger sticks his head in front of ye and says 'Give us your last man, mistur' or 'giveus two bob'.....

peter1892 · 23-04-2009 12:45PM

Ah well, at least I got to use them once!

johnl · 23-04-2009 12:45PM

I would quite like one of these machines

ixoy · 23-04-2009 12:50PM

jprender wrote: »

Even if the machines are destroyed, I would bet that they will be paying the storage costs for some time yet (depending on length of lease agreement).

And it was reported in the Sunday Times that some of those leases may be invalid as well as one of the buildings is only meant to be used to store farm machinery. Ah the Government - they can't even get it right when they're trying to rectify their own mistakes.

bcirl03 · 23-04-2009 12:54PM

gandalf wrote: »

Aww but this time its a Green Party muppet fronting it

Looking for some positive PR no doubt.......

gandalf · 23-04-2009 12:55PM

bcirl03 wrote: »

Looking for some positive PR no doubt.......

LOL by costing us more money when the country is broke !!!!

bangersandmash · 23-04-2009 12:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

Make them into 80's arcade machines. Youngsters can experience life as it was then, with a major smouldering away on the side, as some gouger sticks his head in front of ye and says 'Give us your last man, mistur' or 'giveus two bob'.....

80s? Maybe be not. But by the time these things are fully disposed of, some of them may just be fit for retro 00's gaming machines. The fortunate children of the future will be able to marvel at the quaint simplicity of the games their Tiger parents used to play. And it'll all be down to Martin Cullen. Credit where credit is due.

Seriously even if the machines are somehow pawned off on somebody else (a charitable cause perhaps?), it looks like we might continue to pay for them for the foreseeable future.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/costly-storage-of-evoting-machines-slammed-as-lunacy-1198858.html

gandalf · 23-04-2009 12:59PM

25 YEARS Holy god what the hell were they thinking. I assume that was a council decision in Monaghan. I wonder were they connected with the person who won that contract

r0nanf · 23-04-2009 01:07PM

RTE wrote:

While electronic voting is now at an end, he said there is still a 'considerable need' for electoral reform. He says this can best be pursued by establishing an Independent Electoral Commission.

He says does he? We already have an Electoral Commission. Were researchers cut out in the budget too?

Nodin · 23-04-2009 01:13PM

gandalf wrote: »

25 YEARS Holy god what the hell were they thinking. I assume that was a council decision in Monaghan. I wonder were they connected with the person who won that contract

As an old Frank Kelly sketch put it....

'vote fer the Ballykilferret Gombeen party........because ye never know....when ye might need a favour.....'

peasant · 23-04-2009 01:35PM

... you couldn't make it up, could you?

No seriously, if you wrote this story as satire or whatever, any editor would turn you down and tell you to be a bit more realistic as nobody could be THAT incompetent.

Sully · 23-04-2009 02:30PM

Not even the balls to apologise for one waste and then starting another waste of money. A TASK FORCE?!

mike65 · 23-04-2009 02:33PM

Reminds me of the Cold Stores kings who made a fortune during the beef mountian era.

ART6 · 23-04-2009 02:46PM

Sully wrote: »

Not even the balls to apologise for one waste and then starting another waste of money. A TASK FORCE?!

This sounds like another one of those "How many XXXs does it take to change a light bulb?" jokes.

In the case of FF, a minister to note that it might need changing, and a junior minister to decide that it probably does. A consultant (the minister's brother Seamus, who is actually a baker by trade) then needs to be appointed to decide if it does, and if so to prepare a report that will suggest the appointment of a commission to look into the matter. The commission can then be required to prepare a report to the minister in six months, suggesting that the bulb does indeed appear to be unavailable for service, and that therefore a task force should be appointed to examine how best to replace it. The task force then consults with various bodies such a Health and Safety and the Equal Opportunities before preparing a method statement and risk assessment, leading to a contractor being appointed with a ten year, half million contract to change the bulb. Meanwhile everyone in the Dáil continues to stumble around in the dark, which is why government in this country works so well.

turgon · 23-04-2009 03:18PM

Excellent post ART6, but you just missed the part where the Dail committee interviews the developers and all those involved in the due process to evaluate the necessarily for an "Edison Tribunal", determining whether or not the light bulb was installed correctly and if it is, in fact, working.

Meanwhile a two year old kid flicks on the switch...

SeanW · 23-04-2009 04:06PM

You need to convene a task force now, to tell you to send those heaps off for WEEE recycling? :eek: As Miley used to say in Glenroe "Well Holy God"

SEPT 23 1989 · 23-04-2009 05:11PM

in any other country all involved would have resigned five minutes after this announcement

Big_Mac · 23-04-2009 06:12PM

They'll now need to sit on their hands for a number of years while they bicker and squabble over where the contract for the disposal goes to, and how much it will cost all the while paying more storage on them.. Absolutely class.

marcsignal · 23-04-2009 06:54PM

mike65 wrote: »

Finally.

Seems they can't find anything else to do with them.

Surely they could sell them to "Mr. Quirkeys Good Time Emporium" on O Connell St.
They're about as useful and predictable as an arcade gaming machine.
A "Texas Hold Em" or "Russian Roulette" game springs to mind :pac:

oscarBravo · 23-04-2009 07:01PM

alegrabaroque wrote: »

We voted - it counted the votes.

How do you know it did it correctly?

alegrabaroque · 23-04-2009 07:07PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know it did it correctly?

How do you know it didn`t?

oscarBravo · 23-04-2009 07:13PM

alegrabaroque wrote: »

How do you know it didn`t?

I don't. That's my point. You and others pushed buttons, and some time later, a result came out. There was no way of verifying that result.

You might (or might not) find this interesting. In particular, check out the discrepancies on page 3.

JohnMc1 · 23-04-2009 07:21PM

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

Bob Z · 23-04-2009 07:53PM

gandalf wrote: »

25 YEARS Holy god what the hell were they thinking. I assume that was a council decision in Monaghan. I wonder were they connected with the person who won that contract

Yes according to the sunday times it was an uncle.

And even if the machines had been used they were only to be used for 20 years but they were stored away with a 25 year lease

Seth Brundle · 23-04-2009 09:38PM

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 · 23-04-2009 10:42PM

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 · 23-04-2009 11:00PM

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. · 23-04-2009 11:03PM

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 · 23-04-2009 11:40PM

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 · 23-04-2009 11:43PM

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 · 23-04-2009 11:55PM

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 · 24-04-2009 12:02AM

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 · 24-04-2009 12:16AM

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. · 24-04-2009 01:22AM

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 · 24-04-2009 01:47AM

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 · 24-04-2009 07:26AM

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 · 24-04-2009 08:07AM

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 · 24-04-2009 08:13AM

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 · 24-04-2009 08:44AM

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 · 24-04-2009 09:16AM

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 · 24-04-2009 09:29AM

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 · 24-04-2009 09:50AM

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 · 24-04-2009 09:53AM

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 · 24-04-2009 10:27AM

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

E voting machines to be destroyed

Comments