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

williamgrogan

In my opinion the hard core opposing the implementation of E-Voting as proposed by the government and advocating VVAT are in the same category of illogical activists as the anti-MMR, anti-Fluoridation, anti-Nuclear Power, anti-GMO’s and are in general Luddites who oppose technological change simply because they fear change.

I do believe that they are grossly exaggerating the risks to democracy, the risk of a major failure of the E-Voting system and even the risks of failure that would be greater than the current system which disenfranchises the equivalent of the population of Bandon and Clonakilty put together at every election.

More to the point, should the government spend millions more of tax payers money now and every year for ever more to placate this Luddite lobby group? The money thus wastefully diverted in a futile attempt to make something that will be far more accurate then the present system even more complex and perhaps more prone to error and introduce conflict between the data stored on paper and the data stored electronically will cause a downside elsewhere. How many schools’ modernisation plans will be postponed again, how many people waiting on hip replacements will have to carry on limping in pain so that this illogical group are satisfied?

Some of the arguments put forward are; cosmic rays that can flip bits (solved by parity bits), mad hackers (who can’t gain access because its not on the Internet), anti-democratic loonies with bar magnets (where were these people when petrol bombs were the weapon of choice?), useless Analysts & Programmers (these are the same people who have brought computers successfully into all our lives), buggy software (solved by testing) and idiotic civil servants and Ministers.

Look who is opposing the introduction of the government's proposals for E-Voting; Activists from the States who pop up everywhere E-Voting is being introduced, The Labour Party who along with the Trade Union movement traditionally oppose technology because thing erroneously believe it costs jobs, FG=Conservative, Old Fashioned, Civil War, slightly pro-Unionist, members of the Christian coalition in the EU, want God in the constitution and the Green Religion/Party who oppose technology at every turn and want us back to knitting our own clothes and cycling everywhere.

Besides the type of person who thinks his tooth fillings are poisoning them, there are other people who after a cursory glance might be “fooled” into thinking that these people have a point but the difference between the two would be that most people when analysing the matter further would conclude that there was an irrational and unfounded fear here. The hard core anti-fluoridation or anti-MMR or the type that have found Jesus can never be convinced. Even with the disclosures over the weekend regarding Dr Wakefield’s “conflict of interest” and letter in which he denied that there was a conflict of interest, the anti-MMR brigade are now saying that if you oppose Wakefield you are part of a “witch hunt”. I suspect that if Wakefield’s paper had not been published by the Lancet as they now say it shouldn’t have been that the uptake of vaccinations would be far higher than it currently is.

A major difference between all the other matters that the ISS debates is that the VVAT is relatively new and unchallenged. If we are any use we should be able to analyse this in “real time“ so to speak and make a prediction that it is another scare story.

bminish

Personally I don't think the VVAT deals with the real issue, at best it's a kludge.

Secure and accurate electronic voting is of course perfectly possible but unless the software and system that is used is open to independent public analysis then why should it be trusted?

For example PGP encryption is a widely trusted and secure encryption system because it's innards (source code) is available to anyone who wants to take a look and see if there are any backdoors or

Linux is a reasonably secure operating system (when correctly configured anyway!) because it's source code is available to all and bugs get fixed when discovered. I don't think I need to spend long explain in which ways windows differs in this regard!

I'll trust electronic voting when I can see for myself that it's secure but for now all we have to go on are the claims of our politicians and the manufactures.

As a sceptic I am not given to accepting things as being true on the basis of faith alone so for now I don't trust the proposed Irish electronic voting system

.Brendan

williamgrogan

Personally I don't think the VVAT deals with the real issue, at best it's a kludge

I agree with this. If the software is properly written, tested and independently verified by a competent oversight committee than we do not need VVAT. Or to put it another way VVAT is not going to make the system any more secure and is on par with using sellotape to fix an air traffic control system’s weaknesses. The “need” for solid paper is I think a Psychological thing and not a logical thing.

Secure and accurate electronic voting is of course perfectly possible but unless the software and system that is used is open to independent public analysis then why should it be trusted?

No problem, except for the public bit. I know Open Software is a big hit among many people but I for one wouldn’t put my software out as open source or I would lose its value. This was not specified originally for some reason but while there are pro’s and con’s most (the vast majority) of computer systems are not open source and that doesn’t cause a problem and certainly does not invalidate the E-Voting system.

I'll trust electronic voting when I can see for myself that it's secure but for now all we have to go on are the claims of our politicians and the manufactures

I think this is an extraordinary demand because you do not apply this rule to all the other computer systems you use.

As a sceptic I am not given to accepting things as being true on the basis of faith alone so for now I don't trust the proposed Irish electronic voting system

As a skeptic neither am I. Why do you need “faith” to trust the E-Voting Computer System but not faith to trust the computerised ABS system in your car. I am presuming you are not a Green Party member who only has a bike.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan


No problem, except for the public bit. I know Open Software is a big hit among many people but I for one wouldn't put my software out as open source or I would lose its value. This was not specified originally for some reason but while there are pro’s and con’s most (the vast majority) of computer systems are not open source and that doesn’t cause a problem and certainly does not invalidate the E-Voting system.

I didn't say open source (as in GPL) I meant source code open to full examination by anyone who wishes to take a look. A mechanical Voting machine would be open to scrutiny, why not an electronic one?
By all means copyright the source code but make it available for scrutiny

I think this is an extraordinary demand because you do not apply this rule to all the other computer systems you use.

Actually I do make this requirement of systems that I require to be secure, Do I need to see (or have available to me) the source of MS office to word process a letter ? Of course not

Would I trust an encryption system or a firewall that I don't have access to source code for ? Absolutely not

As a skeptic neither am I. Why do you need “faith” to trust the E-Voting Computer System but not faith to trust the computerised ABS system in your car.

I don't have ABS or Airbags and have little faith in either as means of improving one's chances of survival in a crash.

ABS is only effective when drivers know how to use it and may actually lengthen stopping distances if you are used to removing your foot when you feel the wheels lock up which is the way most of us are used to doing things.

The effectiveness of airbags has not been examined in the context of the European driver / Car and airbags have a proven detrimental effect in accident situations (even quite minor accidents) on people such as myself who wear glasses..

Anyway these are different issues since I can take apart and test the ABS and airbag systems if I so desire. I can't do this with software when the source code isn't available

I need to be able to trust beyond reasonable doubt that any voting system that replaces paper in this country is secure and trustworthy, not that paper was always perfect either, the Dead have turned out to vote in the past in this country

I am presuming you are not a Green Party member who only has a bike.

Which way I vote is entirely my business but I would like to have confidence that widespread election fraud cannot take place and that my preferences remain private.

.Brendan

williamgrogan

By all means copyright the source code but make it available for scrutiny .... Would I trust an encryption system or a firewall that I don't have access to source code for ? Absolutely not

Again I don’t in principal have any problem with the Independent Commission (IP) getting experts to examine the software but neither of us demand this of other systems. OK, so you picked one system that you presumably know how to “read”, a Firewall, and say that you would need to access the code to ensure its OK but that does not apply to say the Air Traffic Control software that you rely on not to fly you into the nearest skyscraper. Those of us who would be looking into a dark sack for all the good examining the source code of a Firewall system would be cannot have this luxury. If you were to examine all software that your life depended on you would need to be an expert on many different types of systems, computer languages, methodologies and have an awful lot of spare time. Unless you happen to be an expert on Firewalls and have a lot of time even examining those is of limited use.

Whether or not ABS saves lives when it works as designed is a tangent. My point is that everyone who drives a car with ABS or has an airbag fitted trusts the computer to work properly without any paper and without examining the source code. Their lives depend on it more so than a few glitches in an E-Voting system.

As you say the paper system was from any measurement of accuracy very poor and no one complained and now many orders of magnitude of accuracy is demanded up to and included the billion to one event where a bit gets reset and counts a vote wrong.

Those that have decided not to vaccinate their children make similar arguments about the dangers of MMR versus the benefits.

Actually I think demanding VVAT is very like demanding the three separate jabs instead of the all in one MMR.

Syth

I've always thought that we should be skeptical about the current implementation of E-Voting. We are asked to put a lot of faith in this system with very little actual evidence. We can make the system trustworthy and transparent, yet the government won't do this, we have to just trust them.

How about if someone claimed something about the safeness of a given technology (eg GM, CAM, take your pick), and we could test these claims in the field, so to speak, but we are asked to just trust them. Thus we must be initially skeptical about the E-Voting claims.

More to the point, should the government spend millions more of tax payers money now and every year for ever more to placate this Luddite lobby group?

VVAT won't cost millions. The E-Voting system alone will, if you have been following the mailing list, the cost of e-voting has arisen. There is an extra cost in personell, storage. If you are so concerned about money you should advocate paper ballots as it costs less. But cost shouldn't be an issue about ensuring democracy is seen to be done.

(BTW bminish GPL'd code technically is copyrighted, but it's semantics)

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
A... but that does not apply to say the Air Traffic Control software that you rely on not to fly you into the nearest skyscraper.

I do not need how to read a ATC system, nor do I demand to see source code before flying. there is however a fundamental difference between ATC systems and electronic voting or data Encryption.

If an ATC system fails or is tampered with the effects are hard to ignore and are gone over very carefully (for years and years) by the accident investigators.

If a voting system fails to register some votes (or mis-registers some of them) due to software flaws
or is electronically 'Ballot Stuffed' due to poor back end security, there is as it stands a high probability that the problem will not be visible and the problem would go un-noticed, not a healthy way to run a democracy.

Those that have decided not to vaccinate their children make similar arguments about the dangers of MMR versus the benefits.

Why similar ? My 3 have had the MMR although I was pleased to see that mercury is no longer used as a vaccine preservative.

I cannot myself test vaccines so I have to accept the results of others in that regard however one of the key things with science is the process of open peer review.
let's see truly open peer review of the electronic voting process, this is the only way to have trust in the integrity of the process of voting.

(BTW bminish GPL'd code technically is copyrighted, but it's semantics)

Yeah I know that, thanks.


.Brendan

Syth

That's one of the crucial reasons why we need VVAT. It is very difficult to notice an error without a VVAT.

williamgrogan, you seem to be against VVAT, what procedure would you suggest to gaurantee that there were no errors, while also preserving voting secrecy.? VVAT is the best option, (and I'll think you'll agree that we need to be able to gaurantee the result of an election is accurate.)

williamgrogan

How about if someone claimed something about the safeness of a given technology (eg GM, CAM, take your pick), and we could test these claims in the field, so to speak, but we are asked to just trust them. Thus we must be initially skeptical about the E-Voting claims.

But these things are tested by experts and you do trust them normally and also by 400,000 voters in Ireland in 2 elections. Bminish has no ABS or airbags (at least he said he didn’t – does he not go around in other people’s cars with these features?) Do you trust your cars computer systems, if you have any? If so have you examined the source code? Is it open?

I suspect most Skeptics would vaccinate their kids because all the science (done by experts) points to it being not alone safe but even if a tinchy bit risky, its acknowledged to be far safer than getting any of the diseases that it prevents.

None of us has the time or training to personally check everything, why change this with the Voting mechanism?

Why are people demanding far far higher standards of a simple E-Voting computer system than virtually any other computer system they use daily? Is it not technophobia?

I don’t remember any movement to check that the current paper system was working OK. Everyone just assumed it was. In fact the paper system was full of flaws and these bothered no one until a computer was introduced into the equation. I would suggest that many of the flaws are now only coming to people’s attention with the introduction of computerised voting. 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.

VVAT will add millions and certainly cause a delay which in itself will cost millions. The last operation to upgrade the polling machines cost something like €2,000 per box and there are 6,000 of them. The paper has to be designed (will it need holograms?), purchased, installed in all 6,000 machines, controlled, stored and presumably counted. Then there most certainly will be a discrepancy between the counted paper votes and the computerised totals what do we do? Count all the paper again and then again like every election ever and come up with a different figure every time. Then what do we do?

People are latching onto VVAT in the same way as they have to supplements and if this nonsense continues the government will take the easy route and waste a few more millions of tax payers money.

Personally I would have gone straight to Internet and ATM’s and probably saved an absolute fortune. It looks like this is the route the UK may take. But the £40,000,000 is spent so we might was well get stuck and use it and not waste any more money.

williamgrogan

If an ATC system fails or is tampered with the effects are hard to ignore and are gone over very carefully (for years and years) by the accident investigators.

If a voting system fails to register some votes (or mis-registers some of them) due to software flaws ………… the problem will not be visible and the problem would go un-noticed, …

There is a contradiction here. If a plane crashes then there is a catastrophic failure and then they examine the system. ATC systems (all computer systems in fact) can and do run for years with bugs that never cause a failure, ditto E-Voting. In the highly unlikely event there was a catastrophic failure then the E-Voting system would have to be examined in the same way and the Minister gets to resign.

But there are two big differences between the 2. ATC=10,000,000 lines of code, E-Voting = a few thousand? E-Voting systems are relatively simple and many orders of magnitude easier to debug and test.

So what if there are “a few votes” missed. At present there are 10,000 in every election that we know of.

williamgrogan

…let's see truly open peer review of the electronic voting process, this is the only way to have trust in the integrity of the process of voting.

We do not have “an open peer review” of ATC systems, car software, bank ATMs, etc.. why do we need it for E-Voting systems? The E-Voting the government has proposed has been tested by independent entities. They have agreed to set up, at more expense, an independent oversight committee. Is that not enough?

I don’t have a problem with more testing but there comes a point when the testing is only being done for the sake of appearances and to placate those who will never be happy.

PS There are now organisations dedicated to stopping nano-technology and I have absolutely no doubt that when NASA’s next major mission to Jupiter, JIMO, becomes widespread public knowledge the anti-nuclear brigade will be out again to try and stop it.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
But these things are tested by experts and you do trust them normally and also by 400,000 voters in Ireland in 2 elections.

All we know is that electronic voting produced some result in past elections, there is no way of verifying that this result has any relationship to how the voters actually voted.

None of us has the time or training to personally check everything, why change this with the Voting mechanism?
Why are people demanding far far higher standards of a simple E-Voting computer system than virtually any other computer system they use daily? Is it not technophobia?

All that needs to be done is to open it up to those who wish to be able to verify the entire system's integrety. I DO NOT trust a few politically appointed people working behind closed doors to do this on my behalf.

I don't remember any movement to check that the current paper system was working OK. Everyone just assumed it was. In fact the paper system was full of flaws and these bothered no one until a computer was introduced into the equation. I would suggest that many of the flaws are now only coming to people’s attention with the introduction of computerised voting. 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.

With the paper system there were a lot of people hanging around at every stage looking for irregularities, that's why some of the past irregularities have come to light !

with the new system about all that is available to the various hangers on is a per polling station breakdown of results.

Personally I would have gone straight to Internet and ATM’s and probably saved an absolute fortune. It looks like this is the route the UK may take. But the £40,000,000 is spent so we might was well get stuck and use it and not waste any more money.

But the system is ****e, pure ****e unless it's accuracy and validity can be assured absolutely.

personally I do not think that a paper audit trail is necessarily a good way to do this but proper INDEPENDENT scrutiny of the entire system, end to end in an open and transparent manner would be a good start.

.Brendan

williamgrogan

It is very difficult to notice an error without a VVAT ….. what procedure would you suggest to guarantee that there were no errors, while also preserving voting secrecy.? VVAT is the best option,

Perhaps you might explain why printing paper can be used to test the system better than its already been tested. If you are not suggesting a test then....

1) do we count all the votes on paper every time, remember if we don’t its still only a test.
2) do we allow the candidates to ask for a re-count of the paper? If so under what conditions?
3) what if the paper and the electronics disagree by say 20 votes? Do we count the paper again? If we do and its now out 50 votes what do we then do? Remember it is bordering on impossible to count by hand accurately. Even with a printed ballot paper there may be votes that are unclear. Printing is also a manual event. No parity checking possible with a printer.
4) How long do we keep VVAT? If no problem crops up for say 10 years can we drop it? If so how do we know that there wasn’t a bug that will only crop up after 11 years?
5) do you really think that counting bits of paper is better than a structured test done using the computers themselves by computer experts?

I suggest that we accept the testing that has already been done. If the oversight committee decide it was inadequate then they can order further tests and controls.

and I'll think you'll agree that we need to be able to guarantee the result of an election is accurate.

It hasn’t been accurate up to now and it hasn’t bothered anyone!

There is an issue here that is worth mentioning. A properly conducted test can prove certain things to a very high degree of accuracy. You do accept that don’t you? If not then all the scientifically conducted studies in the world will not convince you of anything. Tests do convince those that have a scientific bent that proof has been obtained. For those without a scientific bent it doesn’t.

Here’s a moral dilemma. Lets suppose I’m correct and VVAT is useless. Should the government waste millions of tax payers money and print paper knowing that it’s a complete waste of time and will prove nothing, to placate those that are not of a scientific leaning? (Lets assume for the sake of argument that politicians have morals.)

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
We do not have “an open peer review” of ATC systems, car software, bank ATMs, etc.. why do we need it for E-Voting systems? The E-Voting the government has proposed has been tested by independent entities. They have agreed to set up, at more expense, an independent oversight committee. Is that not enough?

ATM machines are 'tested' by the banks, they have strong interests in making sure they are working correctly, the customer has his / her statement, gets a withdrawal slip and if needed has an ombudsman to appeal to. ATM fraud / Error has happened in the past and probably continues to happen on occasion.

Car software is tested by the manufacturers who have strong vested interests in getting it right due to litigation lawyers.

The concern I (and many others ) have with electronic voting is that errors are unlikely to get detected as the system currently stands, there may also be potential for ballot stuffing in an un-traceable manner.

I don’t have a problem with more testing but there comes a point when the testing is only being done for the sake of appearances and to placate those who will never be happy.

I agree but on the other hand I have a rather nice piece of ' research ' which was sent to my grandfather in the mid 50's which concludes that there were no ill effects from smoking. it's not quantity of testing / research it's the quality and openness of same that counts.

.Brendan

williamgrogan

All we know is that electronic voting produced some result in past elections, there is no way of verifying that this result has any relationship to how the voters actually voted

1) Well no one got 1,000,000 votes?
2) No one, to the best of my knowledge objected to the result.
3) No problem of any note cropped up.
4) The voting machines functioned OK.
5) The people controlling them could use them OK.
6) The voters seemed to be happy using them and understood them
7) The results were more or less as expected.

A rather important point to bear in mind is the tests are not done on the basis of a secret ballot.

I DO NOT trust a few politically appointed people working behind closed doors to do this on my behalf.

I thought that was the basis of Parliamentary Democracy?

The people who run Aer Rianta are politically appointed! They control the ATC system, same difference. OK – I propose Bminish for a position on the Oversight Committee.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
1) Well no one got 1,000,000 votes?

So no Gross software errors then, at least not any shown to the public

2) No one, to the best of my knowledge objected to the result.

How can they with no other records or audit trail to prove lack of tampering

3) No problem of any note cropped up.

No real way of noting problems though is there?

4) The voting machines functioned OK.
5) The people controlling them could use them OK.
6) The voters seemed to be happy using them and understood them

so they didn't crash, the GUI is fairly straightforward and the user instructions were on dispaly, fundamental requirements that..

7) The results were more or less as expected.

Not exactly overwhelming proof that every vote was correctly counted though is it?
Let's do away with elections altogether and have a GOV commission to appoint at election time who the MORI opinion polls suggest we want. We could save a bundle that way.

I thought that was the basis of Parliamentary Democracy?

It is, However politicians here and elsewhere have provided ample proof that they are not to be trusted where vested interests are concerned.

Not of course suggesting any of the current crop would ever engage in anything even slightly improper at election time, but why leave the remotest possibility of this option open?

The people who run Aer Rianta are politically appointed! They control the ATC system, same difference.

NOT the same at all, A faulty ATC system does little to help Aer Rianta and is very obvious when it fails !

If you must force this analogy then consider the BTSB or the various politically appointed Co managers positions, I admit this does not involve the trustworthiness and security of computers but if public systems aren't wide open to public scrutiny then systems are only as trustworthy as the people who manage the systems and we haven't the best of track records in that department.

OK – I propose Bminish for a position on the Oversight Committee.

What are the terms

.Brendan

bminish

By the way this poll doesn't seem to be going williamgrogan 's way.... evidence of a flawed electronic voting system perhaps

ecksor

Originally posted by bminish
By the way this poll doesn't seem to be going williamgrogan 's way.... evidence of a flawed electronic voting system perhaps

The polling system on boards has worked successfully and without complaint for years.

williamgrogan

I strongly suspect a dawn raid by the Luddite brigade. I was surprised that a poll on a new and obscure thread went from zero to 30 votes in as many minutes.

However I have been in a minority of 1 before and no doubt will be again. As someone said, when you know something for a fact all the dissenting opinions in the world are irrelevant.

The idea that the best solution to testing and controlling a computer system is a multi-million euro parallel paper system is literally absurd. If it looks like sh1t, smells like sh1t and tastes like sh1t it probably is sh1t.

I actually suspect that VVAT is an April Fools Joke and someone is going to jump up and say gotcha!

However The Pro-VVAT Forum is currently safe from my input due to a bit of private enterprise imposed censorship.

One of the problems with all these “debating” type forums is that the majority of people using them agree with each other.

However, many of you who are now ISS supporters admitted that you were originally fooled by various false philosophies. That was why I posted the question on Chernobyl. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

williamgrogan

Bminish, have you read this post and would you like to comment?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1422335#post1422335

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
However I have been in a minority of 1 before and no doubt will be again.

1? Nobody voted yes.

williamgrogan

Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?
You have already voted on this poll

So you can reset the counter. Hilarious!

A thought struck me reading my again delayed New Scientist of the 14-02-04 which carries a one sided article on E-Voting, (quoting the ever present Ms Mercuri). When voting was first introduced it was even more primitive than it is today. Much of what we now take for granted in the current voting “system” evolved, such as the secret ballot, the PR system, the locked box, the returning officer, the list of electors, everyone voting the same day etc.. As I already said with all new computer systems they too will evolve, become more secure and easier to use via the Internet.

The article also pointed out the much touted 134 “missing votes” out of 10,000 cast in a recent Florida election could simply have been people not voting after registering to do so in the booth. There is no indication of an error.

Some stats:

Only 0.01% of the world’s information is now on paper

100 million Brazilians voted electronically in 2002 and India (pop: ~1,000,000,000) expects its next general election to be fully electronic after a successful test in the last state elections.

williamgrogan

I have linked the MMR vaccine scare to the VVAT scare because I think they are caused by similar woolly thinking. After Wakefield has been embarrassed, to put it mildly, by the Lancet saying they regret printing his research, his supporters didn’t bat an eyelid and continue to claim MMR causes their children’s autism. It seems from the lack of reply to my point that testing the E-Voting computer software also hasn’t impressed the VVAT lobby. Can I ask an obvious question, will any amount of testing and examination of the code by independent experts and monitoring by an oversight committee do? Or do you want VVAT irrespective of any amount of testing and improvements to the security of the system?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
So you can reset the counter. Hilarious!

What? Either you voted the wrong way by mistake or you did that deliberately to sow some confusion. Our system is tested and has performed satisfactorily on thousands of occasions.

williamgrogan

Does Boards.ie use VVAT?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Does Boards.ie use VVAT?

The facility does exist actually, but it doesn't maintain the anonymity of the vote.

williamgrogan

Well it was made quite clear to me that boards.ie is not a democracy and its obviously without free speech so who cares about a secret ballot?

ecksor

Well, it's like the private message facility, we tend not to invade the privacy unless there's very good reason. I was actually surprised to learn that it stored each voter's preference rather than just the fact that they'd voted.

You're perfectly correct though in your point, qualitative arguments decide things around here, not quantitive support.

Syth

Perhaps you might explain why printing paper can be used to test the system better than its already been tested

If every voter is allowed to inspect their vote and verify that it is correct and it is then deposited into a ballot box, then it's like the system is being tested every time it is used. If any mistake occurs anywhere in the country, then we can be made aware of it. That was we would know with 100% accuracy that the election is a true representation of the electorate's intent.

I thought that was the basis of Parliamentary Democracy?

The basis of parlimentary democracy is that the people choose their representatives and they make the decisions. If the current set of represetatives gets to choose the next set of representatives, then that is not democracy.

It hasn’t been accurate up to now and it hasn’t bothered anyone!

OK so the current paper system isn't perfect, and non-VVAT E-Voting would be better, but VVAT E-Voting would be better still, so why don't we switch to that.

williamgrogan, the only real reason you are giving for not having VVAT is the cost. Is there any other reason?

ecksor

On the whole paper thing,

I was told last week that a friend of mine had been to an e-voting conference in Spain and had been told about a non-paper based scheme that the inventor claims gives an acceptable VVAT implementation without paper. Unfortunately I don't have a link to this scheme or much information about it.

Also, on the E-voting forum earlier a link was given to http://www.vreceipt.com/article.pdf which proposes another non-paper based VVAT mechanism.

I'll take a good look at that and offer my comments upon it if anyone cares? Disclaimer: I'm not an expert by any means (yet ) but I have a little bit of experience in recognising glaring issues with security schemes. If either of these systems stands up to rigourous scruting then it may turn out that paper will not be required in, say, 5 years or so.

Sparks

There was a code review performed on the proposed eVoting system now being railroaded through by Cullen. As bonkey pointed out, it's not particularly reassuring.

Further, it takes a fair degree of gullibility to insist that our system is trustworthy when noone knows how it works, and even more gullibility given the record of the Diebold voting machines in the US.

The VVAT is the bare minimum needed for trustworthyness in this system. However Cullen has now stated that the VVAT will specifically be omitted.

williamgrogan

If every voter is allowed to inspect their vote and verify that it is correct and it is then deposited into a ballot box, then it's like the system is being tested every time it is used.

This level of confirmation is not necessary. You CAN inspect the vote you have entered into the E-Voting system before finishing and correct any errors. It is not necessary to print a bit of paper to ensure that a computer has correctly recorded an instruction. In fact if paper had never been invented you would never even consider that as a solution. "Hey how about we chop down some trees, flatten them out and record marks with burnt charcoal and then store the bits of flat crushed trees with the marks and count them all up and compare them to the computer - Doh!”

If every voter is allowed to inspect their vote and verify that it is correct and it is then deposited into a ballot box, then it's like the system is being tested every time it is used.

I have NEVER before heard someone say that they wanted to install a computer system that will have a parallel paper system that will test it on every occasion for ever. I cannot easily compute the exact odds that the E-Voting system will make an error between pressing <Enter> and the vote being stored but because I know it has been written by professional programmers and tested by the likes of the UK Electoral Reform Group & others and will be overseen by an independent committee it must be hundreds of thousands to one and certainly much more accurate than the paper system.

If any mistake occurs anywhere in the country, then we can be made aware of it. That was we would know with 100% accuracy that the election is a true representation of the electorate's intent.

I have addressed this already. You tell us how will VVAT spot mistakes?
100% accuracy, where were you when there was only 98% accuracy?
How can a paper system that itself cannot possibly be 100% accurate test something that can be? That’s like testing the accuracy of a laser operated measuring device by using a wooden ruler.

If the current set of represetatives gets to choose the next set of representatives, then that is not democracy

Ah! Come on! That’s paranoia.

OK so the current paper system isn't perfect, and non-VVAT E-Voting would be better, but VVAT E-Voting would be better still, so why don't we switch to that … the only real reason you are giving for not having VVAT is the cost. Is there any other reason?

Cost is a very good reason. Just as we make nearly all decisions on cost such as; what car to drive, what bottle of wine to drink, what restaurant to eat in, who gets to be operated on and when, the government must make decisions on how many hospitals to build, how much the pension is etc.. (I suspect many on this web site are middle class and do not have to consider what food to eat, but many people do.) You cannot just keep making e-voting more complex and more expensive because of irrational fears.

I most definitely think the system should be properly tested and I am fairly confident it has been but VVAT is not a substitution for proper testing and therefore has no use. If the testing is OK then the probability that the system is at least more accurate than the manual system is extremely high.

Testing is equivalent to doing a Scientific Study and the results of the testing are as valid as the results of a study.

I do sympathise with those of you who “lack faith” in the computer system. But that “lack of faith” is no different than a parent who is unsure whether to vaccinate their child because they cannot compute the very remote risks of MMR damaging them v the benefits of vaccination.

I think an audit system, as suggested by Ecksor, that is part of the electronic system is perfectly acceptable because it will not add significant cost and like the system can be “evolved” into a more powerful system over time. My own system has a completely (well nearly) separate Audit Sub System that is very useful at checking all other sub systems are OK. My own experience is that testing using parallel computer systems is far more satisfactory than printouts. (Incidentally did you know the Space Shuttle has 3 separate computer systems all programmed independently – ironic that the two crashes were caused by stupid human mistakes.)

…when no one knows how it works ….

This is obviously an incorrect statement, the people who wrote it do. Do you know how the software running the MRI scan works when you go into hospital?

Another example of techno-fear that something is too risky to be done is the Cassini Mission. There were demonstrations in the USA when it did its fly bys of Earth on its way to Saturn because people thought that it might crash into Earth and spew radioactive debris all over the place. The odds of this happening were millions to one against and even then very little chance that any actual deaths would occur.

If have seen people cry because I told them I was pro-Nuclear. They literally thought I was mad. Their fear of NP is off the wall. France happily generates 80% of its electricity with it. I told another anti-Sellefield campaigner recently that it was nothing to worry about and he told me I should see a Psychiatrist.

I am reminded by an argument I often make when Creationists say evolution is not proven and that basically all the biologists are wrong. I tell them that they believe the work of Scientists that build airplanes because they fly in them but not Scientists who use the exact same mechanisms but happen to study biology.

A doctor O'Leary from Trinity on the radio this morning said that the risk of MMR damaging your child was less than the risk of being injured in a car crash on the way to the doctor. I would say that the most likely risk to the E-Voting being a total failure on election day because it loses all the votes is about as likely as a nucear bomb going off and the EMP zapping the computers.

I heard today that France is to use the same E-Voting system as us.

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan

This is obviously an incorrect statement, the people who wrote it do.

The dutch company who wrote it and Nathean Technologies, the crowd hired to look at it. Noone else. And that's for build 0111, which won't be the build used in the elections. And build 0111 turned up serious problems at the architectural level, let alone the code. And the code review was done mostly by one man.
So frankly, the statement that noone knows how it works is damn close to accurate. It's certainly true of everyone in this country....

Do you know how the software running the MRI scan works when you go into hospital?

No, but I do know that people have been given cancer because of software errors in PET scanners, and people have been killed in MRI scanners because of stupid human errors (like leaving a metal oxygen tank in the room when the scanner was turned on).

Another example of techno-fear that something is too risky to be done is the Cassini Mission.

Okay, let's get this sorted first. I'm not a luddite. I'm a researcher in a robotics lab in Trinity for crying out loud. If anything, I'm the opposite of a luddite. And noone is saying eVoting isn't a bad thing - they're saying this specific implementation is a bad thing.

And you're ignoring the two problems that everyone else is concerned over:

1) Human Error. We don't know how the source code is set up so we don't know how votes are being counted. Any number of errors could be in that section of the code, and we can't verify for ourselves that that code is correct.

2) Human Malice. Diebold eVoting machines in the US have already been tampered with during live elections. So the machines not only can be fiddled with, they have been fiddled with. And now the same party being hauled through the tribunals for corruption, a party led by a man who is a proven liar, is trying to force through an undetectably corruptable system, with no mechanism for detecting corruption of the results by a malicious party, and primary legislation to prevent the results being challanged even if such tampering was detected.
Is it any wonder people are worried?

Syth

I have addressed this already. You tell us how will VVAT spot mistakes?

A mistake can occur in two ways. Either the machine does not correctly record the voter's intent, or there is a mistake in adding up in the end.

The vote that the system stores is the same as the VVAT result. If the result is not as the voter intended, then the voter will be able to see this, and the mistake will be visible.

By randomly counting the paper result, we can see if there is a mistake. Or if there is an unbelieveable result (such as someone getting 100%), then we can recheck the paper result.

I know cost is a good thing to keep in mind, but I was just wondering if there was some other reason why you were against VVAT.

I disagree that VVAT will cost millions, but I don't have numbers to hand. (What a great argument!)

If you are so concerned about cost then you should recommend that we don't switch to E-Voting, as E-Voting will cost more than the current system.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I think an audit system, as suggested by Ecksor, that is part of the electronic system is perfectly acceptable because it will not add significant cost and like the system can be “evolved” into a more powerful system over time.

I don't know how you're comparing cost, but I'm not suggesting that those solution be adopted until they stand up to scrutiny. Oddly enough you seem to be quite prepared to adopt a technology based solution before it is proven to be adequate, but you're totally against a non-technology based solution that is considered adeqauate.

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have linked the MMR vaccine scare to the VVAT scare because I think they are caused by similar woolly thinking. After Wakefield has been embarrassed, to put it mildly, by the Lancet saying they regret printing his research, his supporters didn’t bat an eyelid and continue to claim MMR causes their children’s autism.

You don't honestly claim to personally have the level of authority that the Lancet does, do you?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Ah! Come on! That’s paranoia.

Others would call it healthy scepticism. Do you believe the spammers who send you e-mails about penis-enlaging pills aswell? And anyway paranoid people have enemies aswell.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
....... Cassini Mission........ ....... Nuclear..... ..... Creationists .....

Wahooo! What does that have to do witht he subject at hand?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I heard today that France is to use the same E-Voting system as us.

Any links? Are they changing over to PR-STV? If they aren't, the aren't using the same system.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
But there are two big differences between the 2. ATC=10,000,000 lines of code, E-Voting = a few thousand?

Well the proposed system claims 200,000+ lines, 70,000 specific to the Irish system - you've got to ask why so much?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The people who run Aer Rianta are politically appointed! They control the ATC system, same difference.

The IAA run ATC, not the AR amateurs.

williamgrogan

I accept that it’s unlikely a Robotic Engineer is a Luddite, but I said there were two categories, Luddites and those (hopefully) temporarily frightened by their argument. I suppose there is a third group, the conspiracy theorists.

1)……… we can't verify for ourselves that that code is correct.

If your robots ever become household pets will we get to see the software? (I sincerely hope you have Asimov’s “you cannot harm or allow ……" rules in them) Now that I think of it much of Science Fiction is devoted to the theme that people are frightened of robots. Do you envisage an anti-robot crusade? No doubt the Labout Party and Trade Unionists will object to their jobs being taken.

I am not opposed to testing, I’m not even particularly opposed to open source or experts being allowed look at the software but that’s a task for the oversight committee. VVAT, which means every machine has to have a printer and a contraption to guide the ballot via a window and into a box and then we have to deal with the 7000 boxes and count them etc.. all that will not be of any practical use in testing the software beyond what could be accomplished by a normal software test.

As regards cost; 7000 by say 1000 for a reliable clear printing high volume printer & Mercuri system contraption is €7,000,000 before we count the ongoing hardware maintenance, the box, paper, the storage and the counting. I have yet to see any suggestion as to when and what we count. Someone helpfully suggested counting when the vote was over 100% of the electorate.

2) Diebold eVoting machines in the US have already been tampered with during live elections. So the machines not only can be fiddled with, they have been fiddled with.

If you read through the www on any topic whether it’s Homeopathy, Fluoridation, Chernobyl or anti-Vaccine you will generally find more anti’s than pro’s. At a cursory glance you would be forgiven for been frightened out of your wits. Joe in another forum stated that he had to leave Ireland to get away from Fluoridated water. Are you making the same mistake? Unless you were a seasoned Skeptic and had read about the MMR controversy, a quick read of an anti-MMR site would create a reasonable doubt about the safety of MMR.

The same applies to the scaremongering by the anti-E-Voting & pro-VVAT sites. However look at one figure being bandied around by the VVAT people, “134 votes went missing in a Florida count”. Now read this.

''It's incomprehensible that 134 people went to the polls and didn't cast votes,'' said Lieberman, who served on the canvassing board that oversaw Tuesday night's count.

But the winning candidate, Ellyn Bogdanoff, said she attributes at least some of the undervote to Democrats who reached the polls and realized all the candidates were Republicans.

Is this not a perfectly logical answer that does not indicate any problem with the machines? The 2nd paragraph puts a different perspective on the matter.

Diebold: 13,000 staff worldwide. They make ATM’s, “burglar proof safes”, Alarm Systems, card swipe/security systems and write software besides making hundreds of thousands of E-Voting machines. Like 99% of the Irish population I never heard of Diebold until very recently.

Anyone who produces this much product & employs that many people is going to give the opportunity to a crusader to find some problems.

Some of the allegations are silly; investigators were able to guess passwords to gain access and tamper with machines. That is not imho a problem with the machines but a problem with the dummies. The same type of stupidity could and does occur when people leave the keys in their car and have them stolen when popping into the shop. Is that the car security’s fault? I still say a DRE is far safer than a wooden box and I think most reasonable people would agree. You don’t need a degree in IT to open a box and steal the votes.

http://www.diebold.com/

And now the same party being hauled through the tribunals for corruption, a party led by a man who is a proven liar, is trying to force through an undetectably corruptable system, with no mechanism for detecting corruption of the results by a malicious party, and primary legislation to prevent the results being challanged even if such tampering was detected.

Obviously not a FF supporter are you? Neither am I but I have to admit that the economy in Ireland is in amazing shape, people of our previously bankrupt, poor, sick, 100,000 emigrants a year (I was one myself) asset-less state are now the richest people in Europe. Personally I think this success is entirely due to Bertie and Charlie (with a little bit of help from the brains & scruples behind the operation, the PD’s). BTW, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate with someone who has never lied! I think to suggest that the present generation of FF TD’s would in a conspiratorial manner try and rig Ireland’s next General Election tells us what level of paranoia you are coming from.

Is it any wonder people are worried?

People worrying is not evidence of anything except their ignorance. I saw an article recently where the writer pointed out that people in the affluent West were more worried about illness than those in Aids stricken Africa. It is well accepted by any time served ISS type that the worrying is mostly caused by the inability to calculate risk. Again a link to fear of MMR. Same thing.

Am I getting anywhere?

***Newsflash*** Martin Cullen admits on RTE News this morning, "I am not an idiot". See I told you.

williamgrogan

I think that Ecksor should make it quite clear to the other posters in the E-Voting forum that he banned me from posting. I do not think they realise this.

There are people making comments to points I raised before I was banned who may erroneously think that I am not replying because I accept their attempted rebuttals. I would also be surprised if Shane Hogan of the Labour Party would continue to post there if he thought I was banned.

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I suppose there is a third group, the conspiracy theorists.

So because I note that the ruling party in this country has a long history of corruption, that the leader of that party is a known liar, that eVoting machines in other countries have been proven to have been manipulated in live elections and without detection at the time, and that no-one here other than a very small group of people (less than a hundred by quite a margin) know how the innards of the proposed eVoting machines work, and that even that few have pointed out serious security concerns, I'm a conspiracy theorist?
I don't think so, I think I'm just seeing what everyone else is seeing - a system with very serious, very valid security concerns being railroaded through Dail Eireann despite protests on all sides, and with primary legislation to prevent the results of that system being challanged in court.

If your robots ever become household pets will we get to see the software?

http://freeio.org/
http://www.orocos.org/
And JPL is releasing their software under an open source licence soon. Meanwhile, every major robotics research lab outside Japan will happily send you a copy of their software if you're interested in it, because that's what marks the successful software in this field - how many people use it.
And most experimental robots these days run linux anyway.

No doubt the Labout Party and Trade Unionists will object to their jobs being taken.

A real-life concern raised all over the world at different points in time by different groups, though so far not an especially serious one, since manufacturing always needs people.

I am not opposed to testing, I’m not even particularly opposed to open source or experts being allowed look at the software but that’s a task for the oversight committee.

Actually, it's a matter for us. It's our government, our electoral system, and our country. Not six or seven men sitting round a table elected by the people they're meant to be overseeing.

VVAT, which means every machine has to have a printer and a contraption to guide the ballot via a window and into a box and then we have to deal with the 7000 boxes and count them etc.. all that will not be of any practical use in testing the software beyond what could be accomplished by a normal software test.

Agreed. It will, however, be highly effective as a safeguard against manipulating the counts. Electronic memory is easily and undetectably modified - ink on paper is somewhat harder to change.

Unless you were a seasoned Skeptic and had read about the MMR controversy, a quick read of an anti-MMR site would create a reasonable doubt about the safety of MMR.
The same applies to the scaremongering by the anti-E-Voting & pro-VVAT sites.

I suppose it could. I'll just have to make do with my computer engineering and maths degrees and what I've learnt from my not-yet-completed PhD to let me discern what's a real and what's an imagined problem.

Diebold: 13,000 staff worldwide. They make ATM’s, “burglar proof safes”, Alarm Systems, card swipe/security systems and write software besides making hundreds of thousands of E-Voting machines. Like 99% of the Irish population I never heard of Diebold until very recently.
Anyone who produces this much product & employs that many people is going to give the opportunity to a crusader to find some problems.

Why do I get the distinct impression that this is the first time you've heard of the most notorious name in electronic voting?

Some of the allegations are silly; investigators were able to guess passwords to gain access and tamper with machines.

Firstly, that's all they'd have to do with our proposed system - the architectural review pointed out that the database used (Microsoft Access 97 no less :rolleyes:) is not encrypted and the password protecting it is not properly set up.

That is not imho a problem with the machines

Actually it is - especially since you're not telling the exact story. What happened was not that investigators hacked into the evoting machines, what happened was that they hacked into Diebold's own office computers, and downloaded several hundred megabytes of files, files which were taken by diebold out of the evoting machines during a live election in violation of federal law, but without being detected.
Gotta love wireless modems, no?

I still say a DRE is far safer than a wooden box and I think most reasonable people would agree. You don’t need a degree in IT to open a box and steal the votes.

True - but you can't tell when someone with a degree in IT has altered the results electronically. The prybar marks and broken lock and unconcious gardai, however, tend to give the game away with paper boxes....

Obviously not a FF supporter are you?

It would be hard to be a supported of the party that put our economy in the state it was in in the 1980s, nearly started an all-out war with the UK, gave the IRA their start-up capital and a hundred other criminal or unethical acts over the years of varying severity.

Neither am I but I have to admit that the economy in Ireland is in amazing shape, people of our previously bankrupt, poor, sick, 100,000 emigrants a year (I was one myself) asset-less state are now the richest people in Europe.

They've become citizens of luxemburg?

And for the record, FF didn't turn the economy around, ordinary workers did. Frankly, had FF not been skimming so much off the top, I think we'd have seen economic recovery a good decade earlier.

I think to suggest that the present generation of FF TD’s would in a conspiratorial manner try and rig Ireland’s next General Election tells us what level of paranoia you are coming from.

So substitute SF for FF if you wish. SF have, after all, a proven record of rigging elections in the North, and it's the same party down here. I don't personally believe it's necessary, but go ahead if it makes it easier to objectify the argument for you.

People worrying is not evidence of anything except their ignorance.

Except when they're professionally qualified in the subject area. Which is another reason why this isn't like the MMR debate. In that debate, virtually every qualified doctor was saying the anti-MMR research was sloppy and the claims unfounded. Here, the opposite is true.

Am I getting anywhere?

I'm afraid not.

***Newsflash*** Martin Cullen admits on RTE News this morning, "I am not an idiot". See I told you.

Never attribute to malice what incompetence is sufficent to explain.
And now Cullen's ruled out incompetence?

williamgrogan

My son made a point. If someone say pickpockets the official and steals his two keys (or is it one key each from two officials?) and after whatever start of day validation is run and when no one is looking bypasses whatever security there is re loading new programs and loads on the program that is a duplicate of the one running except bent and the DRE has VVAT then he can make the corrupt program alter the votes in favour of a particular candidate BUT print the selection that the voter actually wanted. Then the voter walks out happy that his vote was recorded correctly but it wasn’t. Unless we count all the paper votes always and compare them to the electronic votes always we will never catch this. This of course totally defeats the purpose of electronic voting. (BTW, afterwards our hacker who is facing several years in prison if caught has to replace the original program for end of day checking.) This has to be repeated on every DRE or the effect would be negligible.

Syth

If your disaster scenario happend then if someone appealed the result, we could find out the flaw, if we had no VVAT we would not be able to see the mistake and we would have to accept the result.

As you can see VVAT gives us an extra level of security.

Another thing about VVAT it make the system more transparent to the electorate. People have trust in the system. They know it works. If people can't trust an voting system (either paper or electrical) then they probably won't vote. VVAT gives the voter resassurance.

williamgrogan

So because I note that the ruling party in this country has a long history of corruption ………

The Party hasn’t, some of the individuals in it have been involved at times over the last 20 years of taking money and not declaring it. There have been maybe 5 FF TD’s and a handful of Local Councillors that are bent. There are thousands of members in FF who are not corrupt and FF consistently get 40% of the vote from the electorate who know all this. Less then what .01% are bent? FG has bent Councillors and TD’s as well. SF …….. well I have to be careful after the latest kidnapping. Your summary is a ridiculous exaggeration and completely OTT, which is consistent with “anti” crusades.

I'll just have to make do with my computer engineering and maths degrees

That didn’t stop Wakefield!

Are you suggesting that all people with IT & Maths degrees are immune from falling for scams, scare stories and conspiracy theories? Joe my friend who is anti-Fluoridation, anti-MMR etc.. is a teacher and has a degree.

It would be hard to be a supported of the party that put our economy in the state it was in in the 1980s

So you are not a socialist either? The electorate obviously fell for their policies. They were voted in. Lots of Economists with degrees think governments should spend more.

They've become citizens of luxemburg

Nit picker, 2nd then. 20 years ago we were probably the poorest.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
My son made a point. If someone say pickpockets the official and steals his two keys (or is it one key each from two officials?) and after whatever start of day validation is run and when no one is looking bypasses whatever security there is re loading new programs and loads on the program that is a ....

Yes but this isn't the only way things could get messed with, here are a few other more plausable scenarios

scenario 1
Faulty software on some machines, votes get lost or preference information gets corrupted. No audit trail (paper or otherwise ) so how is it even detected ?

Scenario 2
Security around machines isn't so good beforehand and machines get pre-loaded with votes. Unlike a paper ballot box it cannot be inspected at the start of the polls

Scenario 3
count center software gets manipulated with, there are many subtle ways in which the outcome of an election can be rigged, this would not necessarily be some random hacker, fixing an election is worth lots of money. without an audit trail there would be no proof of wrongdoing and it might even happen with tacit co-operation of election officials, how can others tell if software has been tampered with if they have no access to it?

Scenario 4
partial results 'leaked' before voting has stopped, this could have a dramatic impact, this has already happened with the Diebold system in the US.


The overall computer security and integrity of the system that the Irish Government are trying to foist on us has not been sufficiently tested or explored by suitably qualified and independent security experts.
This is the basis of my objection to Electronic voting in the form that FF want us to use and you have offered no real counter to these points.

.Brendan

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I still say a DRE is far safer than a wooden box and I think most reasonable people would agree.

Metal box, with lock and seals.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You don’t need a degree in IT to open a box and steal the votes.

No, but you have to get past the polling staff and the garda at the polling station or the armed gardaí while in transit or at the count centre.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have to admit that the economy in Ireland is in amazing shape, people of our previously bankrupt, poor, sick, 100,000 emigrants a year (I was one myself) asset-less state are now the richest people in Europe. Personally I think this success is entirely due to Bertie and Charlie ...

You confuse income with wealth. And the boom, if you speak to an economist is large due to Bertie and Charlie riding a demographic and technological wave, not their "excelllent" economic strategy.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
***Newsflash*** Martin Cullen admits on RTE News this morning, "I am not an idiot". See I told you.

Maybe not an idiot, but he admits to being computer illiterate.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
My son made a point. If someone say pickpockets the official and steals his two keys (or is it one key each from two officials?)

There appears to be only one key. Given the lax security at the public displays, I could have had "acquired" several copies by today.

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

As many as 20 seats in the last election were decided by less than 50 votes. All you would have to do is alter a few machines. Also how would the officials be able to check all 7000 machines at the start and close of polling to make sure the right software was there (as opposed to the wrong software saying it was the right software).

williamgrogan

Another thing about VVAT it make the system more transparent to the electorate. People have trust in the system. They know it works. If people can't trust an voting system (either paper or electrical) then they probably won't vote. VVAT gives the voter resassurance.

I do not believe that people today have to see a screen that indicates how they voted AND a printed piece of paper through a window to trust a computer system. I already pointed out that the printed paper can say one thing and the recorded vote stored something different. Once the voter knows this then that element of VVAT is useless. In fact the whole “Mercuri Window into ballot box” thing is useless. It proves nothing.

Furthermore, the same can be said about the 3 separate vaccines v the MMR. People would have trusted it more, it would have cost more, worked less well and then the whole idea has become discredited anyway.

The problem with all the scenarios and all your arguments is the same. All systems have flaws. All systems that are better than the one the government picked are in turn worse than some other system ad infinitum. All security has holes. What about the risks?

For the outcome of an election to be changed the following must be considered….

Bugs:

If there are bug/s that will cause an actual problem. The vast majority of bugs or sloppy code never cause a problem. I remember reading once that Windows 98 when released had 60,000 KNOWN bugs.
Bugs that cause cosmetic or hiccup type problems don’t matter
Bugs are like mutations then have no sense of purpose. A bug that gives say 5% of FF votes to FG and that this makes a difference to the outcome are bordering on impossible. These weird bugs could just as easily also give back 5% of the FG votes to FF or give them to Screaming Lord Such and be exposed straightaway.
That a bug that causes a problem is of its nature not detectable by testing by the programmer, his superiors and outside testing agencies
That the bug escapes detection in the trial runs here and in other countries
That a bug is only minor enough or causes a problem that falls within a narrow range so that it’s not detected in the results. A bug that totally screws up is actually no harm from one perspective as the election would be declared invalid and re-run. Money is lost and Ministers resign but we just have another election.

Fraud

That the election will be close, i.e. if it’s not fiddled within a reasonable % of the opinion polls its unlikely to work. In the next election no one is going to believe that SF can fairly get 51% of the vote. Not even SF.
That those wishing to subvert it know this in advance and which constituencies it will be close
That there are constituencies that can be influenced to some effect
That there exists people with the will & the money to subvert it – does anyone really think that there are people in Ireland that are that concerned as to who runs the country?
That they have the expertise or can get it without it becoming known
Conspiracies are very difficult to maintain, especially if too many people get involved
That no one talks or gets a conscience
That the basic human security can be overcome, the Garda, the officers, the public
That they can devise a workable plan, i.e. to load a bogus program they would almost certainly need to have the original source code and that they supplier didn’t know they had it.
They then have to get at the DRE’s or the counting PCs, even to do this they have to get into the relevant buildings. A voter cannot hang around a polling booth waiting for an opportunity to hack into a DRE
That the scam works
That the scam is not detected
That they don’t mind going to jail.
Whoever is voted in only gets to stay 5 years

I think that the VVAT issue is only a stick with which to beat the E-Voting idea with. It’s similar to the argument that maybe vaccination itself is not dangerous but the preservatives that are in it are. VVAT on the face of it is an absurd idea. Paper to validate a computer. Come on, seriously? To validate a computer system with “paper” is obviously silly. You don’t need a degree in Nuclear Physics to figure that out.

The parallels between MMR and VVAT are amazing. I just thought of another. The UK Government were under a lot of pressure to change from MMR to three at a time jabs (actually 3 jabs by 2 doses = 6 visits) single jabs. From a cursory glance that seems quite reasonable. The separate 3 jabs are every bit as good and would placate the anti-MMR brigade. It would of course cost approximately 3 times as much. Why not then? Why not VVAT? No downside except cost?

The reason is that children who do not get all the jabs at the same time are not immunised for longer periods and far more importantly there is statistically a higher probability that some parents will find it more difficult to go through the extra visits so less children will be properly vaccinated. In 90 countries where MMR is available, no country gives out the single jabs. Furthermore the government decided in so far as there was no proof that MMR was dangerous and much proof that even if it was it was so low as to be below detectable level that it would be wrong if them to do it for an incorrect reason. Ditto VVAT.

I am delighted that the Minister has adopted the same reasoning with the daft VVAT suggestion. He is as right as Michael Martin is regarding standing up to far worse pressure over his totally sensible smoking legislation. Cullen also ignored calls from an obvious FF mountainy man in Noel O’Flynn from Cork North Central who demanded VVAT. From the sound of him, Noel wouldn’t know a Game Boy from a male prostitute or a PC from a sexist comment.

VVAT - An Irish solution to an Irish problem. To be sure, to be sure!

Stats:

18 TD’s were elected in the current Dail with less than the number of spoiled votes(and the returning office said that the vast majority of spoiled votes were accidents) .

Have any of you considered that your opposition to E-Voting and this VVAT nonsense may undermine confidence and result in a pause on E-Voting for a generation? We would then loose all the advantages:

End of randomness when transferring votes
Increased security and a reduction to vanishing levels of corruption as the technology develops
Internet based voting
Possible dumping of all votes in detail on the net – would be fascinating to those who like data (I’m one of those sad types).
…. And who knows what else?

You are risking throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I am especially critical of those claiming to work in IT. We all know that many people who “work in IT” are little more than operators & coders and have no systems design experience and haven’t actually been out of their cots and are not in a position to put themselves forward as “IT Experts”.

Why VVAT? Is VVAT now the focus of Luddism? When E-Voting first became a public issue a few weeks ago there were many reasons put forward to oppose it; general anti-technology, pro-“the fun of the counting night”, power failures, loss of the spoiled vote, secrecy (particularly in connection with the spoiled vote), hacking, faulty software, the Dutch angle, FF crooks, testing of software and of course VVAT. I would suspect that any anti-brigade will come up with many ideas to oppose change BUT will tend towards focusing on one or two reasons after some argument. They are REALLY opposed to the technology itself and use the now focused on excuse as the mechanism to stop it. The VVAT issue could still stop the introduction of E-Voting for a generation. MMR almost completely settled on the link with Autism with anti-E-Voting with VVAT.

Ask yourself, “Am I being suckered into supporting VVAT and as a consequence really supporting the opposition to progress?

PS

All you would have to do is alter a few machines

You wouldn't know which machines in advance of the information about the close result.

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You wouldn't know which machines in advance of the information about the close result.

You could have a very good idea, based on previous results and polls. All one would have to do is shift maybe 50-100 votes on one machine in each of a few marginal constituencies.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Less then what .01% are bent?

This compares with accusations about 20% of the 1987-1989 cabinet.

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The Party hasn’t, some of the individuals in it have been involved at times over the last 20 years of taking money and not declaring it. ... Less then what .01% are bent?

It's a lot more than 0.01%, and it's the top few percent at that.

Your summary is a ridiculous exaggeration and completely OTT, which is consistent with “anti” crusades.

It's also supported by historical fact.

Are you suggesting that all people with IT & Maths degrees are immune from falling for scams, scare stories and conspiracy theories? Joe my friend who is anti-Fluoridation, anti-MMR etc.. is a teacher and has a degree.

"Joe your mate" is required to have a degree. The requirement doesn't state in what. It could be a BA in paranormal studies for all the H.Dip. cares.

Those points aside, I notice you haven't addressed my actual argument, just the trimmings around it. Care to rectify that?

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I do not believe that people today have to see a screen that indicates how they voted AND a printed piece of paper through a window to trust a computer system.

They don't want to see both to trust the computer system - they want both to trust the human part of the system.

I already pointed out that the printed paper can say one thing and the recorded vote stored something different. Once the voter knows this then that element of VVAT is useless. In fact the whole “Mercuri Window into ballot box” thing is useless. It proves nothing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If the VVAT does not agree with the internal database, the discrepency can be detected.

The problem with all the scenarios and all your arguments is the same. All systems have flaws.

And yet, the government is introducing both a system that takes no account of this and legislation to prevent legal challanges to the results of that system in the event of corruption or error.

If there are bug/s that will cause an actual problem. The vast majority of bugs or sloppy code never cause a problem.

If that's an acceptable solution to your way of thinking, then you don't really need a vote in the first place, because you'll accept any old half-assed solution.

A bug that gives say 5% of FF votes to FG and that this makes a difference to the outcome are bordering on impossible.

And yet, they've happened in live elections in the states and not detected until after the election. Thus proving that they need to be kept in mind.

That a bug that causes a problem is of its nature not detectable by testing by the programmer, his superiors and outside testing agencies

That's simply not true. Software can be debugged. Open source software is debugged fastest because there are more people looking at it.

That the election will be close, i.e. if it’s not fiddled within a reasonable % of the opinion polls its unlikely to work. In the next election no one is going to believe that SF can fairly get 51% of the vote. Not even SF.

And yet every political pundit is predicting a massive increase in the SF seats taken in this eleciton and the next general election. So how do we know if they really got 40% or only 25%?

That those wishing to subvert it know this in advance and which constituencies it will be close

Or simply change the numbers on the day, as was shown to be completely possible in the states remotely using radio modems.

That there exists people with the will & the money to subvert it – does anyone really think that there are people in Ireland that are that concerned as to who runs the country?

Yes. They're called politicians. How can you argue on one line that SF are not to be trusted and on the next that noone is that bothered?

That they have the expertise or can get it without it becoming known
Conspiracies are very difficult to maintain, especially if too many people get involved

In the Arms Trials of the 1970s, we had over a hundred troops deployed in northern ireland, over the border. No-one knew about it outside the army, civil defence and government - and it's not mentioned in too many history books even today.
CJH's providing the seed capital for the IRA isn't covered too well either.
And to point out the classical biggie, noone knows who shot JFK...

That the basic human security can be overcome, the Garda, the officers, the public

Been done in the states. Radio modem. Go look it up.

That they can devise a workable plan, i.e. to load a bogus program they would almost certainly need to have the original source code and that they supplier didn’t know they had it.

You're assuming that there's noone in the original supplier who's corruptable. Since most humans are, that's a bit of a stretch. They're a private sector company anyway.

They then have to get at the DRE’s or the counting PCs, even to do this they have to get into the relevant buildings. A voter cannot hang around a polling booth waiting for an opportunity to hack into a DRE

Radio modem. Go look it up.

Whoever is voted in only gets to stay 5 years

Unless they're returned to power every five years....

I think that the VVAT issue is only a stick with which to beat the E-Voting idea with.

No, it's not. VVAT is a good idea, and so is eVoting - it's this particular system that's the problem.

VVAT on the face of it is an absurd idea. Paper to validate a computer. Come on, seriously? To validate a computer system with “paper” is obviously silly. You don’t need a degree in Nuclear Physics to figure that out.

Wrong. VVAT validates the results, not the computer.

Why not VVAT? No downside except cost?

VVAT is required for ensuring the result is not comprimised. It's like car insurance - hopefully you'll never need it, but it's needed so badly when you do need it, that it's illegal to drive without it.

I am delighted that the Minister has adopted the same reasoning with the daft VVAT suggestion.

He's incorrect, and so are you. And that's a professional opinion from a qualified computer engineer. And I'd not be alone in giving that opinion.
Can you say your opinion is a professional one from a qualified person?

From the sound of him, Noel wouldn’t know a Game Boy from a male prostitute or a PC from a sexist comment.

The same can be said of many in Government, including Bertie himself, who has no college degree in this area, no postgraduate degree in this area, in fact no formal education in this area whatsoever.

VVAT - An Irish solution to an Irish problem. To be sure, to be sure!

Actually, it's not an Irish solution, it was thought of elsewhere.

18 TD’s were elected in the current Dail with less than the number of spoiled votes(and the returning office said that the vast majority of spoiled votes were accidents) .

That's irrelevant to the VVAT issue.
As to the spoilt votes issue, noone wants the right to spoil their vote. They want the right to vote None of the Above, which is a valid choice.

Have any of you considered that your opposition to E-Voting and this VVAT nonsense may undermine confidence and result in a pause on E-Voting for a generation? We would then loose all the advantages:

Please point out one person who's saying that eVoting is a bad idea, as opposed to saying that this particular system is a bad one.

End of randomness when transferring votes

The proposed system does not eliminate randomness - it simulates it to preserve randomness in the vote transferral process - and because you can't challange a result, you can't have a recount which would, because of the algorithim, be different, as we saw in the General Election.

Increased security and a reduction to vanishing levels of corruption as the technology develops

That's not the case right now.

Internet based voting

And that's not impossible, but if we got a secure internet voting system to work properly, it would be the first time in computing's 50 year history that any large or complex networked system worked securely.
Let me reiterate.
First time ever.
Including financial systems and military systems with dedicated lines.

I am especially critical of those claiming to work in IT. We all know that many people who “work in IT” are little more than operators & coders and have no systems design experience and haven’t actually been out of their cots and are not in a position to put themselves forward as “IT Experts”.

If you're going to take potshots at other people's professional reputations I think you need to give details of your qualifications first. After all, how do we know you're not a 15-year-old kid on his father's computer?

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
My son made a point. If someone say pickpockets the official and steals his two keys (or is it one key each from two officials?) and after whatever start of day validation is run and when no one is looking bypasses whatever security there is re loading new programs and loads on the program that is a duplicate of the one running except bent and the DRE has VVAT then he can make the corrupt program alter the votes in favour of a particular candidate BUT print the selection that the voter actually wanted. Then the voter walks out happy that his vote was recorded correctly but it wasn’t. Unless we count all the paper votes always and compare them to the electronic votes always we will never catch this. This of course totally defeats the purpose of electronic voting. (BTW, afterwards our hacker who is facing several years in prison if caught has to replace the original program for end of day checking.) This has to be repeated on every DRE or the effect would be negligible.

Firstly, it has already happened in the US that the software was replaced at the last minute with no oversight whatsoever. It wasn't even detected for over a fortnight.
Secondly, you've just given a prime reason why the VVAT is necessary. Of course it'll be checked if the results are in any way suspect. In fact for this election (or whatever one is the first eVoting election), the candidates will all be demanding recounts. Is that wasteful and time-consuming? Yes. Could we do it cheaper and faster? Sure, we could appoint Bertie dictator-for-life. But instead, we choose a representative democracy. The pricetag is part of the cost of that decision. And just remember - had the government done this right the first time, we wouldn't be seventy grand in the hole allready.

williamgrogan

They don't want to see both to trust the computer system - they want both to trust the human part of the system. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the VVAT does not agree with the internal database, the discrepency can be detected.

But the printout does NOT prove their vote was recorded as displayed on the paper as per my previous argument. Furthermore whether or not it did, only the pro-VVAT are pushing this, the ordinary punter would never even have though of it. This is an invention of a paranoid. Belt & braces.

I just realised it will increase further the time it takes to vote and cause queues. What happens when people say that what is on the paper is not what the entered (because they actually made a mistake?) Do we have a shredder in the loop?

If that's an acceptable solution to your way of thinking, then you don't really need a vote in the first place, because you'll accept any old half-assed solution

This is a sanctimonious statement. You who are without bugs cast the first stone.

You obviously are a big fan of Open Source. Good, I think it has merits but it is not essential. The VAST majority of the world’s commercial software is not and I suspect never will be open source.

Please give me details for all anecdotal evidence you use as the one I could check (the 134 “missing” votes in Florida) did not impress me and leaves me to believe that I am getting, as is usual from the anti-MMR brigade, distorted “stories”.

When CJD “supplied the seed capital for the IRA” a very large % of the male population of Ireland were not too far away from going over the border themselves. I don’t know what age you are but anyone of my age can remember the brutality of the Unionists and as an 18 year old I discussed “going over the border”. Believe me I’m not a Sinner. You know of the burning of the British Embassy & even the British Rail office in Cork and the crowds that turned up.

This brings up an important point. The biggest treat to democracy is not and is unlikely to be the voting mechanism. There are many other events that are far more likely that could undermine it. As I said a complete cock up with the E-Voting will just mean a re-run of the election and a lot of embarrassed faces.

As you “dismiss” each point of my list of conditions necessary you omit a rather important point. The MULTIPLICATION of the probabilities is rather important. Individually one can see how the individual conditions may break down but the odds have to be compounded. Someone in Ohio might get the keys from a lazy official, someone in DC might get a password, someone in Boston might get access to the DRE etc.. but the odds of all these things happening in one place are very large, particularly as you are pointing out mainly ACCIDENTAL security breaches that we know about afterwards. The probability that something “can” happen that did is certainty. In other words, how can you plan to say corrupt Cork Nth Central on the basis of a lazy official vis a vis his password when the headlines the day after the election point out the lazy official was in Leitrim, not to mention that the close call between the last seat between SF and FF was in Kerry?

“Private sector companies” pay for most of the upkeep of the universities. Their employees pay the tax that pays the balance.

Unless they're returned to power every five years

My point was they would have to organise this fantastic conspiracy every 5 years, minimum.

Wrong. VVAT validates the results, not the computer

It doesn't validate anything.

Car Insurance, its more like replacing the air bag with cotton wool on the basis that you don’t trust the computer to inflate the airbag.

The reports of SF “cheating” in NI has to be taken in the context of the undemocratic partition of Ireland. As far as I know there is no evidence that they have cheated in the Republic.

He's incorrect, and so are you. And that's a professional opinion from a qualified computer engineer. And I'd not be alone in giving that opinion.
Can you say your opinion is a professional one from a qualified person?

I was writing computer software when you were in nappies.

None of the government can have degrees in everything, so that point is irrelevant. Have you ever wondered why so few Engineers are in power, anywhere?

“None of the above”, is rubbish. It is literally essential to elect a government to run the country. If we all did that THEN you would have a constitutional problem. As has been pointed out many people died to get you the right to vote. It is not a “valid choice” under the law.

I have pointed out that attacking E-Voting via the VVAT is attacking E-Voting but just using this spurious argument. Same as the anti-MMR brigade cite Autism. The use of anecdotal evidence on which a spin has been placed is also similar.

No Democratic candidates – no wonder 134 people walked away without voting.

One of the biggest differences between the theoretical view of reality that exists in universities and the business world is that businesses, and that includes the E-Voting companies and their products, and the politicians have to live in the real world. Perfect systems don’t exist. Perfect systems based on the intellectual & philosophical teachings of Lenin failed totally and en passant killed millions.

Why didn’t you Open Source/Linux/anti-MS/IT Experts present the government 10 years ago with an E-Voting fait a complet?

The IT people I refer to are people who are making technical comments outside their expertise but putting themselves across in a way that may fool people. I am not referring to the “experts” who I accept know about this and have though about it a lot. There are experts in medicine that support Acupuncture, Dentists that replace Amalgam fillings, Scientists that cause MMR scares......

If “the people” or the political parties were intrinsically crooked and cheated as a matter of course then you couldn’t have a democracy in the first place.

Firstly, it has already happened in the US that the software was replaced at the last minute with no oversight whatsoever. It wasn't even detected for over a fortnight.

Could I have details? I suspect that this was not case a not of hacking.

€70,000.???

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
But the printout does NOT prove their vote was recorded as displayed on the paper as per my previous argument.

That's the whole point of the VVAT. The VVAT is what the voter voted, recorded on paper, immutable. It provides an independent mechanism to verify the results. It does not act as a debugging tool for the electronic system - that's not it's function.

Furthermore whether or not it did, only the pro-VVAT are pushing this, the ordinary punter would never even have though of it.

Would the "ordinary punter" have thought of eVoting?

I just realised it will increase further the time it takes to vote and cause queues. What happens when people say that what is on the paper is not what the entered (because they actually made a mistake?) Do we have a shredder in the loop?

The idea with VVAT is that you make your selections on the screen and confirm them: then the VVAT is printed and you cross-check. If the two don't match, you stop the election because there's a serious bug in the software.

You obviously are a big fan of Open Source. Good, I think it has merits but it is not essential. The VAST majority of the world’s commercial software is not and I suspect never will be open source.

But commercial software is not what eVoting software should be.
And there's more open source software in commercial software than you might thing. Unix, don't forget, at least in it's BSD variant, was written using an open source model, and it runs most of the major systems out there.

Please give me details for all anecdotal evidence you use as the one I could check (the 134 “missing” votes in Florida) did not impress me and leaves me to believe that I am getting, as is usual from the anti-MMR brigade, distorted “stories”.

Here we go:
Evoting software patched without oversight in Georgia election. More details, including the actual code involved.

Here are the Ken Clark memos about "end runs around the system" and "King County is famous for it":
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/greatesthits/Oct2001msg00118.html
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/greatesthits/Oct2001msg00122.html
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/greatesthits/Oct2001msg00124.html

In fact, here are the source documents for a lot of the claims, including legal documents pointing out how a key developer in the developing of the diebold evoting systems had a criminal record for 23 counts of embezzlement and was imprisoned from 1991 to 1995.

Here are instructions for rigging an election using diebold machines.

Here's a news article on how the CEO of diebold said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." and then went on to raise and donate thousands of dollars to the republican party.

And here's the slashdot story (with links to source documents) on the security problems in the diebold systems from those who gained access to the source code.

Here is a small compendium of news articles on incorrect tallying in electronic voting systems in the states.

Okay. Can we agree I've presented enough sources to prove my statements were true?

And why are diebold so important? Well, guess what they run their system on? Yup, you guessed it - the same Access database that the proposed nedap system uses. Meaning it's quite relevant.

you are pointing out mainly ACCIDENTAL security breaches that we know about afterwards.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out deliberate security breaches that were just not exploited so far as we know. They're still highly illegal under federal law mind you.

how can you plan to say corrupt Cork Nth Central on the basis of a lazy official vis a vis his password when the headlines the day after the election point out the lazy official was in Leitrim, not to mention that the close call between the last seat between SF and FF was in Kerry?

Neither of those statements have much bearing on a deliberate effort to subvert the evoting system.

“Private sector companies” pay for most of the upkeep of the universities. Their employees pay the tax that pays the balance.

No, they don't. At least not in the one I work in.

My point was they would have to organise this fantastic conspiracy every 5 years, minimum.

And mine is that it's not that much to organise, compared to dropping over a hundred armed troops in plain clothes into another country.

It doesn't validate anything.

How can you say that? VVAT records the input into the vote-counting software. You know the output, therefore you can verifly that the results are correct and valid.

Car Insurance, its more like replacing the air bag with cotton wool on the basis that you don’t trust the computer to inflate the airbag.

Nope. It's more like fully comprehensive car insurance because you don't trust the other guy to follow the law.

As far as I know there is no evidence that they have cheated in the Republic.

No, though there is evidence of very shady dealings prior to the election to garner votes, especially with Ferris. Which I point out to show that the idea of illegal dealings to win an election is not one that dissuades them.

I was writing computer software when you were in nappies.

That doesn't tell me what your qualifications are though, does it?

None of the government can have degrees in everything, so that point is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's highly relevant for this specific case because the technical details of the eVoting system are exceptionally important.

Have you ever wondered why so few Engineers are in power, anywhere?

Indeed.

“None of the above”, is rubbish. It is literally essential to elect a government to run the country.

Yes, but it's also essential to be able to say "I don't agree with any of these candidates' positions and so I choose None of the Above". But this is at best a seperate issue from the VVAT.

I have pointed out that attacking E-Voting via the VVAT is attacking E-Voting but just using this spurious argument.

And I'm pointing out that protesting against the proposed system because of it's technical defects is not the same thing as protesting against eVoting as a whole. In fact, I've said in other threads that there's a perfectly acceptable system in use in austrailia called eVACS. It's just this nedap system we think is untrustworthy.

politicians have to live in the real world.

Now that is a can of worms of a debate. But for now, let's leave it lie.

Perfect systems don’t exist.

And yet, there's a perfectly acceptable system in use in austrailia right now.

Why didn’t you Open Source/Linux/anti-MS/IT Experts present the government 10 years ago with an E-Voting fait a complet?

eVACS.
Look it up, please.
Or even read the source code.

And then there's the Open Voting Consortium.

Could I have details? I suspect that this was not case a not of hacking.

See above...

€70,000.???

Pardon my fingers, I meant seventy million euro. Which is how much the estimate for the altered nedap machines was coming to earlier this week.