Decommissioning of e-voting machines

strassenwo!f

I see that the e-voting machines are to finally be put beyond use.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1006/breaking26.html

Sensible, in my view.

It will bring an end to the waste associated with this project.

And it will hopefully bring some sort of closure to the Martin Cullen Years.

fontanalis

They got a good deal, money well spent altogether.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1006/evoting.html

CJhaughey

The machines may well be disposed of but I am sure the contracts that were signed for storage will have been for a long term arrangement. The owners of the facilities will then have to be compensated for the broken contract etc etc...
They will have done very well out of that fiasco.
Thanks Minister Dempsey.

Cookie_Monster

Simply ask the Americans for a B-52, fill it with them and then drop them on whatever poor unfortunate country the Americans are bombing this week.

yahoo_moe

It's all very well saying that they're being decommissioned but there'll still be a few squirrelled away somewhere by dissident e-voters with their own agenda...

caseyann

AH sure give them a round of applause and congratulate them.They only threw away and cost the country.
(The total cost of the electronic voting project has now reached €54.6 million. Some €3 million has been spent on storing the machines over the past five years, while tens of thousands has been spent on hiring consultants to advise on how to dispose of the machines or more cost-effective ways of storing them.)
Absolute disgrace imo :mad:

dan_d

I think it's better to let this story sink into the grey fog of "things I'd rather not think about".....:mad:

caseyann

dan_d wrote: »

I think it's better to let this story sink into the grey fog of "things I'd rather not think about".....:mad:

Are you kidding me? While he ignores his and the other Glorified mafia in the Dáil,he makes it clear he wont ignore the wasted spending in HSE.But in same breath is wasting money all over the place on nothing and brushing their under the carpet?

yahoo_moe

caseyann wrote: »

in same breath is wasting money all over the place on nothing and brushing their under the carpet?

But the e-voting machines money is already spent. It was poorly handled throughout, no doubt about that, but the money is long gone.

It's unfortunate timing that it's cropped up again now... oh no, wait, it's Labout opportunistically drawing public attention to an easy (and largely irrelevant) target.

Sticky_Fingers

Farewell e-voting machines, we hardly knew ye.

Where these bloody things ever used or did we manage to struggle on with our "stupid old pencils"?

PeterIanStaker

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Were these bloody things ever used or did we manage to struggle on with our "stupid old pencils"?

No I dont think the fuckin things were ever used, although I'm open to correction (by someone who isn't a brown-nosing FF apparatchik, seems to be a lot of trolls lately).

Yet another example of taxpayers money going down the fucking toilet.

View

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Farewell e-voting machines, we hardly knew ye.

Where these bloody things ever used or did we manage to struggle on with our "stupid old pencils"?

Yes they were used in 3 constituencies in the 2002 general election. No one had a problem with their use at the time.

It was only afterwards that the Whine-line brigade started wanting the software to be re-written so they go all the way to the polling booth and then spoil their ballot. Sadly the government agreed to this idea and, I believe, actually did get the software re-written to support this option.

If anyone is wondering why we ended up in an economic mess, the e-voting machine saga really summarise it all. Policies initiated, chopped, then changed and finally abandoned leaving us back where we started after ploughing money into them.

And introducing e-voting machines is one of the easier tasks the Government could face. Balancing the books is a whole different ball-game.

Sticky_Fingers

View wrote: »

Yes they were used in 3 constituencies in the 2002 general election. No one had a problem with their use at the time.

It was only afterwards that the Whine-line brigade started wanting the software to be re-written so they go all the way to the polling booth and then spoil their ballot. Sadly the government agreed to this idea and, I believe, actually did get the software re-written to support this option.

If anyone is wondering why we ended up in an economic mess, the e-voting machine saga really summarise it all. Policies initiated, chopped, then changed and finally abandoned leaving us back where we started after ploughing money into them.

And introducing e-voting machines is one of the easier tasks the Government could face. Balancing the books is a whole different ball-game.

I see no problem with allowing people to spoil their ballot. If the option wasn't included in the initial design spec then the machines were not fit for purpose IMO and should never have been bought.

thebman

View wrote: »

Yes they were used in 3 constituencies in the 2002 general election. No one had a problem with their use at the time.

It was only afterwards that the Whine-line brigade started wanting the software to be re-written so they go all the way to the polling booth and then spoil their ballot. Sadly the government agreed to this idea and, I believe, actually did get the software re-written to support this option.

If anyone is wondering why we ended up in an economic mess, the e-voting machine saga really summarise it all. Policies initiated, chopped, then changed and finally abandoned leaving us back where we started after ploughing money into them.

And introducing e-voting machines is one of the easier tasks the Government could face. Balancing the books is a whole different ball-game.

They had serious, basic security problems ....

View

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

I see no problem with allowing people to spoil their ballot. If the option wasn't included in the initial design spec then the machines were not fit for purpose IMO and should never have been bought.

The reason elections are held is to elect people. Nothing else.

View

thebman wrote: »

They had serious, basic security problems ....

Given that the electoral register is very inaccurate and (ballot) papers in an old tin box is not exactly cutting edge security technology, why single out e-voting machines?

Sticky_Fingers

View wrote: »

The reason elections are held is to elect people. Nothing else.

No it is to allow the people to express their democratic right to vote, I can excersie that right by spoiling my ballot and telling those up for election on all sides that their views and policies are not supported by me.

thebman

View wrote: »

Given that the electoral register is very inaccurate and (ballot) papers in an old tin box is not exactly cutting edge security technology, why single out e-voting machines?

Not voting machines just these voting machines.

Why single out paper if there all inaccurate either ...

Shea O'Meara

yahoo_moe wrote: »

It's unfortunate timing that it's cropped up again now... oh no, wait, it's Labout opportunistically drawing public attention to an easy (and largely irrelevant) target.

I'm glad somebody draws attention to such things and as for being opportunist, did you expect FFail to mention it?
Are we to now avoid discussing FFail costly failures if the target is too easy? That's a new one:rolleyes:

Shea O'Meara

View wrote: »

Yes they were used in 3 constituencies in the 2002 general election. No one had a problem with their use at the time.

It was only afterwards that the Whine-line brigade started wanting the software to be re-written so they go all the way to the polling booth and then spoil their ballot. Sadly the government agreed to this idea and, I believe, actually did get the software re-written to support this option.

If anyone is wondering why we ended up in an economic mess, the e-voting machine saga really summarise it all. Policies initiated, chopped, then changed and finally abandoned leaving us back where we started after ploughing money into them.

And introducing e-voting machines is one of the easier tasks the Government could face. Balancing the books is a whole different ball-game.

Almost all of the above is incorrect.
From day one the government was advised that the e-voting system could be easily hacked into but chose to ignore that until people kept pushing them on it. Also a lot of them crashed...a lot. Even on the showcase in Dublin the show piece model didn't work properly. And finally people had legitimate concerns about the votes being recorded, i.e. no proof pressing for FG didn't mean Labour or FFail, lack of confidence with them, which was never addressed. And I'm sure the fact that the company who won the tender to introduce them had an FFail member on the board played no significance......
Then taking into account, after months of costly storage the software had become obsolete, they still left them for years at our cost.

A fierce political battle has broken out in Dublin because the government is pressing ahead with a new electronic voting system despite protests from the leading Irish opposition parties.
The government has promised to set up, in the next few days, a panel of "people of the highest repute" to check the system's accuracy and secrecy.

But Mr Ahern is adamant that an auditable paper trail cannot be built into the new system. "We are not going to go back to pushing pieces of paper around the place," he said, accusing a critic of wanting "to keep old ways, old things, the old nonsensical past".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irish-rush-to-electronic-voting-causes-unease-571302.html

The NEDAP e-voting machines were originally purchased by the Irish government for use in the local and European elections on 11 June 2004. However, the decision to introduce e-voting at that time had to be abandoned following the publication of an interim report from the Commission on Electronic Voting (CEV), which raised doubts over the accuracy of the software used in the system.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/05/e-voting/

Zambia

thebman wrote: »

They had serious, basic security problems ....

I have a mad Idea why could they not fix them?

yahoo_moe

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I'm glad somebody draws attention to such things and as for being opportunist, did you expect FFail to mention it?
Are we to now avoid discussing FFail costly failures if the target is too easy? That's a new one:rolleyes:

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes: right back at you.

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

No it is to allow the people to express their democratic right to vote, I can excersie that right by spoiling my ballot and telling those up for election on all sides that their views and policies are not supported by me.

What's wrong with just staying away from the polls altogether if you don't support any party? That demonstrates apathy towards the candidates just fine, no?

paddyland

A list of WHO won the contracts for storing them, at WHAT cost to the taxpayer, over WHAT length of time, and with WHAT political connections, would make good reading coming up to the next election.

Nijmegen

E-Voting is an example of how the Irish state is run and a €50 million micro warning on the poor state of our public leadership and administration.

It was a show from the get-go, from not getting machines that work properly to changing requirements midway through and the eventual fashion of their storage and scrappage.

Meanwhile, find me a corporate executive in a major multinational, let's say Microsoft or HP or similar, tasked with rolling out electronic systems for employees clocking in and out, checking their hours, etc - in other words, an e-system that needs to be accurate and take data from lots of people - who would 1. Pull it off this poorly or 2. Still have a job after doing it.

And we're trusting this lot with the bank bailouts and economic turnaround?

Panda

These machines should be scrapped asap....

This is a bit of a side note:

So took a look at nedap.com, the developers and manufacturers of these unusable machines and was surprised to see that they're still getting business.

Then i looked for their financial reports and easily found them on their website.
Clicked on the earliest one which was 2006 (despite the fact that this company is 77 years old)

Heres the front page of the report.



So just to put this in words, they thought it would be a good idea to use photos of the likes of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Chairman Mao but then they've also included Einstein, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, oh and of course they had to include Donald Duck.

Jesus wept....*

Jesus is actually in there too....

Nijmegen

I think it's similar to Time's man/person of the year - nowadays they shy away from using figures like Osama bin Laden, but the purpose is to talk about the person who has had the most impact on the world, not positive impact.

In that sense I get their message - the power of the individual. They never said good or bad.

Johnboy1951

Zambia232 wrote: »

I have a mad Idea why could they not fix them?

Maybe because the whole system was so flawed it was not possible?

donaghs

View wrote: »

The reason elections are held is to elect people. Nothing else.

Again, there were security issues. If they couldn't get that part right, they should never have gone beyond the testing phase.

View wrote: »

Given that the electoral register is very inaccurate and (ballot) papers in an old tin box is not exactly cutting edge security technology, why single out e-voting machines?

The current system has a proven track record, we know what to expect. Also, there is a clear physical paper record.

If a virtual system was to replace it, all those security concerns need to be ironed out.

jmcc

View wrote: »

Yes they were used in 3 constituencies in the 2002 general election. No one had a problem with their use at the time.

It was only afterwards that the Whine-line brigade started wanting the software to be re-written so they go all the way to the polling booth and then spoil their ballot. Sadly the government agreed to this idea and, I believe, actually did get the software re-written to support this option.

They were badly designed and based on out of date software.

The security model was completely and stupidly non-existent.

They would have enabled the subversion of the state because the machines were insecure.

Regards...jmcc

caseyann

yahoo_moe wrote: »

But the e-voting machines money is already spent. It was poorly handled throughout, no doubt about that, but the money is long gone.

It's unfortunate timing that it's cropped up again now... oh no, wait, it's Labout opportunistically drawing public attention to an easy (and largely irrelevant) target.

While cowen tries to take the lime light off his and Fianna fails mess ups and draw them on HSE spending.
When the whole lot of them should be tarred and feathered by the public.

How much more is Irish public going to say ah sure what can you do?

ronkmonster

donaghs wrote: »

Again, there were security issues. If they couldn't get that part right, they should never have gone beyond the testing phase.



The current system has a proven track record, we know what to expect. Also, there is a clear physical paper record.

If a virtual system was to replace it, all those security concerns need to be ironed out.

What do people mean by paper record?
The ballot slip has nothing on it to identify I was the one who voted.

A computer could track who did what vote but then it's not a private vote.

When I finish voting now, I don't get a receipt. Why should a computer system give one?
Paper ballot is equal to entry in a database for e-voting. The safe guards to prevent anyone changing the database are a different issue.

mike65

A nice big slingshot would be the best way to discomission the e-vote machines. I'll let you decide what they should be aimed at.

donaghs

ronkmonster wrote: »

What do people mean by paper record?
The ballot slip has nothing on it to identify I was the one who voted.

A computer could track who did what vote but then it's not a private vote.

When I finish voting now, I don't get a receipt. Why should a computer system give one?
Paper ballot is equal to entry in a database for e-voting. The safe guards to prevent anyone changing the database are a different issue.

You can can make significantly greater changes to an election outcome, with less people involved, if you can tweak the software (or even the hardware). As opposed to something like stuffing ballot boxes.

I'm not ruling out e-voting machines. Just saying if it is going to be done, the current concerns should be addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Ireland

Lenny Lovett

yahoo_moe wrote: »

But the e-voting machines money is already spent. It was poorly handled throughout, no doubt about that, but the money is long gone.

It's unfortunate timing that it's cropped up again now... oh no, wait, it's Labout opportunistically drawing public attention to an easy (and largely irrelevant) target.

Can someone explain why The Government never went after the suppliers. Surely if they were not fit for purpose they should have been returned and a refund sought? Is that not basic commonsense?

ronkmonster

donaghs wrote: »

You can can make significantly greater changes to an election outcome, with less people involved, if you can tweak the software (or even the hardware). As opposed to something like stuffing ballot boxes.

I'm not ruling out e-voting machines. Just saying if it is going to be done, the current concerns should be addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Ireland

Computer files can be verified to ensure they match what is expected.
A modified version would be instantly noticed if self testing was imposed before voting started.

jmcc

ronkmonster wrote: »

Computer files can be verified to ensure they match what is expected.
A modified version would be instantly noticed if self testing was imposed before voting started.

But when there is no security model in the system, you can have it do anything you want - even play chess.

Regards...jmcc

ronkmonster

jmcc wrote: »

But when there is no security model in the system, you can have it do anything you want - even play chess.

Regards...jmcc

So they were windows PC that weren't locked down?
Did the Government not have IT security advisors to help them understand what they were buying?

oscarBravo

View wrote: »

Yes they were used in 3 constituencies in the 2002 general election. No one had a problem with their use at the time.

I think Nora Owen might disagree with you.

And introducing e-voting machines is one of the easier tasks the Government could face.

On the contrary, designing an e-voting system that satisfies the requirement of a publicly-held private ballot, with full confidence that the result reflects the votes that were cast, is a problem difficult enough to be practically impossible.

Nora Owen's loss of her seat was a shock to everyone concerned. It went completely against the run of the opinion polls. Did she lose her seat because the people of her constituency didn't vote for her, or because an electronic voting machine screwed up the recording or tabulation of votes?

For anyone who feels like answering that last question: I'd like to see hard evidence for the answer.

Rovi

I think that at least a few of these things should be preserved for posterity, if only to remind future generations of the idiocy involved at the time.

Also, so that 'those responsible' aren't allowed the comfort of them being all-gone-away, and therefore having never really existed.

Lenny Lovett

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the contrary, designing an e-voting system that satisfies the requirement of a publicly-held private ballot, with full confidence that the result reflects the votes that were cast, is a problem difficult enough to be practically impossible.

Surely a program/technology similar to that used by the lottery machines would be the basis for a voting machine?

oscarBravo

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Surely a program/technology similar to that used by the lottery machines would be the basis for a voting machine?

They are solving completely different problems. There are no issues around personation, vote buying or coercion involved in writing a lottery system.

Seriously: these are hard problems. The "how hard can it be?" attitude is what caused the waste of money in the first place.

Spacedog

Surely its simple to write a completly secure, unhackable system on a tight budget while making a profit and compteing with a load of other vendors?

The Irish e-voting systems used a microsoft access single user database to store records from multpile simultanious clients. There was no way of validating counts or detecting manipulation to the database.

It was a closed system with little/no independent penetration testing allowed.

Anyone here thinks that these systems were in any way secure, or should even consider being used is a stupid loudmouth troll.

Boards.ie where the loudest opinions are always right.

strangel00p

I'd love to know why these systems could not be fixed. I've worked in development for years and could build a bullet proof system within a couple of hours using lotus notes. A security model which can't be tampered with and an audit trail of any changes made.

It sounds like this system is a piece of cake to fix.

yahoo_moe

oscarBravo wrote: »

For anyone who feels like answering that last question: I'd like to see hard evidence for the answer.

So would Nora Owen I'm guessing

yahoo_moe

Spacedog wrote: »

Surely its simple to write a completly secure, unhackable system on a tight budget while making a profit and compteing with a load of other vendors?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here - but the rest of your post would suggest you're not... I'd agree with oscarBravo that it's quite difficult to get right, given the much greater amount of attention on it compared to, say, an internal company system and the massive importance of the system being absolutely unexploitable.

That's very tough, given that information about technology tends to be openly available to anyone, no matter what your persuasions or intentions. If people are still finding exploits in Facebook and Twitter, surely you'd agree that watertight electronic systems are not easy? And that's before you even add in your "on a tight budget and competing with loads of other vendors" parameters...

It doesn't take away from the fact that money shouldn't have been paid without proper research, testing, etc. but to say it should be easy is just plain wrong. If anything, the fact that it's clearly quite tough should have been enough reason to test and research the systems rigorously.

Shea O'Meara

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I'm glad somebody draws attention to such things and as for being opportunist, did you expect FFail to mention it?
Are we to now avoid discussing FFail costly failures if the target is too easy? That's a new one:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by yahoo_moe
Yes, because that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes: right back at you.

Actually this is what you said;

yahoo_moe wrote: »

It's unfortunate timing that it's cropped up again now... oh no, wait, it's Labout opportunistically drawing public attention to an easy (and largely irrelevant) target.

Then I asked;

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Are we to now avoid discussing FFail costly failures if the target is too easy? That's a new one:rolleyes:

And you answered my question by claiming you never asked my question...just so you know;)

It is the job of all opposition politicians and every man/woman outside the Dáil to hold the government to account. It's that simple.
I seriously doubt the current (not saying you Moe) FFail supporters who are trying to help the buck pass to unelected private citizens remember this stance if a different shower get in.

yahoo_moe

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

you answered my question by claiming you never asked my question...just so you know;)

I'm aware of how the conversation went But it read as though you were attributing that attitude (not to examine FF failures) to me. If not, my bad - but I'd avoid the :rolleyes: below my quote if that's not what you were getting at.

I think the story's old news that's being dragged up for political purposes as opposed to there being any new facts or someone having an alternative money-saving plan to fix the situation. If FF had been let off lightly originally, fair enough, keep flogging that horse - but I think there's already been plenty enough of a hammering given out that it can be laid to rest. The gain in bringing it up is Labour's, rather than the taxpayer's.

Seth Brundle

I remember Joe McCarthy's work in this area which is a very interesting read:
http://www.iol.ie/~aecolley/icte/Joe-CEV.doc

Also see the Irish Citizens for Trustworthy Evoting site...
Research Report: http://evoting.cs.may.ie/research.shtml
News Timeline: http://evoting.cs.may.ie/

Shea O'Meara

yahoo_moe wrote: »

I'm aware of how the conversation went But it read as though you were attributing that attitude (not to examine FF failures) to me. If not, my bad - but I'd avoid the :rolleyes: below my quote if that's not what you were getting at.

I think the story's old news that's being dragged up for political purposes as opposed to there being any new facts or someone having an alternative money-saving plan to fix the situation. If FF had been let off lightly originally, fair enough, keep flogging that horse - but I think there's already been plenty enough of a hammering given out that it can be laid to rest. The gain in bringing it up is Labour's, rather than the taxpayer's.

Sorry for any slight caused.
It's important to bring attention to such issues as well as those more current because it is the same people involved, the same government. You'll note a lot of people, specifically FFail supporters live in a world where if it didn't happen this week, it may as well have never happened, lets move on. People should vote, (when deemed allowed) on the governments track record.

Amhran Nua

You need a paper trail so that votes can be manually verified. Vote, check the paper behind the glass is accurate, then confirm. Technology solves a lot of problems, but voting is one thing paper and pen does better. Its not difficult to write programs to store and tally votes automatically, it is extremely hard to do so in a way that is 100% secure and trustworthy. The stakes are just too high to mess around, and its not like counting votes manually makes for an intractable logistical problem.

jmcc

Spacedog wrote: »

Surely its simple to write a completly secure, unhackable system on a tight budget while making a profit and compteing with a load of other vendors?

No. Because there are always people like me out there.

Sky once thought that they had a secure, unhackable system too. It was hacked in about ten seconds. And as for this card sharing thing that still seems to work on Pay TV most systems - it is my theory and my hack. Once you lose direct physical control of a device, you lose a critical element of a system's security. The piece of sh!t (technologically speaking) that was the E-voting system had a paper sticker as its security seal. This was not a well designed system.

Regards...jmcc