Why was E-Voting scrapped??

ballsymchugh

looking back, the only reason that i can think of as to why the e-voting was actually scrapped was because some people missed the craic of the count. any time i've heard it being debated, and it's been a while since i did, it was usually Nora Owen who lamented the day of the count. mainly i think, because if anyone remembers the night she lost her seat, she was up on a stage and just had to stand there looking a bit lost.

is there any other reason as to why they were scrapped? surely it was advantageous to get the counts over and done with in a couple of hours after the election, to let the counters get home and back to their normal jobs the next day. it would avoid any recounts and any potential court cases over spoilt votes (maybe not of the hanging chad variety!)

so what was so very wrong about the e-voting??

ozt9vdujny3srf

I'm about to go to bed but:

In principle electronic voting is a good idea, if it's done right. the way the government did it was far from right. From what I recall there was no good answer offered for the concerns people had about being able to recheck counts for mistakes, and also the irish government didn't have access to the source code on which the e-voting system was based.

I would love to see electronic voting brought in, with the following caveats:

• There should be a paper trail. (i.e. you get a receipt printed with your vote and you put that into a ballot box)
• the source code for the voting system should be freely and publicly available.
• and the machines themselves are very difficult to tamper with, and make it obvious if they have been tampered with.

expectationlost

ballsymchugh wrote: »

looking back, the only reason that i can think of as to why the e-voting was actually scrapped was because some people missed the craic of the count. any time i've heard it being debated, and it's been a while since i did, it was usually Nora Owen who lamented the day of the count. mainly i think, because if anyone remembers the night she lost her seat, she was up on a stage and just had to stand there looking a bit lost.

that was just politician and political hacks saying that cos they didn't have the ability to grasp the technicalities

PanchoVilla

Electronic voting machines have already proven themselves to be unreliable and easy to hack into. The people who opposed the machines in this country were very smart for doing so. There are several videos on Youtube and elsewhere explaining why these machines were no good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01ICBwpzDCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhliNyJYmw&feature=related

syklops

There is a great article here in silicon republic explaining it.

murphaph

The article describes the physical hacking of the machines (talks about replacing a part, presumably that's the Microcontroller/EEPROM that contains the firmware that the machine runs off). This is no different surely than gaining access to ballot boxes and replacing their contents with new ballot papers, or am I missing something (ballot paper serial numbers must match a ballot box perhaps?)?

I believe that this type of "hack" is one that can only truly be prevented by the Garda at the polling station doing his job. The software vulnerabilities are a different issue that certainly need to be watertight but in principal I think eVoting is sensible when you're using the PRSTV system....however I favour the replacement of PRSTV with a list system, which negates the pressing need for eVoting anyway as votes are not transfered and the counting process is much faster and simpler.

Our archaic electoral system, as is often the case, is the root of the problem.

kippy

Technically there is absolutely NO reason e-voting couldn't become a reality with the right people involved and the proper investment. We have ATMS that are pretty rock solid that handle far more work on a daily basis where greater levels of security are required than any e-voting machine. (They've had some problems but minor)

The problem is a few fold though.

1. Politicians feel that ultimately the older of the electorate wont use them.
2. Tallymen and all the nonsense reporting that goes on around election time, as well as the "drama" and indeed the celebrations that take place after a long count with winners being held high etc would be done away with.

If anything e-voting could be far more efficient and far more transparent than the current system - however it looks like the will (nor the money) is there anymore.

the groutch

kippy wrote: »

1. Politicians FF feel that ultimately the older of the electorate wont use them.

fyp

waggs

Scrapped basically because the public don't trust our politicians.

At least with the current system it's very visible and fraud is difficult.

I'd hate to see the current system go - it's not just about the craic of the count - it's about generating and promoting an interest in the political system.

However, I accept I'm a dinosaur in this regard and I'd be surprised if I'm not voting either online or via text message and getting the result in the same way at some point in the next 20 years.

OhNoYouDidn't

ballsymchugh wrote: »

looking back, the only reason that i can think of as to why the e-voting was actually scrapped was because some people missed the craic of the count. any time i've heard it being debated, and it's been a while since i did, it was usually Nora Owen who lamented the day of the count. mainly i think, because if anyone remembers the night she lost her seat, she was up on a stage and just had to stand there looking a bit lost.

is there any other reason as to why they were scrapped? surely it was advantageous to get the counts over and done with in a couple of hours after the election, to let the counters get home and back to their normal jobs the next day. it would avoid any recounts and any potential court cases over spoilt votes (maybe not of the hanging chad variety!)

so what was so very wrong about the e-voting??

But the algorithm couldn't compute PSTV correctly, there was no audit trail to prove that votes were being counted correctly, or indeed even registering, and the system was too easy to hack.

It simply didn't work.

scr123

Wasnt it a lecturer or student from Maynooth who exposed the software as wide open to tampering.
I am FF but I remember clearly not getting the slightest pleasure out of Norah Owen standing on that stage with someone reading the result from a printout docket like a petrol pump docket. At least under the manual the tally people know what way things are likely to go once the paper votes begin to be colllated. Paper voting is so much more exciting

Rabble Rabble

Why replace a system that works, and is transparent, with a system which could be easily tampered with. Electronic voting is not transparent. You have no idea if the software or hardware has been altered with, you just have take it on trust that it hasn't. Conspiracy theorists will go nuts. They will source the software, or hardware back to some Bad Corporation and that will be enough for them.

and what does it gain? The dail sits two weeks after the election, why is an extra days counting an issue?

Tallymen and all the nonsense reporting that goes on around election time, as well as the "drama" and indeed the celebrations that take place after a long count with winners being held high etc would be done away with.

If anything e-voting could be far more efficient and far more transparent than the current system - however it looks like the will (nor the money) is there anymore.

The very fact that you are knocking tallymen , which is a clearly transparent system, and suggesting a hidden system of software, which by it's nature only known to a fraction of the public, as more transparent is odd. To say the least.

The system works, keep it. Electronic Voting is a waste of money. The system need not just to be fair, but fair and transparent. It needs to be seen to be fair, and Tallymen do that. And they generally give the results per-ballot without party prejudice too, tallymen across parties consult. There is no point in lying at that stage.

What would be the software equivalent - give tallymen the code and a debugger?

Rabble Rabble

waggs wrote: »

However, I accept I'm a dinosaur in this regard and I'd be surprised if I'm not voting either online or via text message and getting the result in the same way at some point in the next 20 years.

Plenty of technical people oppose e-voting.

Rabble Rabble

the groutch wrote: »

fyp

FF was pushing it.

Red Alert

I'm opposed to e-voting but not necessarily to automated counting of the votes. Automated counts use the exact same inputs (i.e. numbers on a ballot paper) as a manual count, so it should be verifiable. Of course the machines should be certified, with signed software on them, the source code to which should be developed in Ireland and be available on the internet.

Rabble Rabble

Red Alert wrote: »

I'm opposed to e-voting but not necessarily to automated counting of the votes. Automated counts use the exact same inputs (i.e. numbers on a ballot paper) as a manual count, so it should be verifiable. Of course the machines should be certified, with signed software on them, the source code to which should be developed in Ireland and be available on the internet.

The published source code may not be the one on the machine. The only way to check that would be do a byte to byte comparison. And even if it isnt corrupt, it could be wrong. Giant Software companies make mistakes all the time - and issue updates. What if we find a bug in the software two years after a close election?

baalthor

I voted using these machines in the GE and Nice treaty in Dublin West.

The first thing that struck me was that they looked very old fashioned like 1980s ATM machines. The electronic display on the machine was similar to what you might see on a pocket calculator.

But, I thought to myself, they probably just made them look like that so the technophobic won't be scared off. Inside they have the latest hi-tech, security enabled crytographic processors, right? right ...?

Of course not ! They ARE 1980s technology, not ATMs but early 80s home computers and our government has paid almost €8000 for each one !

Here is the report by the Dutch people who examined them:

http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/images/9/91/Es3b-en.pdf

Read and weep/laugh as appropriate ...


And here is an example of the kind of modern computer you can buy for around eight grand
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/

28064212

The e-voting system that the government bought was an unmitigated disaster. It was unsafe, completely unsuitable, and expensive. It was a classic example of this government's lack of technical expertise and unwillingness to evolve.

However, e-voting is no more inherently unsafe than a manual count. Technically, it's very simple thing to do, and making it secure (given that it's always used in a fixed set of circumstances with a supervisior nearby) is not particularly difficult. There are many areas of infinitely more complexity than e-voting that run on electronic systems. Even the audit trail is very easy to implement as a backup, using the printed receipt and ballot box system.

Anyone who says manual counting is more transparent and/or less error-prone than electronic voting is deluding themselves. Anyone remember the Ganley/Ó Luain debacle in the European NW election? 3,000 votes wrongly went to Ganley, and it only came to light because of a recount requested by Ganley. And that's just an example of where the error was caught. If Ganley hadn't been stubborn about refusing to accept defeat, it would never have been noticed.

The 'drama of election night' argument is another massively flawed position. If you want drama in elections, go watch the X Factor results. Voting is not entertainment. Results should be quick and accurate. E-voting (done properly) provides both.

Long story short, e-voting can be implemented easily and securely. However, it needs actual experts to consult and implement. It needs technical experts, it needs constitutional experts. And of course, they shouldn't be the people who are manufacturing or selling the system. It needs independent, open peer review. It does not need a government of teachers and business students making the decisions.

Oh, and obligatory XKCD comic:

Rabble Rabble

28064212 wrote: »

Long story short, e-voting can be implemented easily and securely. However, it needs actual experts to consult and implement. It needs technical experts, it needs constitutional experts. And of course, they shouldn't be the people who are manufacturing or selling the system. It needs independent, open peer review. It does not need a government of teachers and business students making the decisions.
[/IMG]

If it needs technical experts then it is not transparent. No idea what happen with O'Luain, but it didnt seem to affect the outcome, and tallymen should be able to catch that.

From the point of view of a machine.

1) Source code published on the net is useless. We have no idea if that source code is on the actual device.
2) Technical experts are like Egyptian Priests reading their hieroglyphics as far as the rest of society is concerned, but most people can count. Thus Tallymen can be anyone. That is in itself more transparent.
3) STV is actually quite complicated, rounding errors could easily happen. If the system has a bug it will be a more serious issue than your iPhone getting DST wrong. Apple engineers are not fools. They do make mistakes. Like all engineers.
4) Nobody has ever produce bug free software for V 1.0. V 1.0 will be used on the first election. We cant wait for 2.0 to get it right.
5) If your fallback is a manual count, get rid of the machine. YOu are admitting the manual count works for a fallback, so why not use it in the first case.

The 'drama of election night' argument is another massively flawed position. If you want drama in elections, go watch the X Factor results. Voting is not entertainment. Results should be quick and accurate. E-voting (done properly) provides both.

7) It is entertainment. People used to turn up for hustings to be entertained, before television made that less important. Question Time is entertaining for political buffs. Politics should be engaging.
8) Why should results be "quick". Whats the advantage of "quick" if the new Dail doesn't meet for 2 weeks?


E-voting is a flawed solution to a non-existant problem.

syklops

murphaph wrote: »

The article describes the physical hacking of the machines (talks about replacing a part, presumably that's the Microcontroller/EEPROM that contains the firmware that the machine runs off). This is no different surely than gaining access to ballot boxes and replacing their contents with new ballot papers, or am I missing something (ballot paper serial numbers must match a ballot box perhaps?)?

I believe that this type of "hack" is one that can only truly be prevented by the Garda at the polling station doing his job.

This is more along the lines of accessing the ballot box and putting in an invisible Squirrel which has been trained to spoil or change every second FG/Labour vote.

You don't need to have physical access to the machine on election day. You could modify it, months if not years ahead of schedule, and program it so every time a person votes one way, half the time the machine records it the other way. Giving the party in question a massive lead.

We have ATMS that are pretty rock solid that handle far more work on a daily basis where greater levels of security are required than any e-voting machine. (They've had some problems but minor)

I have to disagree with you there. ATMs are not pretty rock solid. In fact many are as far away from being as rock solid it is laughable. Many are running Operating systems no longer supported by their vendors, open to a number of vulnerabilities. There was a great talk at the Blackhat Briefings this year on the very subject of ATM insecurity. Here is an article which sums it up:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3233625/black-hat-atm-hacker-gets-cash-on-demand/

The main problem with e-Voting is that there is no paper chain. If there is suspicion of tampering with election results you can call in the US FBI, or fly over General de Chastelain to count the physical documents one-by-one and call the result. You cant use receipts from a machine under suspicion of tampering, if the receipts came from the tampered machine in question.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

If it needs technical experts then it is not transparent. No idea what happen with O'Luain, but it didnt seem to affect the outcome, and tallymen should be able to catch that.

From the point of view of a machine.

1) Source code published on the net is useless. We have no idea if that source code is on the actual device.
2) Technical experts are like Egyptian Priests reading their hieroglyphics as far as the rest of society is concerned, but most people can count. Thus Tallymen can be anyone. That is in itself more transparent.
3) STV is actually quite complicated, rounding errors could easily happen. If the system has a bug it will be a more serious issue than your iPhone getting DST wrong. Apple engineers are not fools. They do make mistakes. Like all engineers.
4) Nobody has ever produce bug free software for V 1.0. V 1.0 will be used on the first election. We cant wait for 2.0 to get it right.
5) If your fallback is a manual count, get rid of the machine. YOu are admitting the manual count works for a fallback, so why not use it in the first case.




7) It is entertainment. People used to turn up for hustings to be entertained, before television made that less important. Question Time is entertaining for political buffs. Politics should be engaging.
8) Why should results be "quick". Whats the advantage of "quick" if the new Dail doesn't meet for 2 weeks?


E-voting is a flawed solution to a non-existant problem.

1) It is useful to see the source code. Perhaps you could end up with source code being changed when it gets to the machine but that seems highly unlikely. Anyway that's what the paper printouts / ballot box is for.

2) Use the paper printouts for the first couple of elections so that we can gain trust in the system.

3) It's not complicated. Unless the programmer is a retard, rounding errors are almost impossible. And publicly viewable source code will make it easy for anyone to check if the code will do this.

4) Bug free software in v1.0 is absolutely possible if the software is created using formal methods.

5) Because anything which reduces the massive amount of work that goes into running an election is a good thing. The less time and resouirce that needs to be put into an election, the more elections / referendums we can practically run, making the running of the country more democratic.

7) Oh c'mon...I find it entertaining too but really only political anoraks will miss it.

8) Why should counting results take 100's of man hours when there is no need for it?

kippy

I'm not saying the use of tallymen is not transparent, just pointing out that these people and many more, will most likely be out of a job if electronic voting were to come to pass.

Again,
I think a lot of people have taken a very negative stance on electronic voting based on:
1. A very stupid and ill throught out project that cost the country a lot of money.
2. Scaremongering by a number of outlets.

I have said this before and I will say this again - there is absolutely NO reason that a secure, transparent and effective e-voting solution couldnt be implemented.

syklops

kippy wrote: »

I have said this before and I will say this again - there is absolutely NO reason that a secure, transparent and effective e-voting solution couldnt be implemented.

You're right. Unfortunately no-one has designed an e-voting system that is secure and transparent, and can be implemented by the idiots who run our and many other nations.

Rabble Rabble

Davion Spoiled Shrewdness wrote: »

1) It is useful to see the source code. Perhaps you could end up with source code being changed when it gets to the machine but that seems highly unlikely. Anyway that's what the paper printouts / ballot box is for.

Why would be unlikely? Nothing is clear about what is on the machine, just because there is source code on a server. YOu would need to compile it down and check. Even then thats a technical challenge limited to people who could themselves be corrupt. Tallymen are from anywhere, and everywhere.

I am pretty dubious about formal methods, if I ever get bug free software I will believe in formal methodology more thoroughly.


Unless there is a clear transparent way of proving to the average guy in the street that the machines not just weren't, but could not be, interfered with the system will not be trusted as a manual election would be. Conspiracy theories would be rife, if - for instance - the polls were wrong and a government expected to lose actually won.

Even if everything is above board, if it is not obvious that it is, democracy suffers.

Lapin

ballsymchugh wrote: »

......it was usually Nora Owen who lamented the day of the count. mainly i think, because if anyone remembers the night she lost her seat, she was up on a stage and just had to stand there looking a bit lost.

There's more to it than that.

It was the manner in which the returning officer announced the results on the night that caused controversy.

Rather than reading out the election results in the traditional manner by explaining what the quota was, and the number of votes received by each candidate, he simply read out a list of the four newly elected TDs in the order of where they finished from first to fourth.

As Trevor Sargent had topped the poll his name was announced first. Naturally, as soon as this happened the cheers went up from his supporters as they began celebrating his victory.

However, the returning officer continued reading out the names of the other elected TDs despite the fact that no one in the room could now hear him above the noise. Confusion reigned for a few moments as to who else was elected and when the noise died down he was asked to confirm the remaining names on his list by reading them out again.

He reluctantly agreed, but not before telling those in the room "Maybe if you kept the noise down you might hear me" or words to that effect.

Regardless of what we think of our politicians, this was an unacceptable,unfair and inhumane manner of which to inform them of their fate following a long and closely fought election campaign.

kippy

Lapin wrote: »

Regardless of what we think of our politicians, this was an unacceptable,unfair and inhumane manner of which to inform them of their fate following a long and closely fought election campaign.

It's the way these things should be done. Quick and not drawn out for the sake of it.
Perhaps the fact that he had to repeat himself was an issue.
Ideally the candidates should be informed by text as to who got through.
*slightly tongue in cheek.

It would be interesting to know the costs associated with administering a traditional election. Anyone have any idea how much it costs?

jimmycrackcorm

kippy wrote: »

Technically there is absolutely NO reason e-voting couldn't become a reality with the right people involved and the proper investment. We have ATMS that are pretty rock solid that handle far more work on a daily basis where greater levels of security are required than any e-voting machine. (They've had some problems but minor)

Ironically the people that make ATM's that people trust also make voting machines.

I'm bitterly disappointed by the luddite (albeit with genuine concerns) blocking of the introduction of electronic voting. I want a future where young people can easily vote on a wider range of issues than simply voting in a politician, where voting on laws is easily accessible to people online.

Of course we'd all then have to take more responsibility for those same laws being introduced.....

syklops

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Ironically the people that make ATM's that people trust also make voting machines.

I'm bitterly disappointed by the luddite (albeit with genuine concerns) blocking of the introduction of electronic voting. I want a future where young people can easily vote on a wider range of issues than simply voting in a politician, where voting on laws is easily accessible to people online.

Of course we'd all then have to take more responsibility for those same laws being introduced.....

I don't fupping believe it. I spent the best part of an hour writing a reply to this thread discussing security of e-voting machines and firefox/boards lost the submitted data. According to boards, because I logged in during the time that I was writing the post it could not proceed with the request. I feel like weeping like a little girl.

baalthor

syklops wrote: »

I don't fupping believe it. I spent the best part of an hour writing a reply to this thread discussing security of e-voting machines and firefox/boards lost the submitted data. According to boards, because I logged in during the time that I was writing the post it could not proceed with the request. I feel like weeping like a little girl.

Did you keep your boards posting receipt ? :-D

seamus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Ironically the people that make ATM's that people trust also make voting machines.

I don't think ATMs and voting machines are comparable in any sense.

An ATM provides an individual with access to their cash. The individual only cares that they get their cash and that their account is not tampered with. This is completely transparent because they can see all of the money coming into and out of their account.

The individual doesn't care how much money the bank has, or where their account fits into the grand scheme of the bank. It's in the bank's interests to ensure that the ATM's software is secure and works correctly and is not tampered with - because the bank will lose out if it is.

A voting machine is entirely different. The government (or other potential interests) can gain control over the software and its layout and can tamper with it to improve their standing. A bank cannot do the same - they can't invent money on their balance sheets by tampering with ATM software because their customers would notice their accounts being incorrectly reduced.

I'm bitterly disappointed by the luddite (albeit with genuine concerns) blocking of the introduction of electronic voting. I want a future where young people can easily vote on a wider range of issues than simply voting in a politician, where voting on laws is easily accessible to people online.

Look, I'm as "Computerise Everything" as you can get. I lament any and all manual processes where they could be done in a fraction of the time by a machine. I have no truck with the people who would rather keep someone in a boring job for the sake of employment than replace them with a computer and move them into something more fulfilling.

But e-voting cannot be reliably implemented within an individual country without a massive risk to our democracy. If you have a team of 200 technical specialists who know the machines inside-out, you only need to subvert 10 of them with large cash "bonuses" to swing an election. The extent of these changes doesn't need to be huge - a tweak here and there, a fraction of a % here and there and before you know it, the incumbent have reclaimed 5% of the election and nobody has noticed.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but when you consider that banks and big companies put hundreds of millions of euro into securing their software and they *still* end up getting breached, then we need to put a lot of work into moving what is arguably our most precious right onto such a vulnerable platform.

It is doable. The actual process of receiving, counting and calculating votes is so mind-bogglingly simple (even when you take STV into account) that it could be assigned to a first-year computer science student.
The problem is security - ensuring that every machine is identical, is not tampered with and that the entire network is secure and untampered with.

This would require the entire system to be completely open source, distributed, encrypted and verified by a number of objective, foreign engineers for completeness and security before each election. To ease people's uncertainty, we would most definitely have to run the system side-by-side with paper for quite some time. Initially where you press the button on the machine, get a printout to confirm and then the printouts get counted along with the electronic votes to check for completeness. Then we can move to collecting, but not counting the printouts except if there's a dispute.
Over a period of 10-20 years you should have enough time to test and attack and test and attack to ensure that you have the most secure and fault-tolerant system possible. And you keep on developing.

The reason we need to be so careful is because if the bank empties my account tomorrow, or a scammer maxes out my credit card, well it's a bad thing, but not the end of the world.

But if subversive forces take control of an election to install a government that we haven't collectively voted for, well the consequences there can destroy my life and my children's lives.

ballsymchugh

kippy wrote: »

It's the way these things should be done. Quick and not drawn out for the sake of it.
Perhaps the fact that he had to repeat himself was an issue.
Ideally the candidates should be informed by text as to who got through.
*slightly tongue in cheek.

It would be interesting to know the costs associated with administering a traditional election. Anyone have any idea how much it costs?

u r elctd!

thanks for the replies people.

kippy

seamus wrote: »

But if subversive forces take control of an election to install a government that we haven't collectively voted for, well the consequences there can destroy my life and my children's lives.

That is pretty Ironic, given the present circumstances.........

Also, anyone have the costs associated with administering an election by the way.

irishh_bob

nora owen didnt like the fact that news of her loosing her seat wasnt broken to her gently in the traditional way , remember her describing how her and her fellow canditates were herded on to a platform like cattle to hear the result , so they scrapped them

irish solution to an irish problem

kippy

irishh_bob wrote: »

nora owen didnt like the fact that news of her loosing her seat wasnt broken to her gently in the traditional way , remember her describing how her and her fellow canditates were herded on to a platform like cattle to hear the result , so they scrapped them

irish solution to an irish problem

There were other issues in fairness but I agree on that broad point.

gizmo555

ballsymchugh wrote: »

so what was so very wrong about the e-voting??

From the Irish Computer Society's submission to the Commission on Electronic Voting:

. . . the proposed Nedap/Powervote system contains a fundamental design flaw which renders it unfit for use in elections and referenda, namely that it does not incorporate any means to independently verify the results it produces. As is explained below, computer systems are inherently error prone, and must be assumed to contain defects regardless of how thoroughly they have been tested . . .

. . . In the absence of an independent means of verifying every exercise of the Nedap/Powervote system, its accuracy in ongoing use, as distinct from occasional test, is undeterminable by design and therefore the accuracy of every result it produces will be unknown.

kippy

gizmo555 wrote: »

From the Irish Computer Society's submission to the Commission on Electronic Voting:

. . . the proposed Nedap/Powervote system contains a fundamental design flaw which renders it unfit for use in elections and referenda, namely that it does not incorporate any means to independently verify the results it produces. As is explained below, computer systems are inherently error prone, and must be assumed to contain defects regardless of how thoroughly they have been tested . . .

. . . In the absence of an independent means of verifying every exercise of the Nedap/Powervote system, its accuracy in ongoing use, as distinct from occasional test, is undeterminable by design and therefore the accuracy of every result it produces will be unknown.

I honestly dont think people realise how much we rely (sometimes in a life or death situation) on them 'puters.

I've seen a lot less investigation into far more important systems that would effect people on a more personal level than an IT solution to voting.


People have said that NO country in the world uses these for elections - lets kick start that knowledge economy and come up with something we can sell abroad.

Dr_Teeth

Speaking as a computer science graduate, systems analyst, and general technology buff - no e-voting system will ever be as trustworthy as a room full of grannies counting bits of paper.

xper

kippy wrote: »

People have said that NO country in the world uses these for elections - lets kick start that knowledge economy and come up with something we can sell abroad.

Any enterprising IT company, Irish or otherwise, is welcome to try. I do think though that a closed, purely commercial package is doomed to failure for lack of trustworthiness. The business model would require making the system open to scrutiny to be attractive to democracies.

The system that was procured for Ireland fell hopelessly short in this and several other aspects. How it got as far as pilot phase beggars belief. I presume at some stage in the procurment process, there was some sort of assessment of the system by technically qualified personal. How they gave it the okay baffles me. Or were they just ignored? Or did the minister just take the sales pitch as gospel?

I knew people in Microsoft at the time that were horrified that Microsoft Access was the database software that the votes were collated on. It is simply not an enterprise level product. MS have SQL Server for that.

A post above decries the fact that the evoting machines were based on 1980's technology. That actually is not necessarily a bad thing. It is often the case that very critical sytems - things found in nuclear reactors, space probes, etc - use 'old' hardware precisely because it is proven technology that works reliably and has had its wrinkles ironed out over time. A simple twenty year old processor design will record and count votes just fine. It doesn't have to show them in [ [ 3D ] ]
That said, given the other failings of the mothballed evoting system, I suspect our Dutch friends were just being cheap in this case!

xper

kippy wrote: »

People have said that NO country in the world uses these for elections - lets kick start that knowledge economy and come up with something we can sell abroad.

Any enterprising IT company, Irish or otherwise, is welcome to try. I do think though that a closed, purely commercial package is doomed to failure for lack of trustworthiness. The business model would require making the system open to scrutiny to be attractive to democracies.

The system that was procured for Ireland fell hopelessly short in this and several other aspects. How it got as far as pilot phase beggars belief. I presume at some stage in the procurment process, there was some sort of assessment of the system by technically qualified personal. How they gave it the okay baffles me. Or were they just ignored? Or did the minister just take the sales pitch as gospel?

I knew people in Microsoft at the time that were horrified that Microsoft Access was the database software that the votes were collated on. It is simply not an enterprise level product. MS have SQL Server for that.

A post above decries the fact that the evoting machines were based on 1980's technology. That actually is not necessarily a bad thing. It is often the case that very critical sytems - things found in nuclear reactors, space probes, etc - use 'old' hardware precisely because it is proven technology that works reliably and has had its wrinkles ironed out over time. A simple twenty year old processor design will record and count votes just fine. It doesn't have to show them in [ [ 3D ] ]
That said, given the other failings of the mothballed evoting system, I suspect our Dutch friends were just being cheap in this case!

Dar

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Ironically the people that make ATM's that people trust also make voting machines.

I'm bitterly disappointed by the luddite (albeit with genuine concerns) blocking of the introduction of electronic voting. I want a future where young people can easily vote on a wider range of issues than simply voting in a politician, where voting on laws is easily accessible to people online.

Of course we'd all then have to take more responsibility for those same laws being introduced.....

Every time someone compares e-voting to ATMs I cry a little inside. ATMs are far from perfect. The reason they work so well is that EVERYTHING is audit logged. This means that when things screw up (and they do regularly), the bank can quickly figure out what happened and fix it. Voting on the other hand must be 100% anonymous so you just can't implement the same degree of auditing.

Secondly - the greatest problem with e-voting isn't even a technical one. I'm a coder. Give me the source, hardware specs and some time and I'll be able to figure out what exactly these machines are doing. However:

• I would have no way of verifying that the binaries used actually correspond to source examined
• I probably wouldn't find any clever hacks that were deliberately obfuscated within the code
• I would have no way to confirm that the machines hadn't been tampered with at the hardware level.

So someone who is (in comparison to the wider population at least) a domain expert can't 100% trust the results.

Voting systems which are not transparent to the vast majority of the population simply cannot be trusted. Those of us who are computer literate tend to forget that for a large portion of the population these machines might as well be magic boxes as far as the internals are concerned. At least with a paper based system you can actually walk into the counting stations, see what's happening and quickly understand the process involved without needing any sort of technical expertise.

thebman

I found out when on my 4th year project that my supervisor was one of the people that analysed these machines.

He has also been contracted to do work for IBM in research areas and was a lecturer for me for one year earlier in my course and is both smart and not caring about politics.

If ever I'd trust someone to evaluate a system like this, it would be that man who found massive flaws in it apparently.

the_syco

murphaph wrote: »

The article describes the physical hacking of the machines (talks about replacing a part, presumably that's the Microcontroller/EEPROM that contains the firmware that the machine runs off). This is no different surely than gaining access to ballot boxes and replacing their contents with new ballot papers, or am I missing something (ballot paper serial numbers must match a ballot box perhaps?)?

It would be like "gaining access to ballot boxes and replacing their contents with new ballot papers" before the ballot boxes were even put in a room next to a Garda.

pjmn

... an interesting potential alternative/option http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html

bleg

Was just about to post that pjmn

dvpower

If we were to apply the standards of security and integrity to the exisiting paper based system as we do to the eVoting system, we would scrap it immediatly.

The existing system is wide open to abuse.

BaconZombie

Based on US System to the same holds for the Irish Version:





Old Article but still nothing has changed:

CIA expert: Electronic voting not secure. Germany bans electronic voting machines.

Hack-a-Vote: Students at Rice learn how vulnerable electronic voting really is.

"Hotel Minibar" Keys Open Diebold Voting Machines.

thebman

dvpower wrote: »

If we were to apply the standards of security and integrity to the exisiting paper based system as we do to the eVoting system, we would scrap it immediatly.

The existing system is wide open to abuse.

True but if this governments machines are compared to paper, paper wins.

Other e-voting systems maybe better, this one was appallingly bad.

You can make a safe, verified e-voting systems but I've yet to see a government that has done this and people should be asking why?

The answer is obvious though, its in their interest to have one with back doors.