21–30 of 100 posts
A counting algorithm is a trade secret? How did this even come to be?
The algorithm is public. It's the Australian Electoral Commission's implementation of it, their software, that's used in public elections that they're calling a trade secret.
Clearly so -- except the AEC explicitly say "The algorithm is the trade secret."[1] Which to me says they don't know what algorithm means.
[1]: http://easycount.mjec.net/2013-12-09-aec-to-mjec.pdf at paragraph 57.
http://www.zdnet.com/au/senate-calls-for-release-of-aec-vote... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/it-pro/government-it/vexatio...
The Electoral Commission has since refused to comply with the Senate order to release the source code: http://lee-rhiannon.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/ron...
"I am advised that publication of the software could leave the voting system open to hacking or manipulation"
Shouldn't this "advice" demand substantiation or evidence? Surely it's not enough for one to just get "advice" right? If so then any Joe could lie to this officer and they could write the same thing.
Also, what does that bit about "commercial-in-confidence" mean?
A counting algorithm is a trade secret? How did this even come to be?
The algorithm is public. It's the Australian Electoral Commission's implementation of it, their software, that's used in public elections that they're calling a trade secret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case a simpler fix would be to allow any independent party (within reason) to supply and use their own software and render their own tally. If the parties are mutually distrusting, and their tallies still agree, that can be enough to trust the outcome. Auditing the source code has no real utility; it's worthless because you can't be sure that the code you've audited is the code actually running. "Open and ver…
I would prefer if the input to the software was published and anyone could verify the outcome. Unfortunately, currently none of this information is published and the whole system is based on trust.
Having audited the source code really doesn't help; it won't remove the need to perform independent verification.
Similarly, merely publishing the input won't help much either; how do you verify that the published input corresponds to the actual votes? It won't remove the need for independent parties to observe the raw input (paper votes) and to make their own tallies; in which case those parties can publish their own copies.
Asking for the input to be published and the source to be published is just scraping the surface and won't add meaningful security. You need independent observation by mutually distrusting parties.
Visibility of the source code is a side-show in electronic voting systems. Even if the source code is published, there is no way to be sure that that is the code that is running on the hardware, or to be certain that the hardware itself has not been tampered with. Votes need to be printed out on paper, verified by the voter, and counted by hand. Still, when we had the source code for the Irish system (now abandoned d…
My own suspicion is that they DO know of numerous problems either current or past and quite likely these will cast enough doubt on some particular past results that it would bring about a constitutional crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Electoral Commission has since refused to comply with the Senate order to release the source code: http://lee-rhiannon.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/ron...
"I am advised that publication of the software could leave the voting system open to hacking or manipulation". Well, if the problems are there, opening up the source to more eyes strikes me as the obvious thing to do; or should those with the knowledge of how to manipulate it as it stands be kept to the bare minimum? :) But in any case, at least the meat of the implementation of the algorithm should be OK to release…
Or, is it available online without any authentication other than knowing where it is? So if you know where it is, you could enter votes and then manipulate the election with those fake votes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Electoral Commission has since refused to comply with the Senate order to release the source code: http://lee-rhiannon.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/ron...
@mjec, "I am advised that publication of the software could leave the voting system open to hacking or manipulation" Shouldn't this "advice" demand substantiation or evidence? Surely it's not enough for one to just get "advice" right? If so then any Joe could lie to this officer and they could write the same thing. Also, what does that bit about "commercial-in-confidence" mean?
Visibility of the source code is a side-show in electronic voting systems. Even if the source code is published, there is no way to be sure that that is the code that is running on the hardware, or to be certain that the hardware itself has not been tampered with. Votes need to be printed out on paper, verified by the voter, and counted by hand. Still, when we had the source code for the Irish system (now abandoned d…
It's not a side show at all, it's the most important thing. By showing us the code the AEC is making the implicit commitment that this is the code running on their systems. Until they show us some code they are not even making that commitment at all - they could be running anything, they could change it every day to match their whims. My own suspicion is that they DO know of numerous problems either current or past a…
For example the entire source code to Linux is public, but looking from the outside, you as an observer have no way to know that a particular copy of the Linux code is what is running on my laptop.
Which is why I say it's a side-show. If the source code is shabby, getting it might help a little in the short-term; it makes the whole process less reputable. But code can be rewritten. It distracts from the real need; independent verification of the process itself.
Thats appalling. As an Australian citizen, who should I call about this to voice my objection?
Save your time, I already know the response to that.
It's 'Get Fucked'. And that was before the election.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/07/get-fucked-turnbull-staff...