[E-voting] Morning Ireland
M.Cosgrave at ucc.ie
Tue Feb 3 10:42:06 GMT 2004
yes, what really annoyed me was that Sean Fleming lied when he insisted that
the software had been independently tested.
A version of the software was tested, and criticised, but the version which
we may be compelled to trust next June has not been independantly tested.
(as far as we know, it may not even be finished yet since it is being
delivered as late as possible)
Since Deputy Fleming chairs the committee in which all of this was
discussed, he knows this, so either he lied or he does not understand the
importance of this distinction.
Gilmore, sadly, was not able to catch this. If the Govt are going to trot
out the 'but it was tested..' then it must be made clear that what was
tested is not the same software that we'll be usign next June.
It would be a positive move at this stage to suggest that the conduct of
elections be moved away from DOELG to a totally independant election
commission whose prime concenr would be runnning the elections, not worrying
about saving face.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Barry [mailto:ievote at cutehoor.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:23 AM
> To: E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> Subject: [E-voting] Morning Ireland
> Last five mins of Morning Ireland were Eamonn Gilmore and
> someone from
> FF / public accounts committee debating the Ombudsman's suggestion of
> independent testing.
> FF guy's big argument was that system has been tested. So
> main argument against VVAT is that the system has been 'tested' and
> found OK. Why that's incorrect should high up on the list in
> FAQ, myths,
> website etc.
> Trying to remain objective, I'll admit that attacking the testing
> company directly does not work very well in the media,
> because it's very
> hard to debat the finer points.
> It's probably better to point out that they tested an older
> version of
> the system, not the one that will be used for the next
> election, and one
> that does not follow current best practice world-wide.
> The cheapness of the testing done by the Government is
> something that's
> not obvious either. Perhaps we should make the Euro value of
> the testing
> more obvious:
> €36 million on purchasing, €10,000 on testing. Does that sound
> rigorously tested?
> (not sure of my figures here but someone can add it up).
> E-voting mailing list
> E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
More information about the E-voting