[E-voting] Summary of meeting

[Cian]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:58:43AM +0000, Fergal Daly wrote:
> I think in future it is important to have a complete description of what we
> consider an acceptable solution. Until you have this written down, you
> cannot refute the point made by Mr R. I know we have tried to avoid
> advocating a particular system but I think this is a weakness in our
> position that needs to be fixed.
> 
Hm. My thoughts about this lead me to the conclusion that coming up with a
precise description - technology, policies, procedures and all - is not really
our job; all we can realistically do is point out what is wrong with the current
system and why it can't be trusted as well as the one it is replacing.

It is up to engineers and security/elections/policy people to figure out
exactly what would work - what we need to point out is that this has not been
done. No-one has seriously sat down and worked out a business case. No-one has
made a really deep comparison of the strengths & weaknesses of the paper system
vis a vis the electronic system. From the Government, we've had nothing but
half-assed ideas about how great it would be to be a bang-up-to-date electronic
democracy, and an incredible tendency to uncritically believe whatever the
vendors are saying.

Lots of really foundational work just hasn't been done, and I think that it's
asking a bit much of an ad-hoc, unfunded organisation to provide all of the
answers. We can only try and get people to understand that the emperor has no
clothes.

Am I being unreasonable here?

Cian

-- 
       "Metaphors are wondrous candles which illuminate the hidden
             connections between things." -- Jonah Goldberg