[E-voting] Letter to the Public Accounts Committee

[Colm MacCarthaigh]

I have a *load* of emails in my inbox related to this, with some great
suggestions, however due to a death in my (non-immediate) family it's
going to be next week at the earliest now before I can look at it. If
someone wants to take it up in my absense, feel free :)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:35:59AM +0000, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> 
> The PAC will shortly be reviewing the matters surrounding the Electronic
> Voting PR contract. I'd like to throw in this grenade :) Comments
> welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> A Theacta,
> 
> 	I am writing on behalf of Irish Citizens for Trustworthy Voting (ICTE)
> in relation to a critical issue surrounding Electronic Voting and the 
> associated Public Relations contract. This letter is not concerned with the 
> awarding of the Contract but rather with its conduct.
> 
> 	In particular, ICTE believes that there is a very serious issue in that
> Government funds were spent on a Government Information Campaign, which
> broadcasters are obliged to carry, that had at its core a message that is
> categorically false. We believe that if Government information campaigns are to
> perform the vital service of informing the public on matters of importance,
> then much more consideration and care should go into their production and that
> it is not unreasonable to expect that their assertions should be
> well-researched, accurate and backed up with evidence or expert opinions.
> 
> 	Instead, the Government Information Campaign on Electronic Voting was
> either wilfully misleading, or misleading as a result of gross incompetence.
> We believe that neither situation is desirable. 
> 
> 	In seeking to further our belief that such information campaigns should
> be accurate, ICTE has complained to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland but
> were informed that the content of Government Information Campaigns were beyond
> its remit. Myself, Margaret McGaley and Adrian Colley met with the Minister for
> the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Dick Roche T,D. on the 18th
> of January and requested an investigation into the conduct of the PR campaign,
> however this reqyest was flatly rejected. As such, we respectufully request
> that the Public Accounts Committee take up this matter, which is essential to
> ensuring accuracy in any further Information Campaigns.
> 
> 	What follows is a brief account of the particulars, and the context in
> which we assert the Information Campign was misleading.
> 
> 	Members of ICTE, including myself, were at the Mansion House launch of
> the information campaign (an event which itself seemed overly extravagant) and
> had the opportunity to review the material then. The central message of the
> campaign was that Electronic Voting was "Easier for everyone" and that the
> public should not feel uncomfortable using electronic technology, as we use it
> everyday. 
> 
> 	While naturally dissapointed with this message, it is clearly a
> subjective opinion, and not open to categorical refutation; that voting with
> buttons rather than a pencil may be "easier" is a certain point of view, and a
> not altogether invalid one. Although perhaps such opinions should have been
> rendered more scientific through the use of usability surveys and research. 
> 
> 	At the time it was noted by our membership that the chosen Electronic
> Voting system would be easier for malicious persons to tamper with, so from our
> point of view there were certain ironic truisms associated with the message.
> The infamous (for omitting Fine Gael entirely and voting for Fianna Fáil on the
> sample ballot imagery) information leaflet however did gloss over the debate
> surrounding Electronic Voting. 
> 
> 	In particular, the questions "How do I know that my vote is recorded?"
> and "What happens if there is a power failure?" had seriously flawed answers.
> In response to the former, the leaflet (and website) completely failed to
> mention that in fact there is categorically no way to verify that a vote has
> been recorded correctly by the chosen system. In response to the latter, the
> answer was incorrect in that it assured that votes cast would be safe in the
> event of a power failure. In fact, ICTE and other parties interested in
> Electronic Voting  had identified conditions in which votes would not be safe
> in the event of a power failure.
> 
> 	These concerns are nothing however compared to next development of the
> information campaign. By late March the main message of the Government
> information campaign had chanegd from "Electronic Voting - it's easier for
> everyone" to "Electronic Voting - safe, accurate and reliable".
> 
> 	To put this in context, by that time members of ICTE, opposition
> political parties and others had made the Government and Department aware of
> categorical and undeniable safety, reliability and accuracy issues concerning
> the system. Margaret McGaley of ICTE and Joe McCarthy had presented evidence to
> the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local
> Government outlining concerns with the system including the incredible ease
> with which the counting machines were likely to be prone to basic security
> problems.
> 
> 	I, on behalf of ICTE, had written multiple letters [1] to Martin Cullen
> T.D., then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Governmet, and a
> further letter [2] to every member of the Cabinet outlining the falsehoods
> being claimed of the chosen system and the debate.
> 
> 	When the Commission on Electronic Voting presented its first Interim
> report, it confirmed the claims of ICTE and other critics of the chosen
> Electronic Voting system, going so far as to say:
> 
>   "experts retained by the Commission found it very easy to bypass electronic
>    security measures and gain complete control of the 'hardened' PC, overwrite
>    the software, and thereby in theory to gain complete control over the count 
>    in a given constituency,"
> 
> 	The report also identified numerous other problems with the system,
> directly related to accuracy:
> 
>   "As the software version proposed for use at the forthcoming elections is not
>    as yet finalised, it is impossible for anyone to certify its accuracy"
> 
>   "Certain of the tests performed at the request of the Commission identified
>    an error in the count software which could lead to incorrect distributions of
>    surpluses; there is a possibility that further testing will uncover further
>    software errors"
> 
> 	It is therefore critical to question, how is it that the Government
> Information campaign managed to make such categorically false claims regarding
> safety, accuracy and reliability? The Department and Government had been fully
> informed of the faults of the system through multiple means, and as the
> Commission on Electronic Voting make clear it was impossible for anyone to make
> claims regarding the accuracy of a system which had not been finalised.
> 
> 	This very fact had been consistently pointed out by ICTE and others at
> every opportunity for the preceeding six months, and it is stretching credulity
> to believe that the Department and Government were not aware of this.
> 
> 	In summary, we believe that there was ample evidence and controversy at
> the time making clear the serious problems in relation to security, accuracy
> and reliability of the chosen system and that the assertions made in the
> Government Information Campaign can only be interpretted as false. The
> Department appear unwilling to investigate or remedy the situation which led to
> public funds being spent on misleading information and as such we respectfully
> request the Public Accounts Committee to investigate.
> 
> 	Is mise le meas,
> 
> 			Colm MacCárthaigh
> 
> 
> [1] URL of letters to Cullen
> [2] URL of letter to Cabinet
> 
> -- 
> Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> E-voting mailing list
> E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
> http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
> 

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net