[E-voting] Diminished public confidence in the Nedap / Powervote system - CEV said extremely difficult to overcome

Catherine Ansbro cansbro at eircom.net
Fri Sep 1 10:03:36 IST 2006


I wonder to what extent the CEV was under pressure from
1) political forces
2) civil servant pressure (DoE doesn't want to look bad; and/or our own 
election officials)
3) vendors/legal forces (threats of lawsuits--real, imagined or hinted 
at--from vendors if they said anything negative w/o language that could 
be used for a positive spin)

and I wonder if it would be possible to find out more.

Catherine

Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:26:14PM +0100, Catherine Ansbro wrote:
>  
>
>>Joe, this seems highly significant. Among other things it raises a
>>question as to whether there are any other comments that the CEV did not
>>publish.
>>    
>>
>
>The report does look like it was significantly altered at late stages.
>For example Appendix 5A includes the text "The meaning of a voter
>verifiable audit trail (VVAT) was discussed in section 5.2 of part 5".
>but part 5 makes no mention of the term VVAT, and only discusses it in
>the most broad and general of terms.
>
>The report of the commission has numerous flaws;
>
>	1. The language of the report is considerably biased. Text such
>	as "The Commissions work has indicated improvements that would
>	be necessary in order to address these issues, many of which
>	involve only relatively minor modifications or additions to the
>	system." simply cannot be considered objectively neutral in
>	my opinion.
>
>	The language leaves open the significant reality that many of
>	the mofications are not minor at all, and that in fact, the
>	addition of a VVAT is neccessary. At every turn, in particular
>	in the executive summary, the commission strain to make some
>	seemingly positive remark about what it is utterly damning
>	material.
>
>	2. The commission have deliberately chosen to bury the VVAT
>	issue. It is clear that much work has been done into its
>	analysis, and the report even points out the sheer inadequacy
>	of anything else. Given the *entire* debate about E-voting
>	in Ireland has been about a VVAT, it's extremely odd that they
>	didn't consider this a significant finding worth highlighting.
>
>	3. Once again the risk assessment portion of the report,
>	appendix 5B, contains no methodology. The assements of risk
>	are seemingly about as valid as rolling a dice and picking
>	them that way. And in the latest report, there isn't even
>	a name put against the report. In the first, we were told
>	who made the assessment.
>
>	
>Given the work of the commission is costing us an awful lot of money a
>year, I've personally lost all faith in them and any respect I once held
>for them. For whatever reasons, they have clearly chosen to try and
>assist the Government. I don't know what their motives are, but I can
>only question their patriotism.  
>
>Either way, I see them now as part of the problem, not the solution.
>But at least they don't have a hope of getting anywhere, they can just
>continually waste money, which is at least slightly better than where
>we were 3 years ago.
>
>  
>



More information about the E-voting mailing list