Spot on Thomas. I find such disparaging remarks on Africa rather short-sighted and downright cynical.
Au contraire, I would like to draw your attention to the just concluded KCPE examinations in Kenya, they were marked and results announced in record time - this proved that the use of OMR technology on a countrywide scale works. OMR technology has been used successfully in the Philippines elections (In 2015 a code review by De La Salle University refuted claims that the Chinese planned to sabotage the elections - http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/09/08/Comelec-source-code-review-PCOS-OMR-public-school-teachers-pay-hike.html ). So, if we have our computer scientists focus more on building start-ups that can grow into the "Smartmatics" of Africa and less on blaming a failing political system, then we might have a more objective outlook to solve most of the underlying issues. On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Thomas Delrue <tho...@epistulae.net> wrote: > On 12/10/2016 04:39 AM, Zacharia Gichiriri wrote: > > Hi All, > > Hiya, I'll start off with my POV on e-voting: e-voting, whether this is > Estonia-type to vote from home (which is what I think this thread is > really talking about) or USA-type where you use a computer in the voting > booth, is a dumb idea! > > Voting should be done with pen/crayon & paper so that I, and anyone else > who can count from 0 to 10, can look at the stack of ballots and recount > them without having to 'trust' a third party (closed) system that > imposes an additional requirement of having to have detailed > understanding of how said e-voting system works. > > > In Africa, only a few countries can claim to have conducted free and > > fair elections. Majority of elected representatives in Africa want > > to cling to power forever against the will of their citizens or some > > of their citizens. To add salt to the injury, all dictators in > > Africa have a poor record of development and human rights. A lot of > > African leaders point to China as a case in point where democracy is > > not necessarily a catalyst for development. But is that true? > > I don't think this is limited to African countries. Belarus comes to > mind and so do a couple of others in all parts of the world. > > > Back to elections, electronic voting in Africa would dramatically > > increase transparency in the electoral process. Unfortunately, > > Africa has weak systems from Judiciary to Police that cannot > > guarantee free and fair elections. > > These two sentences seem to contradict one another. > > > The Police, the Judiciary, Independent Electoral > > Commissions have been and can be easily influenced by current > > regimes mostly through intimidation and in young and vocal > > democracies such as Kenya or South Africa through bribes. > > How does e-voting address these issues? With e-voting, you leave even > more of a trace of your activities/votes, thus opening you up to > intimidation and/or coercion to a greater degree. > > > Security is of the utmost concern but democracy is more important. > > Definition of utmost: of the greatest or highest degree. > So is it security or democracy that is the number one thing? You have to > chose, you can't have both be your "primary focus". > > Ideologically, I would agree that democracy is more important because it > is more conducive to provide a way to guarantee security - the vice > versa is not true. > Practically speaking though: would you care about [e-]voting if you're > cold, hungry or on the run or in hiding from your regime? (especially if > that e-voting allows your regime to track you, your location, your loved > ones?) > > > In one way or another people will always find ways to fight for > > their freedoms especially in the age of Internet where people can see > > the benefits of a democratic society. But instead of having people go > > to war or risk their lives, why can't we just use Technology to lay > > bare the truth? > > Because that technology is commissioned by, made by or blessed by the > powers-of-the-day. I'll just name-drop MITM here which is what you can > do if you are the one providing the hardware or software that collects > the votes which determine whether or not you stay in power. > When you're in power, The Truth(tm) is malleable to what you need it to > be to stay in power, especially when you're, errr, 'morally flexible'(*). > Just because it's code (the 'e-' part) doesn't mean it's suddenly better > than what you had before. Please, stop thinking like Silicon Valley, > i.e. "I have a hammer and therefore this problem is now a nail". > > Technology is a tool and tools can & will be abused if the stakes are > high enough, so elections most certainly fall under this. We've seen > this time and time again. Switching to e-voting is not going to solve > any problem related to voting itself or even its transparency. If the > stakes are high enough, I can forge the data which I will make available > for everyone to inspect, and thus prove that I should remain your leader. > > This problem is true with pen-and-paper voting as well, if you're gonna > cheat, you're gonna cheat (albeit a bit harder because now you're moving > physical ballots around instead of bits) but we're talking about > e-voting here and how it is a panacea that will fix all these issues, > amirite? My point is that e-voting doesn't solve any of the issues you > (and others) raise, and therefore it is not a better solution than the > analog form of voting (pen+paper). > > The *only* thing that e-voting addresses is the laziness of the > electorate that doesn't want to get up in the morning to go & vote and > wants to vote from home (Estonia-style e-voting). (Or isn't /allowed/ to > take the day/some time off in order to vote without repercussions > because they live in a feudal society. I'm looking at you over there, USA) > There is nothing else that e-voting solves -without creating bigger > problems in the process, like making coercion to vote a certain way, > easier- that cannot be addressed through 'analog' means. > > I also fail to see how using technology will prevent people from going > to war. If anything, judging by our history as a species... I'll let you > fill in the rest. > > > I think the subject of the discussion should be: How can we make > > e-voting more secure and credible? On implementing an e-voting > > system, we can look for inspiration from M-Pesa. M-Pesa handled > > $52.6 billion worth of transactions in the past financial year > > equivalent to 85% of Kenya's GDP. M-Pesa doesn't use HTTPS, it's a > > service embedded in your mobile sim card. It is built on a > > decentralized system where thousands of agents operate across Kenya. > > Users deposit and withdraw from the agents. From their mobile phones > > they can view their balance, send to other M-Pesa users etc etc.. > > What's with the throwing around of HTTPS and it's non-use by one > particular P2P token-exchange system? Why is this relevant to this thing? > If e-voting ever actually becomes a thing, and I fear it will, strong > crypto will most certainly play a large role in it. Suggesting it > shouldn't, isn't needed or that crypto is not germane to this subject is > unwise in my not-so-humble opinion. M-Pesa indeed "doesn't use HTTPS" > but it's also a completely different thing than e-voting. > > The hammer in my tool shed doesn't use petrol either, so what? > > > (*) corrupt > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/ > mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change > password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu. >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
