On 07/20/2016 12:24 PM, Sam Silvester wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Brendan <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 07/20/2016 11:54 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
AEC faces backlash over vote counting ‘black box’
George Lekakis
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/election-2016/2016/07/19/aec-backlash-vote-counting/
However, computer experts claim that the digital counting process cannot
be fully observed by the scrutineers of candidates because the AEC
refuses to disclose the source code of the automated system.
The lack of the ability to scrutinize electronic ballots is their major,
and I would hope fatal, flaw (not so in America, where they don't seem to
care about properly verifying the electoral process). I don't see that
access to source code helps the issue.
To be honest, I just don't see how it's possible to trust that there isn't
a fencepost error or the like in the preference distribution software
without the ability to scruitinise the process (hence, source code).
There's reviews conducted after each election where process issues are
discussed and improvements made - how would one even go about knowing
there's an issue to investigate if it's all closed?
To properly scrutinise it you'd also need to verify the operation of the/each
machine - what software was, in fact, loaded onto it, what did that software
do. Has the machine been compromised etc. Seems to me that vote stuffing would
be easier on a machine than a scrutinised ballot box.
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
