Doc Manalastas, I think the COMELEC announced that they will make the source code available on Feb 6, 2010 after the SysTest is done. Is this true? Is this acceptable: (1) to satisfy the law and (2) to satisfy the time requirements for a proper review.
Two to three months, right? But Feb 6, 2010 is a Saturday, so we'll get the code Feb 8, 2010 (Monday). If we allot exactly three months, that means review will be done May 8, 2010 (also a Saturday). Isn't the election on May 10, 2010? Is this deliberate, so that the review process will either be moot and academic or it will be used to declare a failure of elections? On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Pablo Manalastas <[email protected]>wrote: > --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Michael Mondragon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Given the fact > > that we are petitioning Comelec and take a source code > > review, this would take us so much time > > and now the petition or case (some sort if > > ever) needs to be filed in court > > I am sorry, but a petition for mandamus has already been filed at the > Supreme Court by CenPEG, to force COMELEC to release the source code of the > election programs to interested political parties and groups. PLUG does not > need to file a case anymore, because the necessary case is already at the > Supreme Court. > > > and source code > > review be done by the US will be postpone, > > Again, I am sorry, but SysTest, a U.S. based company contracted by COMELEC > will not do a source code review, but instead will do a user acceptance > testing. If we go by what the newspaper reports are saying, then user > acceptance testing will not be delayed, because SysTest will be paid PHP70 > million, and for that amount SysTest will do a UAT on time. > > > this will > > definitely won't take source code review at all. > > I'm not sure if my calculation is correct, because again > > enough time is needed in this case and its > > critical. What I am thinking guys is to think what > > other things we can offer to be of help instead of pushing > > this review. > > I am not asking PLUG, as an organization, to do a source code review. My > original post was to tell the group that CenPEG has already brought the > request for the source code to the Supreme Court, since COMELEC does not > want to do its duty under RA-9369 section 12. Also the reason that I am > informing PLUG that CenPEG has brought the case to the Supreme Court is that > a number of PLUG members, on an individual basis (not as PLUG the > organization) have volunteered to help CenPEG do a source code review, and > it seems only proper to tell them what we at CenPEG are doing to help make > source code review a reality. > > ~Pablo Manalastas~ > > > > I don't know maybe you can help us > > out here and shed some light. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > From: Dennis > > Legaspi <[email protected]> > > To: Michael > > Mondragon <[email protected]>; Philippine Linux > > Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List > > <[email protected]>; Drexx Laggui [personal] > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tue, > > October 13, 2009 11:46:53 AM > > Subject: Re: > > [plug] COMELEC SUED (Was: The Death of Election 2010 Source > > Code Review) > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the kind of task you can completely > > divide into chunks. You're right. If you > > have 20 auditors it doesn't mean you can reduce audit > > time to X/20. > > > > --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Drexx Laggui [personal] > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > From: Drexx Laggui [personal] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [plug] COMELEC SUED (Was: The Death of > > Election 2010 Source Code Review) > > To: "Michael Mondragon" > > <[email protected]>, "Philippine Linux > > Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List" > > <[email protected]> > > Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 1:48 AM > > > > > > 12Oct2009 (UTC +8) > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 18:08, Michael Mondragon > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I am just wondering, given the fact, let's > > say, we got some TRO of some sort, do we still have > > > time to do it? How many of us here, can go with > > source code review then if Comelec will allow > > > us to review source code publicly? Though I > > believe in our capability as Filipinos and most of > > > the people here are best of breed, I'm just > > checking since we are running out of time. How long > > > can Supreme Court can interfere with this? > > Let's say, 2 mos. from now, can we still have much > > > time? > > > > Very good questions. Depends on how many people do you have > > behind the > > word "we" as well as how skilled are the > > "we" people. If > > many > > volunteered but are there just to learn from the exercise, > > then your > > "we" is just a mob. > > > > A proper evaluation and assurance project typically runs > > from 6 months > > to 2 years. What you'd need now is an army of highly > > skilled > > evaluators / auditors to do that. Less than that, > > you'll get lower > > assurance levels, and much less audit evidence to give the > > Filipinos > > the confidence they require in the 2010 national > > elections. > > > > > > Drexx Laggui -- CISA, CISSP, CFE Associate, ISO27001 > > LA, CCSI, CSA > > http://www.laggui.com > > ( Singapore / Manila / California ) > > Computer forensics; Penetration testing; QMS & ISMS > > developers; K-Transfer > > PGP fingerprint = 6E62 A089 E3EA 1B93 BFB4 8363 FFEC > > 3976 FF31 8A4E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > > _________________________________________________ > > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > -- Regards, Danny Ching
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
