Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: poureva.be

Stories and comments across the archive that link to poureva.be.

Comments · 11

  1. Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition? by fgouget · · Score: 1 · on Software Bug Adds 5K Votes To Election

    This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure (except normal "computer is broken" style failures).

    You mean that this did not happen?

    Do you really think the cosmic ray is a believable explanation?

  2. Re:Much ado about very little by laurensv · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Demo of Free Software Voter-Verifiable Voting

    The Belgian system is crooked, last time they used it, there were several mistakes, in so far as that they decided that for the coming elections a paper trail is not desired. Read about it here in dutch and french .

  3. Re:USA makes a fool of themselves. E-voting IS mat by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on Can America Trust Electronic Voting?
    It would be interesting to know if anywhere in the Nerderlands there are oposition to your very special e-voting. In Belgium we are PourEVA and did block e-voting progress, force by legal action the source code to be publish, ...
    If you are Dutch speaking you can read ou Open brief aan de leden van het federale parlement van Belgie, else you can read the whole web site in french.
    There might be some stuff you don't know about election in the US. They have 100+ question to answer, from who should be the governor to the color of traffic light. So simple solution are not simple.
    Now back to the nederlands... and a few question:

    How do you deal with two election run the same day (European + xxx)?

    Is the source code + hardware specification of the system available to the general public?

    How does the voter know his vote has been counted... trust an expert?

    Is it possible to do recount in the Nederlands? What do you recount then?

    Is there a paper version of the vote printed (paper audit trail) that is VoterVerifiable?

    Do not hesitate to contact me (the web master of PourEVA) with information about e-voting in your european country.

  4. Re:USA makes a fool of themselves. E-voting IS mat by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on Can America Trust Electronic Voting?
    It would be interesting to know if anywhere in the Nerderlands there are oposition to your very special e-voting. In Belgium we are PourEVA and did block e-voting progress, force by legal action the source code to be publish, ...
    If you are Dutch speaking you can read ou Open brief aan de leden van het federale parlement van Belgie, else you can read the whole web site in french.
    There might be some stuff you don't know about election in the US. They have 100+ question to answer, from who should be the governor to the color of traffic light. So simple solution are not simple.
    Now back to the nederlands... and a few question:

    How do you deal with two election run the same day (European + xxx)?

    Is the source code + hardware specification of the system available to the general public?

    How does the voter know his vote has been counted... trust an expert?

    Is it possible to do recount in the Nederlands? What do you recount then?

    Is there a paper version of the vote printed (paper audit trail) that is VoterVerifiable?

    Do not hesitate to contact me (the web master of PourEVA) with information about e-voting in your european country.

  5. Belgium Mai 2003: e-voting BUG by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on E-Voting Glitch: 19,000 Voters, 144,000 Votes

    A Candidate receive 4096 extra vote more likely because cosmic ray can change the value of a bit.

    For more information about voting in Belgium (electronic and traditional).

    More information about Belgium e-voting on PourEVA.be

  6. Open Source is not the solution... by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on E-Voting Done Right - In Australia

    Richard Stallman say Free software is not the solution to democratic election.

    Adding a printer (Printing paper audit trail) might be the best option for the US that is stuck with voting machine.
    The best solution of all is PAPER and PEN.
    If you want speed in the result, then SCANNING the paper is the best option.
    Using computer to generate paper is not the cheapest way to make a PAPER BALLOT and any device between me and my vote is a risk to the secrecy of my vote.
    In french and dutch for Belgian that want to have fair election... PourEVA

  7. Re:Accuracy could be easily assured... by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on Observer Pans Touchscreen Voting Test

    In Belgium 43% of the population vote using magnetic card (no one but the computer can verify what is on the magnetic card).

    In May 2003, in order to proof the population that "e-voting" was OK we tested "ticketing" in two locations.

    With Ticketing, when you confirm your vote with the light pen, a ticket (piece of paper) get printed with your vote. The printer is behind a glass and you can only read your vote. You are asked to confirm and the ticket drop (for futur manual counting). Then your magnetic card is returned to you so that you can insert it for magnetic counting.

    At the end of the day, ticket are counted and compare to the magnetic result. The Belgian law for that experiment say that if the result are not the same... then the paper result is valid.

    Guess what took place...

    The paper result was not matching by 7% for one specific candidate (100 to 107 preferencial vote). The official expert that are monitoring electronic voting did choose to use the magnetic result saying that they were more accurate and that it was difficult to read the ticket for counting.

    "Voter Verifiable paper trail" is NOT the solution for fair, secret and democratic election. Adding a printer to a DRE might be the only chance to verify the election process in the US... but hand-casted-hand-counted vote is the best democratic solution.

    To learn (in french/dutch) about Belgium electronic voting: http://www.poureva.be/. David GLAUDE

  8. Re:Why electronic voting ? by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on Electronic Voting Machine Cracker Challenge

    Belgian is the worst of all... Spontaneous Bit Inversion change the result of the election. Feel free to join PourEVA association.

  9. Belgium had a mysterious bit inversion... by dglaude · · Score: 1 · on Diebold Voting Systems Grossly Insecure

    Belgium is having 43% of the population voting using computer (not at home) and magnetic card.
    On 18 May 2003 we had a mysterious and spontaneous bit inversion on the vote result ElectronicVotingRandomSpontaneousBitInversion.
    This problem was not explain by the code poor quality: AvailableVotingCode
    Believe it or not, but maybe by cosmic ray did strike the counting computer during election day: RandomSpontaneousBitInversion.
    I have documented and translated a few document in English for internationnal reader, you may want to check ElectronicVoting.
    Belgian can get more information in french from VoteElectronique. or PourEva.
    Trust me... never trust a computer or a computer expert for election result.

  10. In Belgium we have source code... so what? by dglaude · · Score: 5, Informative · on Seeking The Source For Ireland's E-Voting System
    In Belgium some citizen had to fight in court to get the source code of the election program beeing published.

    In 1991 nobody except private company had the code.
    In 1999 official expert asked for the state to own the code and suggest publishing it.
    In 2000 they published partial code and documentation with most important security part removed.
    In May 2003 they published full code (but no doc) of new system (AES added).

    Feel free to download analyse and report problem to us

    We have no way to check if that code was really in use. Because they use the same floppy disk to boot the system and to save the result, we have no way to make sure what was on the floppy at the begining of the election day. This is explained here but only in french.

    But having the code is not enough... actually Richard Stallman had something to say about Free Software not being enough.

    Now if you are Belgian and unhappy about the status of our election system, you can join or contact PourEVA.

    I personally believe that if we want to reduce the repetitive task of counting the ballot, we could use optical scanning (and make test manual recount). But we should never put a computer between our vote and the expression of our vote. Paper and Pen rules.

  11. Re:Has been like that in Belgium for years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Doubting Electronic Voting

    For french speaking, there is a web site telling about the BAD situation in Belgium: http://www.poureva.be/
    The source code provided for Belgium is full of missing piece replaced by //Confidentiel/Confidentieel//.
    There is no way to make sure this is the code really used durring the election.
    Most citizen need to trust expert choosen by the people in power for checking the code and code really in use. Those 9 experts (when they are all comming/selected) don't have the time to check everything and can only analyse what they receive. When they make remarks or have doubt, the thing they propose are not implemented.
    I have documented many thing (in french) on http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/VoteElectronique and a few thing in English (http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/ElectronicVoting)
    I have a nice quote from RMS for the peaple that want the program to be Free Software: http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/VoteElectroniqueEtLog icielLibre
    So what... are you happy with our e-democracy? Do you think ticketting is enough? Do you trust the peaple in power to organise free election... today... tomorrow... for ever?
    David GLAUDE Web master of PourEVA: Pour une Ethique du Vote Automatisé.