Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Takes Over E-Voting In Australian State

Posted by kdawson on from the you-call-that-a-distro dept.

daria42 writes "The Electoral Commission in the Australian state of Victoria has made plans to expand its use of electronic voting kiosks based on Linux in the next state election in November of this year. But it appears to be a little confused: the documentation states it will be using the '2.6 kernel/Gentoo release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.' Huh?"

8 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Pah by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    2.6/Gentoo RHEL is nothing compared to my Damn Small Yellow Dog DebuntuSE with FutureKernel 6.4

    --
    which is totally what she said
  2. Re:A couple of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have never seen a computer of any kind in a place where we vote. The process is obsessively manual and works very well.

    This is what surprised me. I was involved in the last election giving out the ballots and counting at the end. There were only 3 of us at our booth and we were paid something like $200 for the day. The process went very smoothly and everyone knew what to do. I think introducing computers here will be more expensive and cause more problems than it is worth.

    Hah, as a nerd I never thought I would say something like that.

  3. Still wrong by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Linux doesn't make electronic voting a good idea though. How can we check the published program is the one running ? It is akin to use opaque voting boxes without showing they are empty first.

    Spread the word to fellow voters : if YOU can't understand how the vote is secured, refuse the voting system !

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Still wrong by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's difficult to stuff a paper ballot box (which in most systems is never to be left unattended from when it's sealed to when the votes get counted) without it being fairly obvious.

      OTOH, there are plenty of places to hide an electronic vote stuffer on most electronic systems and it's a often a lot harder to verify that nobody's tampered with them.

    2. Re:Still wrong by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      paper votes can all be pyshically accounted for, and counted by a machine and then checked by multiple hand counters. thats the problem with electronic votes. how do you KNOW the button you pressed turned into the vote you asked for and can't be tampered with after the fact? while i'm sure there may be a solution like taking a hash of the vote based on it's time and result and storing it seperately to the vote itself, then checking these later to confirm they match. i'm not sure the public will be very comfortable with this concept for some time.

      you can't track or verify your vote after you've cast it obviously - to suggest any voting system is flawed due to a lack of tracking flys in the face of the secret ballot and is for retards.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:Still wrong by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you ever tried to track how your paper vote is counted?

      Yes I did. I am not sure of the US system but here (France) any citizen is welcome to participate or oversee the public counting of ballots. We use transparent ballot boxes so you are free to stay in the voting office from the opening to the counting. There are always several people there including opponents.

      Any voting system is subject to fraud. It's only the way of committing the fraud that changes.

      It is also the scale. Electronic voting makes nation-wide fraud possible. Electronic voting gives a single point of failure for fraud : the machine manufacturer.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  4. Get off my lawn! by ajv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Converting to Linux for voting machines is a big shift from the VEC of old. Color me impressed.

    I remember many years ago (1998-1999) working at the VEC. I was a system admin in my first security consultant job.

    DEC/Microsoft was helping the VEC create a Microsoft-only COM+ based voting system called EMS 2000. Previously, it had taken 3+ months to organize an election, despite laws allowing the Premier to call an election within a month at any time. So they had to be prepared a long way out, which was costly. EMS 2000 was essentially a way to roll out an election within three weeks. I believe it was used in at least a few elections. I wouldn't be surprised if EMS 2000 has been maintained and is still in use - it was a lot of $$$$$$ to spend on a project.

    EMS 2000 used every single part of the Microsoft stack. One thing I remember was how slowly Outlook 98 opened when it had 4000 tasks. EMS 2000 created Outlook tasks using COM+ custom queuing components over very slow modem and ISDN lines to all parts of the state. Surprisingly, this was still better than the previous system, which was primarily a manual system.

    It was a full MS stack with basically every single possible MS product at the time (NT, COM+, Exchange, SQL, queuing components using pre-release NT 5.0 / Win2K, and lots of custom VB code), it hung together well and ran fairly reliably considering the shaky comms at the time.

    --
    Andrew van der Stock
  5. Re:A couple of things by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    As for odd letters, some political party programmer needs a course in logic. Just because my brother and sister live at the same address and share a last name, they are not Mr and Mrs.

    Had you replaced WA with Tasmania, I would have disagreed with you right there.