Offhand, the P11.3 billion budgetary fund duly legislated for the forthcoming 2010 elections to take off in – automation – ranged against the number of voters who will actually vote on that day to express their voice might tell us just how expensive the whole exercise could cost.
In other words, the purchase of some 80,000 computers at P100,000 each for a one-shot use might prove to be not advantageous to the government unless otherwise there is no other better economic option present like renting the whole ‘infrastructure or apparatus’ from a company that can provide it to include allied services.
This means getting the entire project sub-contracted to those who can meet the program specifications as well as with reputation that passed the qualification criteria set for the purpose.
Come to think of it, the breakdown for this legislated amount has not been supplied that one senator thinks it is like giving a blank check to the COMELEC under that fund cap for whatever stuff that are yet to be identified and will be purchased. Again, this goes beyond the normal implementation of projects that ought to be accompanied by such requirements as a program of work and all. That likewise does not perhaps close the door for subsequent fund request when found necessary from being approved. Well, then – so be it.
The other day, a subject matter expert in the person of a certain Ike Senerez was interviewed over Dos for Dos by Anthony Taberna and Gerry Baja and any average reader would tend to believe that indeed, the whole government project toward an automated vote count and all its attendant procedures and processes may not be fool-proof as intended. In other words, it can only result in a process of real time quick count of the votes across the country as the ballots have been cast and as they get transmitted from ‘node to node’, as if it were, to reach its central station that officially registers it. Senerez has made a thorough and comprehensive discussion on the possibility that it can be hacked.
The issue is then whether or not, this COMELEC project as prescribed by law – can be the vicious object of hacking. And the subject matter expert believes that it is so to the point he dares challenge that it be put to test with him providing at least very ten very young hackers to do the trick. It is not known however if such proposal has reached the COMELEC chair but it is worth looking into.
The new COMELEC automated count should in fact be put to test before it can be launched. Let it not be said the Senerez proposal will do the COMELEC a disservice but a favor. After all, it is taxpayer’s money being spent in the billions for what might turn out to be a faux pas. Besides, COMELEC ought to allay fears that the new ‘digital counting machine’ may have embedded in it instructions that the naked eye cannot see but only by an optical reader. In short, the possibility that it would have been designed in such a way that what it actually does is a false count is never far removed. If that happens, one can say, this is a sophisticated form of cheating reminiscent of the ‘hello Garci’ audio-tape scandal.
Certainly, should the COMELEC allow a couple more tests, it does not have to limit itself with the offer from Ike Senerez and his ten little angels. Wisely enough, Ike did not make any claim of a being a hacker (in the good or bad sense of the word) but did claim to be a project manager who, among other things, would also know how hacking is being done. In fact, that interview educates listeners on the possibilities of hacking as explained in very understandable language and line of thinking.
For instance, Senerez pointed out that there will be problem on who holds the key in an encryption that has been likened to a lock. Further, he made mention of the possibility of hacking happening while transmission is taking place or while the packets so-called are broken up while in transit such that the data that will reach its intended node will be different from the original data. And hacking can happen anywhere – the hackers being able to operate from within the system and even more so outside of it. Said plainly, the system however automated has actually been approached manually. Maybe, this is what Senator Roxas is saying as the ‘garbage in, garbage out’ in computerization.
The point is, if the experts themselves are telling us that the government project is not immune from such attacks, it stands to reason that such concern be addressed with open-mind and let hacking show whether or not, this project has contained all the necessary security or safeguard against all possible forms of ‘criminal’ activity in cyberspace. The cyberspace is simply replete with a long list of cyber crimes having been committed against thought-to-be well-guarded government cyber stations. And hackers all throughout the web come in different hats – the black hat, the white hat, the gray hat, script kiddie, hactivist, whatever. All told, there is reason to be apprehensive if the system will be hacked by those with various motives and especially so on whether they are pro-GMA or are otherwise anti-GMA.
Where motives are involved, there is even greater reason that all suspicion be allayed so that at the end of the day, everyone can say the election just had were clean, honest, and reflective of the true voice of the people And that therefore, those elected truly enjoy the full moral ascendancy to rule. Likewise, this is probably the time we can say that the voice of the people is in fact, the voice of God. If it is not so, elections – automated or not – would have served no real purpose.
Let us give Senerez the chance to prove himself right if the COMELEC chair may please.
Popularity: 1% [?]
OFF-TOPIC BUT VERY DISTURBING
“A day after she was abducted in Davao City, the daughter of a commander of the New People’s Army (NPA) in Davao was found dead in a creek in Davao del Norte province.
Radio dzBB’s Davao affiliate reported that the brutalized body of Rebelyn Pitao, 20, was found in Carmen town.”
I hope it was not mean an upping of the ante of the war between the government and NPA.
Very scary indeed.
We have all families… the communists and the government people.
Scary to think dughters of military officers and officials to be kidnapped, raped and killed. They can do that also.
That kind of war must avoided by both sides.
There is no such thing as fool-proof system. All
system created is subject to tempering, manipulation,etc… by people who wants to cheat.
The only solution for a good, transparent election
is for all citizens to be vigilant of any election
frauds, cheatings, irregularity etc…
If they give you money to buy your vote. Take the
money and dont vote for them.
They have a way of checking if you took the money but voted differently.
They might even kill you or at least you may be asked to have to refund.
Just kidding.
I heard the COMELEC commissioner too anxious to start spending the P11.3 billion because according to him, not to do so, will be unlawful.
Isn’t that kind of statement, unlawful?
Will the COMELEC please make public the actual breakdown for the P11.3 billion complete with their specifications, program of work, and service contracts?
Please?
automated counting systems won’t solve election cheating if the rigging of elections is done from the inside by insiders.
computerized systems in the hands of these COMELEC garci-ites will only make cheating faster (automated na kasi eh, “hindi matrabaho”) and more difficult to detect (kasi walang paper trail)
if you don’t trust the people running the elections–and i know this is counter to everything you hear from the election experts–then we need to keep using paper ballots…until the garci operators who helped arroyo and zubiri “win” in 04 and 07 are exposed and removed from the COMELEC.
I had a similar exchange over at Manolo Quezon’s blog (with blogger jcc) concerning the issue of the encryption key. I mentioned that anyone who holds the key can tamper or substitute the results. Given its track record, is it really wise to trust a system where the COMELEC is in charge of the key?
cvj,
Fresh off the Griddle at Physics Dot Org is a Fool Proof Verifiable Election System: one that guarantees ballot privacy while providing “mathematical proof” of a correct tally!
The verifiable voting system, available as open-source/free software, implements advanced cryptographic techniques to maintain ballot secrecy while providing a mathematical proof that the election tally was correctly computed.
Advertised as “not needing to trust the Comelec”!
DJB, the technology sounds cool and promising! (In the mlq3 thread i linked to, commenter Mindanaoan was in fact advocating such a scheme. It’s good to hear that there is actually a way to implement it.)
However, in itself, the system as described is still susceptible to systemic attacks, specifically by manufacturing fictitious voters who are assigned fictitious tracking numbers and will never complain (because they don’t exist). If you can link that to a voter registration system to verify that only actual voters are the ones who have cast their ballot, then it would start to meet the minimum technical requirements of a COMELEC-proof election system.
I like the system though because it may eventually make direct (web-based) referendums on legislative bills easier which means we can eventually get rid of our representatives and switch to some form of direct democracy.
cvj, strictly speaking Helios is just a verifiable polling system. The voter registration system would have to be separate. But if the Comelec commits to a web-based public-private database, there are many possibilities. For example, the Comelec must publish a geographic database showing over time the numbers of registered voters in each precinct. Watchdog organizations have to migrate to the Web too and can perform the task of watching these voter registration MAPS. Software can watch for tip off trends and warn of cheating or attempts at creating artificial voters.
The other big benefit of web based open data base systems is that much can be learned from such simple data as time when votes are allegedly cast in all precincts, etc.
BTW, cell phones getting integrated into these systems and ideas offer even more exciting possibilities for solving the problem of securing future elections for good.
DJB, i agree. My take is that Helios as a standalone technology is not enough to secure Philippine elections. It has to be built as part of an over-all system (people, process and technology) that includes integration with the voter’s registration system and database.
I do like the Open Source aspect. As i previously mentioned that whatever software component to be used for the elections, it should be open source.
sorry, As i previously mention (corrected link).
sorry again, As i previously mentioned (corrected link).
I still think paper ballots is the best for our situation. Cheating is easier to detect because it takes massive amounts of time and manpower to fix the documents and records para magkatugma-tugma sila. maraming human errors at inconsistencies ang lalabas, pagdating sa math nila, sa handwriting nila, sa date inconsistencies…
ang problema, mabilis nga malaman kung may dayaan. pero wala pa ring napaparusahan sa mga COMELEC at military.
kasi hindi interesado ang gobierno at ang mga kakampi nila sa simbahan na ilabas ang katotohanan.
so mga parekoy, hindi ito kasalanan ng manual voting o paggamit ng paper ballots. kasalanan na ito ng election at government officials at mga moral enablers nila sa simbahang katoliko.
True, paper ballots is still the best solution.
No one knows what is inside the computer. There will be no paper trail. The hacker can delete his tracks leaving no trace.
Or consider this. If I vote for Politican A, 5 more votes will be added. If another vote for Politican B, 5 less votes will be subtracted. When totalled for check or review, the whole anomaly would have been mathematically correct. But of course, something happened.
Something like this can happen in e-voting and a lot more – a lot more.
The key conceptual problem–and the most interesting from a technological as well as a philosophical point of view–is how to effectively eliminate the need to “trust” those who are running the election, namely the Comelec Commissioners.
or in the case of the automated system, how to eliminate the need to trust the computer, or more precisely the programmer of the computer.
Well, I would suggest to those who consider this a profound problem to consider the simple reality of the Automatic Teller Machine system run by the banking system.
This is a real life example that proves such automated systems do exist and are in wide and mundane use!
cvj,
to bring it all down to earth, i envision an Automatic Election Machine System looking very much like the common Automatic Teller Machine System of a bank. They are secure, accurate and trustworthy enough for our money, they can be adapted to safeguarding the vote. Coupled to the World Wide Web on a completely free and open basis, mathematics can be enlisted to secure Democracy itself, with the help of software like Helios.
Take the Voter Registration problem. I propose solving it the way banks deploy and manage bank accounts. Comelec can operate like a bank opening Voter Suffrage Accounts. Naturally every person gets a Voter ID card in the form of an AEM Card with all personal info encrypted including positive ID (voice, iris data, fingerprint, photo, whatever). Using this card on election day will be like making a deposit or payment at an ATM, except we do it on an AEM. In front of a videocam of course. The banks have already solved this problem technologically.
There is even a paper trail!
But you see, even those who invented these ATMs we find all throughout the world, had been hacked whoever most crudely.
Have we forgotten about the “ruler method”? Someone discovered that by simply putting a ruler right below where the cash will come out from the ATM machine, unseen from the person trying to withdraw cash, the money is actually dispensed and rightly recorded in the transaction.
However, the person does not get the money. Another person does after he leaves the kiosk.
In other words, there will always be a wiser other guy who can invent ways to steal your money as to steal your votes.
philippine election will always be a cheaters game…automated or not. The problem is not the election system/computers/infrastructures…the problem is the candidate and the voters…
we the Filipino voters are as shitty as the politicians that we vote.
and it is very normal for us Filipinos to put the blame to someone or to something..and in this case we blame the poll system..so we automate it hehehe
We are all doomed!!!!!! while the politicians will be richer as ever…hahahahaha
if there’s a way citizens can verify the computer count on their own.
at least kapag sa ATM, kung binibilang mo ang pera mo, mave-verify mo kung tama ang laman sa bank account mo.
can djb or the media do the same thing with da election votes?
let’s take DJB’s argument one step further. let’s say napansin mo na may discrepancy yung laman ng bank account mo sa actual amount ng pera moi. nag-complain ka sa bangko, pero dine-deny ng bangko na may bawas ang account mo. imahinashyon mo lang raw yon.
ganon ang COMELEC.
i’m not worried about hackers “hacking” the system. parang yan ang straw man ni DJB. wag matakot sa hackers dahil nasanay na tayo sa ATMs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/us/12vote.html?ex=1305086400&en=5b3554a76aad524a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1143959964.shtml
can anybody tell me if there’s an easy way for ordinary citizens, the media, the church, or outside IT experts to verify the accuracy COMELEC/garci automated counts? ang problema kasi, walang imbestigasyon at housecleaning na nangyari eh nung pumalit si melo sa comelec.
http://www.politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-can-melo-guarantee-clean-elections.html
buti yung sa minnesota senate recount ni franken at coleman, may paper ballots sila ano?
DJB, the design requirements for ATM’s is different from that of Voting systems. In ATM’s, what matters is personal secrecy and the ability to do secure transactions. In Election Systems, what matters is openness and verifiability of the aggregated information.
here’s another thougth experiment… would you trust a computerized election run by Marcos’ election officials? let’s say automated na ang botohan noong 1986, would that have helped the credibility of the 1986 elections?
Have you read about the Open Election System? Its features (at least in the concept and process) satisfies most of what you guys have been discussing. http://tinyurl.com/p397tn
It also incorporates secure authentication process, and also a key is generated to refer to should you want to check if the election returns info is the same in both the precinct and the central database server.
It also has the facility to let the public check the Election Returns data at the precinct level. You can read up on it more on the OES primer. Too bad it wouldn’t be implemented since the COMELEC was partial to adapting the OMR as the only technology to use come 2010 national elections.