Australian Voting Software Goes Closed Source

Scott Ritchie ended up delivered an angry rebuttal to Friday's OSCON presentation on the credibility of election software: What's strange is that his rebuttal came in response to a talk he himself had just delivered. Ritchie doesn't have a split personality, and wasn't simply playing devil's advocate. He found himself, though, in the strange situation of having agreed (as a last minute stand-in) to deliver a presentation he hadn't yet had a chance to read, provided by Dr. Clive Boughton of Australian software developer Software Improvement. (Boughton is also a Computer Science lecturer at Australian National University.) Between agreeing to fill in and arriving at the conference, Ritchie found that Software Improvement was switching its eVACS voting software from a Free, open source software license (specifically, the GPL) to terms "even worse than that on MS's shared source," and decided to do something about it. (Read more below.)

From Diebold's last-minute installation of uncertified software updates on its touch-screen election machines in California (leading to decertification of the company's machines in several California counties) to ethically troublesome relationships between politicians and the companies whose machines count the votes that determine their employment, the possible benefits of electronic voting seem swamped at the moment by objections (from simply prudent to caustically cynical) to its security and integrity.

Within the world of electronic voting, though, eVACS (for "Electronic Voting and Counting System") has been a rare success story both for open source development methodology and for the benefits that electronic voting can offer. The first generation of eVACS (running on Debian Linux machines) was developed starting in March 2001 in response to a request for bids by the Australian Capitol Territory Electoral Commission (ACTEC), and it was done on a budget of only AUS$200,000.

(The Australian Capitol Territory includes Australia's capitol city, Canberra, as well as surrounding suburbs and Namadgi National Park.)

Besides a respectable list of features driven by ACTEC's initial requirements (like support for 12 voting languages, and audio support for blind voters), eVACS has an advantage not enjoyed by many electronic voting systems: it's been successfully, uneventfully used to gather votes in a national election. The election in which it played a part went smoothly, and the eVACS system itself functioned as hoped.

This year, though, ACTEC asked Software Improvement to update the code for future elections, and Software Improvement decided to go them one better -- or, in the eyes of open source enthusiasts, one worse. The notes Ritchie was provided to deliver announced a change to the process under which the code is released; specifically, a switch from an open source license to something the company calls "controlled open source."

According to Software Improvement, simply releasing election-machine code under a liberal license such as the GPL is undesirable for two reasons: it means a loss of the company's intellectual property, and unfettered access could lead to a compromise of the voting system, if a determined cracker could find and exploit flaws in the code. (Software Improvement has not supplied any examples to show that this has happened, however.)

The company's use of "open source" would find little support from organizations like the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative. Software Improvement's idea of software openness is rather limited. Claiming that open source development is insufficient, even inimical to creating trust in election systems, the company now says that portions of eVACS's codebase will be released only to approved analysts, and in encrypted form, to enable viewing only for auditing purposes, rather than code contribution. Repeated viewings would be reported to the company, and only a limited number of views would be permitted before the code would self-destruct.

After delivering the prepared presentation, Ritchie took a few minutes to react to the changes it announced.

"Six hours ago, while I was reading through this on the plane," said Ritchie, "I was infuriated to read what it actually says."

Ritchie, though, is a computer-literate political science student at the University of California - Davis, and behind the Open Vote Foundation. He said he's decided to resume the project represented on that site, started with the intent to fork and bring to the U.S. the first generation, GPL'd version of eVACS.

"A long time ago, I read the first news report about Diebold, wondered why we didn't have open source election software for our voting machines. Eventually, I found out that Australia had apparently beaten us to it. It seemed like a good thing; the eVACS system was developed and released as GPL code, it was checked and rechecked by computer science people and all kinds of election officials. I said, 'Why don't we bring this to the U.S.? It's GPL, let's do it.'"

So he started the nonprofit Open Vote Foundation to bring the software to the U.S., specifically to California. Ritchie went to the meeting at the California Attorney General's office which resulted in decertification of Diebold machines in that state's 2004 election process, and his involvement in the fight against Diebold's secret-source voting machines is what led him to the open source eVACS; now he finds that the restrictions on the formerly GPL software are "even worse that that on MS's shared source. To call that open source is a bit dishonest."

"As of 6 hours ago," he said, "I've decided to start that again. It's not that hard; I mean how hard is it to say 'add one to this vote'? ... I remembered my old plan, and thought 'Let's take the old Australian code, fork it, and work from that -- and that is still an option. This is the great thing about open source software. If the old lead developer goes insane, you can always fork it, right?"

His opening line?

"A Dingo Ate My Vote."

Re:His opening line?

"A Dingo Ate My Vote."

"To vote against the incumbent, hit the monkey!"

Re:His opening line?

Jesus Christ on an electric moped, it's not a Seinfeld quote, it's not a quote from some fictional movie, the line "The dingo's got my baby!" and the movie it was drawn from ( "A Cry in the Dark", iirc ) were based around a real case - that of Lindy Chamberlain.

This case was a total societal clusterfuck here in Australia. Half of the population believed in her story, and the other half thought she was full of it. Lindy ended up being found guilty of murder, and locked away for four years - after which her conviction was overturned ( and many people are still not convinced ).

To give you an idea of just how deeply this event has graved itself into the national psyche, I was four months old when it happened, and even I can tell you the name of the baby in question ( Azaria ). I guess the closest comparison Americans could make would be the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, although even that's not a real good fit.

It's not really that funny! Bleah!

When is civil disobedience justified?

I have been wondering lately if phsyically damaging these machines is not justified in a system that is supposed to cherish democracy to such a high degree. Civil disobedience is justified in some cases, and I believe that the use of unverifiable electronic voting machines with known vulnerabilities is just such a case.

Remember, Americans: Bring your voter registration card, and a sledgehammer for Diebold. They are stealing our freedom to vote, the very democracy over which so much blood has been spilled, and the corrupted political process is encouraging it via awarded contracts and almost silent acquiescence.

This crosses political affiliations and affects all Americans. I strongly believe that this must be stopped it by all means necessary or we will lose the ability to collectively affect the policies of our country, no matter how small your individual voice might be. This is zealous, without a doubt, but not all zealotry is bad. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." And some things are too important to wait upon the justice system to work, even when it does. Sometimes men must take justice into their own hands.

Live free or die.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

Well, if most people actually would vote, maybe we could see whether it does or not. The voter turnout rate in the US is so abysmal that you probably have a point.

If you don't vote, however, you really have no right to complain about the way things work. This is a democracy after all, even if it has its share of problems, and individuals can work to change things, even if they aren't 100% successful.

same thing here....

... in some states. The R and D parties have passed laws that make it ludicrous to try and get a third party or independent candidate actually listed on the ballot. It varies, some states are incredibly difficult, some are just annoying. And you combine that with the collusion of big money mainstream media having a virtual lock out of any news on third partys and independents, you have in essence a hijacked government, controlled almost completely by two DEFINETLY for-uber-mega-profit organizations.

Anyway, with this article, I still think computerised voting is totally unnecessary, we just plain don't need it, don't need the cost, it is BILLIONS of dollars nationwide, we don't need computers to add simple sums at the precinct level,so just say *no*, no open source, no closed source, no source at all.

Some things computers are good for, others are an expensive hindrance. "Ohh shiny" and "we are in the computar age" don't cut it, computerised voting is "gadgets for gadgets sake", and someone's profits for the hardware and software, not because it's needed. Voting results should be reviewable with any set of biological eyeballs, anything else will be blackbox voting. It's bad enough with the stupid mechanical machines, we don't need anything beyond paper and pen, and a locked wooden box with a slit in the top to receive the ballots, and that's it.

Want to make it more fair? Institute at least a 24 hour voting period, and do the "ranking" method of voting, and have a "no one" option as well.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

A) No, we (Americans) live in a democratic republic, which means you vote for people to represent you in the government.

B) How do you know? Have you seen the Nov 2 ballot? I sort of doubt it. You know which 2 major party candidates will be on the presidential ballot, and that's probably about it.

People who don't at least vote (if not become more politically-involved) can whine all they want about the state of affairs (freedom of speech), but they should stop short of expecting anyone to actually listen to them, much less make the changes non-voters whine about.

There's more to voting than one presidential election every 4 years; voting in the local (city / county / state) elections every year will have much more immediate and obvious effects, because in these smaller elections your vote carries a lot more weight.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

I won't join the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, because that would mean I endorse their stranglehold on the American election system. So tell me again: How can my vote (any vote!) have weight?

Unless you're one of the very few actual *members*, you don't really join a party, you register as affiliated with a party. As to the weight of your vote, if you really dislike one party or another, register as affiliated with that party, and then vote for the weakest candidate(s) in the primaries belonging to *your* party. You're allowed to vote for anybody in the general election, so you've doubled the weight of your vote.

So tell me again: Where is the value in my vote?

To me, it seems that if you don't (at least) vote for the lesser of two evils, you've abdicated one of your most basic rights as a citizen and all your rights to complain about the people in power. If you don't vote, don't bitch. You are still entitled to bitch about the people you voted for.

Most elections are local, and from those elections come our future national representatives. Many local elections are decided by a few votes. A recent election here for city council was decided by two votes. If the defeated candidate had managed to get his wife and one other person to vote for him, we'd have a different council. :) That candidate is young and has political ambitions which could include national office, and he'll be back in the next election.

If you want your vote to have any value at all, then use it. If you want to increase the value of your vote, then do your homework and plan how to use it. Finally, if you have an issue you're enthused about, communicate that to people you know, and perhaps give some apathetic people a reason to vote. Again, you've multiplied your vote. You won't always win. That's not a reason to give up. If you don't vote, you are voting for the status quo. I don't care if you're a right-wing reactionary, a left-wing ultra-liberal, or a slashdot-wing libertarian, just do your homework, get stoked about some issue or candidate, and VOTE. The alternative is Not Good (TM) for the country.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

A) We don't live in a democracy.

Well, you may want to reconsider buying into that commonly held, yet inaccurate view after considering the following thoughts:

• In modern times, the term "republic" has become nearly synonymous with the term "representative democracy" in the Western world.
  
• Was Alexis de Tocqueville delusional when he penned Democracy in America?
  
• The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, amongst its descriptions of the government types of various nations, describes the U.S. as a "constitution-based federal republic [with a] strong democratic tradition".
  
• The U.S. Constitution and its Amendments outline universal suffrage and the direct election of Representatives and Senators, while state constitutions likewise mandate similar ideas at the state and local levels. Challenge: Next time you find yourself in a voting booth about to freely choose between politicians, repeat the mantra "republic, not a democracy" and notice how silly you feel. Yes, the choices are often terrible, but they are choices nonetheless.
  
• At least half the U.S. states provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives. And several additional states are considering enacting them. In the many states that have allowed their citizens to exercise this authority for over a century, we haven't exactly witnessed any real breakdown in society.
  
• U.S. politicians from both major parties frequently refer to our nation as a "democracy". Are they just pandering to the masses, or do they actually believe what they're saying?
  
• The "republic, not a democracy" viewpoint can only make sense if it refers to pure direct democracy (virtually a form of anarchy which almost nobody favors) rather than modern liberal democracy. However, those who spread this errant meme don't seem to mind if people are goaded into thinking there's something to despise about contemporary notions of democracy. People are apathetic enough without these continual verbal attacks on the great tradition of democracy in this country.
  

The bottom line: The United States is a republic and a democracy (albeit an imperfect one).

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

"The penalty for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -- Plato

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

Well, there's always just voting en masse via absentee ballot. I've already registered in NC, and they'll mail me my ballot in a couple weeks (fifty days from voting day, to be exact). Here's [statedemocracy.com] a clearinghouse of sorts with information for all fifty states. I've already posted as to my reasons for this here [slashdot.org].

Make sure your vote counts: make them count it by hand!

jaz

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

Make sure your vote counts: make them count it by hand!

How do you know whether it was counted? How do you know how they counted it? There was a thing in the news the other day about a postcard that was about 20 years late. It fell behind a machine, and when the machine was moved 20 years later, it was found and forwarded by the post office. If your card falls behind a desk and doesn't get found until too late to be counted, how do you know?

There is absolutely no verification whatsoever in today's non-electronic voting systems. So how is it a bad thing when electronic voting is no worse than the current system?

And no, I'm not playing devil's advocate. I can conceive of multiple ways for there to be verification while retaining anonymity with electronic voting that will not work with paper voting. So if you want your vote to count (and you want to know if your vote counted) you should be against paper voting and for electronic voting. Just make sure they don't let Diebold do it.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

Yes, counted by hand by state workers.

What? How does it work in the US now? Here over in Europe you normally randomly pick Joe Schmo's for that job, normally in group of 5-10. Statistically there is almost always one that will blow the whistle.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

> When is civil disobedience justified?

"Civil disobedience"? I do not think that means what you think it means.

Time to take a few hours and (re)read your Thoreau and Ghandi; damaging voting machines has NOTHING to do with civil disobedience, despite how cool you think that phrase sounds.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

civil disobedience
n.

Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

Destroying voting machines is about as violent as standing on a boat and throwing bales of tea into a harbor.

Re:When is civil disobedience civil disobedience?

There's a fine line between Civil Disobedience and Hooliganism. The major tenet of CD is nonviolence, that in a free society, social change can be created without resorting to violence of any kind.

It's really pretty practical actually; it's impossible to get somebody all riled up for social change, put a sledgehammer in their hands and tell them "Now, that's *ONLY* for the voting machines. No hitting!" Witness the French "Revolution": once you tell Jimmy Rebel "go forth and smash!" he rarely stops where you want him to.

jaz

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

They are stealing our freedom to vote, the very democracy over which so much blood has been spilled...

The flip side of this, of course, is that you'd be unilaterally deciding to deny a large group of people the opportunity to cast a ballot, and possibly voiding an entire election. It's always hard to make an objective determination of where to engage in civil disobedience, but I'd urge you make extremely damn well sure in your own mind about when voting machine vulnerabilities justify your deciding for all of us that we'd be better off with no voting at all.

Certainly if you walk into my polling place and start smashing machines with a sledgehammer, you'll be leaving on a stretcher. I wouldn't count on everyone immediately recognizing you as the hero of freedom that you see yourself as.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

Maybe, instead of advocating the destruction of the machines, you can do what we did in Nevada and force the Sec. of State to add a paper trail. It's a lot more work and you don't get to smash things, but it does a lot more good.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

"...electronic voting ...is just such a case."
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
An opinions only, not truths. And, one I don't share.

"Sometimes men must take justice into their own hands."
Feel free to come on down to our voting country and try to take something into your own hands. Just don't whine and complain when you have your ass handed to you be people who aren't taking kindly to your presumption that you should determine that they shouldn't vote.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

I have wondered this:
If someone created stickers that said something simple such as "How do you know this machine recorded your vote correctly", or something of that sort, then distributed those to people who would go into the voting booths and affix these stickers to the machines or voting booth walls or what not.

Would that get a stir out of people? How would John Doe going into the booth and seeing this colorful sticker asking the simple question react?

Granted, this would be a 'too late' type of situation, and I urge people to speak out ahead of time (I've already wrote my election officials, have you?). But what sort of reaction would this have at the booths...suddenly people questioning the machines, at the time of voting?

Just a question that I felt like tossing out:)

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

"If you are caught (unlikely)"

The Machine operator looks inside the machine after each voter, time allowing, to see if they have left any literature or stickers. You will get caught, with near 100% certanty. The proof will be that the sticker wasn't there before you entered, and its there after you left. That's grounds to ask you to wait until a police officer arrives, or to look up your name in the voter registration and report you if you flee. It is a felony in my state, and a felony under Federal law. You do NOT have a great position. If you start so much as raising your voice while accusing us of "bullying" or "threatening" you, you will be creating a situation that may intmidate other voters present, and the couts will be notified that you continued after being warned, and the election comission will seek multiple charges. If you raise a fist to denounce my 'bullies" you will be charged for intimidating an official as well. All the fun of behaving like a fool, WITH the nasty fear of serving 75 years before possibility of parole thing!
It is also definitely not civil disobedience. There is a line 100 feet in front of the building. Stand 101 feet out, right next to the marker, and you can hold up a big poster that asks "How do you know these machines are honest?", all you want. Pass out flyers too, but if you do, please tell people NOT to display them inside the polling place or leave them in the machines. If it's a hot day, I'll probably bring you and everyone else out there a lemonade apiece, but you'll have to stand there next to the rest of the spokesmen for and against various candidates and issues. Given that you have a right to do it that way, there's no need for doing it the wrong way.

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

The patriotic one. You know, the one with the good hair. The one who was a member of Skull & Bones. The who's strong on defense, wants jobs for working Americans, has beautiful, intelligent daughters that love him, and still believes in the American dream.

Oh, wait...

Re:When is civil disobedience justified?

The patriotic one. You know, the one with the good hair.

I don't remember who said this: The difference between a patriot and a traitor is success.

More eyes will catch bad/illegal code

As Diebold has proven, having a private firm develop voting machine code can be detrimental to a democratic society.

More eyes checking on the code will find these problems faster than the machinations of a private corporation. Factor in corporate bias and the potential for 'back door' code is immense.

As cited, the CA elections showed how unusable the current offerings of e-machines are.

The only criteria is if it is easy to use, traceable, and accurate.

Re:More eyes will catch bad/illegal code

It's simple. You can't sell your vote, if you can't prove the way you voted to someone else.

In the olden days, people would sell their vote for money. It wasn't until I believe the 1850's or 1860's that we had an anonymous voting system. In an odd coincidence, we imported the Austrialian method back then too!

Before the 1860's you wrote in the name of the candidate you wished to vote for. In small enough precinects, you could literally know everyones handwritting. Before that, you actually walked into the town capital building, and announced your vote in a loud clear voice the the people in charge of keeping track.

Each candidate would have a witness there keeping track of who voted which way, and could then pay off the people who they bought a vote from.

As the other response said, I'd imagine that the first whites to vote for a black in Georgia probably didn't make it too far out of the voting booth before getting harrassed. Unless there was an anonymous system.

Kirby

Know thy vote counter

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin