dissabte, 29 de desembre de 2007
L'associació "Ordinateurs-de-vote", la principal entitat crítica amb l'actual sistema francès, denuncia que aquest informe només és un recull d'informació fruit d'un seguit d'audiències, que alguns membres de l'equip de treball provenen de la pròpia indústria interessada (ex.: France-Election) i que aquest Fòrum de fet només podria analitzar casos d'ús d'Internet.
dijous, 20 de desembre de 2007
Resumen: El trabajo critica una visión bastante reduccionista de la e-democracia que ha concentrado el interés en el voto electrónico, como salvador de nuestros maltrechos sistemas democráticos. La realidad delata que la verdadera influencia e las TICs en los sistemas democráticos es ajena al voto electrónico e incluso a las acciones de los poderes públicos. Por ello, se sostiene una visión amplia e inclusiva en razón de los usos participativos de la web 2.0, la llamada "web social" (periodismo alternativo o ciudadano, los blogs, wikis, foros, etc.). Se afirma implantación de la democracia y participación electrónicas como principio jurídico-constitucional. Puede servir para "animar" a nuestros poderes públicos y, sobre todo, para justificar constitucionalmente la adopción de medidas a favor de la e-democracia que puedan menoscabar otros derechos o intereses. Se considera hipócrita la posición del legislador, especialmente el estatal, puesto que no contraen compromisos normativos que sí que los exigen en determinados ámbitos privados. Asimismo, se formulan determinadas propuestas para futuras regulaciones, y se imponen cautelas para el futuro respecto de una desproporcionada exigencia de firma electrónica. Incluso se apunta la posibilidad de participar con dicha firma, pero de forma anónima, como presupuesto de mayor libertad del participante. También se contiene una breve referencia al uso de las TICs en campañas electorales y el régimen jurídico del voto electrónico. Entre las propuestas finales se apunta la "espada de Damocles" jurídica que se ciñe sobre estos usos participativos: la responsabilidad por los contenidos que aportan los participantes en estos casos. Amén de diversas consideraciones sobre el tratamiento jurídico del voto electrónico y la regulación de los usos electrónicos y telemáticos en las campañas electorales, entre las propuestas, se apuntan líneas respecto de la no discriminación y la posibilidad de vías de participación sólo a través de las TICs y finalmente, sobre la dificultad del tratamiento jurídico de los reales peligros de •gran hermano" y control de los participantes.
dissabte, 8 de desembre de 2007
New resource: European Journal of ePractice, num. 1, 2007.
The socio-technical nature of good practice exchange
This is the first issue of the European Journal of ePractice (EjeP). It marks the beginning of a deep engagement not only with sharing but also with analysis of good practice across EU27+. Our authors, who are all members of the ePractice.eu community, showcase success factors for professionals in eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. While there are challenges ahead, tremendous momentum is building up. Ramon Sangüesa and Roc Fages find that the emerging Web 2.0 paradigm has a strong influence on all activities related to knowledge sharing – and is underpinned by communities of practice. They unveil three successful examples of that concept that have been implemented around the world – Development Gateway Communities, eCatalunya, and Meetup – all of which provide inspiration for governments.
Juliane Jarke has interviewed ePractice.eu members and concludes that there are actually several communities emerging. Frank Wilson, Tom van Engers and R ob Peters’ training programme for eGovernment, which received high accolades from its participants, shows there is high potential of the combination of intense face-to-face encounters and advanced web technology. Michel Chevallier, Michel Warynski and Alain Sandoz demonstrate that the success of Geneva’s e-Voting system has more to do with a strong multidisciplinary, managed process than with the technology solution underpinning the effort.
Louis-François Fléri and Gilles Moutet illustrate how the Burgundy region’s e-Procurement effort requires a shared vision, commitment from the political top level, and sustained activity of convincing key actors throughout the process, including strong marketing. Finally, Rebecca Eynon and Helen Margetts analyse seven key barriers to eGovernment progression and identify eight legal areas that underpin these barriers. The solutions they see include: (1) creating a network of top level eGovernment champions, (2) segmenting citizens for better tailored service delivery, (3) learning to work with chaotic co-ordination, and (4) encouraging an e-Literate workforce, especially among civil servants.
Reflecting on good practice is essential if you want to replicate your success. Likewise, it provides a backdrop to think about the challenges you encountered. If you are reading this journal, perhaps you may be motivated to share, meet and learn from failures as well? Since one can learn in equal part from successes, challenges, and failures alike, we aim to cover the whole field. The European Journal of ePractice (EjeP) is a practitioner’s journal, so the articles in it are only as strong as the community around it. The peer reviewers of one article are the authors in the next issue and vice versa. Building on our unique, 11.000 member (and growing) strong community, the Journal becomes the intellectual backbone of the exchange effort. It shall provide analysis and reflection, as well as inc rease awareness of the importance of sharing solutions, lessons, technology and experience with others. I hereby invite you to take part in the socio-technical dialogue – and good reading. Opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the European Commission.Read complete editorial
Author: Trond Arne Undheim
Good practice exchange from a Web 2.0 point of view
Knowledge sharing in a distributed community of practice: a case study of ePractice.eu
Training eGovernment actors: Experience and future needs
Regional Shared eGovernment in the Region of Burgundy: the case of eProcurement
Organisational Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to eGovernment
diumenge, 25 de novembre de 2007
dilluns, 29 d’octubre de 2007
- Estonia plans m-voting
- French Senate decides to continue with e-voting
- Netherlands withdraws electronic voting machines
- Finally the e-voting database is ready: DB.E-Voting.CC
It is quite some time again since we last published our newsletter. This time we have one big project to announce - the e-voting database is ready. We first started to work on the database at last year's Bregenz
conference and intensified collecting data when the Council of Europe e-Voting review meeting in November 2006 stated that there is a need for a structured collection of data on e-voting uses.
So finally with the help of Stefan Triessnig and Daniel Botz we managed to put our collection online and also published an article at the VOTE-ID 2007 conference in Bochum this October.
Then it's turbulent times for electronic voting - we have reports of Estonia thinking about m-voting (voting by cell phone), France sticking with both e-voting machines and internet voting, and finally the biggest news with the Netherlands to decertify their second electronic voting machine built by Nedap.
Finally I would like to point you to the call for papers for the 2008 Bregenz conference at www.e-voting.cc/2008. As early as never before have we received first paper submissions! So please start, or continue to work on your papers so we will have a very interesting discussion next year!
This is it for now, let's all continue to work on building the knowledge on the future of voting,
____ Estonia plans m-voting __________________________________________
Last year Estonia was the first country to elect its parliament via internet. In this election more than 3,5 % of all voters expressed their will online. Now Estonia is preparing an amendment to allow voting by mobile phone. The idea behind this project is simply: A mobile phone ID application would enable voters to identify themselves and give a digital signature. This is a big advantage because a cell phone performs the functions of an ID card and card reader at one and the same time.
More information: http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/18925/
Despite the heavy discussions during the French Presidential Election, the French Senate has ruled in favor of electronic voting in polling places for districts with more than 3,500 voters and to continue with remote Internet voting for voters abroad in parliamentary elections. In article 72 from February 2005, France highlights the advantages of e-voting. One big advantage is that elections machines make voting for disabled persons easier. In respect to the fact that every person should have the same rights and chances to vote, this is probably the most important advantage. Still, there are many doubts concerning the reliability of electronic voting ? especially for distance voting supported by electronic tools.
____ Netherlands withdraws electronic voting machines __________________
Find enclosed a report from one of our readers from what happenend in the Netherlands ? if you have similar reports you want to share, please do so!
An independent committee, who was installed as a reaction to the Nedap-Hack in October 2006, announced their findings: They argued that the current election machines do not offer the standards which would be necessary to guarantee the principles of democratic elections. Instead, plans are to have computers assist in casting the ballot and to print them. Later, these paper ballots shall be scanned and computer counted.
In the Netherlands the municipalities decide how to vote, electronically or by pencil and paper. 95% of the voters vote electronically. Only a few municipalities use pencil and paper.
There are two ways of voting electronically:
1. Voting machines- Nedap machines
2. Voting computers- SDU New Vote
The ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is responsible for the certification of the voting machines and computers.
In 2006 the city of Amsterdam, one of the few remaining cities still voting by pencil and paper, decided to use the SDU voting computers.
20 November 2006 there were national elections in the Netherlands. The SDU voting machines were not allowed to be used, their certificate had been revoked. Therefore, 425 municipalities used the Nedap voting
machines, 10 municipalities used replacing Nedap machines (who used to use the SDU machines) and 23 municipalities used pencil and paper. On 7 March 2007 the Dutch voters could vote for the provincial elections and this time also the SDU machines were not allowed to be used.
In 2007 the Dutch State Secretary had installed a commission which had the task to look at the whole voting process, also taking into account the findings of the OESO report of our elections in November and the recommendation on e-voting of the Council of Europe. The Commission published their report on 27 September 2007. In short their conclusions are:
1. Votes should be cast in a polling station.
2. Do not use the current voting machines anymore because they are a black box.
3. Voting by pencil and paper is preferred.
4. Although voting by pencil and paper is preferred, the counting takes long and is not always accurate.
5. Therefore the commission advises the following way of voting: The voter goes to the polling station, the voter selects its candidate on a voting printer (so on a machine), and the machine then prints the vote (the machine itself does not count the votes). The voter then checks if the vote is correct . The voter then puts the printed ballot paper in a ballot box. When the polls close, the ballot papers are counted by a machine.
6. They favor this option because it is transparent and you can control every step of the process.
7. There are two exceptions for voting in a polling station, one being the voters with physical limitations, the second one being voters living abroad. The voters with physical limitations should have the opportunity to vote by telephone and the voters abroad should have the option to vote over the internet.
8. Voting at a random polling station within your own municipality should be implemented.
This is the advice of the commission. Right now the State Secretary is considering her response to the recommendations by the Commission.
This cabinet response is expected by the end of November 2007.
____ The E-Voting Database is Ready: DB.E-Voting.CC ___________________
Did you ever ask yourself how many voters participated in the 2000 ICANN at large election? Finally, our database on these E-Voting uses is publicly accessible at http://DB.E-Voting.CC. We developed a wiki-style website where you can access, edit or enhance data on your own or any other e-voting use where you have data available.
Thanks to your help so far we could come with more than 228 E-Voting uses in our database. Please continue to support our database. How can you use the database? Access the information on your country? experiences by adding the top level domain to the URL, i.e. db.e-voting.cc/DE for Germany?s e-voting experiences. Editing is easy, as it is wiki style, no account necessary! If you want to stay up to date with all the changes in the database, please use a RSS-Feed Reader to subscribe to xxxx where you are constantly updated on any changes in the database.
We welcome your support to further grow the data. Thanks again! If you have any questions please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
dilluns, 15 d’octubre de 2007
dilluns, 8 d’octubre de 2007
As usual, we had good moments at lunch time (see Joao Falcao taking me a photo at the same time I was). After that workshop, papers discussed will be prepared to be published by the ICPS around march 2008. For the moment, here you can find some of the presentations made by the participants:
"Learning some lessons from the use of e-voting. A compared sociopolitical evaluation of e-voting in Spain, Mexico and Argentina", by Josep Mª Reniu & Rosa Badia.
And a collective book, with two chapters from Josep Mª Reniu: "Los ciudadanos frente al voto electrónico: elementos para una evaluación sociopolítica comparada", and Jordi Barrat: "El voto electrónico en Latinoamérica: radiografía de un proceso en vías de consolidación"
dijous, 4 d’octubre de 2007
Como de todos es bien sabido, no hay congreso -nacional o internacional- que se precie que no tenga en los eventos gastronómicos uno de sus mejores momentos. Y ello es aún más cierto si hablamos de México (y más concretamente de Monterrey).
Excelentemente atendidos por los amigos del IEPCC, en El Rey del Cabrito tuvimos uno de esos momentos especiales. En la mesa, a la izquierda de la imagen aparecen en primer plano Pedro Rezende (Brasil) y Mario Torre (Venezuela), mientras que a la izquierda Alejandro González (IEPCC), un servidor, José Thompson (CAPEL), Arturo Cota (CEE-NL) y José Rodrigues-Filho (Brasil).
Dejaremos para otro momento la crónica académica... que para todo hay tiempo... ¿no?
dijous, 23 d’agost de 2007
dimarts, 21 d’agost de 2007
Please try the flash interactive overview and you will find detailed pictures of these machines.
dijous, 16 d’agost de 2007
Here you are the current members of this research group: Josep Maria Reniu i Vilamala (Barcelona), Rosa María Fernández Riveira (Madrid), José Julio Fernández Rodríguez (Santiago), Maria Teresa Franquet i Sugranyes (Tarragona), Manuel Medina (Barcelona) and myself (León).
dilluns, 13 d’agost de 2007
More info HERE
dimarts, 24 de juliol de 2007
divendres, 13 de juliol de 2007
dimarts, 3 de juliol de 2007
dijous, 28 de juny de 2007
dimarts, 26 de juny de 2007
E-Voting.CC Community News Issue 04
Vienna, June 26th 2007
It's been busy months since the last newsletter. The UK pilots took place, the Swiss agreed on further e-voting tests and received the UN Public Service Award.
At E-Voting.CC we were also quite active and we are proud on our new image folder (EN, DE) and published a report on the Austrian e-participation project Mitmachen.AT (only DE).
Further we continue to work on the database, we now have more than 200 entries, with nearly 145 on remote e-voting. So if you have uses of electronic voting machines please let us know as well! A first is due to appear over the summer
As always if you have any news on e-voting and e-participation which you want to share with the rest of the community feel free to send them to email@example.com.
Have a great summer, see you at one of the conferences in Dagstuhl or Bochum and hear you soon on the future of voting,
- Zurich Wins UN Public Service Award
- Swiss E-Voting Laws passed
- The May 3rd Pilots in the United Kingdom
- VoteID 2007
____ Zurich E-Voting Project Wins UN Public Service Award _____________
The Zurich E-Voting project, one of the three projects besides Neuchâtel and Geneva, has won one of the United Nations Public Service Awards which are handed over today at the 7th Reinventing Government meeting in Vienna, Austria. The project which features mobile voting
from cell phones as well as via the Internet won in the category "Fostering Participation in Policy-making Decisions through Innovative Mechanisms" within Europe. See more
____ Swiss E-Voting Report and Laws Passed _____________
The Swiss parliament acknowledged and praised the cautious and risk-aware approach of the Swiss chancellery towards e-voting and passed the further steps to be taken (Word protocol of the meeting) last year on December 9th. This year on March 19th the Swiss second chamber, the Ständerat, acknowledged the report of May 31st 2006 as well and passed the law, which foresees further e-voting test runs - limited in time, issue and place. Further the law includes the harmonisation of the register on cantonal level of Swiss people living abroad. This is a central precondition to further pursue E-Voting for Swiss citizens abroad (word protocol of the meeting). The final decision by the parliament has then been taken on 23rd of March (The passed law in reading http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/2007/2293.pdf). Currently the facultative referendum time is running till 12th of July 2007 and then become law. Switzerland is going forward on e-voting in a thoughtful manner to collect experience. By the assessment of the Swiss chancellery it will take further 30 years until it is implemented fully on national level and all instruments are implemented like signing initiatives. One thing is sure - Switzerland is moving slowly but steadily on adopting information and communication technologies in their electoral process.
____ The May 3rd Pilots in the UK _____________
On 3 May 2007, thirteen local authorities in the UK took part in twelve electoral pilot schemes. These were the latest in the series of pilots conducted as part of the Ministry of Justice’s (formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs) Electoral Modernisation programme. The types of pilots include e-voting, e-counting, advance voting and signing for ballot papers in polling stations.
The purpose of the pilots is to learn more about:
- making elections more accessible, either by making it more convenient to vote or by making voting more attractive to people currently less likely to vote
- improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of electoral administration
- maintaining or increasing levels of security at elections
The Electoral Commission are formally evaluating the pilots and will
be publishing their report in early August.
Get further information on the Programme.
Besides the official information by the Ministry of Justice there has been a local observer group ORG (Open Rights Group) who observed the May 3rd pilots. The effort was coordinated by Jason Kitcat who also organized the "European Electronic Voting Activism Workshop" in February of this year. While their judgement somewhat biased, it is an important effort to rationalize the debate on e-voting and the pro and cons of it. Read it here http://www.openrightsgroup.org/e-voting-main/.
____ VOTEID 2007, Bochum (Germany) _____________
VOTE-ID 2007: "First Conference on E-Voting and Identity" Bochum (Germany) October 4 - 5, 2007 http://www.sirrix.com/content/pages/voteidcfp.htm
This workshop is the international research meeting point for e-voting experts from different disciplines: Computer Scientists (security, usability, availability, software engineering), Lawyers, Sociologist and Politicians.
Ammar Alkasar (Sirrix AG security technologies - GE)
Melanie Volkamer (Institute of IT-Security and Security Law – GE)
Josh Benaloh (Microsoft – US) Klaus Brunnstein (University of Hamburg – GE) Rüdiger Grimm (University of Koblenz-Landau - GE)Marit Hansen (Independent Center of Privacy Protection - GE) Dirk Heckmann (ISL – University of Passau – GE) David-Olivier Jaquet-Chiffelle (University of Applied Sciences of Bern – CH) Frank Koob (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik -GE) Robert Krimmer (evoting.cc –Wien- AT) Ronald Leenes (Tilburg University –NL) Helger Lipmaa (University College London – UK) Sjouke Mauw (University of Luxembourg – LU) Margaret McGaley (NUI Maynooth -IR) Lilian Mitrou (University of the Aegean –GR) Olivier Pereira (Université catholique de Louvain - BE) Günther Pernul (Universität Regensburg - GE) Andreas Pfitzmann (Technical University of Dresden – GE) Bart Preneel (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven –BE) Kai Rannenberg (Universität Frankfurt –GE) Peter Ryan (Newcastle University –UK) Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi (University of Bochum -GE) Joseph Savirimuthu (University of Liverpool - UK) Berry Schoenmakers (TU Eindhoven –NL)
The aim of this Workshop is to bring together e-voting specialists in order to discuss ….
* all forms of E-Voting (including but not limited to polling station, mobile voting, kiosk or remote voting by electronic means)
* the role of identity and identification for E-Voting systems
* profiling aspects
* role of commercial voting systems; are commercial identity management systems suitable for e-voting?
* threats: identity frauds/theft, privacy issues
* usability and accessibility issues (both for voters and for administrators)
* legal issues
* design and analysis of E-Voting schemes and protocols, their deployment and lifecycle concerns
* security requirements, formal analysis and evaluation of electronic voting schemes and systems
* concrete issues, like necessity of verifiability/digital receipts problems/anonymous channel in practise
* interdisciplinary issues involved (link between identity and digital identity and E-Voting )
* interrelationship with and the effects of E-Voting on democratic institutions and processes as well as voter behaviour
* social and political analysis of the effects of electronic voting
* new ways of solving the voting paradigm of unequivocal
identification of the voter and full anonymity of the vote
There is a strict limit of 12 pages. Follow carefully the LNCS
instructions at http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html.
Send your paper to VOTE-ID2007@SIRRIX.COM until 31th July 2007 23:59 (CET) . All submissions should be anonymized (an author's name should only occur in references to that author's related work, which should be referenced in the third person and not overtly distinguishable from the referenced work of others).
Each submission should have a contact author who should provide full contact information (email, phone, fax, mailing address). One author of each accepted paper will be required to present the work at the workshop.
Submissions must not substantially duplicate work that any of the authors has published elsewhere or has submitted in parallel to any other conference or workshop with proceedings. Information about submissions may be shared with program chairs of other conferences for that purpose.
Full paper submissions will be subject to a double-blind review. Accepted papers will be available as pre-proceedings at the conference. The post-proceedings are planed to be published within LNCS Springer, including the feedback of the workshop discussion and after the final approvement by Springer.
Draft of the paper.................... 31th July 2007 Notification of acceptance ......3rd September 2007 Receipt of the final paper.........19th October 2007
Sirrix AG security technologies
Im Stadtwald, Geb. D 3.2
____ Dagstuhl E-Voting Seminar ______________________
Frontiers of Electronic Voting, Dagstuhl (Germany)
29.07. - 03.08.2007
David Chaum (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B)
Miroslaw Kutylowski (Institute of Mathematics & Informatics/TU Wroclaw, PL) Ronald L. Rivest (MIT - Cambridge, USA) Peter Ryan (University of Newcastle, GB)
Participation is only available upon invitation or approval by the committee.
Democracy and voting systems have received considerable attention of late, with the validity of many elections around the world being called into question. The US experience demonstrates that simply deploying technological "solutions" does not solve the problem and can easily exacerbate it. Nevertheless many other countries are either deploying e-voting and e-counting systems or planning to do it.
The challenge is highly socio-technical in nature: requires an excellent understanding of the potentialities and dangers of technological approaches as well as an appreciation of the social, legal and political impact. The seminar thus aims to bring together researchers and practitioners from academia and industry, whose work relates to electronic voting systems, to evaluate the state of the art, to share practical experiences, and to look for possible enhancements. The overall aim then is to stimulate discourse between the various stakeholders and enhance the understanding of voting technologies and practices.
Many e-voting protocols via Internet require anonymous communication channels between a voter and a voting authority. This has to protect a voter from being monitored and guarantee freedom of voting. Existing anonymous communication protocols do not provide full protection against advanced traffic analysis techniques. Particularly critical is the problem of an active, adaptive adversary. Satisfactory solutions on practical or theoretical level have not been developed so far. Voter and ballot authenticationBallot and voter’s authentication contradict privacy requirements. While fulfilling only one of these goals can be achieved with existing techniques, authentication of anonymous data is a challenging task requiring sophisticated schemes.
Trustworthy voting machines
Voting machines should provide guarantees for accuracy and voters’ privacy. Achieving this goal with standard devices is a hard task - the design principles and existing architectures contradict the requirements for secure voting machines. On the other hand, due to economic reasons special purpose hardware should be avoided. Apart from technical security, voting machines should work so that a voter may be convinced about its honesty without a detailed audit of a (black-box) machine on a high technical level. Preferably, no specialized voting machines should be necessary in e-voting. Receipts and coercion resistanceOne of principle techniques for controlling election process is using paper trails of electronic ballots. This technique, gaining acceptance in USA, has to protect against frauds by voting machines. The problem 2 is to balance evidence of fair vote counting and the danger of coercing the voter based on data contained in his receipt. Election integrity and verifiability
Attacks against e-voting systems can be focused on breaking privacy of voters, breaking integrity of election results or manipulating them. Even the possibility of breaking voters’ privacy may be disastrous for e-democracy. Recent advances show that specialized attacks focused on these attack scenarios are possible. Attack scenarios are not confined to classical cryptographic attacks, but also may exploit communication framework, operating systems issues, kleptographic techniques, side channel
attack and so on.
Formal security analysis and threat models
Formal evaluation of e-voting protocols is necessary to provide necessary level of assurance and design tools for audit procedures. This is due to the overall complexity level of voting systems in their complex social and technological environment.
Case studies of voting systems
Systems offered commercially have to be evaluated for suitability for fair e-voting. So far such systems do not fulfil all security requirements and need to be carefully inspected against possible threats.
Developing working systems on the commercial market need developing industrial standards. The problem is that many design problems have not been solved yet. Currently we have to do with "co-design" of standards and technology.
Legal problems of e-voting
One of the major problems in developing e-voting technologies is diversity of legal frameworks for voting systems. The differences might be quite deep concerning such issues as limited anonymity in UK, a complicated election rules in Ireland. Finding legal concepts that would encompass most existing legal systems is also a question of economic feasibility of e-voting systems – the technological should be mobile in the sense that they may be deployed in most countries with minimal adjustments.
Social issues of e-voting
Apart from technical and legal issues, the key problems in evoting systems is the challenge of social accessibility, acceptance and influence on voters’ behaviour. The systems developed need to be simple for use, understandable, but nevertheless provide full security. Many schemes proposed so far use advanced techniques hard to comprehend even for specialists - and therefore they are unacceptable for deployment.
dijous, 21 de juny de 2007
dijous, 7 de juny de 2007
dilluns, 4 de juny de 2007
La referencia es:
* Jordi Barrat, Marta Cantijoch, Marc Carrillo, Oriol Molas, Josep Mª Reniu i Andreu Riera: El vot electrònic a Catalunya: reptes i incerteses. Barcelona, Editorial Mediterrània / Fundació Jaume Bofill, 2007. Col·lecció Polítiques nº 56 (ISSN: 978-84-8334-808-6).
Por otro lado, el eDemocracy Center ha incluído en su base de trabajos mi última publicación en la revista de la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya "Internet, Derecho y Política", sobre las oportunidades estratègicas para la implementación del voto electrónico remoto.
divendres, 1 de juny de 2007
dimarts, 15 de maig de 2007
dijous, 10 de maig de 2007
dilluns, 23 d’abril de 2007
dimecres, 11 d’abril de 2007
dimecres, 14 de març de 2007
I am finally back in Trento after ten days of e-immersion and I am currently trying to put together all the pieces of the puzzle. Here’s a very brief résumé of my journey and of my impressions about elections in Estonia and in the Netherlands, as promised.
Parliamentary elections in Estonia took place, as you know, on March 4th by means of paper ballots, whereas during the advance voting period both electronic and paper ballot were available. It was the first time that internet-voting was implemented on a national scale, though it had already been tested in October 2005 during municipal elections . As pointed out during the presentation held for the international observers on the day preceding the elections , i-voting is just one of the 14 ways in which Estonians can cast their vote. The rationale behind it is that it might expand citizens participation by allowing voting when on the move or from home. But alongside this effort, you should also bear in mind the communicational and commercial consequences of crafting E-stonia own made voting solution. Estonian economics and IT-related activities boomed in the last decade  and my feeling is that the technophilia spread to all aspects of everyday life and to the interaction between citizens and institutions. I witnessed how common it is for commercial activities and individuals alike to advertise their own websites and how proudly people, regardless of their education and background, talk about the communication infrastructure that has been set up (I had very nice conversations with the staff of my hotel and with the cab driver on my way back to the airport, besides chatting with our “official” guides). The widespread trust that citizens have in technology, the pride for the goals achieved in such a limited amount of time, the unusual possibility to set up new voting procedures without transitioning to e-voting from older, traditional and well established forms of balloting, as well as the small size of the country and the solidarity within the community, have resulted in a general acceptance of automated systems. There is no news of any pressure group against electronic voting and I haven’t heard of debates about the outcome of elections or the management of the entire election process.
What I really appreciated from the election committee is the total openness to hosting observers from abroad and from diverse backgrounds (I was there as an independent researcher, not as a member of any national or international auditing institution) and I wish to underline how helpful, precise and… picky were the local guides that volunteered to join us in the polling stations, answer to our queries and translate our questions to voters and scrutinizers. My regrets is not to have the skills to appreciate and evaluate the technical solution and, above all, to have observed only “traditional” (paper and pencil) elections, as when the observers’ programme started, advance voting was already over. The counting of electronic ballots that took place late in the evening was a highly dramatic moment, a climax of mixed emotions that shook the audience until results were shown and an applause soared. On my account, well, though excited by the novelty I must admit that not being in control of the whole process (having missed some of the phases and being unable to decipher others) made me feel slightly unease. My arguments are not that original: not knowing where servers and ballots are stored, how votes were encrypted, and so on, elicited some insights on the sense of “trust” that citizens must have in the entire process – or, put in another way, on the relative distance that they might take from it.
The bottom line is that e-voting (and i-voting even more!) should be a completely auditable process not only to the international observers and professional auditors but above all to citizens, who should be able to follow every single step of what is happening, if interested.
The observation mission continued in the Netherlands, where provincial elections were scheduled for March 7th . I was lucky enough to be invited by Nedap , which is one of the largest European producers of voting machines and the only provider for Dutch elections. As Italy is a potential market, they showed us the computers they use around the globe and explained in plain words (intelligible to non technicians) the solutions they designed for voting in a supervised environment as well as for voting on the web. We watched elections in Enschede, the town closest to their main place of business, and also observed the arrival of data transmitted via GPRS as part of a pilot. The overall impression was that people are just “used to” automated voting procedures, so scrutinizers and voters alike seem to be content with the system as it is. Nonetheless, I am aware that pressure groups against electronic computers are playing an increasingly strategic role in the interplay between governments and commercial providers of voting solutions. There’s a very active one in the Netherlands, and I was lucky or cheeky enough to schedule a meeting with people of the “We don’t trust electronic computers” campaign . Their report  on security issues related to the machines used for voting in the Netherlands elicited much attention from the media, the government and the public. At the time being, all the people I had the chance to talk to in Amsterdam, though not a representative sample, knew about the hack and about potential threats of casting a vote electronically. Nedap’s “scientific” reply to the hackers, a report compiled by the University of Twente (based in Enschede, too) dealing with reliability and usability of their voting machine , apparently failed to intercept citizens. I am actually very curious about the position that the electoral commission will take into the debate. What the hackers want to point out is the potential risks involved in the present election system (I don’t think they are truly aiming at destabilizing the state, as some accuse them of) and the need of VVPAT, though I had the impression that they somehow fail to propose a better solution in a consistent way (there must be all sorts of geeks involved in the campaign ranging from extremist to moderate positions). Anyway, Rop Gonggrijp arguments were clear, straightforward and non ideological and Anne-Marie Oostveen , whose articles on electronic voting and electronic democracy represent an important benchmark for my own research, confirmed that the nature of the campaign is non economically-driven but rests only on volunteers’ engagement.
There are obvious problems with paper ballots, too, and I personally wish that activism concerned with voting procedures could consider all options available, electronic and paper alike, without focusing solely on a scapegoat and failing to address more overarching problems. I guess we should consider risks and opportunities on a relative basis, i.e., comparing different solutions, rather than just opposing or supporting electronic or paper voting tout court.
The ideas expressed above are obviously very subjective and susceptible to further developments. The issue is so intriguing and stakeholders so diverse that it might take more time until I get it to grips competently; in the meanwhile, I hope you enjoyed this brief account of my own experience!
dijous, 22 de febrer de 2007
dilluns, 19 de febrer de 2007
As you surely know, the Estonian parliamentary elections will be held next March 4th 2007. For the second time in history, voters will be able to vote via Internet from Feb 26th to Feb 28th (during advance voting period). The Estonian National Electoral Committee will organize different events: the more interesting ar the following:
.- Saturday March 3rd at 16.00 in the Parliament Building, the White Hall: Presentation and discussion about the Estonian electoral system and e-voting project.
.- Sunday March 4th venue at 10.00 at the Parliament Building: Observation in polling stations (Tallinn) with local guides.
.- Sunday March 4th at 19.00 in the Parliament Building: Public opening and counting of e-votes, preliminary voting results will be published.
At the moment, we don't know if we'll be able to attend, but we'll try to.
dimecres, 14 de febrer de 2007
EFVE wants elections to be verifiable by some reasonable portion of the voting public. This means that when push comes to shove people can go to the polling station, monitor their own elections, watch their votes be counted, and then go home assured that the election was honest. The current trend in many European countries is to introduce 'e-Voting' (voting on machines in the polling station) and even i-Voting (voting over the Internet). Many of the methods used place a very high level of trust in a very limited number of people. Often the software running in the machines is kept secret, and there is no verification that the software that was once inspected is even running in the machines that the public votes on.
EFVE thinks this is bad, and wants to offer a platform to people from all over Europe that resist e-Voting and i-Voting in their own countries. For the time being, EFVE is mostly concerned with bringing together already active activists and existing movements, as well as with documenting the state of e/i-Voting and the resistance against it in various European countries.
dijous, 8 de febrer de 2007
divendres, 2 de febrer de 2007
- UK E-Voting Pilots announced
- European Electronic Voting Activism Workshop in London Feb, 8th
- Ron Rivest on how to do Recounts
- Extended Deadline for 2nd PhD Seminar
- E-Voting.CC Database of E-Voting Uses is growing
- EVT07 - Electronic Voting Technology Workshop Aug, 6th 07
- Eastern Europe E-Gov Days Prague, Apr, 11-13th 07
Welcome to our second edition of the E-Voting.CC newsletter. A lot has happened in the past weeks, including some notable events in the United Kingdom, like the announcement of the pilot scheme for the may local Elections and an upcoming European E-Voting Actisim workshop taking place next week in London. Furthermore I wrote a guest commentary for the Public Servant magazine on the issues involved with electronic voting, i.e. meeting the peoples need for transparency and mobility. From our side we used the last weeks to consolidate the mailinglists we've been running (E-Gov, Online-Wahlen, E-Voting-in-Europe, ...) and moved them to a new server which also had the benefit of having a new mailman version that helps with SPAM protection a lot. I would like to thank also the readers of the first newsletter that actually went right away to enter data in our worldwide database of e- voting uses - we got 25 examples right away. In case you haven't done so, please fill the survey out at http://db.e-voting.cc or mail us your results/working papers to firstname.lastname@example.org. In case you have recommendations or think that something you know should be included in this newsletter, please send them to us!
Thanks for your support,
UK E-Voting Pilots announced ____________________________________
A little bit later than expected, the Department for Constitutional Affairs finally announced the UK pilots on E-Voting for this May's local Election. On 29 January 2007, thirteen local authorities were approved to take part in twelve electoral pilot schemes for the May 2007 local elections. They were approved following an application process open to all local authorities. Both the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators have been fully consulted and involved in the selection process. The local authorities are:
* Bedford Borough Council
* Breckland District Council
* Broxbourne Council
* Dover District Council
* Gateshead Council
* Rushmoor Borough Council
* Sheffield City Council
* Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council
* South Bucks District Council
* Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council
* Sunderland City Council
* Swindon Borough Council
Find more at http://www.dca.gov.uk/elections/elections-may-07.pdf
European Electronic Voting Activism Workshop in London Feb, 8th __
We are not only expecting E-Voting trials in the UK but also a very informed public about problems and hacks with E-Voting. The Open Rights Group is organizing an European Electronic Voting Activism workshop next Week, with live demonstration of the Nedap hack and a panel of experts including Margaret McGaley (Ireland) Colm MacCarthaigh (Ireland) Anne-Marie Oostveen (The Netherlands) Rop Gonggrijp (The Netherlands) Dr Rebecca Mercuri (USA)
More information is available at
Ron Rivest on how to do Recounts ________________________________
The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) has released a short paper explaining a new formula developed by Ronald Rivest of MIT to estimate the minimum audit amounts that are mathematically sufficient to detect vote count errors that could seat wrong candidates. NEDA's paper and an easy-to-use spreadsheet to allow any layman to calculate how many vote counts to audit for a particular election contest, can be found at ElectionArchive.org.
E-Voting.CC Database of E-Voting Uses is growing _________________
Thanks to your help we have already more than 25 E-Voting uses in our database. Please continue to support our database. As you know E-Voting.CC is currently putting together the state of the art in Electronic Voting. To do this we are conducting a study on the experience in trials, test as well as legally binding elections using means of electronic voting. Please go to http://db.e-voting.cc to take part and support our effort to document all e-voting uses worldwide!
Extended Deadline for 2nd PhD Seminar ____________________________
Due to numerous requests we have extended the Deadline for the 2nd PhD Seminar till 14th of February. Until then please send us your 10 page abstract of your phd and a short cv to email@example.com. Find more at http://www.e-voting.cc/stories/3154903/
EVT07 - Electronic Voting Technology Workshop ____________________
EVT '07 Call for Papers http://www.usenix.org/events/evt07/cfp/2007
USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop (EVT '07) August 6, 2007 Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Sponsored by USENIX: The Advanced Computing Systems Association, and
ACCURATE: A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections EVT '07 will be co-located with the 16th USENIX Security Symposium (Security '07), August 6–10, 2007.
Submissions due: Sunday, April 22, 2007, 11:59 p.m. PDT Notification of acceptance: Friday, June 1, 2007 Final files due: Thursday, June 28, 2007
Full call is online, but note that usability and accessibility are areas of particular interest.
In particular, we welcome papers considering:
- Design and analysis of electronic voting schemes and protocols
- Deployment and lifecycle concerns
- Mitigating threats (including insider threats)
- Usability and accessibility (both for voters and for administrators)
- Legal issues, including how voting systems must comply with the ADA and HAVA, or the effect of intellectual property rights and nondisclosure agreements on voting system testing, certification, and deployment
- The technology standards process and how it should evolve
5th Eastern Europe E-Gov Days ____________________________________
5th Eastern Europe eGov Days 11.-13. April 2007, Prague
All member states of the enlarged Europe are facing the challenge of ICT enabled transformation of traditional ways of Governance, ensuring efficient and inclusive eGovernment and decision making. The Eastern Europe eGov Days as a joint event are providing a solid platform for learning from each other and for ensuring technology transfer between Eastern Europe countries and Western Europe, bringing advantages to the whole community. The joint event 2007 will take place in Prague and so continuing the very successful 2006 event. The eGovernment take-up in Europe has brought a lot of new issues to solve, including specific technologies and approaches for better eGovernment services for business and governmental cooperation.
Thematic sessions will include issues like:
- Technologies for eGovernment and decision making
- Change Management for eGovernment
- eGovernment to eBusiness (SMEs eGovernment, G2B interoperability)
- Transfer of knowledge for eGovernment solutions
- Creating value from Public Sector Information
- ERP systems in governmental setings
- eGovernment in municipailities and regions
- Teaching and training eGovernment
E-Voting.CC Competence Center for Electronic Voting and Participation
A-1090 Vienna, Austria
Phone: +43 (664) 2055990
Fax: +43 1 3193955