Skip to main content
Home
Dave Lane

Main navigation

  • Abilities
  • Blog
  • CV
  • About
    • About
    • This Site
    • Commercial Terms
  • Contact
User account menu
  • Log in

Breadcrumb

  1. Home

Response to Ian Apperly regarding Online Voting

Profile picture for user dave
By dave , 21 September 2015

My response to Ian's blog post supporting online voting:

Ian, online voting's been trialed in dozens of places around the world. The fact is that it's been found to have actually failed, or probably failed, everywhere. I say they "probably failed" because the online voting system was unable to record the failure because with software you can't record what you didn't anticipate, and by definition, security vulnerabilities are unanticipated - that doesn't breed confidence in a system whose use depends on public confidence.

Your suggestion that we in NZ will somehow succeed with online voting where far better resourced (and, frankly, probably smarter and more qualified) people elsewhere in the world... smacks of bravado and, well, breathless blind faith.

The oft quoted online voting "success stories" like Estonia, are the places where the politicians have wilfully failed to heed the technologists whose advice they've requested. They've persevered in the face of opposition by technologists who've said to them what I've been saying: the systems *cannot* be made secure. Note, most of the people (75% of voters) in Estonia shun the online system because they don't trust it. It hasn't increase voter participation - if anything online voting further disenfranchises those who don't vote. There're plenty  of other articles about the so-called "E-stonian" online voting success story...

There's no point in trialing online voting here in NZ, because it is simply a bad idea. Accepting that will save us all a lot of money and grief, and allow us to invest our energy in the real problem: actually improving voter engagement rather than gratifying some armchair technophile's pipe dream.

Also, it's a bit rich referring to the people who work to define the state-of-the-art in IT as "Luddites". They are, almost by definition, not. Making that accusation comes across as pretty shrill, and rather silly.

I think it's more appropriate to recognise that responsible and mature technologists accept that a technical solution isn't always the best approach. Moreover, in a situation like online voting, human factors are the greatest source of intractability - people simply don't "get" IT security - we're not ready.

Note to commenters: due to problems with spam comments, your comment will only appear on this site after it's been deemed (by me) to be legitimate.

Blog posts

Arresting the slide from Open to Fauxpen
11 Sep 2017 - 10:19
Strength in Digital Diverisity
16 Jun 2017 - 09:08
The Folly of the Short Game in IT
9 Jun 2017 - 09:46
A different approach to digital technology in schools
1 Jun 2017 - 21:07
Be Prepared: Emergency Communications
29 Mar 2017 - 11:46
The ghetto of the modern Main Stream
22 Jan 2017 - 15:01
Microsoft needs Linux, but Linux doesn't need Microsoft
20 Nov 2016 - 11:20

Pagination

  • Previous page
  • 7
  • Next page
More posts...
RSS feed

Creative Commons License - CC By attribution, Share alike - International 4.0

Contact Dave!
Download Dave's CV
Eliminate DRM!

Contact Modes

Social Media

Software

Terms of Engagement
Terms of Reference
Powered by Drupal