Freedoms
are difficult to attain, hard to hold and easy to lose!
Peterborough,
Ontario, Canada - Internet Voting
Click for: Letter 1
(no response), Letter
2, Letter 3
(1,2 & 3 Newspaper Printed), Problems
(Coming 10/12/06: Program Ownership?)
If you are
unable to vote for any reason please contact me, (click
here) I will be happy to take your Internet access
form and proxy vote on your behalf.
Letter
#3 to Local Newspaper - October 4, 2006
"I
just read the article on them testing the system and being as
secure as a bank. That is somewhat incorrect, one would never
give their bank numbers out for others to use, it involves their
money. Internet Voting however one could simply give their internet
voting numbers out; eg) bank account number = (voting number)
and pin number = (voting access code). As an Example: "Some
running for council have been asked what they would do if a project
to privatize a service came up for review. With the knowledge
of those answers, these questioners could request anyone not planning
to vote to give them their "two one-time needed voting items"
and then vote on their behalf." The point of my letter is
to qualify the voter is huge task that has not even been started,
1. open up a bank account (qualify the voter) and then 2. have
them request an internet service number (access code for voting)
to start online banking. I repeat one would never give their banking
information to anyone but possibly a close relative, but their
voting information if they can't be bothered to go out and vote
(more than 50%) do they really care who gets in and who uses their
vote. That is the danger, the chance of getting a council appointed
by the few rather than elected by the majority!" Return
To Top
Letter
#2, Under 500 words requested by newspaper - September 29, 2006
INTERNET
VOTING: There is no reliable method, to the best of my knowledge,
to accurately determine who someone on the Internet is without
standing over top of them. The lack of being able to qualify the
voter to a reasonable degree of accuracy is one major issue I
have with Internet voting. This opens up Pandora’s Box,
whereas someone with another’s access information –
given or taken, could vote on their behalf without being known
to those responsible for the voting process.
One could
capture IP addresses to qualify the voter but that would be incorrect
for two reasons. First, some ISP’s provide dynamic IP addresses
hence it changes every time someone logs in therefore the same
computer could then be used multiple times with relative anonymity.
Secondly, those with dedicated IP addresses may have multiple
voters in the household, one voter could use the Internet and
the others would have to go to a polling station. Sufficient information
could be collected beforehand from each voting member in the community.
Then, the voter, by filling in many required personal fields on
an Internet ballot would confirm that they actually are who they
say, within a reasonable doubt. These types of forms would be
difficult for the ordinary citizen to use and are subject to abuse
by persons who have access to all this information. Also I envision
an issue with freedom of information and the potential interception
of personal information prior to, during or following the vote.
To ensure compliance the entire community would have to provide
these details. More complex issues arise from voters who prefer
to use public service providers like the Public Library, Kawartha
Graphics and such, they would all cast their vote from one IP
address.
CITY WIDE
VOTING: Here again I have a concern with potential fraud and loading
the ballots in favour of one candidate over another. When voting
at their polling stations, usually run by neighbours from their
polling area, the voter is usually dealing with people personally
known to them and more importantly who know the voter. That very
needed safety check on the system is required. Anyone with a voting
registration card can walk into any station and vote! Even with
an extensive screening process in place, without personal knowledge
of the voter, one can never be sure. “If it isn’t
broken - don’t fix it” There are already laws in place
ensuring everyone has adequate time to reach their polling stations
to vote.
Considering
the few votes needed between winning or losing, If the above changes
are implemented it could produce a City Council that is more or
less appointed by a few rather than elected by the majority! That
might be extreme but so are these proposed changes that are basically
flawed and simply change for the sake of change.
A City Wide
Computer Network will have to incorporate all 18 polling stations
and have every bit of personal information available for every
voter in the City at every station. Return
To Top
Letter
#1 - September 26, 2006
September
26, 2006
City
of Peterborough, City Clerk,
RE:
Changes to Voting Procedures
I
respectfully request clarification on a few issues that I have
with the new (proposed) voting system. These are twofold, the
first dealing with the Internet option and the second with the
vote anywhere option.
*INTERNET
VOTING*
I
firmly believe that it impossible to control Internet voting at
this juncture. There is no reasonable way of knowing who is casting
the vote. Anyone choosing not to vote might give their access
code to be used by others who would then use it to vote on their
behalf, as they wished or not. Not very good! The City of Peterborough
is a Corporation, albeit governed by the Municipal Act; proxy
voting is known to be acceptable within corporations!
There
may be plans to capture IP addresses. That would be incorrect
for two reasons. First, some ISP's provide dynamic IP addresses
hence it changes every time someone logs in so multiple anonymous
sessions could be used. Secondly, those with dedicated IP addresses
may have multiple voters in the household so one could use the
Internet and the rest would have to go to the polling station.
Sufficient information could be collected beforehand from each
voting member in the community and forcing personal compliance
in many fields on an Internet ballet to as accurately as possible
confirm the voter is whom they say they are. This type form would
be difficult for the ordinary citizen to use and could be subject
to fraud by "inside" hackers who have access to all
information. Also I envision an issue with freedom of information
and the potential interception of personal information prior to,
during or following the vote. To ensure compliance the entire
community would have to provide these details. Then there are
those who cannot afford a computer and use a public service provider
like the Public Library, Kawartha Graphics and the like, they
would all cast their vote from one IP address!
The
danger is that it could be used to cast ballots in favour of one
candidate over another either by a hacker or an "inside"
source or by a proxy voter as mentioned above and weigh the election
towards their choice.
Possibly
my fears are unfounded and I am sure your software provider, prior
to receiving payment, will alleviate any concerns and guarantee
the unassailable security and integrity of the system, short of
criminal activities that you must control.
*CITY
WIDE VOTING*
Here
again I have a concern with potential fraud and loading the ballots
in favour of one candidate over another. When one votes at their
polling stations, usually run by neighbours and the like, most
of the time one is dealing with people personally known to them
and more important who know the voter. That very needed safety
check on the system is required! Anyone with a voting registration
card can walk into any station and vote unless an extensive screening
process is put in place. If voting in importance ranks equal to
or are greater than getting a check cashed one would need at least
2 pieces of photo ID to prove whom they are. That would make some
sense but that is something that has to be expansively publicized
well in advance of voting day. "If it isn't broken don't
fix it"! There are already laws in place ensuring everyone
has adequate time to reach their polling stations to vote!
*CONCLUSIONS*
If
both of the above are implemented it could produce a City Council
that is more or less appointed by the few rather than elected
by the majority! I conclude that both proposals are flawed and
open to abuse and respectively request a response that will set
aside my concerns.
The
entire above aside the Professionals in the Federal Government
must in my opinion, mandate-voting procedures. That leads to consistent
procedures from one region to another and would ensure that the
voting public is not confused because a minor bureaucracy decides
to mandate its own set of rules within a region or even different
rules for each of our three levels of government elections. Arbitrary
changes can only lead to the kind of voter confusion we have seen
creating major problems with elections in other countries.
I
must assume that these voting change proposals have been presented
to council and approved by them as a cost reduction project. I
would be most interested to see that paperwork or would that require
a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Sincerely,
John Stoeten
This
letter was sent to the City Clerk, Local Newspaper and Member
of Parliament. Please send comments or questions to (click
here). Include your address and phone number. Return
To Top
|