Comments on: Committee on Standards of Public Life call for halt of May e-voting pilots http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:42:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Daniel Gray http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-38533 Daniel Gray Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:01:41 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-38533 Hello again Becky, Just thought of something else. Could I ask why ORG included the following statement in the eVoting briefing pack? "Indeed TV production companies encourage multiple-voting as a way to increase their revenue from each vote cast. For the very enthusiastic fan, software is available on the internet which automates dialing, allowing a single individual to vote hundreds of times." Whilst factually correct, it has no bearing on the issue of voting via the telephone. It, as far as I can tell, merely seeks to imply that it would be possible to vote multiple times in a telephone vote. Which of course would not be the case. All credentials would be single use, unless a system was used that allowed multiple votes with only the last (or first, depending on the setup being used). If the ORGs case is so strong, why include such statements? They're not relevant and seek only to mislead. Kind regards Daniel Gray Hello again Becky,

Just thought of something else. Could I ask why ORG included the following statement in the eVoting briefing pack?

“Indeed TV production companies encourage multiple-voting as a way to increase their revenue from each vote cast. For the very enthusiastic fan, software is available on the internet which automates dialing, allowing a single individual to vote hundreds of times.”

Whilst factually correct, it has no bearing on the issue of voting via the telephone. It, as far as I can tell, merely seeks to imply that it would be possible to vote multiple times in a telephone vote. Which of course would not be the case. All credentials would be single use, unless a system was used that allowed multiple votes with only the last (or first, depending on the setup being used).

If the ORGs case is so strong, why include such statements? They’re not relevant and seek only to mislead.

Kind regards

Daniel Gray

]]> By: Daniel Gray http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-38531 Daniel Gray Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:48:38 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-38531 Hi Becky, Thanks for that (was that e-voting company reference a jibe? Because I've always been completely open about that). Was wondering if you could clarify the ORGs overall position on evoting for me. Are ORG totally opposed to any form of electronic voting? Hi Becky,

Thanks for that (was that e-voting company reference a jibe? Because I’ve always been completely open about that). Was wondering if you could clarify the ORGs overall position on evoting for me. Are ORG totally opposed to any form of electronic voting?

]]> By: Becky Hogge http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-38496 Becky Hogge Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:00:19 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-38496 Hi Daniel Thanks for your comment. Although ORG is very grateful for Jason's work in coordinating our campaign, it's my pleasure to reassure you that all of ORG's documents and positions are jointly agreed by all of ORG's e-voting experts, and by our Board and Advisory Council (none of whom are employed by e-voting companies). Becky Hogge Executive Director, ORG. Hi Daniel

Thanks for your comment. Although ORG is very grateful for Jason’s work in coordinating our campaign, it’s my pleasure to reassure you that all of ORG’s documents and positions are jointly agreed by all of ORG’s e-voting experts, and by our Board and Advisory Council (none of whom are employed by e-voting companies).

Becky Hogge
Executive Director, ORG.

]]> By: Daniel Gray http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-37613 Daniel Gray Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:17:30 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2007/02/28/committee-on-standards-of-public-life-call-for-halt-of-may-e-voting-pilots/#comment-37613 Interesting spin you've managed to put on this story. The main problems, as I read the speech, are in the registration phase. Sir Graham is only calling for a halt to the pilots (note: they're not all eVoting, so calling them eVoting pilots is a misleading) until the elector registration can be fixed. His wording around eVoting specifically wasn't very strong. There's some mention, but only in a way that compares it with the present postal voting system. As an aside, is ORG now the general mouth piece of Jason Kitcat re: electoral processes outside the eVoting arena? He seems to have bent your purpose a little. Oh and by the way, why is GNU.Free still available Jason? Seriously, I'm not going to stop asking that, and don't fob me off with the previous page you pointed me at, it doesn't explain the contradiction one iota. Interesting spin you’ve managed to put on this story. The main problems, as I read the speech, are in the registration phase. Sir Graham is only calling for a halt to the pilots (note: they’re not all eVoting, so calling them eVoting pilots is a misleading) until the elector registration can be fixed. His wording around eVoting specifically wasn’t very strong. There’s some mention, but only in a way that compares it with the present postal voting system.

As an aside, is ORG now the general mouth piece of Jason Kitcat re: electoral processes outside the eVoting arena? He seems to have bent your purpose a little.

Oh and by the way, why is GNU.Free still available Jason? Seriously, I’m not going to stop asking that, and don’t fob me off with the previous page you pointed me at, it doesn’t explain the contradiction one iota.

]]>