Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Oscar Internet Voting Plan Smeared With Gumbel Gunk

Andrew Gumbel, the ghost writer for Amanda Knox’s ex-boyfriend’s forthcoming Authentic Autobiography, has had his recent attacks on the Oscar Internet voting plan featured in The Guardian and reprinted in the LA Times as an “original” Op Ed.

He says The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was duped into accepting an Internet voting system for the vote on the Oscars in 2013. In the ghost writer’s opinion, a trustworthy Internet voting system is impossible to achieve with current technology. As “proof” he cites a list of anti-Internet voting extremists, including Ron Rivest and Alex Halderman (who are well known for having bullied West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant in a public forum on Internet voting.)

Leaning on Rivest, Halderman, David Dill, and a couple of others, Gumbel writes, “Computer security experts have warned [of] … cyber attacks that could falsify the outcome but remain undetected.” Well, that is one scary story! Imagine - Anonymous hacks into Oscar’s computer and votes for Bollywood’s Rakhi Sawant in every category, and nobody knows it was him! That would truly be a disaster!

But has anything like that ever really happened?

The answer is a big NO! Internet voting has been conducted in Norway, Switzerland, India, Canada, and here in the US in several places, including West Virginia. In every case, technical and political experts, including officials and the public, were satisfied that there were no undetected Leprechauns who snuck in and changed everyone’s vote.

As if that isn’t gunk enough, Gumbel then reveals that he told “the Academy's chief operating officer, Ric Robertson, … of the near-total unanimity of computer experts [that Internet voting was insecure].” He says Mr. Robertson was shocked at the news.

Only one little problem with Gumbel’s report. In every successful Internet voting event, there were dozens of experts who worked on the project, and who knew it could be done. So, no "unanimity" there.

Come on Mr. Gumbel; stop throwing your gunk at Oscar!

For more on Gumbel’s gunk go to Oscar Hit w/ Gumbel Gunk

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com

Labels: ,

Monday, December 12, 2011

Kelleher’s Account of Cyber Bullying in Connecticut Confirmed!

December 11, 2011
The Charleston Gazette
http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/201112110045
By Phil Kabler

CHARLESTON, W.Va. • • •

Secretary of State Natalie Tennant isn't one to get bullied very often, but does admit she felt set up at a recent conference on Internet voting in New Britain, Conn.

Tennant was invited to the symposium to discuss West Virginia's pilot project to allow members of the military and others living overseas to vote in statewide elections via the Internet. She noted that 2010 tests of the system had worked flawlessly, and were well received by the participants.

After her presentation, two other panelists, MIT professor Ron Rivest and University of Michigan professor Alex Halderman, teamed up against her, blasting Internet voting, contending it is impossible to design a secure, hacker-free online voting system.

Rivest, according to news accounts, called Internet voting an oxymoron, like "safe cigarette."

Political scientist William Kelleher, who has an Internet blog "Internet Voting for All," titled his account of the exchange, "Cyber Bullying in Connecticut."
Not being a computer expert, Tennant said she could defend online voting from a policy standpoint, but not on the technical issues.

Tennant said, at first, she assumed that the panel was balanced, and that there would be computer experts who could offer a positive perspective on online security, but said she quickly realized the panel was stacked against her.

Nonetheless, Tennant stands by her position that states should continue to pursue online voting as a way to assure that residents serving on active military duty overseas don't end up being disenfranchised.

Reach Phil Kabler at philk@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1220.

******************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Twitter: wjkno1

Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

Labels: ,

Friday, November 25, 2011

Cyber Bullying in Connecticut: A Lesson in Empathy

Fellow Independents!

Internet voting can be used as the ideal substitute for our current two-party dominated system of conducting elections. But the progress toward that goal is being stymied by a crafty and powerful opposition. For example, recently, in Connecticut, some anti-Internet voting meanies set a trap for West Virginia Secretary of State, Natalie Tennant. They led her to believe that they wanted her advice on how to set up an Internet voting system for that state’s overseas military voters, like the system West Virginia has. As you will see, that’s not what happened …
http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/2011/11/cyber-bullying-in-connecticut.html

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Twitter: wjkno1
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

William J. Kelleher: Voting - An Essential, But Not Sufficient, Requirement for Democracy

Congrats to my colleague and co-blogger from the West Coast William J. Kelleher, PhD on the publication of his new Internet Voting Now! Here's How. Here's Why -- So You Can Kiss Citizens United Goodbye!

Internet Voting Now! is a thoughtful and compelling defense of moving beyond partisan machine politics in America into the current age of technology, bringing our original revolutionary founding principals and intentions with us.

Dedicated "to the men and women of our Founding Generation, who were willing to sacrifice everything for the Original American Dream -- Liberty through Self-Government," Internet Voting Now! begins:
Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA.
And to get you started on his blog, here's a snipit from his latest post on Internet Voting For All, which rang a serious bell for me:
Voting, of course, is a very serious matter. It is an essential, albeit not sufficient, requirement for democracy. Voting is one of the principle ways by which the people of a nation are empowered to have a voice in their own destinies. The process of voting, that is, the means by which a vote is conducted, must be one that commands the trust of the voters, or the results will not be legitimate. Illegitimate governments can only cause political unhappiness, and possibly political unrest and turmoil. Hence, the right to cast a vote is meaningless unless the means by which the vote is counted is trustworthy.
- NH



Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Can People Determine the American Election Process?


ELECTION REFORM
  • Should Voting Be Mandatory? Or are there already too many people casting ballots? Choice and Competition (Richard H. Pildes, NY Times) Citizen-led redistricting, open primaries and public financing of elections would bring out more voters. NOTE: Please see William Kelleher's post on The Hankster from earlier today Should Americans Be Forced To Vote?
  • People’s Veto is move in right direction (By Doug Rooks, Sun Journal - Lewiston Maine) Hearings on LD 1376 yielded no evidence that the 38-year practice of Election Day registration, or EDR, caused any problems. Yet the bill’s pedigree, sponsored by House Speaker Robert Nutting, with Senate President Kevin Raye co-sponsoring, suggested Republicans were serious about eliminating an option used by 45,000 voters in 2008 alone.


Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Its on! Kelleher v. Jefferson: Internet Voting Debate

From Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog


Jefferson: If I can shop and bank online, why can’t I vote online?
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24849

Kelleher: Rebuttal to David Jefferson’s Brief against Internet Voting
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24922

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
Author of Internet Voting Now! at,
http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

A Scary Story about Internet Voting

Here is a Halloween story about Internet voting - don't read it alone!

Attention Hollywood! Make this movie …

http://tinyurl.com/3fn4ov3

Bill

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

Labels: ,

Friday, September 30, 2011

99% Satisfied w/ Internet Voting in Canada

Hello Independents!

Fear NOT! Lets take the lead on Internet voting!

Here in the USA there is a strong opposition to Internet voting. But they have NO FACTS to support the scary stories they tell about what “might” or “could” go wrong. Here is a report that gives FACTS about the successes of Internet voting.

We Independents can learn a lot from this report. I hope US companies will show this report to the state Secretaries of State and local election officials. Hopefully, such factual information will help Americans to overcome the baseless fear that now stymies the progress of Internet voting in the USA. Read more at, http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Facts


William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Twitter: wjkno1
Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Why Independents Should Demand Internet Voting


What is an "Independent"? Lots of people are asking that question these days. Are Independents conservative or liberal? Are they closet Dems or closet Repubs? Are they more focused on public finance issues than on social issues? Are they moderates, or centrists? Is there such a thing as a political center in the US?

One empirical element shared by Independent identifiers is that they don't identify with either of the two major political parties, which currently dominate US elections and government. In this sense, Independents are not only alienated from the political system, they are excluded from it. They are not just passively unrepresented in our "representative government," they are deliberately ignored by our elected representatives. That is, of course, until those elected officials need their votes in the next two-party system election.

Thanks to modern electronic technology, this need not be.

Imagine this: You are watching candidates debate online or on TV. After each debate you log on to your state's secure voting website, using your own PC, cell phone, or other electronic device. Your voter registration is checked, and then the voting window comes up. You enter your rating of each debater's performance, from 0-9.

Suppose further that entry to the debates is open to everyone who wants to be considered by the voters, and that all candidates are eliminated through a series of such debates. Qualification for candidacy can be as it is now in states like California; i.e., fulfill the signature requirements, pay a filing fee, and you are on the ballot and in the debates.

In this scenario, it is the political parties that are excluded from the candidate selection and election process. Suppose there are a dozen candidates for an office. Two one hour debates can be held per evening. In three evenings all twelve can be heard, considered, and voted on by the electorate. The next week a final debate can be held between the top two, so that the candidate is supported by a majority of the voters.

Here is an election process that can be used for all local, state, and federal offices, with only minor changes in state laws. No constitutional amendment is required. Ballot access is 100% nonpartisan – an Independent's Heaven, right here on Earth. Because no self-serving political party will control the process, the locus of power will move to where it should be in a democracy – to the center of voter preferences.

This picture can become reality by demanding that your state government, state Secretary of State, and local election officials implement an Internet voting system organized along the lines I have suggested. In consideration for their sacrifices and service, you can also demand Internet voting for your state's overseas military personnel. (For more on that, and the opposition to it, see my post on Natalie Tennant here on The Hankster, at http://bit.ly/o65o1t, and cited on Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog, at http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49 Also see the new "tough love" review of my book, Internet Voting Now! at http://is.gd/Sc5vch )


William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Face Book: http://tinyurl.com/BillonFB
Twitter: wjkno1
Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD


Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Building the Arsenal of Political Reform: Proportional Representation and Internet Voting

POLITICAL REFORM
  • The best way to fight the two-party monopoly (By Michael Lind, SALON) Most of the world’s democracies have adopted one or another version of proportional representation (PR), an electoral system that more or less accurately reflects the diversity of political views among the country’s citizens. Unfortunately, from 18th century Britain the U.S. inherited the older, less representative system called plurality voting or "first past the post" voting.

  • Natalie Tennant: Internet Voting Profile in Courage (by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D., The Hankster) Just as in the military, a Secretary of State, or any public official, deserves praise whenever they show courage under fire. Tennant showed this courage when she went ahead with her Internet voting trial for overseas military voters. As she stated on the WV SOS website. "The members of our military are putting their lives on the line every day … I thought it was extremely important to make sure they had secure access to an online ballot. We had to make sure their voice was heard."


Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 8, 2011

Natalie Tennant: Internet Voting Profile in Courage


Hello Independents!

Here is a lady politician w/ more guts than any man in the same office in other states; that is, Secretary of State.

I recently posted on my blog a short summary of her achievements w/ Internet voting for West Virginia overseas military. She takes seriously the long standing policy of the League of Women Voters in West Virginia. That policy includes this, "Election laws should serve the voter with maximum convenience, simplicity, clarity, and impartiality." It's my most popular post, so I want to share it w/ you readers of The Hankster.

With rare exception, the growth of Internet voting in the United States is being stunted by special interests. These interests first emerged in 2004.

In 2004 the Department of Defense (DoD), and its sub-agency the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), had an Internet voting system all set up for overseas voters to use in the up coming state and federal elections. The system was ready to handle 100,000 voters, from the half dozen states that volunteered for the trial. Using their own PC, overseas voters could log on to a secure website, and after their registration is checked, vote online. DoD and FVAP officials were so confident that their system was able to mitigate all security threats that they invited 10 outside experts to come and inspect the system, known as the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE. At least four of the 10 were known anti-Internet voting computer scientists.

FVAP personnel took the whole team on the first of several planned visits. After only the second visit, the four got together in private and wrote a scathing criticism full of speculative "coulds" and "possibles," but short on facts and science. The entire election, they alleged, among other things, could be controlled by some undetectable hacker. (They forgot to mention that the system had an intrusion detection capability.) Then they went to the New York Times with their "report," without any peer review or opportunity for FVAP to attach a response.

The Times, and other major newspapers, played up the story with so much sensation (a hacker could elect the president!) that Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, felt compelled to order a halt to the program. Thereafter, this report, its authors, and a small cadre of well-funded activists have led the way in discouraging FVAP, or any state government, from further attempts at Internet voting trials. They now have a full time staff that follows the legislative process in Congress and each of the 50 states. Whenever they see an Internet voting bill introduced into a committee, they go into action to stop it. They buttonhole committee members, pull out their well-worn report, spout off all the "coulds" and "possibles," without any science to back up their claims, and then remind the elected officials of how they killed SERVE in 2004, using their access to the New York Times and other newspapers.

Most elected officials buckle under this pressure. They cannot afford the costs of publicity that would be required to fight the activists in the media. As they know well, the best way to get reelected is to avoid controversy, and push off the Internet voting proposals "for further study." As a result, in 2010 over 30 states electronically sent blank ballots to their voters who were in the military and overseas, but they avoided using systems based on the SERVE model. These states required that voted ballots be returned by fax, email, or snail mail – anything but real Internet voting on an official website. Indeed, even now, in 2011, FVAP is offering states up to $16M for electronic ballot delivery systems; but not for systems based on the SERVE model. To get financial aid, the systems must use ballots returned by fax, email, or snail mail.

Despite the threats of anti-Internet voting activists, in 2010 West Virgina enacted a trial of true Internet voting for its overseas members of the military, who were eligible to vote in one of the several volunteer counties. As with SERVE, overseas West Virginians in the military could use their own PC to log on to the state’s secure website, and after their registration is confirmed, cast their vote online. The program was supported in the legislative process, developed, and implemented by WV Secretary of State, Natalie E. Tennant.

Just as in the military, a Secretary of State, or any public official, deserves praise whenever they show courage under fire. Tennant showed this courage when she went ahead with her Internet voting trial for overseas military voters. As she stated on the WV SOS website,

"The members of our military are putting their lives on the line every day … I thought it was extremely important to make sure they had secure access to an online ballot. We had to make sure their voice was heard."

The system was first used in the state's primaries. Voter response was quite positive. Tennant reported that of all the satisfaction survey respondents, "we received no negative feedback of the pilot program."

While other methods of absentee voting saw return rates of about 40 percent, the Internet voting ballot return rate was over twice that. Tennant was so impressed that, in her report to the state legislature, she asked them to allow additional counties to participate in the 2010 General Election, which they did.

Tennant made her final report to the WV legislature on 1/19/2011. This report included the statistics on the use of Internet voting in the general election. For example, in the counties where Internet voting was offered, of all the voters who requested that their absentee ballots be delivered electronically, 76% voted on the secure website. In the counties using standard mail as the absentee ballot transmission method, 58% of the requested ballots were returned. Clearly, there was a higher rate of participation with Internet voting.

Most of the voters who used Internet voting in the primary also used it in the general election, indicating a high degree of satisfaction. Indeed, of those who took the satisfaction survey, 100% rated the system’s ease of use as "simple" or "somewhat simple."

Tennant reported that to date, "no significant deficiencies or concerns have been identified with the West Virginia online voting pilot." Unfortunately, because of all the media attention to the fiasco in Washington DC's Internet voting trial (which was set up by Oliver and Hardy, and then hacked by yet another comedian), Tennant did not recommend on her own authority that Internet voting should be used in all of West Virginia's counties. She suggested instead that a study group be convened to decide the matter.

Tennant is in the lead on other election reforms. For example, she is overseeing WV's experiment with the public financing of campaigns for election to some state court judgeships.

Tennant made a try for the West Virginia governorship in the first half of 2011, but lost in the Democratic primary; perhaps her courage under fire was not given sufficient profile.

Suggested Readings
On the DC fiasco:
http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010

On the Security of WV's Internet Voting System:
FAQ, at http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/voter-information-center/Documents/FAQ%20WVUSOV.pdf

Tennant addresses the technical aspects of how the state handled security issues in two papers.
1. Tennant's NIST Position paper of June 9, 2010
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf (Written after the primary vote, and before the general election; with her request for an extension of the program to other counties)

2. West Virginia's SOS report on the Online Voting Pilot Project 1/19/2011
http://www.sos.wv.gov/news/topics/elections-candidates/Pages/SecretaryofStateReleasesLegislativeReportOnOnlineVotingPilotProject.aspx

Also see:
Pew Center Reports

Internet voting for military, overseas voters debuts in West Virginia
Clerks and secretary of state pleased with first use
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=59033

Pew Report on Military Voting Reform
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=62365


William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Americans Elect to be Interviewed by an Independent

Hello Independents!

Americans Elect is gearing up to hold a parallel presidential election in 2012. They hope to actually qualify as a political party in all 50 states. (I hope they are being advised by Ralph Nader's legal team!) They will have nominations in June. Presumably, they will hold their own vote in November. They hope to present the Electoral College with a difficult dilemma: that is, suppose their voters elect someone whom the two major parties did not elect – and they do it with more votes than the Dems or Repubs had? If the EC doesn't follow the "real" popular vote, resentment against the two-party system will get even more intense than it is now. That is good for us! Independents need a really frustrated and angry population before the iron grip that the two majors have on our political system can be broken.

Sol Kleinsmith has an interview lined up with an AE spokesperson. He is soliciting questions that he might ask in the interview. I wonder, for example, will it be legal for a voter to vote in the AE "primary," and also in their state's Dem/Repub primaries? The AE vote will be all Internet voting. This raises a whole slew of questions by itself. I'll tell you what I have suggested to Sol to be asked of AE. You can make your own suggestions at,
http://riseofthecenter.com/2011/08/01/serious-question-what-would-you-ask-americans-elect/#comment-6861

Bill wrote:

Hi Sol!

I respectfully suggest that you have an Internet voting security and election integrity section in your interview.

The biggest problem they are going to have after they run their election will be defending the integrity of the Internet voting process. Remember Ohio in 2004? A lot of vocal people cried "foul," because the DREs were suspected of being rigged. Opponents of Internet voting will say that the program could have been fixed to elect a specific person, or to prevent the election of someone. They must be able to defend the integrity of their system, or the whole exercise will be a laughing stock.

Malicious code can be slipped in to their operating system, do its dirty work, and then erase itself so that it will be undetectable. This can be done anywhere along the line, from the original programmer through everyone with access to their server. A security guard could do it with a USB at night. BTY will they have one server in one location, or more than one in different locations? How will physical access to their server be controlled?

Who, or what company, set up and will operate their Internet voting server? How can we be sure there won't be another DC-like hack?

Are they using "open source" software – that is, code that any computer scientist can inspect for its integrity? If they are offering the public open source code, how do we know that it is the same code running their server? They could pull the ole switch arue.

Before the election, folks will want to know how they are planning to protect themselves from a denial of service attack (DOS)-- i.e., a zillion computers all call in at once and jam the system? Will they have an intrusion detection capability? The system in DC claimed to have such capability, but it failed. The Board of Elections did not learn about the intrusion by Halderman until voters called in to complain about the football fight song.

How can they insure the one person, one vote principle? That is, how will they prevent anyone from voting early and often? Checking voter registration will be a nightmare, and may be impossible in many cases. They could have over twenty million voters. They will need fifty million votes to out vote the majors! How on Earth can they be sure that each one votes just once? Can they defend against "program voting," or "robo voting"?

Suppose they deny the vote to someone because they say she isn't registered, or otherwise eligible? How will they defend themselves from a law suit (for breach of contract, or for damage to reputation, or emotional distress)? Will every voter have to sign a universal waiver of all their rights?

Who will be in control of the vote count? What are their checks against insider shenanigans – i.e., who is watching them? Is it somebody from outside the AE inner circle, or do we have to trust the inner circle to be honest?

Do they plan to have someone from outside their inner circle who can have access to all of their inner circle members, and later vouch for the trust-worthiness of the AE team?

Good luck w/ the interview! And good luck to AE! (They'll need it)

Bill

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

Labels: , , ,