[LINK] ACT vote article

[Roger Clarke]

A linker suggested to me that Andrew Tridgell may have had more than 
a little to do with the ACT Electoral system.  A quick conversation 
with Tridge today (when we should all have been out enjoying the 
sunshine!) results in the following additional info:

Andrew:
>- I did the prototype of the user interface, and was heavily involved
>   in the design. I had very little to do with the final product,
>   although from what I've seen of it I think it's quite good given the
>   constraints.
>
>- Having the screen flat was my suggestion, although I actually
>   suggested a slight angle. The idea is to make it harder for people
>   to read your screen from the other side of the room. Think about how
>   the booths were placed in the polling places.

    [Roger's concern is the damage to the back, and the inaccessibility by
     short / old / stiff-backed people.  The approach adopted c. 1989
     with ATMs was to contrive to have the vertical key-pad and screen
     recessed, so that it was / could easily be obscured by the body and
     hand.  The solution adopted with EFT/POS terminals was to make them
     hand-helds with little rims, and hence orientable in several ways.
     Agreed:  it's a challenge to get this right, and only
     experimentation will end up with a consensually acceptable design]

>- I can't say for certain if the vote counting machine is the same as
>   the web server, but if it is then it is obviously a *very* bad idea,
>   and that certainly wasn't the plan. I was not involved in the final
>   deployment at all, but I would be extremely surprised if they did
>   share the same machine. in fact, I'd be extremely surprised if the
>   critical counting machines are in any way connected to the
>   internet. That was certainly not the plan and with the emphasis that
>   was placed on security of the system it seems highly unlikely that
>   was done. The reporter getting confused seems a far more likely
>   reason.

    [Roger and the two Adams:  Phew!]

>- My guess is that the poor card readers are largely a result of
>   budget constraints. Good card readers are expensive and the ACT
>   doesn't have a huge budget for this trial. I did not have any part
>   in the choice of card reader, but I certainly sympathise with the
>   constraints that the person who did choose them was under.

    [Granted.  You mean us Canberrans funded what should have been a
    largely Commonwealth, i.e. all-taxpayers, expense of prototyping the
    AEC's future national solution???]

>btw, the code for the prototype is up at http://evacs.samba.org/

[Ah, open-source licensing!  And Software Improvements are at:
http://www.softimp.com.au/ (and I thought *all* imps were 
hard-nosed).  But all they seem to be offering is 
http://www.softimp.com.au/news.html#EVACS ]

Andrew, finally:
>I in no way speak for Software Improvements or the ACTEC.

-- 
Roger Clarke              http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                 Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au            http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Fellow                       Department of Computer Science
The Australian National University     Canberra  ACT  0200 AUSTRALIA
Information Sciences Building Room 211       Tel:  +61  2  6125 3666