The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

E-Voting in the NetherlandsThe Approaching End of Black Box Voting

Dr. Anne-Marie Oostveen

<anne-marie@social-informatics.net>

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Dutch situation (1)

• Simple elections: one candidate per election, at most 3 elections at the same time.

• E-voting introduced without any public debate• Nearly 100% of population votes electronically• Lots of mystery surrounding voting computers• Problem: unverifiable (not transparent), no recount

possible• What was wrong with paper ballots??

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Dutch Situation (2)• Black Box Voting: “Any voting system in which the

mechanisms for recording and/or tabulating the vote are hidden from the voter, and/or the mechanism lacks tangible record of the vote cast”.

• Actors: - Ministry of Interior Affairs - Kiesraad (advisory board) - Brightsight (commercial testing institute) - Manufacturers (Nedap, Sdu) - Municipalities - Voters

• Legislation: - Constitution (Grondwet) - Election Law (Kieswet) - Election Order (Kiesbesluit) - Approval regulations voting machines 1997

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

ManufacturersNedap Sdu

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Testing / CertificationBased on ‘Approval regulations voting machines 1997’

• Done by TNO -> TNO-ITSEF -> Brightsight• Specifications severely lacking:

– No security requirements specified: the entire concept of intentional vote-tampering does not appear at all in the requirements/regulations.

– Mostly about the size of buttons, shock resistance and various other electrical and environmental specifcations

• Certification does not protect elections from anything: protection against manipulation is left up to the manufacturers

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

“e-Voting is safe. Trust us”

• 2004, Minister of Interior: “In contrast to elections using paper ballots, the count of an electronic election cannot possibly be wrong, so there is never a need for a recount”.

• “The Irish situation is completely different, and so is the software made for Ireland. So all of these Irish security problems with the Nedaps do not apply here”

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl• ‘We don’t trust voting computers’ campaign

launched, June 2006• Campaign against unverifiable elections• Mediawiki website• ‘Machines’ vs. ‘Computers’• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)• Put all the documents/letters on the net, extensive

library (articles, FOIA, legislation, political, links to sisterorganisations, etc)

• Discussion list, newsletter, meetings (drinks, debate)

• Becoming legit: foundation, office, staff, fundraising

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Mail from Ministry• They: “The ministry is taking your campaign

very seriously and would like to discuss ways to further increase the level of public confidence in electronic voting”.

• We: “We hope the ministry does not see us as the problem. If the ministry would just retract some previous statements regarding e-voting, we are very willing to help ensure a proper burial of black-box voting. As it stands, we believe that increasing the level of confidence in e-voting is not in our nor in this country’s best interest”.

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

The Nedap hack

• The foundation manages to borrow a Nedap from a municipality for a month. Nobody knows!

• However, They suspect we are up to something: Nedap and government sent letters to municipalities warning them to be careful with their Nedaps

• 4 days later: the foundation buys 2 more Nedaps from a municipality that hasn’t opened these letters yet. Costs: 3000 euros and a cake!

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Findings of the hack

• Reverse engineering project• Keys • Nedap Chess• Nedap PowerFraud• Radio emissions (CDA-detector)

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Consequences of the hack

• Broadcast on national TV (4 october)• Politicians reactions: shock, horror• Press conference in parliamentary news center• All over the evening news and the newspapers

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Consequences of the hack

• Parliamentary debate• AIVD (secret service) looks at radio emissions• Minister announces an independent committee

to revise the entire voting process• Nedap gets fixed-up, Sdu’s license suspended• Amsterdam and 34 other municipalities back to

red pencil

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Sdu NewVote decertified

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Elections

Before and during:• OSCE fact-finding mission• Cake-delivery by 40 volunteers to all 500

Amsterdam polling stations

After:• AIVD and the NFI (Dutch Forensic

Institute) check dozens of used voting computers.

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Secret, secret, secret!

• Forensic research

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Current Situation• Committee announced• Foundation met up with Commission• Next election: 7 March 2007• Sdu NewVote license still suspended• Sdu courtcase against the State (last Friday)• Remote internet voting is pushed by special

interest groups and a majority in parliament, because: advantage for disabled, voting from any place, no counting of votes, modern/high-tech image.

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Future• Most likely to be with voting computers with

a paper trail.• Hopefully internet voting will not be

implemented, because of technical as well as important social issues:– No increase in turnout– Digital divide– Civic ritual– Coercion/ Vote-buying– Trust/Social Identity

The "Electronic Voting: a challenge to democracy?" event

Thank you!