E-voting security concerns remain

Datamonitor report highlights continuing problem of trust

The UK has been trialling electronic voting systems since 2000

The lack of trust that surrounds electronic voting systems can only be repaired by the vendors that provide the machines, according to a report by analyst Datamonitor.

"As partners in ensuring the conduct of democratic elections, and with the industry at a pivotal stage, there is a very real need for vendors to work closely with election officials and computer scientists to ensure that the technology they are supplying is used in a secure manner," said Datamonitor analyst Ben Madgett in the report.

Madgett said the only way to give the public more confidence in the machines is for vendors to ensure that electronic voting becomes more transparent. Vendors also need to work on the security practices that govern the use of electronic voting.

"Any machine is only as secure as the processes that govern it," he said. " If you don't have regular audits, any machine will be vulnerable."

The report highlighted the efficiencies that can be made by using machines in elections rather than a paper ballot box. However, Madgett said that a machine will not necessarily make the process safer, because this is all down to processes.

"But machines will add efficiencies to the process, allow the votes to be counted faster and give translation options," he said.

Madgett wrote the report after what he described as a "backlash" against the machines.

"After some of the recent tests which demonstrated potential security vulnerabilities with touch screen systems, most election officials are preceding cautiously," he said.

Madgett is now calling on vendors to counter the criticism coming from detractors of the systems.

But one such detractor, Jason Kitcat, who often contributes research and advice to debates surrounding voting, e-voting and democracy, said: "In the limits of current technology, it is not worth the risk."

Kitcat believes that before voting machines can become an integral part of the democratic process, their source code needs to be trusted. And since all software can pick up bugs, even equipment owned by Nasa, the voting process should remain on paper. He also pointed to the "outrageous" cost of the machines.

Ballot staff cannot be cut back when voting machines are installed because staff will still need to monitor the process, and there is the added need for technical support staff.

"I can't see why the machines are worth all that money. Even using pieces of paper, the results come back in one night," said Kitcat.

"The fact that the UK has been trialling electronic voting since 2000, but it has never been used nationwide, shows it is unsuccessful."