Gareth Williams feels vindicated by US decision to audit internet votes.

By Gareth Williams

November 27, 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

It has certainly been an interesting month in politics, especially south of the border. Many were surprised by the victory of the Republican candidate despite polling results showing his opponent with a strong lead. Mrs. Clinton conceded once it was clear to most that her path to victory was closed, something Mr. Trump long refused to say he would do.

Burlington does allow on-line voting – a small proportion of citizens used that service. The voting machines the city uses are not on-line.

This past week however, a few media outlets published an alarming story based on comments attributed to computer scientists from some of the nation’s leading academic institutions. They urged candidates to request audits of the election in a handful of states. Their reason being that it appeared results in counties which rely solely on computerized voting machines demonstrated a statistically different result as compared to counties where paper ballots alone were used. Had the election been ‘hacked’?

Further analysis of the data revealed that there were other explanations for the statistical differences. Those computer scientists – cautious as most scientists are – clarified their position. There was no proof the election machines had been tampered with, but they maintained their push to have an audit performed to ensure the integrity of the voting process.

Thanks to an 11th hour fundraising effort by US Green Party Candidate Jill Stein, a recount is now underway in Wisconsin. However, major concerns have been raised based on the fact that in those counties where computerized voting machines were used, there is nothing to count. The only recourse is a computer forensics audit of the equipment.

Internationally renowned computer security expert Bruce Schneier commented on the situation this week. He pointed out that “computer forensics investigations are not easy, and they’re not quick. And in the end, we might not even get a definitive answer.”

On Thursday CBC Radio’s As It Happens featured an interview on the subject with former IBM researcher Dr. Barbara Simons, an expert on election security. Dr. Simons recently testified before the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE) in Ottawa. In her interview Dr. Simons warned “if you want to have the elections hacked in Canada, the best thing to do is have internet voting.” Internet voting is basically computerized voting machines on steroids.

A few weeks ago I wrote an opinion piece on an upcoming decision by Burlington City Council on the use of internet voting. The comments in the Gazette confirmed I was not alone in my concern. At Standing Committee, the recommendation was put forward (with a 6-0 vote) to accept the staff recommendation and continue to offer internet voting in Burlington in the 2018 Municipal Election. Staff defended their position based partly on the specious argument that “everyone else is doing it.” Convenience had won the day over concerns surrounding ballot secrecy and security.

Last week two other Ontario municipalities considered this issue. The City of Waterloo, home to one of the country’s leading University computer science programs, decided (once again) that internet voting was not worth the risk. Their decision was guided by advice from one of the University’s computer science professors, as well as an engineer with a leading technology security company based in the region. On Twitter Regional Councillor Jane Mitchell thanked Waterloo Council for “showing that you are really tech savvy”. Which is to say, rejecting Internet voting doesn’t show that you are backward-looking, it shows that you actually understand the technology, and the risks.

The Clerk for the City of Toronto also put forward a damning report on internet voting, and recommended not to proceed. The report cited among a myriad of issues a lack of liability on the part of third-party internet voting system vendors. They highlighted the fact that “the internet was designed to share information, not to secure it”. They rightly observed that voting is a unique service, very unlike other services offered by a municipality. It is not the same thing as paying a parking ticket and should not be looked at from the same perspective. This recommendation will be considered by Council there in the coming weeks.

If these voting machines were connected to the internet the belief among many experts is that the results they give could be tampered with.

Back to that US contest for a moment; the result of the election has been called into question, thanks in part to electronic voting machines. Mr. Trump has decried the audit process now underway a ‘scam’, despite months of claiming the system was ‘rigged’ – when it looked like he would lose. To quote Mr. Schneir again, “Elections serve two purposes. First, and most obvious, they are how we choose a winner. But second, and equally important, they convince the loser ­- and all the supporters ­- that he or she lost. If the election system fails to do the second, we risk undermining the legitimacy of our democratic process.”

This situation is likely only to further deepen divisions and polarize the electorate. Do we really want the potential for a situation like this here in Burlington, or in Canada for that matter?

Hopefully our Council will reconsider their earlier decision and give this direction some sober second thought.

Gareth Williams is a graduate of the Political Science program at McMaster University. He works in Information Technology in Hamilton with 18 years in the field.  Gareth lives in Brant Hills with his wife and their dog Misty.’

Background links:
Simons, an expert on election security

Experts urge Clinton to challenge the us presidential race results

Williams told Council he thought they were making a mistake – they went ahead and made it anyway.