A crucial principle which should be applied to #onlinevoting discussions: scrutineering. At present, we can be confident that elections in voting stations with booths are fair and uncorrupted because people of all sorts, with many different interests (laypeople) are *capable* of credibly scrutineering the process. As soon as you go online, credible scrutineers drops to a tiny, specialised sliver of tech experts. Who are, therefore, easy to co-opt/corrupt/bribe/bamboozle. 1/2

@lightweight I guess you heard that thing on the radio this morning too, "ooh online elections are perfectly fine to use, other places do them all the time" ...

@yojimbo Yep. Warwick Lampp *wrote* (almost single handedly, I understand) the Electionz.com online voting system. Based on everything I've heard him and his boss say, the thought of that is horrifying.

@yojimbo the fact that RNZ didn't make his vested interest extremely clear to listeners is very troubling.

@lightweight Yes, I was just going to say the same thing. There was a very strong implication that his comments were in some way "official", or that his business was part of the real elections process. A shame that "election" isn't a protected term for business/trading names I think.

Follow

@lightweight I submitted a formal complaint to RNZ.

"""
I believe you breached section 8, "Balance" with the introduction of Warwick Lampp, a management representative of a private company who sells services relaying to online voting. He was described as "the chief electoral officer at Electionz.com". This is a phrase that seemed to invoke an official government title and imply that he was an integral and senior officer of the Government. The company's own website lists him only as "Business Development".

The introduction could have said "chief electoral officer at Electionz.com, a private business that sells online voting systems that are not currently being used in the local government elections" in order to fully explain his position.

As a representative of a private company that has a vested interest in seeing an increase in online voting, his comments about the suitability of online voting for local government elections were strongly biased, and this bias was not sufficiently explained or accounted for in the piece.

This may also have breached section 9, as being inaccurate and misleading; as the assumption that "chief electoral officer" holds an official position was not corrected, and his bias was not described to the audience.
"""

Sign in to participate in the conversation
hackers.town

A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.