,
13 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Wow.
Can’t wait for Malta e-voting App, developped by Scytl & its Russian partner, and Idox, whose core business is Oil&Gas and whose software in that core business happen to be developped with (another) Russian partner.
@J_amesp
Can’t wait for Malta e-voting App, developped by Scytl & its Russian partner, and Idox, whose core business is Oil&Gas and whose software in that core business happen to be developped with (another) Russian partner.
@J_amesp
As much as I understand it’s unpopular to question elections’ integrity -as it could undermine people’s trust in elections- the risks and lack of scrutiny of elections’ new technology and private providers “may” not be the best thing for elections -and trust in elections either.
Few companies have more #vestedinterests in politics than companies needing Oil&Gas to thrive to make profits. They need politicians who won’t stand for regulations/the environment. Let them count votes may not be smart.
@BylineTimes @ChloeFarand
@BylineTimes @ChloeFarand
If these private companies screw up -willingly or not- we won’t know: because their softwares, checking or collating votes to declare the election result *are protected by commercial laws*.
They can’t be scrutinised.
And when collation is web-based -softwares can be hacked.
They can’t be scrutinised.
And when collation is web-based -softwares can be hacked.
Since no independent third party or state watchdog can look at the software code to make sure there’s no glitch or that it wasn’t modified, and there’s no manual checking if the results -that’s a big leap of faith. In elections. Involving providers with obvious vested interests.
Take a look at the UK:
Does anyone has a database of 20 million voters, but this private provider whose core business is Oil & Gas?
Does anyone has a database of 20 million voters, but this private provider whose core business is Oil & Gas?
UK, here is the electoral commission explaining it has no idea what Idox does nationwide. How many votes it handle. What supervision processes -if any- are implemented.
Why I say “if any”
“We haven’t had to open a single enveloppe”
From the electoral office.
“We haven’t had to open a single enveloppe”
From the electoral office.
The last straw: results not adding up.
Official *unverifiable* election results were the ones provided by a software made by a private provider -whose name wasn’t disclosed.
Official *unverifiable* election results were the ones provided by a software made by a private provider -whose name wasn’t disclosed.
At a time when an election that had more votes than voters’ results had to be implemented as results had been declared, unscrutinisable private providers with vested interests and possibly glitches/hacked softwares involved in elections?
Don’t look away.
Don’t look away.
I will end on this:
This is not a Brexit-only issue.
This is not a UK-only issue.
This is a worldwide issue, as Oil&Gas/govt+elections digitalisation companies Idox &CGI (& smartmatic), or Russian company partner Scytl are involved in elections worldwide.
This is not a Brexit-only issue.
This is not a UK-only issue.
This is a worldwide issue, as Oil&Gas/govt+elections digitalisation companies Idox &CGI (& smartmatic), or Russian company partner Scytl are involved in elections worldwide.
So scrutiny is needed.
Ballots papers are not enough if the end result is collated by a copyrighted/uncheckable, hackable software.
We need brokered result (poll station level) to allow checking/accountability.
& maybe know who ultimately own these firms.
Ballots papers are not enough if the end result is collated by a copyrighted/uncheckable, hackable software.
We need brokered result (poll station level) to allow checking/accountability.
& maybe know who ultimately own these firms.
Maybe a few surprises there.
