Posted by admin on Jun 17, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments
The online news coverer Slashdot.com recently addressed the issue of “How To Spot E-Vote Tampering.” The advice offered from experts on this “News for Nerds” site was: “Use tamper evident tape to seal the case, cover keyholes and block any open ports.”
Soon thereafter, the topic of vote tampering went national and extended beyond the e-voting arena into the paper-based vote casting. Alaska’s Peninsula Clarion covered the topic when it ran an article titled “Security measures implemented by state division of elections.” Therein, it was revealed that while “Alaska’s election security apparatus … showed the system to be in good shape,” it was still “in need of some improvements.”
More specifically, “the University of Alaska Anchorage released a report [that] valuated the state’s election system in detail and recommended ways to strengthen the technology and election procedures.” Some of the recommendations proposed were: “Seals that would reveal tampering should be used on all voting equipment; election security information should be added to poll workers’ training manuals; there should be increased vigilance about security procedures at absentee polling places; and state-owned voting machines should be used in the North Slope Borough rather than borrowing borough-owned machines.”
The election systems manager for the Division of Elections assures “that tamper-evident seals have been placed on all equipment.” This is just one of the newest ways in which tamper-evident seals are making Americans’ way of life safer and more secure. For years, heat shrink PVC, shrink bands and shrink labels for tamper-evident seals have been used to alleviate Americans’ concerns over tainted foods and beverages, health and beauty aids, pharmaceuticals, industrial, chemical and hardware. Now, vote authenication can be added to that growing list.
A leading manufacturer, converter and printer of heat shrink PVC, PET-G, OPS & EathFirst PLA films specializes in vibrantly printed shrink labels and heat shrink bands. Such products are used for tamper evidence and shrink sleeves on promotional multipacks and other shrink products.
In addition to tamper evidence, heat shrink PVC can be used in many different ways. Full sleeve printed labels for product identification and sleeve labels combined with tamper-evidence are common uses as well as sleeves, either printed or clear, for multi-packing, with new products and uses for these seals popping up every day. For instance, EarthFirst shrink labels, a PLA film make of corn, not oil, was recently introduced. This environmentally friendly, compostable shrink wrap provides the same excellent clarity, machineability, printability and secure shrinkage as oil wrap with less impact on the earth.
As the Penisula Courier points out, “Alaska voters can [now] go to the polls and cast their ballots knowing that their votes are secure” thanks to tamper-evident seals. The technology allows voters to now enjoy the same peace of mind consumers have been at the grocery market, the drugstore, the pharmacy and the hardware store. What’s next for the evolving tamper-evident industry? Only time will tell, but whatever it is, it’s sure to include exceptional quality, design and interesting technique.
Want to Live an Extra 10 Years?
read more
Posted by admin on Jun 12, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments
According to a recent article By Roland Pease of the BBC Radio Science Unit, “perfect secrecy has come a step closer with the launch of the world’s first computer network protected by unbreakable quantum encryption”.
The article, published on the BBC News website on 9 October 2008, talks about quantum cryptography and how it differs from the mathematically-based security systems used on today’s computer networks which are said to be extremely hard – but not impossible – for outsiders to crack.
Quantum encryption certainly sounds like the next generation of computer security but is it too early to be discounting traditional security measures and considering them sub-standard in comparison?
Ian Haughton, Managing Director of Corporate Mailing Solutions thinks not. Providing transactional mail and election services to a long list of blue chip financial institutions for several years means that Ian has been working at the core of an industry where data security is paramount. He says, “Amongst other things we’ve had to make sure our online voting system – Castavote – is based on absolute data security, otherwise our clients just wouldn’t entertain it. All voting data is secured by 128-bit SSL security certificates on servers that are protected by several of the very best hacker, fraud and malicious code safeguards.”
Castavote is a consumer-tested, custom-designed online voting system that offers voters a convenient, secure and modern online voting option that can be seamlessly integrated into any client’s website.
Getting down to the nitty gritty of security features, Castavote offers a cast iron interface including a random modulated entry system, a web server-run script to prevent incorrect data entries, a firewall-protected SQL database that holds no personal voter information, server-based scripting, and a web server that is managed by an internationally reputable company recognised as having one of the world’s most secure data centres.
Castavote offers exceedingly high levels of security together with a range of additional benefits that has made it attractive to various building societies and financial institutions.
Ian Haughton is the Managing Director of CMS Limited, providers of Castavote, a custom-designed, consumer-tested online voting system that can save on manpower and resources and at the same time encourage a greater voter response when used as part of postal ballot or election mailings. For more information visit 
Want to Live an Extra 10 Years?
read more
Posted by admin on Jun 3, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments
Most will agree that “fairness” of the vote is the most important criteria for a voting system whether paper voting or online voting. “Fairest” vote could be defined as the vote which best represents the wish of the majority of the electorate.
Many things can affect fairness of the vote. For example:
* the openness of the contest to willing candidates
* the ease with which people can vote and gain access to information on candidates
* the vote counting method
* the integrity of the vote harvest, vote counting and result reporting
* the existence and transparency of an audit trail
* ease with which voters can confirm that their vote was recorded and counted correctly, and
* the time, cost and resources required to run a vote.
The choice between an online voting system, paper voting system or hybrid voting system can affect all these aspects of the vote fairness. As the manager of BigPulse.com, a firm that has specialized in high security online voting for ten years, my bias is clearly declared towards online voting and in some cases hybrid voting.
Security and protection of anonymity are the hardest to get right in any voting system, requiring many years of testing in electronic voting systems. However a properly tested online voting system can offer many advantages for security, transparency, accessibility, flexibility and cost.
A flexible online voting system will cater for many vote counting methods. The choice of vote counting method is an important consideration in fairness, for example first-past-the- post voting (FPTP) , Single Transferable Vote (STV), Instant-runoff voting (IRV) or range voting – and each method can produce different winners.
However it is not always clear which voting counting method provides the best measurement of majority opinion as there is not always a definitive mathematical answer to this question.
For example a single round vote FPTP contest with three or more candidates can produce a winner which never wins in a paired contest with any other candidate, while it is possible that a losing candidate in a FPTP vote contest may win in any paired contest. Most people will agree that in this case the FPTP result is not fair and an alternative voting method that comes closer to emulating the paired result is fairer. Preferential voting, that is, ranked voting methods and FPTP with multiple rounds of voting tend to reduce this risk of eliminating candidates that do better in paired contests.
Maximizing the degree of proportional representation and minimizing the incentive for strategic voting are two important measures of fairness. Proportional representation means the elected candidates represent the natural divisions within the electorate. Strategic voting means voting for what you think is the best possible or likely outcome even if it means not voting according to your true preferences – for example in a contest with three or more candidates, voters can be tempted to guess how others will vote and attempt to vote in a manner that gives the best likely result, rather than voting their true preferences.
A degree of proportional representation is possible in contests with more than one winner, the more winners the more proportional it can be. In this case the form of preferential or ranked voting known as Single Transferable Vote is fairer than FPTP because the Single Transferable Vote is much better than FPTP at producing proportional representation. However in a single winner contest (known as instant-runoff in the case of Single Transferable Vote), neither system can produce proportional representation, although Single Transferable Vote may be considered fairer in the sense that it leaves the door open to proportional representation.
If elimination of strategic voting is the criteria of fairness then the fair choice between FPTP and instant-runoff is not quite so obvious as it depends on the number of candidates and how many rounds of voting can be tolerated with FPTP voting. For example, if only one candidate is eliminated after each round of voting then, from the perspective of strategic voting, the FPTP vote is just as fair as instant run off and also allows people to simply vote their first preference in each round of voting.
However FPTP is inferior to instant-runoff when more than one candidate is eliminated after any round of FPTP voting. Also with multiple round FPTP voting, voter fatigue, cost and time delay may all impact on fairness. For example a contest with 10 candidates can require up to nine rounds of voting using FPTP if it is to match the fairness of an instant runoff vote. The instant-runoff vote requires only one round of voting.
Want to Live an Extra 10 Years?
read more
