Good Elections' news or what?
If it is true that government has reneged on the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) during next year's general elections, and if it is true that there are no contractual obligations that will "force" government to re-adopt EVM use once the hurdle of voter registration has been passed, then all that amounts to very welcome news indeed. The alternative would have been, (to use P.W. Botha's words) "too ghastly to contemplate!
Most of us have heard how an IBM computer by name of Big Blue defeated the World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov in a chess game.
When he walked into that room, Gary Kasparov knew, but did not care that Big Blue was "hackable". He didn't care whether or not Big Blue was connected to any other computer remotely. He knew that whatever entity Big Blue might have been connected to, or networked with, that entity simply became part of Big Blue anyway. So as far as Gary Kasparov was concerned, he was facing a "standalone" computer named Big Blue across the table.
Every move that Gary made was his input into the chess game, and was intended to produce Gary's desired outcome - a win for Gary Kasparov. But Big Blue outwitted Gary by its own moves, and achieved its own desired outcome of the game - Big Blue won; Gary Kasparov lost!
The makers of Big Blue never claimed that Big Blue is immune to hacking. Therefore we can conclude, as Gary Kasparov probably did, that Big Blue is "hackable". In other words, a hackable, standalone computer outwitted the World Chess Champion!
The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) has admitted that the EVM is a computer. The IEC claims however, that because the EVM is a standalone computer, it is therefore immune to hacking. Let's assume, WITHOUT CONCEDING, that the IEC claims about their EVM are true. "So what?" we may ask! After all a standalone computer that is NOT even immune to hacking, outwitted the World Chess champion!
Now picture a frail, partly blind and partly deaf old lady sitting across an EVM computer and seeking to input her voting choice - Party X. Since we do not know what is inside the EVM, do we as voters, have any reason to assume that the EVM computer won't try to outwit her and prevail by its own choice - Party Y?
I for one voter, do not have any such reason at all.
Most of us have heard how an IBM computer by name of Big Blue defeated the World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov in a chess game.
When he walked into that room, Gary Kasparov knew, but did not care that Big Blue was "hackable". He didn't care whether or not Big Blue was connected to any other computer remotely. He knew that whatever entity Big Blue might have been connected to, or networked with, that entity simply became part of Big Blue anyway. So as far as Gary Kasparov was concerned, he was facing a "standalone" computer named Big Blue across the table.
Every move that Gary made was his input into the chess game, and was intended to produce Gary's desired outcome - a win for Gary Kasparov. But Big Blue outwitted Gary by its own moves, and achieved its own desired outcome of the game - Big Blue won; Gary Kasparov lost!
The makers of Big Blue never claimed that Big Blue is immune to hacking. Therefore we can conclude, as Gary Kasparov probably did, that Big Blue is "hackable". In other words, a hackable, standalone computer outwitted the World Chess Champion!
The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) has admitted that the EVM is a computer. The IEC claims however, that because the EVM is a standalone computer, it is therefore immune to hacking. Let's assume, WITHOUT CONCEDING, that the IEC claims about their EVM are true. "So what?" we may ask! After all a standalone computer that is NOT even immune to hacking, outwitted the World Chess champion!
Now picture a frail, partly blind and partly deaf old lady sitting across an EVM computer and seeking to input her voting choice - Party X. Since we do not know what is inside the EVM, do we as voters, have any reason to assume that the EVM computer won't try to outwit her and prevail by its own choice - Party Y?
I for one voter, do not have any such reason at all.
Comments
Post a Comment