Sign in / up

back to article Appeal to again seek code for Australia's secret election software

Michael Cordover, who last November failed in his attempt to get the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to release its vote-counting software, now hopes to raise the funds to challenge the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Back in November, the AEC decided that there were too many trade secrets embedded in …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. as2003

    360,000 lines of code to count votes?

    Perhaps I'm being naive, but this seems grossly over the top. No doubt it had a commensurate price tag too.

    1 0
    1. Adam 1
      Reply Icon

      >360,000 lines of code to count votes?

      You say that but this is the Australian senate we are talking about. You need that many lines of code just to cover bring in the ten billion people listed on it.

      0 0
  2. John Tserkezis

    I don't think it matters, just wait for someone to "hack" the site storing the code, and release it on the torrents. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already...

    I mean, it's not like GovCo keeps things secure, remember the Fairfax reporter that typed in "http://www...." and got a preview of a site that hadn't been "officially" released yet? And then was accused by a polititian who obviously knows everything, accusing the reporter of "hacking" the site?

    0 0
  3. -tim
    Pint

    Isn't that My copyright?

    The one thing that the US Govt managed to get right with their copyright law was removing the concept of a Crown Copyright. If the people of Australia had the code custom written, it belongs to the people and there should be a way to access it. The same applies for data such as were the trains and trams are and the location of the airports.

    /Bob Hawke is unimpressed with the size of the beer icon

    2 0
  4. eldakka
    FAIL

    Pozible a bit dodgy?

    I just pledged through poizable, however that site seems to have some privacy issues that make me a bit wary of using them:

    1) When paying, a message on the payment page states "Pozible does not store your payment information.", yet my pyament details from the only previous transaction I had using Pozible showed up, Payment Name, Country, Phone number, CC number (masked), expiry date. I had the option to edit those details, but I can find nowhere to delete them from the site. So SOMEONE is storing my payment details... I'd like to delete the stored payment information and have it require me to provide those details each time I make a pledge. What do they think it is, eBay where I might make many payments a week rather than once in a blue moon?

    2) I didn't initially notice, but Pozible automatically provides my telephone number to the supported project. It is an OPT OUT box on the payment page, whereas providing my email address is a setting I can turn off in my profile, but not for telephone number. I'd much rather give my email than my number to the project. I should be able to disable providing my number as a default setting.

    0 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pozible a bit dodgy?

      I would assume that, like many "payment portals", Poizable doesn't store your data itself,, but outsources that function to someone else. Almost certainly a bank, they've got the equipment and the expertise and it's a profitable little line for them.

      0 0
    2. TimChuma
      Reply Icon

      Re: Pozible a bit dodgy?

      Pozible should be fine, I have used it dozens of times.

      It took me three attempts and an hour to complete the last Senate ballot paper. Is very complicated.

      0 0
  5. veti Silver badge
    Boffin

    I'm guessing that Mr Cordover has never worked in commercial software development.

    Else he'd find it all too believable that the code for one poxy election was all-but-inextricably embedded in a much larger codebase. In my experience this happens all the time, when code is allowed to grow organically to do new things.

    0 0
    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      10% is real, useful, code. The rest is user interface gumf.

      But the real cost is in assurance. How do you prove that the code does exactly what it is intended to do, nothing more and nothing less? It's important when you're choosing the next government. Very pricey stuff, that.

      0 0
  6. Adam 1

    It is completely unacceptable that the code that decides who sits in the house of review is not public domain. I am making the same argument that we make when we deny the legitimacy of a secret court. It is not that a specific ruling is always going to be wrong. It is that you end up with a system that is open to abuse.

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.