Voteware source code requester labelled 'vexatious'

Australia's Electoral Commission (AEC) has again denied a request to reveal the source code of the software used to count votes in Senate elections, and pointed out the the man seeking it that he may be a vexatious applicant abusing the freedom of information process. Hobart Lawyer Michael Cordover first tried to view the …

[Frank Bitterlich]

"Freedom" of Information...

... funny what a name can do. Most "FOI" laws are actually the opposite - a means to prevent disclosure of information. It gives the public bodies a "tick all that apply" list of excuses on why it won't disclose anything. I wonder what judicial oversight is on this process; a potentially wrong election result vs. "commercial sensitivity" –– guess which one wins...

"This government was brought to you by ACME Inc."...

[david 12]

Re: "Freedom" of Information...

Freedom From Information laws.

My first contact with FFI laws was many years ago, when I was trying to sort out an error in my file with a goverment department, back in the days of physical files. It eventually emerged that the reason I got different repeat requests for information every time I went in, was that they had TWO physical files. Which would have been obvious if they had show me the information they had. But the actual statement was "We can't show you, because of the Freedom of Information laws"

[Big-nosed Pengie]

"What - you want to see how we manipulate the results? Bugger off."

[Adam 1]

I don't understand the AECs angle even if this guy is vexatious. Surely it would build confidence in our elected officials if we prove that the systems behind elections, from counting to preferences allocation to the random number generators behind the order that candidates are listed.

What could be more democratic than a crowd funded source code audit of the software we rely on for choosing our governments?

[Goat Jam]

"Surely it would build confidence in our elected officials"

Why would the AEC care whether we have any confidence in them or not? Have you ever met a government worker. They just don't give a shit what the great unwashed think.

As for the elected officials (aka politicians), they don't care either

[silent_count]

Notwithstanding the contemptible behaviour of the AEC in this matter, I think there's more important question. How did we end up with closed source vote counting software?

Who was the minister responsible for allowing this to happen? A quick search says the AEC answers to the special minister of state... but I don't know when this software was procured, thus who the minister was at the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you who live in Australia

Should all file a request for this source code. Maybe if a few thousand people do the same it'll gain some media attention and the regular citizens who maybe don't understand the issues will wonder what exactly the power that be are trying to hide.

Too bad we don't have this choice in the US, since we're using commercial software on our voting machines!

[keybasher]

Sadly, FOI requests cost money here

Depending on the amount of info being requested, it looks like each request will cost $50 or so minimum:

"Application fee - $26.50 (non- refundable unless fee is waived)

Access Charges:

Search charges - $19.90 per hour or part of an hour

Supervision charges - Charge calculated per quarter hour or part thereof based on an hourly rate of $19.90

Photocopying charges - 20c per black and white A4 page

Providing access in a form other than photocopying - The reasonable costs incurred by the agency in providing the copy.

Charge for listening to or viewing a tape - The reasonable costs incurred by the agency in making arrangements to listen to or view. (Supervision charges also apply)

Charge for making a written transcript out of a tape - The reasonable costs incurred by the agency in providing the written transcript."

[HardCoded]

Calling all Australians - Lodge a request.

Why won't they let us view the source code that counts the votes?

The Australian Electoral Commission has labelled this Hobart based Lawyer a "vexatious applicant", something that will stop him from lodging future Freedom of Information requests (!).

Perhaps he should be also labelled a "dissident" and chuck him in goal with out a trial? A good old fashioned flogging to sort him out?

It was my belief that commercial software's "privacy" status only extends so far; it relates to most things in the intuition of unfair advantage or industrial espionage, something that Monopolies seem to ignore every day with a "y" in it. Perhaps I should spend more time reading up on freedom of information law? Is there a codicil that prevents us from examining the mechanisms that govern us?

Perhaps everyone should lodge a FOI request to examine the source code that decides their destinies. Maybe stand for Parliament "We want work, money, a future and freedom". Isn't that what we fight for? Call me an idealist, I've been called worse. Better still, call me naive. One thing I CAN do is get the fee waived when I apply. I'll write about the result, directly. Watch.

[HardCoded]

It's a start - LAWYER ME UP

Dear Australian Electoral Commission,

I request that you release the source code that counts the votes.

It is the people's right to examine the mechanisms that govern us.

The code used is open source. I am an IT professional - open source

software is free. I worked for a company for whom I used to

download open source code for and use it in a commercial

environment. We would use that code, manipulate it and sell it as

commercial software.

Commercial law relates to most things in the intuition of unfair

advantage and commercial espionage, not the examination of a system

that determines our government, and our destinies.

Therefore, as a loyal Australian citizen, I respectfully request

that we examine the veracity and accuracy of this code that counts

the votes that determines who rules this country.

Democracy demands transperancy.

Yours faithfully,

etc etc.

It's a start, OK? Needs research, perhaps quixotic, but I'm trying at least