CFP EVOTE08 “3rd International Conference on Electronic Voting 2008” from 6th to 9th of August 2008

[From Robert Krimmer]

As said before, I’ve just finished editing the call for papers for next year’s conference. I do expect an increased interest in the conference – hopefully also from here in the US – we desperately need your input in the discussion! I tried to put together a quite international IPC who are from 15 different countries, so expect a truely international discussion.


Download the CFP here

The 3rd International Conference on
Electronic Voting 2008
(EVOTE08)

August, 6th to 9th 2008
Bregenz, Austria at Lake Constance

Organized by
Competence Center for Electronic
Voting and Participation (E-Voting.CC)

This conference is the international meeting point for e-voting experts from all over the world to hold an interdisciplinary and open discussion of all issues electronic voting involves. It is the continuation of the successful 2004 & 2006 E-Voting conferences in the same location. Together 150 experts from 26 countries (and five continents) discussed electronic voting. The conference serves as the academic review conference for the Recommendations on electronic voting of the Council of Europe, and guarantees hereby heightened visibility for presentations and papers.

Aim

The aim of this conference is to bring together e-voting specialists working in academia, politics, government and industry in order to

– Discuss all forms of electronic voting (including but not limited to
polling station, kiosk or remote voting by electronic means)
– Formulate the interdisciplinary issues involved (technology, law, politics
and society) in designing and implementing e-voting.
– Present new ways of solving the voting paradigm of unequivocal
identification of the voter and full anonymity of the vote.
– Report on implementations, their legal, organisational and technical framework, the project experience made, and future plans.
– Analyse the interrelationship with and the effects of e-voting on, democratic institutions and processes as well as voter behaviour.
– Conduct a social and political analysis of the effects of electronic voting.
– Report on practical experience in implementing and conducting elections with electronic voting parts.
– Discuss security requirements and testing in accordance to international security standards i.e. Common Criteria or ITSEC.
– Evaluate electronic voting, the effects of it and how to evaluate experiments.

The idea of this conference is to discuss the development in this field in a
3-day conference that deals with the topics from a theoretical view as well as
practical case studies.

Working language
—————-

The working language of the conference will be English.

Venue
—–

The conference will be held in the beautiful Renaissance castle of Hofen at Lochau/Bregenz on the shores of Lake Constance in Austria. Sufficient space will be given to informal communications. An optional weekend program after the conference will be available including a mountain hiking trip and a visit of “Tosca” on the floating stage of the Bregenz Opera Festival (see www.bregenzerfestspiele.com).

Contributed papers
——————

The full paper submissions (double-spaced, 3500-4500 words excl. abstract, figures, references) will be subject to a double-blind review. Please submit anonymous submissions (with no reference to the authors). Electronic submissions shall be made through the platform provided at
www.e-voting.cc/2008, which serves as online-system for the review process.

Deadlines
———

Draft of the paper………………..February, 29th 2008
Review deadline…………………..March, 28th 2008
Notification of acceptance ………..April, 14th 2008
Receipt of the final paper…………May, 9th 2008

Accommodation
————-

Speakers will be accommodated in the castle itself. For conference participants without papers rooms at hotels in walking distance are reserved.

Fee

Regular Conference Fee 300 EUR (incl. VAT)
Late Registration Fee after July, 1st 2008 360 EUR (incl. VAT)

The registration fee covers participation in regular, poster and computer
sessions, one set of proceedings, welcome party, coffee and non-alcoholic
drinks, conference dinner and three lunches.

If a registration is cancelled before July, 1st 2008, 50 percent of the
registration fee will be refunded. No refund will be made after this date.
The proceedings will be sent by mail in any case.

Publication
———–

All papers accepted for the conference will appear in the conference proceedings. The conference proceedings are intended to appear as an edition
in the GI Lecture Notes Series.
Best Paper Award
—————-

The IPC will award the best contribution presented at the conference.

Funding
——-

Limited funding is available to PhD students on application basis. Please
apply by 30th of June to phd@e-voting.cc with the following content: title
and a short (1 page) abstract of your phd and why you want to take part in
the conference.

PDF of Last Years Proceedings
—————————–

For reference purposes you can have a look at the proceedings of last year’s
conferences which are available at http://www.e-voting.cc/2008.

International Programme Committee
———————————

M. Alvarez, USA
F. Bannister, Ireland
J. Barrat, Spain
J. Benaloh, USA
N. Braun, Switzerland
T. Buchsbaum, Austria
C. Enguehard, France
S. French, United Kingdom
R. Grimm, Germany
T. Hall, USA
C. Imamura, Brazil
S. Kim, South Korea
N. Kersting, South Africa
R. Krimmer, Austria
L. Monnoyer-Smith, France
H. Nurmi, Finland
W. Polasek, Switzerland
M. Remmert, France
J. Reniu, Spain
F. Ruggeri, Italy
K. Sako, Japan
B. Schoenmakers, Netherlands
R. Stein, Austria
D. Tokaji, USA
A. Trechsel, Italy
M. Volkamer, Germany
D. Wallach, USA
G. Wenda, Austria

Proceedings of the 2006 Bregenz Electronic Voting Conference online

[From Robert Krimmer]

Dear all!

Today I’m happy to release the PDF of the 2006 2006 conference on Electronic Voting which took place in Castle Hofen near Bregenz at the wonderful Lake Constance from 2nd to 4th of August.
The proceedings contain the twenty papers selected for the presentation at the conference out of more than forty submissions.

You can order the proceedings in print for EUR 19,70 (+shipping & handling) by sending an e-mail to office@e-voting.cc.

Or you can download it here for free ;-):

Krimmer, R. (Ed.): Electronic Voting 2006, GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, P-86, Bonn, 2006.
krimmer_electronic_voting_2006 (pdf, 1,910 KB)

Here is the content of the book:

Content

Overview
Robert Krimmer pp. 9-12
krimmer_overview_9-12 (pdf, 209 KB)

Session 1: E-Voting Experiences

    • E-voting in Estonia 2005. The first practice of country-wide binding Internet voting in the world
      Ülle Madise, Tarvi Martens p. 15-26
      madise_martens_estonia2005_13-26 (pdf, 309 KB)
    • Swiss E-Voting Pilot Projects: Evaluation, Situation Analysis and How to Proceed
      Nadja Braun, Daniel Brändli p. 27-36
      braun_braendli_swiss_e-voting_27-36 (pdf, 294 KB)

Session 2: Social, Technical, and Political Issues of E-Voting

    • Contributions to traditional electronic voting systems in order to reinforce citizen confidence

Ana Gómez, Sergio Sánchez Garcia, Emilia Pérez Belleboni p. 39-49
gomez_spain_39-49 (pdf, 344 KB)

    • A preliminary question: Is e-voting actually useful for our democratic institutions? What do we need it for?
      Jordi Barrat Esteve p. 51-60
      barrat_a_preliminary_question_51-60 (pdf, 249 KB)
    • How e-voting technology challenges traditional concepts of citizenship: an analysis of French voting rituals
      Laurence Monnoyer-Smith p. 61-68
      monnoyer-smith_challenge_citizenship_61-68 (pdf, 173 KB)

Session 3: Legal and Democratic Issues of E-Voting

    • The electoral legislation of the Basque autonomous community regarding electronic vote
      Rosa M. Fernández, Esther González, José Manuel Vera p. 71-83
      fernandez_basque_e-voting_71-83 (pdf, 289 KB)
    • E-Voting in Brazil – The Risks to Democracy

José Rodrigues-Filho, Cynthia J. Alexander, Luciano C. Batista p. 85-94
rodrigues_e-voting_in_brazil_p85_94 (pdf, 138 KB)

Session 4: Analyzing Solutions for the Uncontrolled Environment

Session 5: Redesigning Workflows for Electronic Voting

    • A generic re-engineering methodology for the organized redesign of the electoral process to an e-electoral process
      Alexandros Xenakis, Ann Macintosh p. 119-130
      Xenakis_Macintosh_BPR_in_E-Voting_119-130 (pdf, 262 KB)
    • Election Workflow Automation – Canadian Experiences
      Goran Obradovic, James Hoover, Nick Ikonomakism, John Poulos p. 131-141
      obradovic_canada_131-141 (pdf, 738 KB)

Session 6: Observing E-Voting

    • A Methodology for Auditing e-Voting Processes and Systems used at the Elections for the Portuguese Parliament
      João Falcão e Cunha, Mário Jorge Leitão, João Pascoal Faria, Miguel Pimenta Monteiro, Maria Antónia Carravilla p. 145-154
      falcao_leitao_portugal_145-154 (pdf, 326 KB)
    • Voting in Uncontrolled Environment and the Secrecy of the Vote
      Kåre Vollan p. 155-169
      vollan_secrecy_vote_156-169 (pdf, 271 KB)
    • Coercion-Resistant Electronic Elections with Observer
      Jörn Schweisgut p. 171-177
      schweisgut_coercion-resistant_171-177 (pdf, 128 KB)

Session 7: Implementing E-Voting

Session 8: Security for E-Voting

    • Security Requirements for Non-political Internet Voting
      Rüdiger Grimm, Robert Krimmer, Nils Meißner, Kai Reinhard, Melanie Volkamer, Marcel Weinand p. 203-212
      grimm_sec_requirements_203-212 (pdf, 120 KB)
    • Online Voting Project – New Developments in the Voting System and Consequently Implemented Improvement in the Representation of Legal Principles
      Klaus Diehl, Sonja Weddeling p. 213-222
      diehl_online-voting-project_213-222 (pdf, 183 KB)

Session 9: Political Views and Democratic Challenges

    • The Voting Challenges in e-Cognocracy
      Joan Josep Piles, José Luis Salazar, José Ruíz, José María Moreno-Jiménez p. 225-235
      Piles_Voting_in_e-Cognocracy_225-236 (pdf, 246 KB)
    • E-Voting in Slovenia: The view of parliamentary deputies

Tina Jukić, Mirko Vintar p. 237-248
jukic_vintar_slovenia_237-248 (pdf, 142 KB)

Introduction: Robert Krimmer

Hi!

Three weeks ago I finally met Mike Alvarez at the Dagstuhl meeting on e-voting in Germany where we had a great time together and at one point he asked me if I would be interested in writing about the European perspective on electoral reform, electronic voting and remote forms of it especially. As a long time reader of electionupdates I agreed right away.

Actually Mike & Thad’s paths nearby crossed mine several times – so I was really happy it finally happened in the crazy little German town of Dagstuhl 🙂

So how did I come accross the topic of e-voting? Actually in 1999 I was on a student exchange at New York University Leonard N. Stern School of Business – the boom time of Internet. As amazon was hitting the campus bigtime and my colleagues back home at Vienna University of Economics in Austria were organizing the student union elections, the idea crossed my mind – “when you buy your text-books online, why can’t you vote online?”

What seemed back then like a fairly easy task turned out to be a long-term project. Back home I was engaged in an electoral reform effort of the student union law which allows for electronic voting since 2001 (the law was passed by the Austrian national parliament), I participated in the remote e-voting project “e-voting.at” till 2004 and in 2002 wrote my master thesis about the possibilities of remote electronic voting in the Austrian student union. For that I won the 2nd prize of the BMW Scientific Award in 2003. In 2003 and 2004 we also ran two shadow elections – one in parallel to the student union election and the other in parallel to the Austrian Federal President election.

2004 also was the year when I organized the first E-Voting conference in Castle Hofen (the proceedings are there as a pdf) in Bregenz/Austria at Lake Constance. We had nearly 50 participants from 11 countries and also the e-voting recommendations of the council of europe were presented there for the first time.

In 2005 I became first engaged in election observation of e-voting when I was invited by the European Commission to become part of the election observation mission to Venezuela in 2005 as an e-voting expert. It was quite an experience as a bug was found that allowed to track down the sequence of the voters. I have written a paper about observing e-voting. Before that trip I visited of the first nation-wide election (in that case on the local level) in Estonia where nearly 10,000 votes were cast online – a number which tripled in just 18 months in this year’s national parliament election.

2006 then was the year when I was convinced to start the competence center for electronic voting and participation (E-Voting.CC). Not only did the interest for election observation increase (besides the EU also by the OSCE/ODIHR). The main reason was definitely the second international conference on electronic voting 2006, which I then organized jointly with the Council of Europe. This was also the time when I came up with the (x) logo which symbolizes the combination of the Internet with a cast ballot.

The second conference was a huge success – not only did we have 85 participants from 23 different countries from around the world (from New Zealand to Canada) but also 22 wonderful presentations and the whole conference was webcast, which is still available online here.

In the next two posts you will find the 2006 proceedings as a PDF and also the CFP for the next conference!

This year I have been focusing on finishing my PhD which bears the working title “the use of information and communication technologies in the electoral process” where I conducted a multiple-case study. Besides that the preparations for next years conference stress me a bit so I was really happy that I somehow managed to go to Dagstuhl late July/early August.

Read more in my short cv, and in my personal blog at www.robert.krimmer.at.

So I hope I can contribute a bit to the further success of electionupdates!

Hart InterCivic Sells Records Management Division

Hart InterCivic, one of the e-voting companies, sold a related division today.

Manatron a provider of property tax software and services to state and local governments, says it has purchased the majority of Hart’s records management business unit for approximately $4.8 million. The deal is expected to close on Aug. 31.

U.S. says Kazakhstan's election flawed

The International Herald Tribune reports that:

The United States said Monday that an election in Kazakhstan which was swept by the ruling party was flawed. A spokesman for the U.S. State Department said that while Kazakhstan had made progress toward democratic reform, Sunday’s election fell short of international standards.

The spokesman, Gonzalo Gallegos, pointed to provisions in Kazakh law that seem to have prevented opposition parties from gaining a single seat. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s Nur Otan party received 88 percent of Saturday’s vote, according to preliminary results released by the government.

Finn's Going for E-Voting

Finland’s communications minister, was quoted as saying by Aamulehti on Monday that Finland was advised to take heed of good experiences of online voting in Estonia. Ms Lindén told the Tampere daily that the internet was the busiest polling station in Estonia’s previous general election. The minister sees Finns voting online in a general election for the first time in 2015 after trials in municipal polls. Ms Lindén would use identity cards embedded with chips rather than internet banking codes as the means of identification in online voting. Jarmo Korhonen, the party secretary of the Centre party, was quoted as saying in the same story that Ms Lindén should bury the idea lest it imperil the entire reform of the Election Act.”

California Hearing on Auto-Marks

I received a copy of a public notice today regarding the Auto-Mark that is to be held by the California Secretary of State.

HEARING DATE AND TIME

September 20, 2007, 10:00 a.m.

NOTICE

Elections Code section 19213 provides that a voting system or part of a voting system which has been approved by the Secretary of State shall not be changed or modified until the Secretary of State has been notified of the change in writing and has determined that the change or modification does not impair the accuracy and efficiency of the voting system or part of a voting system sufficient to require a reexamination and re-approval of that system or part of a system.

Elections Code section 19214 authorizes the Secretary of State to seek injunctive and administrative relief when a voting system has been compromised by the addition or deletion of hardware, software, or firmware without prior approval. Elections Code section 19214.5 authorizes the Secretary of State to seek monetary damages and other relief for an unauthorized change in hardware, software, or firmware to any voting system certified or conditionally certified in California.

Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) has violated Elections Code section 19213 by deploying for use in polling places in several California counties hundreds of units of a version of the AutoMARK ballot marking device that was changed and modified from the version approved by the Secretary of State, without notifying the Secretary of State and without a determination having been made by the Secretary of State that the change or modification does not impair the accuracy and efficiency of the AutoMARK sufficient to require a reexamination and re-approval of the AutoMARK or the voting system of which it is a part.

Accordingly, pursuant to Elections Code section 19214.5(b) and Government Code section 6064, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to give interested persons an opportunity to express their views regarding the intention of the California Secretary of State to seek administrative relief against Election Systems & Software, Inc., pursuant to Elections Code sections 19214 and 19214.5(a), seeking any or all of the relief specified in section 19214.5(a), including the following:
(1) Monetary damages from the offending party or parties, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation. For purposes of this subdivision, each voting machine found to contain the unauthorized hardware, software, or firmware shall be considered a separate violation. Damages imposed pursuant to this subdivision shall be apportioned 50 percent to the county in which the violation occurred, if applicable, and 50 percent to the Office of the Secretary of State for purposes of bolstering voting systems security efforts.
(2) Immediate commencement of decertification proceedings for the voting system in question.
(3) Prohibiting the manufacturer or vendor of a voting system from doing any elections-related business in the state for one, two, or three years.
(4) Refund of all moneys paid by a locality for a compromised voting system, whether or not the voting system has been used in an election.
(5) Any other remedial actions authorized by law to prevent unjust enrichment of the offending party.

E-voting predicament: Not-so-secret ballots

In the “why don’t they click off the time stamp” edition of this blog, there is a story about how some e-voting machines in Ohio produce a time stamp and you can use the time stamp to figure out when people voted.

I would note that this is much more a problem in low turnout elections, when people truly do come in slowly and are more likely vote relatively sequentially (of course, voter 1 is always voter 1). It is less likely a problem in high turnout, long ballot presidential election, when voters vote at very different speeds (we have timed voters casting ballots in the same precinct in the same election doing this task in times ranging from 2 minutes to 15 minutes). Voters would quickly get mixed up in the process.

Regardless, the fact that this feature either is not suppressed, or suppressed in the information provided to the public, is rather bizarre. I am also surprised that the people in the story were able to look at the un-aggregated vote totals. In most states, ballots are sealed and not available for examination after the election is certified. It is quite problematic that these people were given access to the ballots to the point that they could see the time stamps, if that is in fact what occurred.

Election Ballot Access

There is a story on ballot access in Oklahoma. Ballot access is one of those interesting issues where you have a debate between giving voters more choices and giving ballots “clutter” from candidates that don’t stand a chance of winning.