Today, to test the viability of the newly developed Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system, a filed trial was carried out in six districts including some remote and difficult terrain locations in different parts of the country. In each district, the filed trial was carried out in 36 polling stations and in each polling station, up to 1000 voters were mobilized to cast votes on the EVMs to test the ruggedness and accuracy of the operation of the printers in extreme locations.

The field trial, which I personally witnessed in East Delhi where it was tested in 36 polling stations of Vishwasnagar assembly constituency, was by and large successful. Scores of voters and political party representatives I have spoken to at different polling stations were quite satisfied with the new system which gave them a proof that their vote had been delivered correctly to the candidate for whom they voted.

Save a couple of exceptions out of these 36 polling stations where the printers malfunctioned – at one place due to faulty insertion of printer roll and at another due to operational problems – the printers worked perfectly and voters were almost unanimous that this system was definitely superior to the paperless EVMs as it afforded them a chance to verify their vote. It was the near unanimous view of most of the participants in the field trial. The final results of our independent research in Delhi and that the Election Commission has commissioned in all districts would vindicate this assessment.

As I visited many possible stations, I ran into two Election Commissioners V.S. Sampath and H.S. Brahma who visited different polling stations in East Delhi for a first hand experience of the field trial along with Alok Shukla, deputy election commissioner and A.K. Agarwala, professor of IIT, Delhi. All of them seemed visibly pleased to get positive feedback from the voters about the new system.

Personally for me and many of us who have been ardent critics of paperless EVMs, we have reason to be satisfied as we are in the process of making a quantum leap in election transparency and verifiability that are hallmarks of any genuine electoral democracy.

Even as I gloat over the progress, a word of caution is in order. The present VVPAT solution does not address many likely situations in real elections. For instance, what does a poll official do if there is a mismatch between the vote cast on the EVM and the printout that it delivers? What if some miscreants create trouble saying that there is a discrepancy even when none exists. These situations, which may occur in real elections, have no remedy in the present solution. We have some ideas and will engage with the ECI and civil society representatives to explore workable solutions. These challenges are not insurmountable but nevertheless need solutions that may even require some design changes.

Further, there are questions relating to auditing, recounting for which guidelines need to be evolved. Care is needed to implement the VVPAT regime such that it addresses the present concerns rather than throw up a newer set of problems, as many fear and some countries have experienced.

Poll officials worried

While everyone seemed happy with the new system, officials involved in the conduct of elections were visibly unhappy. Tension was writ large on their faces, more so in polling stations where open printers were tested where the printout emerging from the printer had to be collected by the voter and deposited in ballot boxes. One official was keeping a close watch on the printout (sometimes standing next to the voter inside the voting compartment) so that no one takes it away from the polling booth as these votes will be counted to match with the electronic result. In a real election, this would constitute a breach and no official can afford do this.

Officials manning polling stations with closed printers (where a printout becomes visible behind a screen and gets dropped after a few seconds) were relatively unruffled as they did not need to keep a check on the printouts.

One thing that is troubling all the officials is the counting of votes. As the printouts are very small (they are of the same width as ATM slips and of the same length in the case of BEL and smaller in length in case of ECIL) and are made of very thin thermal paper, they had serious problems in counting them during training that was imparted to them. The paper is so light weight that it will fly away even if you operate a ceiling fan at moderate speed. More than all this, the drudgery of counting paper is making them jittery. They have had it so good with paperless EVMs and resent manual counting of ballots. Counting scheduled for 25^th July will throw up a lot of these problems.

May be it is too early to announce the final verdict but the field trial clearly marks a good beginning. The way forward is to quickly review, fix all the problems and implement the VVPAT system in real elections soon. Some by-elections to state assemblies are scheduled later this year and the Election Commission may consider use of VVPAT in them. Real elections may throw up newer challenges. And come February 2012, The Election Commission should consider using VVPAT on a large scale either in all or a large number of assembly constituencies in Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. In a year from now, I sincerely hope the paperless voting would be passé and India would usher in the new voting regime that makes elections transparent and verifiable.

The author can be contacted at nrao@indianEVM.com

On October 4, at the All-party meeting convened by the Election Commission of India (ECI), there was a consensus among all political parties that the ECI must introduce a system of Voter Verified Paper Trail (VVPAT). Showing some flexibility after many months of stiff resistance, the ECI had agreed to explore implementation of the VVPAT option in the EVMs. As promised, the ECI has referred the matter to its Expert Committee headed by P.V. Indiresan to study the feasibility of introducing VVPAT.

What is Voter verified paper trail?

Voter verified paper trail (VVPAT) refers to a system wherein a printer attached with the voting machine produces a paper printout of every vote cast just as an ATM produces a slip after every transaction. The voter verifies it for its accuracy and then it is stored in a ballot box as a separate record of votes, independent of the electronic record stored in the EVM.

Why paper trail is needed?

Ordinary voters, political parties, security researchers, activists etc. have expressed doubts about the reliability and integrity of electronic voting machines in the recent months. While the ECI always dismissed such doubts with claims of infallibility and totally tamper-proof EVMs, the scientific evidence showed that these claims lacked basis.

What makes our EVMs untrustworthy is that they function as ‘black boxes’ and have rendered the voting process non-transparent, unverifiable and un-auditable. And, this obscurity has led to nagging doubts among voters and parties about their reliability. There are hardly any exceptions to this as almost all parties have expressed doubts about the reliability of EVMs in one election or the other.

International experience

If you believe India is experiencing unique troubles, think again. It is the same story everywhere.

After spending millions of euros, many European countries, including Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, etc., have banned electronic voting and returned to paper ballots. In the U.S. too, most states have banned paperless voting systems. Admittedly, India has unique needs and situations. Thus, we need not emulate western democracies. But we should not overlook the limitations of our non-transparent electronic voting systems either.

ECI’s Concerns

Even before the ECI agreed to study VVPAT feasibility, election administrators and experts representing the Election Commission of India have expressed many concerns regarding implementation of a VVPAT regime.

Bribery and intimidation: They fear that a VVPAT solution may become a source for bribery and intimidation of the voters when a voter leaves the polling station with a physical printed ballot in his/ her hand. This can be addressed by having a VVPAT solution in which the printed ballot becomes visible behind a glass screen which gets dropped into a ballot box after the voter verifies it for accuracy. Chandrababu Naidu made such a proposal and all parties backed it at the all-party meeting. I have also elaborated on this in my previous blog: http://www.indianevm.com/blogs/?p=501

Secrecy of the vote: The VVPAT will compromise the secrecy of the vote. Nobody explains how. If the voter alone verifies his/ her own vote which gets (or is) dropped into a ballot box, how does that compromise secrecy? Is one saying that even the voter should not get to see how his/ her vote has been recorded? Isn’t that strange? Can one call such a voting procedure as secure?

Printer Problems: Unreliability of printers is cited as a limitation. It may well be but that would only warrant procuring better quality printers or getting them designed as per the ECI’s requirements and keeping enough number in reserve for replacement. This no doubt is a difficult task, but not an insurmountable challenge.

Confusion: confusion, disruption and delays in voting are cited as impediments in implementing VVPAT. If bringing transparency into the voting process entails all these challenges, let us face them and see how they can be overcome.

Costs: The cost involved in implementing VVPAT is cited as a major factor. Cost involved is well worth it, given that there is nothing more valuable than a well-preserved democracy. It would be specious to argue that we cannot afford the costs involved for holding trustworthy elections which is barely a small fraction of one Lakh crores reportedly splurged on hosting Commonwealth games extravagantly.

Redundancy: Another common argument is: why have voting machines at all if you need to print every vote? The need for a physical record is to ensure transparency for the voters and verifiability for the candidates. VVPAT solution allows the efficiency of use of voting machines (for example, faster counts) and provides the much needed transparency to make elections trustworthy.

***

Elections must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair by all. On this trust lies the edifice of our democracy. Paperless electronic voting, currently in vogue has inherent limitations in offering such confidence.

The choice before the ECI is not whether the paper trail is feasible or not. The real question is how to make Indian elections transparent and verifiable. In my opinion, that ought to have been the terms of reference for the Expert Committee examining the “feasibility” of introducing voter verified paper audit trail.

Making VVPAT work is no doubt a challenge but we must make it work if India must continue with electronic voting. Undertaking pilot projects, as the BJP suggested at the all-party meeting, before its nationwide implementation is a way to understand challenges and overcome them with ingenious solutions.

I can be contacted at nrao@indianEVM.com

An all-party meeting was held today at the Election Commission of India’s Nirvachan Sadan to discuss electronic voting machines (EVMs) besides many other issues requiring electoral reform.

In the morning, all national parties including the Congress, CPM, CPI, BSP and NCP have in principle endorsed the BJP’s view articulated by its  senior party leader Ravi Shankar Prasad that the Election Commission shall examine provision of a paper back up for the EVMs in the form of a physical print out of every vote for the voters as an acknowledgement that their vote has been recorded properly. (See the following report)

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/evms-should-provide-acknowledgement-of-choice-to-voter-bjp-lead_100439186.html

And, in the afternoon, leaders of a large number of state political parties have endorsed a specific model of a “printer attached with the ballot unit of an EVM” presented by TDP leader Chandrababu Naidu in a power point presentation to provide paper trail for the EVMs.

As per Naidu’s design, each ballot printout comprising the party symbol will be printed with a unique randomly generated number or a serial number. It will only be visible to the voter behind a glass window and cannot be removed from the polling station. The vote gets dropped into a ballot box after it is verified by the voter for its accuracy. In case there is discrepancy in the printed vote, the voter will notify the presiding officer and he/ she will be allowed to vote on a paper ballot as a tendered vote. At the time of counting, such wrongly printed votes will be cancelled and tendered vote counted. Similar procedure is being followed at present in case of tendered votes.

Election Commission of India too endorsed the unanimous view of all the participants that the proposals made by Naidu merited proper examination and attention. The ECI has promised to have the issue examined by a technical expert Committee.

The all-party meeting on electoral reforms saw almost all parties and the ECI agreeing to the need for reform in EVMs. Almost all of them also agreed with the idea of physical proof of voting in the form of paper trail

No other issue exercised the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the past few months as much as the subject of electronic voting machines (EVMs). Last year, when several top political leaders and activists raised concerns regarding EVMs, the ECI brushed them as unwarranted apprehensions.

But as the months went by, the ECI has realized, albeit tacitly and somewhat grudgingly, that the EVM reform is not only required and is perhaps inevitable. The all-party meeting convened by the ECI on October 4 in which the EVMs were discussed at great length is indicative of this recognition.

Let me cite a few changes that the ECI has made in its administrative guidelines of the use of EVMs over the past six months in support of the above assessment.

On May 3, 2010, the ECI has issued elaborate guidelines for Storage and Safety arrangement of EVMs and improved record keeping. The ECI has directed that a committee consisting of district officials be directed to carry out 100% physical verification of EVMs to prepare a Master Stock Register (MSR) and issued instructions for safe storage of EVMs.

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/ECI_Instructions/ins310510.pdf

On August 4, 2010, the ECI has directed the EVM manufacturers that the First Level Checking (FLC) shall be done in the presence of representatives of political parties by authorized engineers who will also certify that all the parts are original. The Commission has directed that at least 1000 votes shall be polled during the mock poll in 10% percent of EVMs and a printout of the results of mock poll be taken out and shown to the representatives of political parties.

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/ECI_Instructions/ins_05082010.pdf

On September 3, the ECI has issued fresh guidelines for preparation of EVMs during elections. These guidelines are similar to the FLC guidelines and mandate extensive mock polls and printouts being taken out to verify results.

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/ECI_Instructions/ins23092010.pdf

The above changes are a direct result of the vulnerability demonstration that has been carried out by Hari Prasad, Alex Halderman, Rop Gonggrijp and their associates. The ECI owes gratitude to the team of experts for highlighting its vulnerabilities.

The Road Ahead

If the ECI’s attitude at the all-party meeting is any indication, significant changes aimed at EVM reform can be expected. The EVMs would continue to cause concerns until they are perceived to be transparent by voters and allow verification of election results by those expressing any doubts about the election outcome.

Towards this end, the ECI would do well to engage all stakeholders in a dialogue. The Commission has made a good beginning by discuss the EVMs at the all-party meeting convened by it. It is to be hoped that the all-party meeting marks a beginning in this dialogue process. The tenor of the discussions at the all-party meeting made many participants feel that the ECI has an open mind on EVM reform. How far that assessment is correct would become clear in the coming weeks as the ECI follows up these commitments with specific actions.

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com

A month after the arrest of Hari Prasad, the Election Commission of India (ECI) is continuing with its harassment agenda in the missing EVM case used for demonstrating the vulnerabilities of the EVMs and proving the claims of the ECI to be untrue.

A month after the arrest of Hari Prasad, the Election Commission of India (ECI) is continuing with its harassment agenda in the missing EVM case used for demonstrating the vulnerabilities of the EVMs and proving the claims of the ECI to be untrue.

Mukund Lagoo, an activist fighting for tribal rights was arrested 10 days ago and is languishing in jail. Mumbai Police’s application seeking cancellation of Hari Prasad’s bail (apparently drafted by the Election Commission) threatens his arrest again. Mumbai Police are not stopping there. They plan to summon Hari Prasad’s colleagues in NetIndia for questioning. The list is unlikely to stop there.

The series of these actions show the worst form of police terror unleashed against ordinary citizens since the days of emergency imposed in 1975.

While the Election Commission’s desire to ruthlessly oppress EVM critics was evident, what was not clear earlier was the role of the Mumbai police in pursuing this case as if this was the biggest crime ever committed in Mumbai. Obviously, the Mumbai Police were acting under severe pressure from the top.

We have a reasonable explanation for this now.

Election Commission is hearing a complaint against the Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan for allegedly engaging in the electoral malpractice of “paid news” during October 2009 assembly election from Bhokar constituency. “Paid news” refers to publication of news and features in newspapers/ Television in the garb of routine news coverage. The charge against Ashok Chavan is that he did not account for such expenditure in elections.

In India, there is an “expenditure ceiling” of Rs. 1 million per assembly constituency in state elections, which cannot be exceeded as per election rules.

P. Sainath, Rural affairs of the Hindu and a well regarded journalist has documented much of Ashok Chavan’s publicity glitz in the garb of news in his article titled, “Mass media: masses of money?” published on November 30, 2009 http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/article57019.ece

Election Commission is hearing two complaints in this regard, one by Kirit Somiaya, National Secretary of the BJP and another by Dr. Madhav Kinhalkar, a former minister of state for home in Maharastra and an ex-NCP member who lost to Ashok Chavan in last assembly polls as an independent candidate.

Election Commission had rejected Ashok Chavan’s arguments on July 9 represented through his lawyer Abhishek Manusinghvi (Spokesperson, Congress party) that the ECI had no jurisdiction in the matter. See the following link.

EC hears CM’s ‘paid news’ case, acts tough Hindustan Times, July 10

http://www.hindustantimes.com/EC-hears-CM-s-paid-news-case-acts-tough/Article1-570079.aspx

Ever since, the chief minister is under heavy pressure. If the complaint against him is proved to be true – there seems to be a lot of evidence against him in the case – the Election Commission may invoke  its quasi judicial powers to cancel the assembly membership of Ashok Chavan. In one stroke, Chavan would lose his membership and the Congress party would find it imprudent to continue him as chief minister after the charges are proved against him.

Election Commission’s threat of disqualification is hanging over Ashok Chavan’s head. A report published in The Hindu on September 8, 2010 titled “EC to fix date for Chavan’s hearing” quoted unnamed EC sources that “The Election Commission will soon fix a fresh date for hearing Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan in the “paid news” controversy”.

That the police probe into the missing EVM case is linked to the pending enquiry against Ashok Chavan becomes obvious from the timing of the action by the Mumbai Police. Mumbai Police took no action on the complaint filed by the District Collector on May 12 in the missing EVM case and the Police action became vigorous only from July onwards when the Election Commission began to hear complaint against the chief minister.

It seems to be a reasonable conclusion that the Mumbai police are acting under the instructions of the chief minister of Maharashtra government to arrest and harass all those linked with the EVM case so that he can satiate the puerile vendetta of the Election Commission against the EVM critics.

Whether the police terror against the EVM critics is part of a quid pro quo deal between the Election Commission and the chief minister of Maharashtra or is a unilateral initiative of the chief minister to propitiate the ECI bosses in a case in which they have taken unusual interest is a moot question.

If such a deal had indeed been struck, either explicitly or otherwise, it raises ethical questions about the conduct of a public body such as the Election Commission. It shows that the rot and decay is manifest in Election Commission as much as in any other public institution in the country.

It does not behove a public institution like the ECI to engage in coercive (may I say blackmail) tactics employed by criminal gangs. Election Commission’s conduct in disposing off the Ashok Chavan case will be keenly watched in the coming weeks.

If the Election Commission lets off the chief minister in the “paid news” complaint lightly, it would be a clear signal that the Election Commission is more interested in settling scores with its critics rather than cleaning up the dirt in Indian elections.

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com

MUST BE PUBLICLY VERIFIABLE..

At the FAME seminar on electoral reforms last Sunday, chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi recalled the instance of a candidate who lost by one vote in the 2008 Rajasthan assembly elections. The candidate was C.P. Joshi, the then Congress state president and present rural development minister in the UPA government at the Centre. At the request of C.P. Joshi, a recount of postal ballots (less than 200 hundred) was ordered and a re-tabulation of the votes was done on the EVMs. Yet, the difference was the same one vote and Joshi was declared lost.

While Quraishi emphasizes Joshi’s case to say that the counting of votes in our elections is fair, the reality is that this “recount” of votes cannot be considered to be a proper recount at all. This amounted to merely checking if any clerical errors were made in totaling the votes polled in different EVMs as the results are noted from the electronic display of the voting machines.

Joshi conceded defeat merely relying on the electronic counts. He had little choice but to concede. At best, he could have gone in for an election petition that would take several years to sort out. What if some electronic voting machine(s) in the constituency had misrecorded votes due to some technical glitch or manipulation? It could be nobody’s case that all these machines are error free, unless you are willing to believe the “mythical” qualities attributed to the Indian EVMs.

This was the rationale behind the landmark judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in March, 2009 which held the use of electronic voting machines unconstitutional. The Court said that it is not sufficient to say that the voting data is stored in the voting machine and an electronic display or printout is possible, and that election officials are carrying out necessary tests and vouching for the security and technical integrity of electronic voting machines. (THIS WHAT THE ECI IS PROMISING US IN BIHAR ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS.) The Court ruled that EVMs are unconstitutional so long as there was no provision for an additional verifiable physical record of every vote cast.

The Election Commission’s refrain is we are not bound by the judgment of Federal Constitutional court of Germany. They are right but the principles enunciated by the German court are unexceptionable and universally applicable.  None of the challenges to the EVMs in the Supreme Court of India so far have been mounted on these lines but such litigation on the constitutionality of Indian EVMs is inevitable if the system is not reformed in the near future.

As no physical verifiable record of votes cast in elections was available in case of C.P. Joshi’s election, doubts will always remain if C.P. Joshi had indeed lost the election (by one vote or more votes) or won it.

Ironically, the electronic voting machines have rendered candidates totally powerless and made the officials and agencies involved in the conduct of elections supremely powerful. If the electronic count shows that a candidate has lost, that is to be taken as gospel truth. Voting machines have acquired the sort of “sovereign” power that only voters should enjoy in a true democracy. What would you call it but a travesty of democracy where the people are relegated to the background and the unverifiable machine records (which can be wrong, manipulated) become the sole basis for declaring elected representatives?

Verifiable elections

The whole world has moved towards reliable and publicly verifiable elections so that meaningful recounts can be conducted. This is possible by implementing VVPAT system. VVPAT refers to a system where by the voting machines produce a paper record (a print out) of every single vote cast by the voters on the voting machines. After casting the vote on the EVM, the voter will examine the physical print out for its accuracy and if satisfied that there is no discrepancy, deposit the vote in a ballot box. This would ensure that even if the machine is manipulated or misbehaves, you have the paper record to establish the real outcome.

Most political parties in the country are demanding VVPAT. Implementation of VVPAT would mean additional costs but it would offer verifiability of votes cast and make election results more credible.

Is the cost a major impediment in implementing VVPAT? Apparently not. If we can spend over Rs. 30,000 crores for organizing commonwealth games in a shoddy manner, can we not spend a fraction of that cost to hold credible and verifiable elections?

The problem is not of the costs involved. It is the resistance of the officialdom to reform. The bureaucracy loves the EVMs because they are convenient, involve less drudgery, limited accountability and no disputes at all. Introduction of VVPAT will end this dream run.

Should India continue with an opaque, non-transparent voting system just because it suits its election administrators? Political parties have realized the limitations and are rearing to seek voting system reform. Rather than see this as a problem on its hands or a challenge to its authority, the Election Commission of India must seize the initiative at the proposed all-party meeting to announce a slew of reforms to make Indian elections totally transparent, publicly verifiable such that losers like C.P. Joshi can have as much trust in election results as the winners.

After all, the winners will always be convinced that they have won. A credible system is one which convinces the losers too that they have lost.

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com

Hari Prasad arrested in ECI harassment case

Maoists can run away with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Election Commission of India (ECI) feels helpless. It says it can do nothing about it. Chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi said as much to the BJP delegation which met him last week.

Goons and criminals can run away with EVMs. ECI does nothing except filing FIRs.

Nearly 80 machines have been stolen as per ECI’s own admission. As Quraishi himself says, no arrests have been made in the past.

But the Election Commission of India (ECI) shows overzealousness in harassing Hari Prasad for merely using an EVM made available to him for vulnerability demonstration.

The ECI is pursuing vengeful agenda against Hari Prasad for being a whistle blower by publicly demonstrating the vulnerabilities of EVMs and nailing its egregious lies about some fictional magical qualities of the EVMs unknown in the field of electronic security.

ECI’s UGLY FACE EXPOSED

Now, the latest update on ECI’s continuing vendetta.

Hari Prasad was arrested on August 22 in the “missing” EVM case and was granted conditional bail by a metropolitan magistrate on August 28.

Yesterday, Mumbai Police approached a sessions court seeking cancellation of the bail and seeking further custodial interrogation of Hari Prasad.

In the bail order of August 28, the judge made the following observations:

“In spite of the custody of last 8 days no material could be collected to show trespass, housebreaking or even theft. Simply the matter is of the possession of the Govt. property with the accused. Which may at the most attract the offence made u / s 422 of IPC. For attracting that offence also there should be dishonest intention as defined in section 24 of IPC. Even for the offence of theft also dishonest intension is necessary.”

“As claimed by the police if the machine was possessed by the accused for demonstrating only that it could be tempered with then the accused committed no offence….. Instead of discouraging an Engineer by involving him in the offence which are not attracted at all it would be better service to the people of India & to the voters that his claims ought to have been tested scientifically. There is no such scientific test done in last 8 days of Police Custody.”

Despite such stinging criticism of the police’s actions, Mumbai Police sought cancellation of the bail order in the Sessions Court. Additional Sessions Judge N P Dhote has issued a notice to Prasad and directed him to file a reply by September 27.

A perusal of the Mumbai police application reads like a routine self-congratulatory statement often dished out by the ECI extolling the imaginary and apocryphal virtues of Indian EVMs. It seems the application was drafted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Mumbai Police’s behalf. This is significant because it has so far pretended it had nothing to do with the police investigation. Read the following press release by the ECI:

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/recent/NOTE_HARIPRASAD.pdf

This is yet another proof that the constitutional body has undiminished propensity to misrepresent facts. If it is pursuing vengeful agenda against Hari Prasad, it must have the nerve to openly admit it. Why have pretensions to sound politically correct?

MUMBAI POLICE ACTING AT ECI’s BEHEST

Even after the bail order of August 28, the Mumbai police continued to harass Hari Prasad at the ECI’s behest.

The bail order required Hari Prasad to attend police station once a week for a period of one month. Yet, Mumbai Police served a notice on him on September 2  to attend the police station everyday at 10 A.M for a perod of 15 days.

Though this was not required as per the bail order, Hari Prasad cooperated with the Police. Yet, one of the grounds for seeking cancellation of the bail is as follows:

“The accused has not cooperated during the police custody. He is a resident of Hyderabad. Therefore custodial interrogation is necessary considering the gravity of the matter. There is every possibility of his fleeing the country and as per the statement of the accused there is a possibility of foreign hand behind this entire case.”

The theory of foreign hand propagated by the ECI has made it look very suspicious. Science and technology have no geographic boundaries. Just because some foreign researchers with established credentials in electronic voting security are involved, it does not make it a conspiracy.

ECI’s MOTIVES?

The Election Commission that feels helpless about Maoists and goons-criminals is pursuing vengeful agenda against Hari Prasad, a whistle blower.

The following questions arise:

Is the ECI acting independently or is the “independent” body acting at the behest of someone else?  Is it purely a megalomaniacal tendency on the part of a constitutional body that has lost democratic moorings?

Or, is the Election Commission running scared of a political backlash from parties demanding voting reform? And, what vested interest if any, does the Election Commission have in perpetuating a voting system that has become suspect in the eyes of the political class?

Please do write in your own views on why the ECI is behaving in a petty and crooked way.

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com

Reiterating this demand for introduction of EVMs with a paper back up to ensure transparency and to provide an audit trail, the BJP yesterday urged the Election Commission to convene an All-party meeting to discuss concerns of various parties regarding EVMs. In its response, the Commission said that an All-party meeting will be convened in the near future (?) but providing a paper back up (VVPAT) as demanded by the BJP would be difficult as there are likely to be lots of printer related problems.

The delegation was led by Ravi Shankar Prasad, chief spokesman and General Secretary of the BJP, while the Election Commission was represented by chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi, election commissioners V.S. Sampath and H.S. Brahma besides other senior officials. Kirit Somiaya, Secretary of the BJP who was instrumental in organizing the meeting questioned poor storage of the EVMs and highlighted the security loopholes that became evident in the arrest of Hari Prasad. Most political parties and candidates have developed doubts about EVMs and a paper back up is necessary to give confidence, he elaborated. Here is the link for the press note issued by the BJP after the meeting.

http://www.bjp.org/content/view/3529/394/

Accompanying the delegation due to my association with the EVM issue and the party, I told the Commission not to see this as a Congress party versus rest activity. The Congress party leaders in many states (Orissa, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur etc.) have serious concerns about EVMs. Kirit supplemented saying there was a Congress party connection even in the missing EVM in the Hari Prasad arrest case.

Changes proposed in EVM security inadequate

The Election Commission, under pressure from all fronts, has issued fresh guidelines for the “first level” checking of the EVMs and believes that these additional security features will ensure that the EVMs cannot be tampered with.

The fresh guidelines can be seen at the following link:

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/ECI_Instructions/ins_05082010.pdf

While any improvements in EVM security are welcome, I am afraid the proposed steps outlined in the circular mentioned above are inadequate and cannot greatly enhance security. Further, they do not meet the fundamental requirements of transparency, verifiability and auditability of election results.

Let me cite an example. According to the new guidelines, all the EVMs will be thoroughly checked by “authorized” engineers in the presence of political party representatives. The control unit will be opened for the party representatives to check if everything was original and that there is no Bluetooth device etc. are not installed. (These checks are clearly inspired to counter the vulnerability demonstration attacks shown by Hari Prasad and team.)

I asked Dr. Alok Shukla, deputy election commissioner a simple question. How would an ordinary political party representative verify and certify that all the hardware and software inside the control unit are original or fake. I wonder if any of the commissioners would be able to do this. How then does the ECI expect the party representatives to counter-check and sign that the EVM is not tampered with.

Forget about political parties. Even the ECI is not in a position to check whether the software in the EVMs is original or not because it does not have access to the software. If the parties are not expected to check the software, what purpose does it serve? It is the software that drives all the functions of the EVMs and malicious software can manipulate results. So how can anyone certify that the EVM is fine without being aware of the authenticity of its software?

Mock poll print out is OK, but not for real poll

The ECI has made another change with regard to the functionality testing of the EVMs. While earlier mock polls consisted of polling only a few votes, now the parties will be allowed to poll as many as 1000 votes on 10% of the (randomly selected) voting machines and a rolling, continuous printout of these votes will be taken for parties to match and be sure that the machine is functioning alright.

The above procedure is laborious and would satisfy a layman but is not an adequate safeguard. Firstly, voting machines misbehave only when the Trojan is activated. In this case, Trojan (if the unverified software has malicious code already) can be activated after the elaborate mock poll and can even be pre-programmed (it is possible in the new EVMs) in a manner that it gets automatically activated at a particular date and time.

If the ECI is willing to take a print out of 1000 votes polled on at least 10% of the EVMs, why doesn’t it instead agree to a paper record of every vote cast in elections? Funnily, the ECI believes that the mock polls must be transparent and verifiable but is resisting the same for the actual polls? These are questions that are bound to be raised whenever the ECI organizes an All-party meeting.

The Chief Election Commissioner did not forget to mention the “international conspiracy” to discredit the perfectly functioning “India’s election process”. When these “conspiracy” related media reports appeared last week in the media a day after political parties demanded in Parliament that the government shall convene an All-party meeting on the EVMs, I asked a couple of top political bosses what they thought of the “international conspiracy” theory. They said this theory  is being mentioned  in the highest echelons of the government but  is “ridiculous” and “absurd”.

The more the Election Commission and the government highlight these conspiracy theories to hide behind uncomfortable questions, the more credibility loss they would suffer. Now that a political discourse has begun and all parties are seized of the issue, may I suggest that the Commission address these concerns properly to live up to its image as an independent and non-partisan election body?

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Study-to-expose-EVMs/H1-Article1-593491.aspx

Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) is the one of the world’s most highly rated computer security conferences. Being selected for presentation at this conference is in itself regarded as evidence that the paper has  solid research value. Not just that. The paper on Indian EVMs had received the highest score in its rankings thus making it the best paper to be submitted from this year’s submissions. Check it out yourself at the following link.

http://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2010/paper_list.shtml

Does anyone need more to establish that the tamperability demonstration by these technical experts was a genuine and a solid piece of research work? If the ECI still claims that its EVMs are “fully tamper proof,” why doesn’t it offer itself for pubic demonstration in the presence of the public and the media? Why does the ECI want the demonstrations to be held only within its premises? The answer is clear: because it’s unsustainable claims will be exposed, in full public glare. Hari Prasad’s arrest is an attempt to harass and intimidate him and other co-researchers for making public their scientific findings that showing the ECI’s atrocious claims to be totally untrue.

Now let me turn attention to the international conspiracy theories being floated about. There are many mysterious aspects of EVMs that also need to be probed so that the truth about EVMs becomes known to the public. Let me list a few for the moment. I hope the ECI comes out with answers to these rather than imagine conspiracies elsewhere.

Why have two foreign companies been involved by the BEL and ECIL in fusing the EVM software into microchips as it involves a huge security risk for Indian elections when the same process could have been done securely within these companies’ premises?

Why has the “secret” software in the EVMs not been given even to the Election Commission of India? Do the BEL and ECIL suspect the integrity of the Election Commission of India (ECI) or its experts?

Why is the ECI so considerate about the commercial interests of the BEL and ECIL when it should be guided by only the interests of the Indian public in ensuring free and fair elections? In this regard, how did the ECI concede the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) over the EVMs to their manufacturers? Isn’t it silly that the companies that have developed the EVMs at the behest of the ECI and as per its requirements have unfettered IPR rights over them?

By surrendering all the functions involving the manufacturing, checking and maintaining the EVMs to the same public sector undertakings (PSUs), isn’t the ECI running the risk of manipulation of elections by insiders in these companies? Why were checks and balances not considered by involving some other governmental agencies like the NIC in checking of EVMs in the field?

Why did the ECI scrap the “authentication unit” project after it was developed, tested and proved to be successful? The authentication unit is a device that helps in ascertaining whether the software in the EVM is original or tampered with. It also helps to assess whether the EVM is the original machine or has been replaced by a fake one to commit election fraud.

Hari Prasad’s arrest has exposed the ECI much more than it did any good to it. Many uncomfortable questions arise for which ECI must give answers.

How come the ECI and its district level officials did not know that an EVM was missing from its godowns for more than two months until a video recording of the machine was shown on a TV station?

How is it that the ECI arrested Hari Prasad for having merely used an EVM made available to him for demonstration for a very brief period when it has let its own officers in-charge of security of EVMs go scot-free?

The metropolitan judge hearing Hari Prasad’s case observed that the charges of theft, trespassing and breaking into premises do not apply as he was not involved in stealing the machine. The honorable judge said whatever Hari Prasad had done was in public interest and involves 100 crore people of the country. As there were no dishonest intentions on his part, the Judge observed that the ECI should examine Hari Prasad’s scientific evidence rather than proceed in this manner.

May we request the ECI to siege the opportunity to have a public debate over the issue? The ECI had agreed for a public debate over Indian EVMs with experts in far away Washington D.C on August 9 this year. Two ECI representatives namely, Dr. Alok Shukla, deputy election commissioner and Prof. P.V. Indiresan, chairman of the expert committee on EVMs participated in this panel discussion. How is it that the ECI had no qualms having a panel discussion with the same experts that they now accuse of being part of an “international conspiracy”?

Hari Prasad’s arrest brought the issue to national focus. The manner it was done has shocked the general public and technologists in particular and raised uncomfortable questions over the ECI’s role in the issue. The ECI’s claim of “fully tamper proof” EVMs does not have many takers any longer. Its own standing as an autonomous institution has also taken a big knock. It is time the ECI realized this hard reality and reformed its ways.

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com

Peeved by the EVM researchers’ research findings that “India’s EVMs are vulnerable to fraud”, Election Commission hit back at the critics with the vengeance unknown to the scientific community around the world. Arrest of Hari Prasad Technical Coordinator of VeTA on charges of theft, house trespass or house breaking etc. under sections 380, 454 and 457 smacks of intolerance and vendetta.

Public Relations exercise

By its vicious actions, the Election Commission of India has earned notoriety worldwide. We are getting messages of solidarity from the scientific community worldwide for this witch-hunt. Why is then the ECI feigning ignorance and innocence in the matter? Flustered by the public outcry, the ECI is indulging in a public relations and damage control exercise to save itself from further embarrassment.

Proof of ECI’s role

What makes the role of the ECI in pressing charges against Hari Prasad is the sweeping nature of allegations in the complaint by the District Collector/ District Election Officer (DEO).Sample this:

“As the actions of Hari Prasad have far reaching consequences you may please investigate whether there is any vested interests involved here, with ulterior motives to discredit the established election system in the country” (excerpted from DEO complaint dated May 12, 2010)

Statements like the above are way beyond the domain and capacity of district officials. It is explicit that the DEO was merely taking the express orders of the ECI in filing the complaint. If the complaint and the theft charge was made at the behest of the ECI, how can it now say that the police investigation is not being done at its behest. You need to stretch your credulity to think that the two are unrelated.

The ECI did not just stop in ordering a complaint against Hari Prasad. That it has unleashed the full force at its command to send Hari Prasad to jail is evident from the fact that more than a dozen very senior police officers of the rank of DSP and above were involved in strategising and effecting Hari Prasad’s arrest as if he is a dreaded gangster. Sources in the police confirm that the arrest was a result of severe pressure from the ECI through the governmental authorities.

Proof of Vendetta

Why do we say this is a case of vendetta? Because this is not the first time that an EVM has gone missing from the ECI (several dozen EVMs were stolen in the past according to ECI’s own response) but never in the past such drastic action was taken.

Why not fix responsibility on your officials?

The EVMs are in the custody of the District Election Officers (DEOs).If an EVM went missing, it is the district collector/ DEO or some other official who should be held first for dereliction of duty. It is shocking that the ECI has not any action against its own custodians of EVMs but has zealously pursued FIRs against researchers who merely used them for research purposes and there is absolutely justification for this. This underscores the ECI’s utter disregard for lack of accountability in EVM operations.

Poor storage of EVMs

Until the TV9 demonstration, the ECI had no idea that the voting machine was missing. Even after the telecast, it had taken nearly two weeks for the ECI to establish that the EVM belonged to Mumbai.

This brings out the shocking reality that the EVMs are completely unsafe in their custody and that the much trumpeted talk that the ECI has excellent administrative safeguards is just propaganda and bereft of any basis.

If this is the state of affairs in India’s largest metropolitan city, imagine how safe the EVMs would be in far flung areas. Even if people would have carried them away by dozens, it would have gone unnoticed because the ECI had no proper records or inventory of EVMs until recently. It has issued some guidelines after the demonstration by Hari Prasad and team’s sting demonstration exposed the weaknesses.

Rather than thank Hari Prasad and hois co-researchers for making them realize their faultlines, the ECI has begun the worst ever witch hunt by an independent election body.

What next?

We will fight this battle both legally and outside in the public arena. The media has risen in support of Hari Prasad.

I recently participated in a panel discussion on India’s electronic voting machines in Washington D.C along with representatives of the ECI. The experts, comprising some of the best electronic voting security researchers in the world from the world’s leading Universities concluded that “India’s EVMs do not today provide security, verifiability or transparency adequate for confidence in election results.” (Read full statement of international experts at: http://www.usenix.org/events/evtwote10/final-letter-eci.pdf)

We propose to organize a national debate on the issue in September involving leading experts on the subject. Likely to be in attendance are the two international researchers namely Alex Halderman (professor of computer science, University of Michigan) and Rop Gonggrijp (computer security researcher and transparency activist, Netherlands) who were co-researchers of Hari Prasad in the research study exposing vulnerability of India’s EVMs.

Would an imprudent Commission want to persist pursuing a confrontational path by pressing for the arrest of these foreign experts who are co-researchers of Hari Prasad or whether it would want to join the debate is a moot question.

In the meantime, even as we exercise all our legal options, we demand that the Election Commission of India withdraw its complaint registered by the district election official (obviously at the ECI’s behest) forthwith and stop all further proceedings in the matter. The ECI must be relieved that we are merely seeking acquittal and not a public apology

Such a step would only help it arrest the inexorable decline in its prestige in the world of the international community.

We hope saner sense prevails among the mandarins of the Nirvachan Sadan, the Headquarters of the Election Commission of India.

For most of you concerned about the plight of Hari Prasad, let me give you the good news. He is doing fine. On the legal front, the father-son duo of Ram Jethmalani and Mahesh Jethmalani, India’s ace criminal lawyers whom I met yesterday in Mumbai agreed to defend Hari Prasad in the case. Mahesh Jethmalani will appear in court on behalf of Hari Prasad. Both the lawyers were horrified that a technologist with good intentions of strengthening democracy was being harassed in this manner raising serious question marks about the motives. Watch out for one of the most fascinating battles for saving democracy from one of the country’s finest lawyers.

I made a day’s trip to Mumbai yesterday to have a ‘feel’ of the ground situation, to tie up the legal help and to explore other factors leading to the arrest. Some shocking facts have surfaced.

Hari Prasad: An “ECI” don!!

The kind of attention that was given to Hari Prasad’s arrest would have got the Mumbai police the most dreaded gangsters into their net. I gather that nearly a dozen top ranking police officers including DSPs, Inspectors General of Police and DG were involved in strategizing and executing Hari Prasad’s arrest. Mumbai Police has many more serious things to worry about and alleged ‘theft’ of an EVM (a low grade, low cost device) should be the last thing on their minds. That shows the amount of pressure that was brought upon the police to pursue the case.

Poor storage of EVMs

The EVM vulnerability demonstration happened in the month of February last. The same was shown on TV9 after a gap of two months in April. And the Election Commission of India filed the complaint in May.

That means, for nearly two months after the EVM went missing from its godown, the ECI or its District Election Officer (DEO) had no idea that the voting machine was missing until it was shown in a TV demonstration. Even after the telecast, it had taken nearly two weeks or longer for the ECI to establish that the EVM belonged to Mumbai.

This brings out the shocking reality that the EVMs are completely unsafe in their custody. Does this not show that the much trumpeted talk that the EVMs have excellent administrative safeguards and cannot be accessed by outsiders is mere propaganda and has no basis?

I have repeatedly stated that the EVMs stored in godowns all around the country in taluka and remote locations are not safe. If this is the state of affairs in India’s largest metropolitan city, imagine how safe the EVMs would be in far flung areas. People may have carried them away by dozens and still went unnoticed. I am not joking.

Until now the ECI had no proper records or inventory of EVMs. The ECI had issued guidelines on May 3, 2010 only after the vulnerability demonstration by Hari Prasad and team was televised. The guidelines read, “Details of all EVMs in the district shall be entered in Master Stock Register (MSR). MSR shall be maintained warehouse-wise for every district…”

Read the full text of the guidelines here:

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/CurrentElections/ECI_Instructions/ins310510.pdf

The above guidelines are in response to the demonstration by Hari Prasad and team. Rather than thank him and other experts for making them realize their faultlines, the ECI has begun witch hunt. Is that how independent election bodies are expected to behave?

Lack of Accountability

The ECI claims that Hari Prasad must be punished because he was in possession of ECI’s EVM. Does it not have a system of accountability for its own officials who are vested with the responsibility to safeguard the machines? I have gathered from important sources that nobody had been held responsible for this dereliction of duty in Mumbai Collector’s office. The reason: they could not ascertain who was responsible for storage of the godown where the missing EVM originally belonged.

Stamp out EVM critics

If the Election Commission of India could have its way, it would have all of us involved in highlighting the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines arrested and prosecuted. The complaint filed by the district Election commissioner (at the instigation of the Election Commission of India) makes the following sweeping statement:

“The matter needs to be investigated to identify all persons involved who are responsible for the illegal removal, retention and tampering of the Control Unit and at whose behest, backing, financial and other assistance the same has been done.”  (page 3 of the complaint filed by the District Election Officer)

ECI’s don’t blame us stance

The Election Commission has put out a press release claiming that it had no role in the matter of arrest of Hari Prasad. This is far from the truth. The complaint against Hari Prasad suddenly picked up momentum in the fist week of August. Is it the activism exhibited by the new chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi or is a handiwork of his outgoing predecessor, Navin Chawla is unknown. Whoever it is, it is unimportant. For us, it is the institution of the ECI that has unleashed the might of the government against ordinary, well meaning critics. Why now pretend to being uninvolved in the case?

If the criticism of EVMs is getting on the nerves of commission’s top executives, the only recourse is to have a dialogue with all concerned. The more it pursues the confrontational path, the worse will be its effects for the credibility of the institution. EVM critics only want a reformed voting system, but a determined ECI, it seems, has chosen to sully its own image.

I can be reached at nrao@indianEVM.com