Send kictanet mailing list submissions to kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.keTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanetor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.keYou can reach the person managing the list at kictanet-owner@lists.kictanet.or.keWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..."Today's Topics: 1. Tech and Elections Law (Daudi Were) 2. Re: Tech and Elections Law (Alex Watila)Subject: [kictanet] Tech and Elections Law
Date: 23 September 2016 at 2:49:11 PM EAT
Listers,
Nine parts that jumped out at me.
- 2(e) defines "biometric" which includes "signatures"
- 4(2) IEBC has to a "public web portal" for inspection of the register of members of the public.
- 44(2) IEBC to develop a policy on the progressive use of technology in the electoral process.
- 44(7)(a) technology used for 2017 restricted to the process of voter registration, identification of voters and results transmission; (No electronic voting this time round)
On the tech itself (open source only solutions?)
- 44 (3) technology should be simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent.
- 44 (5)(f) IEBC and others need "access to electoral system software source codes"
On timelines IEBC
- 8A. (1) at least six months before a general election, engage a professional reputable firm to conduct an audit of the Register of Voters
- 44 (7)(b) tech has to be procured at least eight months before the general election (Dec 2016 for an Aug 2017 election)
- 44 (7)(b) test, verify and deploy such technology at least sixty days before a general election.
I suspect some of the members here were instrumental in drafting section 44. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on the process. Particularly interested in
- the push for open source software. (Disclosure, I am currently the CEO of Ushahidi - we build and use open source software)
- whether we feel the timelines are realistic
--
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Tech and Elections Law
Date: 23 September 2016 at 3:01:00 PM EAT
Dear all,
I think it was unwise to write specific technologies into the law as technology moves e.g.
· Biometric is no longer considered secure because of 3d printing
· Why insist on a web portal while sms verification worked well in the past?
· Technology is not a panacea to all electoral issues i.e. the people, procedure and policy issues need to be resolved
Regards,
Alex
Nine parts that jumped out at me.
- 2(e) defines "biometric" which includes "signatures"
- 4(2) IEBC has to a "public web portal" for inspection of the register of members of the public.
- 44(2) IEBC to develop a policy on the progressive use of technology in the electoral process.
- 44(7)(a) technology used for 2017 restricted to the process of voter registration, identification of voters and results transmission; (No electronic voting this time round)
On the tech itself (open source only solutions?)
- 44 (3) technology should be simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent.
- 44 (5)(f) IEBC and others need "access to electoral system software source codes"
- 8A. (1) at least six months before a general election, engage a professional reputable firm to conduct an audit of the Register of Voters
- 44 (7)(b) tech has to be procured at least eight months before the general election (Dec 2016 for an Aug 2017 election)
- 44 (7)(b) test, verify and deploy such technology at least sixty days before a general election.
I suspect some of the members here were instrumental in drafting section 44. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on the process. Particularly interested in
- the push for open source software. (Disclosure, I am currently the CEO of Ushahidi - we build and use open source software)
- whether we feel the timelines are realistic
--