As a long time reader of comp.risks, and having a professional interest in security (as a sysadmin), I'll take this opportunity to say that anyone who is promoting online voting as a replacement for paper ballots is (in my opinion) one or more of a)Hopelessly naive, b)Frighteningly optimistic, c)Woefully ignorant of the problems of authentication combined with anonymity, d)Ignoring the problems of coercion, or (worst of all) e) Willing to accept vote tampering. I do not seriously think that the Electoral Commissioner would be willing to accept vote tampering, but every electronic or online system has been demonstrated to be vulnerable to it. Worse, such attacks can occur at any point, be it in corrupt coding, interference with the ballots, or by injecting forged ballots. All of these have be proven to be possible in every practical and theoretical system proposed to date. This is ignoring the problem of d) - if the voting is not occurring in a public place, how do you prove that t...
Well said
ReplyDeleteHopefully it pleases Her Majesty to assent.
ReplyDeleteHer Majesty does not actually have that power any more. Not in Aus. The Governor General is appointed as the executor of the government, and represents the Queen, but the two duties are distinct, even if embodied in the one person.
ReplyDeleteJohn Samuel​ you're more up on this than I, how far off the mark is my memory?
Oh, and is appointed by the party that forms Government, not by the Queen.
ReplyDeleteIf she, or her heirs, didn't have that power via their appointed representative, the Constitution would be of no effect.
ReplyDeleteThe appointment is meant to come from her. It is my understanding that since around 1973 the accepted practice has been for the government here to make a recommendation for appointment. The power to do so is still hers.
She, through the appointed GG, can exercise her reserved right to withhold assent.
Anyway, the point of my previous comment was that there was one final step to be completed to becoming law prior to being gazetted.
The Governor General said he would be in Canberra and available for signing in the next two weeks.
ReplyDeleteThe Governor General is who the Prime Minister says for as long as the Prime Minister says. And the Queen has precisely zero role in the appointment or removal of such.
ReplyDeleteDeryk Robosson the Queen doing so, even if technically correct, would be a constitutional shit storm to make the Dismissal look like a minor disagreement.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't jive with the Constitution, nor with the powers of the governor general. You are aware that the prime minister doesn't constitutionally exist yes?
ReplyDeleteHeh a shit storm, like the one the current muppets are experiencing? :)
ReplyDeleteDeryk Robosson not in the written constitution per se, but clearly defined in the accepted conventions that surround the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteDeryk Robosson what’s happening at the moment re s44 is relatively minor.
ReplyDeleteI see it differently. The whole foreign power thing is actually a very big elephant that they've hatched quite well and keep hidden in the corner.
ReplyDeleteDeryk Robosson Shrugs. There might be a baton change if enough by-elections happen and go against the government but that’s relatively minor.
ReplyDeleteAnd given that that’s happened before, and during a major war as well, I’m not terribly concerned by that. The precedents for baton changes on the floor are fairly clear.
There’s no significant constitutional issues at play with s44, just a failure of due diligence on the part of several politicians.