So much hopes and expectations are at stake on the May 10, 2010 full automated poll, the first of its kind in Philippine electoral system. Aside from baptism of fire of “clean, honest, and orderly” elections wishful thinking, the automation is on open throttle, not merely partial. Even world superpower U.S.A. is only about 87% of its computerized elections.
From the antiquated manual system, now comes full automation sans gradual transition, as startlingly novel as overnight shift of lifestyle from rags to riches.
Perhaps the major election problems have been met, and solutions are in place. Funding and procurement of electronic equipment, clustering of precincts, cleansing of voters’ lists of possible “flying voters”, hands-on training of teachers boards of inspectors, education of voters, power supply, final listing of candidates and printing of ballots, etc., all attended to.
No stone is left unturned, as assured by Comelec Chair Jose Melo, and echoed by spokesman James Jimenez. Whether it be smooth sailing as 100% effective and efficient, to spell out “peaceful, clean, honest, and orderly elections” is still uncertain. The anxieties are like those of a couple expecting their first-born, that despite hectic preparations and pre-natal precautions for the “primey” baby, they’re always at tenterhooks and floating in thin air with fingers crossed for luck.
Poll automation had its partial precursor in the ARMM election a couple of years ago, but was marked by frauds, like, counting machines forcibly taken away, bloated voters lists clogged with minors, and other anomalies.
However sophisticated the automation, if warlords and manipulators operate with impunity, it may end up fruitless. Jimenez says that automated polls are not 100% hack-proof; no IT computer system is perfectly invulnerable in its Web sites, and its security code may be breached by hackers. ZTE/NBN scandal whistle-blower Jun Lozada says that hacking of the poll machines, the precinct count optical scan (PCOS), particularly their “memory cards” is possible at source before transmission to Comelec servers.
It’s assuring though, that if hacking is done in actual transmission of results which lasts only for two minutes, it may not be enough time to “bypass the system’s security measures”, so Jimenez argues, in order to “actually decode the data”. Since hacking is likely at precinct source or municipal level, Jimenez proposes the use of two other independent servers, one to the Comelec’s central servers or receivers, and the other to accredited trustees, like, media or citizens’ watchdogs. Thus, hacking one source of data in a two-minute satellite transmission would be difficult and not enough time to hack other sources.
But as in the “field testing” done by Comelec Cebu, election results are relayed from precinct PCOS to the municipal board of canvassers that, in turn, relays to the provincial board of canvassers and, the latter finally relays to Comelec Manila. Obviously, the 2-minute transmission is done 3 times that opens up for possible bigger chances of hacking.
Aside from possibility of hacking, other doubts have also surfaced: 1) Even the Comelec appears uncertain on the full poll automation’s successful outcome by some subtle hints to possible 30% manual operation; and, 2) just lately, the nation is all nervous about the intrusion of “cellphone signal jamming devices” to derail transmission of results.
Without one being a killjoy on poll automation good hopes, may the final test be that good, i.e., the proof of the pudding is in the eating, yet to come. And may the integrity and sanctity of the ballot be upheld by then.
* * *
Email: lparadiangjr@yahoo.com