[clug] AEC denies FOI request to source code of 'EasyCount' for counting Senate votes.

[Alex (Maxious) Sadleir]

Senator Ludlam donated to the crowd funding so he is aware of the
matter https://twitter.com/SenatorLudlam/status/484865961992806401

An order for the production of documents can be denied (which is why
it was suggested that the Information Commissioner have the ability to
review rejections
http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/speeches/australian-information-commissioner
)

But the Greens are going to try doing it that way, vote should be
before 4pm today
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fnotices%2F0d50f67e-6cb1-477c-915d-67bb3cd0d584%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fnotices%2F0d50f67e-6cb1-477c-915d-67bb3cd0d584%2F0000%22

" *330   Senator Rhiannon : To move—That there be laid on the table by
the Special Minister of State, no later than 15 July 2014:

   (a)   all correspondence and documents, whether written or in email
form, from the Special Minister of State’s office and/or the
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) relevant to:

              (i)   the decision of the AEC to have Mr Michael
Cordover declared a vexatious applicant, and

             (ii)   the assertion that Mr Matthew Landauer colluded
with Mr Cordover to harass the AEC; and

   (b)   the source code of the software by which Senate vote counts
are conducted."



On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Francis Markham
<francis.markham at anu.edu.au> wrote:
> I agree that funding the crowd funding project a good way to go.
>
> But FoI is not the only way to get this information. I would suggest, for
> example, that someone close to the FoI request team contact Senator Ludlam
> (who has a reasonable record to these issues) and see if he can assist in
> getting the source code tabled as a document in the Senate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Francis
>
> On 8 Jul 2014 05:01, "Alex (Maxious) Sadleir" <maxious at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's a crowd funding campaign to get as much legal resources as
>> possible directed to a 26 August AAT hearing reviewing AEC's decision
>> not to release any information (no source code, no
>> manuals/documentation, not even the titles of the files/documents in
>> question!) http://www.pozible.com/project/183015
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:53 AM, steve jenkin <sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au>
>> wrote:
>> > Anyone across this issue?
>> > Is any action possible?
>> >
>> >
>> > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/04/voteware_source_code_requester_labelled_vexatious/>
>> >
>> > In the USA, the AEC would be on far shakier ground as their constitution
>> > (?) states, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”. In
>> > Westminster Democracies, like ours, the Government represents The Crown, not
>> > The People, very important difference.
>> >
>> > In the world of Open Source, this is often taken to be that software
>> > developed by Universities & Government Agencies and _implicitly_ paid for by
>> > the public, is automatically owned by the public.
>> >
>> > Somehow that gets reformulated with biotech patents.
>> >
>> > regards
>> > steve
>> >
>> > Other comments:
>> >
>> > I agree there could be a ‘trade secret’ for an implementation of a
>> > publicly known algorithm.
>> > There are clever, non-obvious ways to do things that are worth real
>> > money in commercial operations.
>> >
>> > I don’t agree that the AEC should hold the software secret. AEC declared
>> > the software "non-commercial” and it's paid for by the public purse and used
>> > strictly for public purposes.
>> >
>> > <https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/software_by_which_senate_counts>
>> > <https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/attachment_b_to_ls4944>
>> > <http://easycount.mjec.net>
>> >
>> > Letter 4-Jul-14, Relevant paras:
>> > 14 - refusal on grounds of Trade Secret
>> > 33 - declaring mjec a ‘Vexatious Applicant'
>> >
>> > <https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/648/response/2171/attach/7/LS5069%20Letter%20to%20Mr%20Cordover%20notifying%20decision%2020140704.pdf>
>> >
>> > On the mjec.net site, he gives this as the summary of positions:
>> >
>> > ==============
>> >
>> > The AEC's position is that EasyCount contains a trade secret, namely the
>> > algorithm used to count Senate votes. On this basis they have refused access
>> > to the documents. Their position is that the trade secret extends to the
>> > titles of the documents and so they have refused to provide a schedule of
>> > identified documents.
>> >
>> > My position is that there can be no secret in the algorithm, because it
>> > is public, and that the source code is in any case not commercially valuable
>> > within the meaning of the FOI Act (i.e. its release would not cause
>> > substantial commercial harm to the AEC). I also take the position that in
>> > any case there is no trade secret in the titles of the relevant documents.
>> >
>> > ==============
>> >
>> > --
>> > Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design
>> > 0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
>> > PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
>> >
>> > mailto:sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > linux mailing list
>> > linux at lists.samba.org
>> > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>> --
>> linux mailing list
>> linux at lists.samba.org
>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux