Pro’s & con’s of e-voting – a response Guy Berger
Description: Pros cons of e-voting a response Guy Berger The harmsbenefits calculus Your challenge: Minimise cons, Maximise pros Quiz question should we Be optimistic look at the pros? Take a mixed balanced view of both? Be cautious
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Pro’s & con’s of e-voting – a response Guy Berger" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Pro’s & con’s of e-voting – a response Guy Berger<br>
slide2. The harms/benefits calculus Your challenge:
Minimise con’s,
Maximise pro’s<br>
slide3. Quiz question – should we… Be optimistic & look at the pro’s?
Take a mixed / balanced view of both?
Be cautious – focus on the con’s?<br>
slide4. Missing - a four letter word RISK = the relationship between potential benefits and potential harms
Risk is about whether the con’s:
Overshadow/ outnumber the pro’s
Undermine the pro’s directly<br>
slide5. Is it maths? Because some risks can wipe out benefits. Take “cheapness”:
– Risk of hidden costs: expenses of tech obsolence & upgrading…
- Risk as part of threat analysis – any e-hitch will be politically exploited to discredit the poll… To explore: some risks create opportunities for mitigation False trap:
Toting up 2 columns (“more pro’s than con’s = ok” [INCORRECT)”<br>
slide6. 1. eg. Managing cyber-security paradox Risk of harm: Sophisticated adversaries can find cybersecurity vulnerabilities … and hide their tracks Mitigation action: Deploy AI to help with threat detection & resilience… Opportunity to address the risk: Find ways to ensure e-voting leaves an electronic trail for forensics<br>
slide7. 2. e.g. Optimising efficiency gains Opportunity to address the risk: data at core = governance becomes key Mitigation: Transparency + independent audit options
Require vendors to show algorithms, training-data sets, data flows, and privacy protections Risks:
Who gets, uses and controls the data?
Confidentiality concerns
Snake-oil vendors<br>
slide8. Doing calculus Do scenarios with lists of possible different harms from specific risks
In each scenario, assess risks:
Impact/severity
Likelihood/ probability
Your result:
High+High = Top priority (A grade)
Low+Low = Bottom priority (D grade)
High+low = Upper middle priority (C)
Low+high = Lower middle priority (D) Note: risk can be “unacceptable”, “high” and “specific” (EU AI Act)<br>
slide9. For example, scenario 1<br>
slide10. For example, scenario 1<br>
slide11. Scenario 2 – with mitigations<br>
slide12. Scenario 2 – with mitigations<br>
slide13. Implementation strategy can profitably address the risk calculus for scenarios (including scenarios for mitigation likelihoods – take zero for granted!) If scenario 1, then… If hybrid scenario 1 and 2, then … etc.<br>
slide14. Indeed, IEC will need a playbook even for pilot scenarios<br>
slide15. Thank you I write on these issues on LinkedIn Contact: G.Berger@ru.ac.za<br>
slide2. The harms/benefits calculus Your challenge:
Minimise con’s,
Maximise pro’s<br>
slide3. Quiz question – should we… Be optimistic & look at the pro’s?
Take a mixed / balanced view of both?
Be cautious – focus on the con’s?<br>
slide4. Missing - a four letter word RISK = the relationship between potential benefits and potential harms
Risk is about whether the con’s:
Overshadow/ outnumber the pro’s
Undermine the pro’s directly<br>
slide5. Is it maths? Because some risks can wipe out benefits. Take “cheapness”:
– Risk of hidden costs: expenses of tech obsolence & upgrading…
- Risk as part of threat analysis – any e-hitch will be politically exploited to discredit the poll… To explore: some risks create opportunities for mitigation False trap:
Toting up 2 columns (“more pro’s than con’s = ok” [INCORRECT)”<br>
slide6. 1. eg. Managing cyber-security paradox Risk of harm: Sophisticated adversaries can find cybersecurity vulnerabilities … and hide their tracks Mitigation action: Deploy AI to help with threat detection & resilience… Opportunity to address the risk: Find ways to ensure e-voting leaves an electronic trail for forensics<br>
slide7. 2. e.g. Optimising efficiency gains Opportunity to address the risk: data at core = governance becomes key Mitigation: Transparency + independent audit options
Require vendors to show algorithms, training-data sets, data flows, and privacy protections Risks:
Who gets, uses and controls the data?
Confidentiality concerns
Snake-oil vendors<br>
slide8. Doing calculus Do scenarios with lists of possible different harms from specific risks
In each scenario, assess risks:
Impact/severity
Likelihood/ probability
Your result:
High+High = Top priority (A grade)
Low+Low = Bottom priority (D grade)
High+low = Upper middle priority (C)
Low+high = Lower middle priority (D) Note: risk can be “unacceptable”, “high” and “specific” (EU AI Act)<br>
slide9. For example, scenario 1<br>
slide10. For example, scenario 1<br>
slide11. Scenario 2 – with mitigations<br>
slide12. Scenario 2 – with mitigations<br>
slide13. Implementation strategy can profitably address the risk calculus for scenarios (including scenarios for mitigation likelihoods – take zero for granted!) If scenario 1, then… If hybrid scenario 1 and 2, then … etc.<br>
slide14. Indeed, IEC will need a playbook even for pilot scenarios<br>
slide15. Thank you I write on these issues on LinkedIn Contact: G.Berger@ru.ac.za<br>