Today was a public hearing of the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on the subject of the use of voting machines in elections of the German parliament.
I've been anticipating this for quite some time. The plaintiff, Dr. Ulrich Wiesner, has been investigating the subject for a long time, just like the CCC has been doing a lot of theoretical analysis as well as practical hands-on hacking of the respective voting machines (actually, rather, Voting computers).
As most readers of my blog will be well aware, voting using electronic devices, or even more so computers driven by actual software, raises an almost unlimited number of concerns. Both software and hardware manipulations could have tremendous effects on the final result, no regular citizen or even most IT security experts can actually observe the counting of votes and guarantee the correctness of the results.
The hearing of the constitutional court was for clarification of further questions of the judges to both the plaintiff, the defendant (the German parliament and Ministry of Interior) as well as three independent expert witnesses. While the CCC has earlier been asked by the court to provide an expert study, it was not officially invited to be questioned at this hearing.
Nonetheless, three senior members of the Berlin CCC (me included) were present in the audience and following the hearing with great anticipation. It was my first 'live' experience at the constitutional court, and I have to say I am no less than impressed. Intellectual discourse on a very high level. The judges were asking very thoughtful and precise questions, were asking for explanations without mercy ;)
I think the legal representation of the plaintiffs (including a senior legal scholar) was excellent. Good arguments, very eloquent. The various defendants (ranging from representatives of parliament, ministry of interior, the government agency in charge of certifying the voting machines (PTB), as well as the senior election official of the state of Hessen) were making much less impressive performance.
And at the end of the day, I still cannot get why about every consumer electronics device, from mobile phone to digital TV receiver to game console has about one lightyear more security architecture than the machines that are used to count the votes. No hardware-crypto engine, no encrypted JTAG, no signed bootloader and software (plus automatic mask-rom based signature verification). Plus officials in the public administration who think the trade secrets of the vendor of the machine is more important than the public interest..
I think the judges very well got that point. You could literally see their disbelief in situations like when it was outlined to them that only the vote-counting machine has to get type approval, but not the PC + software that is used to program the particular election into the vote-counting machine, neither the software used to read out the memory modules and summarize the votes of multiple voting machines. So not even those insufficient small amount of testing and certification that exists does extend to the entire system, rather just to the input unit.
We'll probably have to wait for some more months (at least weeks) to see the result. I definitely remain very optimistic that the constitutional court will prevent the worst problems of the current situation. I don't think they will completely close the door for voting machines, but at least raise the bar for any such future system very high in order to achieve a level of transparency and trustworthiness similar to that of the traditional paper ballot vote.
To me, for a long time, the constitutional court is the single remaining still functional and trustworthy entity in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is the last bit of hope against the constant battle of the government administration[s] against civil liberties, post-9-11-security, surveillance/intelligence particular in 'new' technology.