The Devil's Excrement

Chavez breaks relations with Israel over the attack on Lebanon…

Of course, he is a man of principles:

This
was too good not to translate. Bruni performs an analysis of the
fingerprint machines, as applied in the Venezuelan election and gets an answer
that I have always suspected was the reason why we never heard any evaluation
of the performance of this very expensive fingerprint capturing system in our elections:

The Devil is in the details, Chapter
IV. One voter, one vote: indelible ink or fingerprint machines?

The first
time I heard about the fingerprint capturing machines I was surprised at the
large number of technical and logistical challenges that would have to be
overcome in order to install such a system and I asked myself if the
possibility of multiple votes in Venezuela, justified the purchase
and installation of such an expensive and complicated system. In fact, in a pamphlet
by COGENT systems, the winner of the bidding process, it is specified that never
before had such a system been implemented, with so many technical challenges,
as the one that was installed in Venezuela[1].

But, independently of whether it is,
or not, technically feasible to put such a system in practice with success, the
question that has been going around in my head is if the Directors of the CNE [2]
that defend the fingerprint machines are right, if, effectively, the
fingerprint machines guarantee the premise of

One voter, one vote

I decided then to investigate a
little bit about systems for the recognition of fingerprints

I found that such systems are used
specially for criminal identification and that there are two types of problems
that an be tackled.

The first one is called “1:1” or “one-to-one”,.
In this one, the fingerprint is compared
with another one that is believed to be that of the same person. For example
the fingerprint of Pedro Perez is compared with that which the authorities have
of Pedro Perez and it is determined whether it happens to be the same fingerprint
or not.

The second problem is the “1:N” or “one
to many”. In this case you want to know if the fingerprint of Pedro Perez is
found among a set of fingerprints stored by the authorities. It is obvious that
the second case is more complicated and that it can yield a higher percentage
of errors than the first.

Logically, in an
election, I told myself, both types of recognitions have to be performed to
determine if Pedro Perez is who he says he is and later determine if he already
voted.

I could not obtain official information
about this, but I have been told that in the Venezuelan elections only the second
type of verification was performed, that is, the “one to many”, while the
determination if the person was Pedro Perez was done with the National ID card,
called cedula.

Following this, I tried
to learn more about the ways to verify such systems. I found that the then
National Institute for Standards (NIST)
of the US Government, performs
tests to determine the precision of various commercial systems, including among
them, the systems made by Cogent Systems.

The evaluation is made following
two complementary criteria, the TAR and the FAR. According to one of the NIST
reports [3], the
TAR (True Accept Rate) is defined as the fraction of correct identifications by
the identity algorithm, while the FAR (False Accept Rate) is defined as the
fraction of false positives in recognizing an identity.

Now, even thought the Cogent
systems received excellent reviews in the independent tests that were
performed, the accuracy rates were not 100%

Let’s see, for example, the results
relative to the identification systems of individuals presented by NIST at the Biometrics
Congress in 2004 [4]
(see page 16). According to the presentation, it was found that in the tests for
the identification of visitors, Cogent’s technology had a TAR of 98% when databases
of high quality fingerprints were used and it could go down as low as 47% when databases
with low quality fingerprints were used.
In both cases, a value of FAR (false positives) of 0.01% was found.

Let’s set aside these numbers in our minds
for the moment and let’s make an analysis of the possible results of the
application of fingerprint capturing machines in the Venezuelan elections.

When a vote arrives at the
fingerprint machine, there are two possibilities: that he is an honest voter
(He has not voted yet) or he is a voter that cheats (He already voted and wants
to vote again). On the other hand, the verification system for the fingerprint
capturing system can respond correctly or erroneously if the voter already
voted or not or even may not find the fingerprint or take longer than the time
required to do it. We then have the following possibilities:

As you
can see, it is a system much more complex than a simple system to identify
Pedro Perez whether individually or with a database of many fingerprints. Thus
if you were to design tests to evaluate the trustworthiness of the answers of such
systems, the levels of precision have to
be much tighter than those found in identification systems.

Now, suppose for a moment that we
can apply the TAR given above for our system. That is, let’s say that the TAR
is 98% for excellent fingerprint databases and goes down to 47% for low quality
fingerprints. The TAR gives the rate for a good performance which, in our
system, consists of cases 1 and 4. Let’s say also that only 25% of the
fingerprints stored in the database of the CNE are of low quality and finally,
let’s say that there are 10 million voters. In this case, we would obtain that only 8.52 million voters are in the
category of “One Person, one vote”, the other 1.48 million missing would
fall under the category of errors. According to the law, in cases 3,5 and 6
they are allowed to vote and, among them, we don’t know if there are any cases
of multiple votes.

Of course, if the CNE were a
serious organization, it would have already informed us of how many cases there
were of multiple votes and false positive recognitions by the little machines. After
spending so many millions on them, Venezuelans deserve to know what are the TAR
and other statistical errors of such an onerous system. No?

One thing is certain. The CNE is
NOT right: the fingerprint machines DO NOT GUARANTEE the principle of “One Voter,
one vote”

….and the indelible ink is much cheaper
and much faster….

References

[1]
COGENT document, “One Voter one Vote”.

[2]
El Nacional, 30 de Julio, page A2. Reference to CNE Directors Lucena y Hernández.

[3] Fingerprint Vendor
Technology Evaluation 2003, Análisis Report. National Institute of Standards
and Technology.

[4]
Wilson, C.L., “NIST Patriot Act Biometric Testing”, Biometrics Conference,
2004.

[5] CNE,
Resolución N° 041022-1621, “Normas sobre el procedimiento de captación de
huellas dactilares y garantía del principio de un elector un voto en las
elecciones regionales 2004”.

Note: after publishing this post,
a reader indicated that my sentences about the CNE not publishing the data was
not accurate since the information on the number of  “cheaters” in the elections have been
published in a table of an Ultimas Noticias article of July 30, 2006 (page30).
According to that table, between the Revocatory Referendum and the governors
elections there has been a total of 53 cheaters.

Such a value shows that not only the system is not 100% reliable and
produces mistrust among the voters, but its cost and the political anxiety it
has created cannot be justified by the abysmally low cheating statistics.

In the same table, I discovered some data called “grey zones” that show the
number of  voters that could not be
properly identified by the system. The numbers shown are quite high and seem to
confirm even more strongly that the “one voter, one vote” principle cannot be
guaranteed.

Another reader indicated that in the CAPEL report there was information
about the digital fingerprints. A quick review made me realize that my
hypothesis of 25% of bad quality fingerprints was optimistic. Therefore, the
errors produced due to the imprecision of the fingerprints is even higher.

In other words, the more I learn details about this system, the more I like
the indelible ink.

That is why I say that the Devil is always in the details.

Another
excellent day for the new robolutionary Justice system in Venezuela, to wit:

—While
over 200 people, all opposition of course, are being harassed and persecuted
for being at, signing the entrance sheets or even being taped on video being
there, the Supreme Court rejected
today trying today General Lucas Rincon for either rebellion or abandoning
his position as Chief of Staff. As is usual with robolutionary Justice, the
Court used a technicality; in this case, that those that asked that he be tried
do not have the required “legitimacy” to request the trial. It was Lucas Rincon
who appeared on TV on April 11^th. saying that Chavez had resigned
setting off the fateful events of that day. Lucas Rincon was later named
Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior and Justice and currently enjoys
robolutionary dolce vita as Venezuela’s
Ambassador to Portugal.

—In an
unheard of threat, the Superintendent of Banks gave the banking system
three days to turn over all of the banking information on Sumate. All of this
to satisfy the fishing expedition of some Deputies of the National Assembly who
have no evidence that Sumate committed a crime, but nevertheless continue
saying they did. You can read all of the sordid details in
Daniels’ blog, but basically, there is only a suspicion that Sumate may
have exchanged dollars (Sumate says it only received Bolivars), that it
violated the foreign exchange illegalities law (which did not exist
at the time) and that it did not register in CADIVI (you don’t need to
register if you bring dollars in, you bring dollars in via the Central Bank).
Thus, ignorant Deputies fish, but no evidence of illegalities exist but the
Government goes all out against it. Meanwhile US$ 45 million is missing
from FOGADE and the National Assembly does not even peep, since they were lost
under the robolutionary non-supervision and a buddy might be guilty.

—The
former Vice-Minister of Foreign Relations and sister of former President of the
Electoral Board wants to open an investigation of Clinica Avila where
her brother was taken after having an accident. The private hospital says they
could not take care of him because the tomographer was not working. Mrs.
Rodriguez should go to any public hospital and see how many people are turned
away daily for things like having no gauze. Should we then open an investigation
against the Government? 

—The
Prosecutor’s office appeals
the detention of two bank clerks in the case of the sugar processing plant
in Barinas state who paid the false checks in that case, the only two people
detained in the case of the gigantic fraud with the Government’s grandiose sugar
plans announced by Chavez in 2002. Meanwhile, Venezuela is now importing sugar
and there
is a deficit of 73% of the amount needed every month. As they used to say
in the IVth.. Republic: “Donde estan los reales?” (Where is the money?). I
know, it is all in the hands of the robolution. In this particular case, active
and former military, former Government officials and millions given to the
Cuban Government to purchase obsolete processing plants from that country.

—Meanwhile,
with the customary vote of 4 to 1 the Electoral Board approved
the rules for advertising in the upcoming Presidential campaign. Chavez
will be able to hold his Sunday marathonic reality show Alo Presidente, he will
be able to address the Nation forcing all TV stations and radio stations to
carry his speeches whenever he wants and just in case, the CNE is now
considering putting a cap of US$ 7.7 million dollars to the amount any
candidate can spend on the upcoming campaign. (Probably to protect Chavez??) 

—The Metropolitan City Council approved the expropriation
of any building built before 1987 which have been used as rental property for
more than ten years, as long as the occupants have paid their rent. Great encouragement
for new building in a country with a shortage of more than 2 million housing
units.

Is this the line for American Idol?   No, it’s the one for aspiring Presidential candidates

Last Friday the Supreme Court ruled that Hugo Chavez did not
need to leave his position in order to campaign for the December election. The
press has interpreted the decision as suggesting that Manuel Rosales will have
to resign, but legal experts suggest that the interpretation is incorrect and
that Rosales simply has to step down temporarily.

The decision by the Court notes that Art. 229 of the
Constitution establishes that you can not be elected to be President while you
are Vice-President, Minister, Governor, or Mayor on the day you register to
run. However, the Court then uses Article 124 of the Suffrage Law which states
that to be candidates for President those holding public positions have to
resign (defined as absolute absence), but then goes on to explicitly say that
those that have to resign are “the Ministers, Heads of Central Offices of the Presidency,
Heads of organizations with functional autonomy, Presidents and Directors of autonomous
institutes and Presidents and Directors of state enterprises.

Thus, Governors are not explicitly included in the article,
which many lawyers believe means that Rosales has to ask for a leave of absence
of no longer than 90 days in order to run for President. (The law does separately
define an absence of more than 90 days as absolute)

The only part that remains unclear to me is how Rosales can
run without losing the Governorship if he would have to register his candidacy
90-plus days before the election. Any lawyers out there?

El Nacional reports today that the President and Vice-President of the CNE Tibisay Lucena and Janeth Hernandez consider the use of fingerprint capturing machines “indispensable” because these machines guarantee the principle of “one man, one vote”. This position is also backed by the people on the technical side of the CNE who not only supprt the idea, but are already preparing a purcahse order for Cogent Systems of some 1,500 to 4,000 machines. The problem at this point is that there has been no decision on the matter, as the other three members of the Board have not said explicitly how they would vote, so the issue has not come to the table. What is known, is that most major opposition candidates have said that they refuse to have conditions that are worse than in the 2004 Assembly elections, where the fingerprint capturing machines were not used. Thus, it is likely that they would withdraw if the machines are present, except for El Conde and a couple of more.

What is interesting, is that there is no technical stiudy to back up even the use of these machines, let alone the expenditures. Venezuela uses indelible ink on the pinkie finger as a way of guaranteeing that there would not be people voting twice. Thus, the only possibility is if the poll monitors ignore the ink. In the past estimates of the percentage of people voting twice have shown that this is very insignificant, with other problems such as tally manipulation being much more important. But the worst part is that the CNE has never revealed any technical information about the use of the fingerprint machines in the three elections where they were used. It is not even known whether the system worked in real time to stop anyone from voting twice or how many people actually tried it, or even if whether they were accepted or not.

Thus, our electoral authorities have spent over US$ 100 million on a system that is feared by the people, but that nobody outside the CNE has any idea as to whether it even does the job, whether it is necessary or even if it has worked properly. Moreover, theer was no bidding process, Cogent was handpicked by former CNE President Jorge Rodriguez.

The whole thing is simply a charade. It is the fear induced in the people with the fingerprint machines that makes them a technical imperative. It is once again the abuse of the people’s rights by creating this aura of the violation of privacy of the voters with the machines, that makes them so useful to the autocracy. People have no idea if the Government can tell how they voted, but the fear instilled in them is such, that if the machines are present, many would prefer to stay home. Another generous and Machiavellic “gift” of the perverse revolution.

Letter from Venezuela’s Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez yesterday to the US Senator Ruchard Lugar:

“There is no threat to cut oil supplies to the US”

Minister of Energy and Oil Rafael Ramirez today in Iran:

“If the US wants to have a hostile policy towards us, then we will cut oil exports to that country”

I wonder what Alvarez understands as a threat?

The Venezuelan Vice President showed the true colors of this autocracy when he said today that everytime there is an attack on any leader of MVR, the Government will “expropriate thousands of hectares in retaliation”.

So, Venezuela will from now on be ruled by the Law of the Jungle, with a Government acting on the basis of revenge and retaliation, ignoring the law and doing whatever it wants.

Hold it! Isn’t that what has been happening in the last few years anyway? I guess they are taking off their mask by now and simply saying in public what they tell each other in private everyday. Ask Sumate, Primero Justicia, the media, General Francisco Uson, General Carlos Martinez, Carlos Ayala, Henry Vivas, Lazaro Forero, Ivan Simonovis, as well as those killed and injured by this Government’s repression and disregard for human rights.

Yesterday Moody’s announced that it was withdrawing the credit rating of PDVSA because it lacked information about the financial and operating state of the company. This is the revolution, after spending years saying that PDVSA was not transparent, they have turned it opaque. The slogan that now PDVSA belongs to everyone or the people is simply as hollow as we knew it would be.

By the way, the Reuters article says that PDVSA turned in the 2004 financials to the SEC in mid-2006. This is incorrect, PDVSA announced that it was doing it, but it has failed to it so far, as any check of the SEC Edgar database shows.

Amazingly enough, PDVSA responded by saying that they will send Moody’s any needed information and that they never recieved any request for information. Of course, they failed to mention that they did not comply with their legal obligation to turn in the 2004 financials by the three deadlines and extensions established by the SEC. These are the clowns running the country!