Suspicion appears to be ubiquitous in anything involving the Philippines. But let's not get into trying to list the countless possible situations where people do become suspicious 'round here; let's focus on just one for now.

Michael Alan Hamlin of the Manila Bulletin wrote in his Bottom Line column's Not so Smartmatic opinion piece how 2008 Miss Universe and Smartmatic “Ambassador for Transparency” Dayana Mendoza spoke to reporters when the company brought her to the Philippines to congratulate Filipinos for successfully holding the country's first automated elections. With Smartmatic hoping to sell the Philippine government about 76,000 PCOS machines “for the fire-sale price of P2 billion,” Mr. Hamlin describes, the backdrop is set for reading more from these words addressed to president-elect Noynoy Aquino that he had quoted from the undeniably candid Mendoza:

“Please just take a little bit of your time – I know you’re super busy to say ‘hi’ to me. Now that I’m in the Philippines, I’d love to meet you,” she said, adding, “Wanna have coffee?”

It didn't help that prior to that she had already said the following to Mr. Aquino via the same press conference:

“I wanna know his family, I wanna know what he’s been working, you know, for the country, stuff like that.”

Are those the sort of statements that we should be hearing from a proper ambassador? Is her sudden arrival and possibly excessive friendliness towards the soon-to-be most powerful man in the land above suspicion? Apparently not, taking a cue from Mr. Hamlin.

Ms. Mendoza’s short, awkward stopover in the Philippines illustrates just how little – I hope – Smartmatic and Mr. Flores really understand the Philippine culture. Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I suspect they badly underestimated Mr. Aquino’s political sense as well. The invitation to Ms. Mendoza to visit the Philippines in the hopes of meeting the President-elect could have doomed any chance Smartmatic had of selling its inventory of vote counting machines to the Philippine government. It may have doomed its chances to provide its equipment and services in the next election as well.

Clearly the suspicion, which is deliberate I might add if Mr. Hamlin's “I hope” up there is any indication, is that Smartmatic brought Ms. Mendoza here to sway president-elect Aquino to have his administration buy the machines and give the company future business. On the other hand, Mr. Hamlin might have said “I hope” to mean the ideal case that any party intent on conning the Philippine government should fail on account of misunderstanding our culture. I'm pretty sure he was specific though, not just any party bent on pulling a con.

Shame on Smartmatic for trying to pull a fast one, right? That's what the president-elect's confidential advisers probably think of the “mindbogglingly crude” attempt apparently made at influencing him. Come to think of how supposedly incensed they were at said attempt, don't they realize that their reaction signified a pronounced lack of confidence in the president-elect's own maturity and resolve to not be swayed so easily if it were such an attempt? Worse, they could be wrong too.

Would it have helped if Smartmatic approached this with a fairly gradual buildup of Ms. Mendoza's arrival? Perhaps, yes, but her brief appearance tells of a rather small window of opportunity, the schedule of which was not necessarily the priority during the run-up to the May elections.

Could she have been a lot less casual and candid at the press conference, and maybe more cordial instead? Perhaps, yes, though I can also understand how a former Miss Universe would view our first successful conduct of automated polling as no small feat for an entire country, a cause for celebration. Her candor might have been a matter of personal temperament. The company has just had massive success in introducing poll automation here, so practically anyone from Smartmatic would naturally be upbeat. What more its own ambassador who happens to be a former Miss Universe? Whether her tone was a product of miscalculation is moot, really.

Mr. Hamlin's opinion piece ends with a brief take on ZTE's failed attempt at the path he likens to the one he thinks Smartmatic is treading now:

China’s ZTE Corporation demonstrated with dazzling overkill that playing to the Philippines’ less desirable qualities can be a dangerous gamble when it allegedly attempted to grease government procurement processes.

ZTE may have lost millions in that attempt, but the greatest damage was done to its international reputation, which could ultimately cost the company much more elsewhere. Mr. Flores’ seems determined to follow suit.

Drawing this parallel is easier when something that has never occurred before – specifically a beauty queen ambassador briefly visits to show a gesture of appreciation, congratulations, and enthusiasm in possibly being introduced to the new president-elect who happens to be the first ever “baby” of the technology that they brought here – takes place for the first time, under suspicious eyes.

Let's hope you're wrong about a few things, Mr. Hamlin.

Normally I wouldn't give the following sort of tabloid writing the time of day, but right now I think I should make an example of it and drive home some simple and often overlooked points for the greater good. The author whose piece I'm critiquing today should feel free to donate any large sum of money to his favorite charity to signify the appreciation for his article even making it to this particular venue/forum.

From a sublime piece entitled Kapalmuks ang Smartmatic on Vic Felipe's Bagong Tiktik column “GANITO 'YON” are portions to which I suffix my comments and/or rebuttals:

Ganoon ang paulit-ulit na naipagdidiinan ng marami sa sinasabi ng Smartmatic, kakontrata ng bagsak ang sa paniniwala pa ng publikong Comelec, na umano ay tagumpay ang naisagawa nilang kauna-unahang national automated elections nitong nakaraang Mayo 10, 2010. Kapalmuks lalo na sa maagang pagpapahiwatig na muli silang susubok sa nakatakdang 2013 mid-year elections.

Let's look at this objectively. Granted that some of those candidates who lost in this year's elections may have a good number of followers who could band together and appear “marami” but not “marami enough” to get their bets to win, they most certainly will have a differing opinion as to whether the automated election was a success. So there is no surprise that the same people would object to Smartmatic potentially being the technology partner of the poll body once again in 2013. Setting aside the obvious bias of those complaining, there really is nothing wrong with the tech firm in seeking repeat business where there has already been a very successful transaction.

Napakarami ng nagsasabi na hindi malinis ang halalan. Nagkaroon ng malawakang dayaan. Nai-pre-programmed na ang marami sa mga machine na nagamit sa halalan.

These claims are too easy to make. Where is the proof of this pre-programming? Anything short of proving it is hearsay, plain and simple.

Kahina-hinayang lamang na mismong mga nakalaban sa eleksyon ni president-elect Noynoy Aquino ang nagsisuko at sumurender na. Ano pang legal na paraan ang maipaghahabol? Sourgraping na lamang na lilitaw ang lahat.

When your bet acknowledges defeat even before the last ballot is counted, it's safe to say even he/she could find no other legal option to turn the tables. So, yes, at this point it does look like sourgraping.

Gaya nitong sinasabi sa 0926-8400627 na “Sana ay maisulat n'yo sa Bagong Tiktik ang buong katotohanan sa dayaang nangyari.”

When you say “buong katotohanan” it's really hard to ignore the word “buo” used for emphasis, and with only hearsay behind the allegations, there is mostly doubt cast on said allegations.

“Marami po silang ebidensya at talagang nagkaroon ng anomalya. Nawala talaga ang 5 milyong boto ng JIL at 5 of Christ. Talagang ninakaw.”

Hearsay and more hearsay. Never mind that it's something that came from some text message sent from who knows? Mr. Felipe could have received that text message from me and still remain none the wiser.

“Pati si Bro. Eddie ay hindi naniniwalang kulang pa sa 2 milyon ang bumoto sa kanya.”

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not Bro. Eddie believes it.

Pagkatapos ay kasunod na ang magarbong nagagastusang thank you party ng Smartmatic. Gustong mapagtakpan pa ng byuti at kaseksihan ng isang dating Ms. Universe na sila na rin ang nagsisipagyabang sa taas at laki raw ng talent fee sa bawat pagpepersonal appearance nito.

It's their party and they'll cry if they want to. But they'd rather party after a successful election, I'm sure. Nothing wrong there especially following a job well done.

Marami ang nagsasabi na huwag nang ibigay pa ng Comelec ang anumang balance pa sa kanilang kontrata ng Smartmatic.

There is no better way to destroy a working business relationship than not delivering on agreed obligations like meeting performance expectations and on-schedule payment of dues. Whoever those “marami” are, those completely unnamed unsubstantiated forces that media practitioners bandy about, I'm sure the Comelec knew the extent of how Smartmatic met expectations well enough not to keel over and take flat out bad advice.

Unfortunately in a country of any-which-way-you-can politics, we have an endless supply of hearsay that media professionals like Mr. Felipe waste no time believing and repeating, regardless of how all these electoral fraud allegations could be the product of some other tech company that wants to grab the multibillion peso contracts it lost to Smartmatic. Worse, the same media “professionals” employ cheapshots like name-calling “kapalmuks,” an appalling sense of logic intertwined with undoubtedly emo hearsay as I've exposed above, and channels of communication that obviously make the less privileged, poorly informed masa the real victims of wrong and/or severely incomplete information.

I am at odds how to end this on a positive note, as it is only one of probably – not just possibly – many opinion pieces written on a daily basis that leave most of their readers just about as clueless as before they began reading. Lesson learned: Don't believe everything you read. Make it a habit to think, verify, and employ reason. Come to think of it, the country wouldn't be in a quagmire if we took that lesson to heart decades ago.

Let's make one thing clear: Proof is not the same as evidence.

Quoting from Denney, Duncan & McKinney's Argumentation and Debate,

There is this difference between proof and evidence: evidence is the means; proof is the end. Evidence becomes proof when a pertinent inference is drawn from it. There can be evidence without proof, but there cannot be proof without evidence.

Straight out of a slideshow entitled Rules of Evidence from Montana's Judicial Branch website is one bullet point that succinctly puts it:

Remember—”Proof” is not evidence, it is the result of evidence

Even in a publication called Burma Law Reports from Burma's High Court of Judicature, it says:

There is a difference between “proof” and “evidence”. Proof is the effect produced upon the mind of the Judge by the evidence or evidence sufficient to satisfy the Judge to whom it is presented.

I believe these excerpts will set even the least responsible journalist straight despite the common tendency to use the terms proof and evidence interchangeably where they really shouldn't.

I am making that distinction clear as an objection to what should have been a fair reportage involving stating the facts without a hint of opinion or bias on the part of the journalist of a major media company. After 15 short paragraphs of reporting Smartmatic's recommendation to Comelec that it buy the technology used in the May 2010 election to save several billion pesos in future polls, the journalist added the following with the misguided notion that the ill-chosen word makes for “balanced” reporting:

This is despite proofs of electoral fraud lately revealed by various watchdogs, IT specialists, and civil society, which put the credibility of Smartmatic and the PCOS machines to question.

Out of nowhere the author of the report stated either out of prejudice or sheer unwitting carelessness how “proofs” of electoral fraud exist when there really are none, never mind that the allegations and speculations have nothing to do with Smartmatic's pitch for Comelec to stick not just with the technology but an entire system already proven to work.

The journalist in question who will remain unnamed demonstrated that (1) he couldn't distinguish between proof and evidence, and (2) what he refers to as proof but most likely defines as evidence is debatable and reeking of slant. Are journalists no longer trained in proper word usage, possessing a relatively wider vocabulary than average, and perfectly capable of responsibly stating only the facts?

At the time of this writing, none of the allegations of fraud have been formally and properly proven to hold water, and I'd expect this journalist to know that better than the consumers of the news he delivers.

For certain, despite journalistic foul-ups like this owing to news media's apparent faltering discipline in verifying facts, the system that Smartmatic and Comelec have successfully implemented for this year's election will set the bar very high for future polls. Knowing that they have done a good job, they only need to stay the course.

Cesar Flores of Smartmatic and his partner, the Commission on Eelections (Comelec), have a ready answer on allegations of automated fraud committed last May 10, 2010: Show me the evidence of cheating -- even just one piece of proof of electronic cheating.

There is plenty of evidence -- all staring them in the face, but no matter what is shown -- even documentary proof showing different voting and transmittal dates  -- this is dismissed as glitches.

I'm sure anyone in his right mind would know that asking for evidence in support of any allegation is a reasonable thing to do. We are after all a civilized society are we not? As far as I know, gone are the days when just a mere allegation would be enough to condemn and punish anyone.

But, of course, the columnist qualifies her opening statement by saying "There is plenty of evidence" and all that crap. She also makes a pointed observation that "no matter what is shown... this is dismissed as glitches."

Well, Ms. Olivares I'm sorry to burst your bubble but what do you expect that all or any of these so called pieces of evidence be accepted even if in truth they really are just "glitches"?

In fairness to Ms. Olivares, her opening statement was just a set up for the real meat of her column. Perhaps she thought a "softer" opening line wouldn't be enough to lend some credence to what comes next in her piece.

The following is what she actually wanted to highlight:

From the start, both the poll body and Smartmatic kept on insisting that these precinct count optical scan machines cannot be hacked, but a forensic examination of the 60 PCOS machines that were found in the Antipolo home of a Smartmatic technician showed a “secret backdoor” or a port called console which opens the door for easy manipulation of votes, and widescale fraud.

An IT expert, Roberto Verzola of Halalang Marangal, another poll watchdog group, pointed out that the “newly-discovered backdoor” in the PCOS machine, as discovered during the forensic examination, allows untraceable manipulation of its operations, as the console in the PCOS found, claimed by Smartmatic to serve as an output, has input capabilities.

This console, he said, “gives anyone full control on the operating system of the PCOS machine. The log is saved to volatile memory, which is lost every time the machine is turned off, which leaves no record of the activity for a forensic examination.”

Explaining further, Verzola said that due to this kind of input capability of the port, any trace of intrusion or cheating “can also be erased by the intruder.”

This secret backdoor allowing an operator to alter electoral data and even erasing all traces of the fraud, was deliberately kept hidden by Smartmatic from the public.

Put more bluntly, Smartmatic and Comelec officials succeeded in committing the perfect electoral crime and are getting away with it.

Admittedly, I need to do more research about this alleged backdoor. I am confident though that this can be easily explained again by Smartmatic.

In any case, I will try to point out one obvious fact that should prove manipulating the PCOS machines using this alleged backdoor was not possible. I will point it out by asking the following question:

Were there no poll watchers around during the actual conduct of the election?

Ms. Olivares and this Halalang Marangal group obviously forgot that there were many watchful eyes paying close attention to the PCOS machine during the election. And why is that? Precisely to prevent any attempt by anyone to tinker with the machines. Considering such a scenario, fiddling with the PCOS then would have required the cooperation and possibly the participation of all those poll watchers. So were the poll watchers involved?

I'm sorry to say Ms. Olivares but this allegation of PCOS manipulation through a so-called backdoor is just another tall tale.

I'm really wondering why allegations of massive fraud continue to persist. Why are groups like Halalang Marangal so adamant in painting the automation of the May 10 elections as one big villainous affair? I really want to know -- What's in it for them?

That's what these complainers are. I'm of course referring those politicians who have come out with claims of being approached by individuals and groups offering to rig the elections in their behalf.

I'm disgusted with these people because the fact that they came out with this piece of information only after the elections shows that they're not really doing this to help fix the election system. Had they been motivated by a patriotic sense to help preserve the integrity of the electoral process they would have exposed these alleged offers long before election day.

I sure hope everyone is seeing the reality here. These pseudo-whistleblowers had all the time to reveal what they claim to know but only did so after the elections. What could be the reason for that? Well, we can only speculate that these people may have actually accepted the offer presented to them by these alleged electoral fraud operators.

Word on the street is such operations cost a lot of money. Well, We can only imagine how a politician who availed of such services would feel about losing despite having paid good money for a sure victory. They certainly won't be happy. They certainly would feel sore. They certainly would end up as sore losers.

Here's a scanned copy of a tabloid column piece from Dan Zulueta. Special thanks to my barber Mang Pedring for lending me his copy of Bomba.

I really wonder where Mr. Lagman based his conclusion. Is he seriously using the string of questionable claims and allegations against the automated election system as proof?

In fairness, he did dismiss the claims made by the self-confessed electoral fraud operator known as Koala Bear. I think he found Koala's story incredible.

In any case, it is still rather strange that Mr.Lagman would make such a conclusion about the system considering that none of the ongoing investigations have yielded any solid evidence.

(excerpt from abs-cbnnews.com report)

"We are back to where we were when we were using the manual elections," Augusto Lagman of the anti-election fraud group Transparent Elections.Org told ANC's Headstart, referring to the various complaints about the automated election system.

Mr. Lagman is clearly making a sweeping generalization here. How can he say such a thing when it's very clear that, despite all its imperfections, the automated system clearly changed the game. For one, it is quite clear that the system put many electoral fraud operators out of business.

Ironically, it is this game-changing impact of the system that is making it the target of all sorts of attack. Think about it. Who stands to benefit should our election system revert back to manual?

The same abs-cbnnews.com report says Mr. Lagman also believes that cheating "could not have come from outside, but within the ranks of poll equipment supplier Smartmatic."

I don't think so.

What Mr. Lagman and those gullible enough to believe him fail to realize is that there's just no compelling reason for Smartmatic to sabotage it's own system. And, for what? To help certain politicians win?

The way I see it, Smartmatic's interest lies in the success of the elections. It's obvious. Smartmatic aims to do more business not only here in the Philippines but in other countries in the region as well. Why would it fool around when doing so would clearly jeopardize its business?

I seriously think Mr. Lagman knows whom he should blame but chose to drag Smartmatic because of some other reason.

In case you missed it, Mr. Lagman is an IT expert and a businessman.

While I do support this automated election project, I do not feel compelled to defend it blindly against each and every allegation raised against it. If there are irregularities I too would like to hear about it.

Well, I’m still hearing quite well but so far all I’ve been getting out of the noise are unsubstantiated claims. And, no, I don’t think the surfacing of Koala Bear or whatever his name is makes any of the allegations credible. On the contrary, the presence of this dubious character only makes it clearer that this is all one big sham.

It’s good the Commission on Elections is taking this issue head on. This should at least quell any suspicion that they have anything to hide. From what I’ve been hearing, the Comelec commissioners are standing their ground on the credibility of the election. Their challenge to Mr. Masked Man and more importantly those behind him: Present your evidence.

Yes, present your evidence Mr. Koala Bear. That’s a reasonable demand considering you are making some very bold claims. I really hope you'll heed calls for you to come out with concrete evidence if only to give this issue some real basis to stand on.

May I also remind you Mr. Koala Bear that this issue has many implications on what should be a smooth transition of power. The sooner this is resolved the better for the whole country. Do not let this linger on.

I reiterate. You raised your allegations. Now back them up with evidence.

(excerpt from inquirer.net report)

Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chair Jose Melo was more amused than concerned about the masked man, who first showed up during a news forum on Tuesday.

Comelec Commissioner Gregorio Y. Larrazabal merely laughed off the whistle-blower as “hot air.”

“How can you summon a koala bear to a meeting of the House?” said Makati City Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr., the committee chair.

“That man is in a mask and a man with a mask is not entitled to anything. The Comelec has said that that man has made general allegations of fraud and anybody can make general allegations,” Locsin said.

“I am surprised it makes everybody jump. This is obviously something to derail the elections. But he has not even identified himself, he does not give specifics,” Melo told the hearing.

Melo added that the only serious thing he had heard so far was that Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, according to the masked man, gave P1 billion for the cheating operation against his vice presidential rival Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II who allegedly “gave some money but it was not that much.”

“He should come out to identify himself and give specific charges,” Melo said.

Locsin said that the 30-minute video of the whistle-blower, who used the alias “Robin” and wore a straw hat and a face mask which made him look like a koala bear, was useful only to the politicians who felt they were cheated.

Mr. Columnist does have a point there. I agree anything that would help ensure the credibility of the country's first ever automated elections should be considered. However, I don't think Mr. Columnist sufficiently defended why manual count should even be considered at this point in time.

We should all be reminded that nowhere in the law does it state that a parallel manual count should be implemented. What the law states is that we should have full automation and of course that includes the counting aspect of the whole process. As far as I can tell, the idea of having a parallel manual count actually subverts the law.

I sure hope those pushing for the manual count really care about peace and order in this country. I say this because having a parallel manual count actually poses a threat not only to the system. The following quote lifted from a blogpost over at www.betterphilippines.com should give you an idea:

In any case, the manual count is quite dangerous. There will surely be an error in the manual account, and it will surely not jibe with the automated count. So in case there is disparity, which one is to be believed? The manual count can easily be rigged as we know from past counting of votes, so why are the MBC pushing for it?

The MBC is saying we should count each precinct votes and compare with PCOS count for each precinct. They say if there is 1 percent difference in the count nationwide, then we should use only the manual count. In short, they are saying, if there is discrepancy, the manual count is the more credible count! Amazingly, they now believe that the manual count is more credible!

I don't want to be an alarmist but I really think if the parallel manual count will push through things will really turn from bad to worse. For one, its proponents have already put forward the idea that the manual counting results should be trusted more than those from the automated system. That alone undermines the credibility of the system.

"There’s no way to hack [the results] because it is a private network [that is behind the country’s first automated elections]. The network is encrypted," Edgardo Cabarios, NTC director of common carrier and authorization department, said on Monday.

Cabarios added that even telecommunication companies, or telcos, have no knowledge of the security code of the network.

The election results will be transmitted to the central server of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), municipal canvasser, the server of the dominant minority party and that of the dominant majority party, citizens’ arm and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas.

As I wrote in a previous post, hacking the system is not as easy as some people would like us to believe. Even if it were so, there's no way hackers can get away from doing it. Just check out the security features in place:

Security Features

Bar Code. The ballot contains a bar code that guarantees the ballot’s authenticity. If the
bar code is compromised in any way, the ballot will no longer be read by the PCOS. This
will prevent the proliferation of fake ballots that could be used to pad results.

Maximum Number of Ballots. Each PCOS can only count a maximum number of
ballots equal to the number of registered voters plus the BEIs. This will prevent ballot
stuffing as the PCOS will not be able to count ballots beyond the maximum number.

Precinct Based. Since the PCOS is precinct-based, there will be no transportation of
ballots. All the ballots for a given precinct will be counted by the PCOS within the
precinct and the results transmitted directly to the central server and boards of canvassers.
This will prevent ballot snatching and ballot switching.

Paper Based. The PCOS utilizes a paper ballot, so results can be audited by opening the
ballot box and manually counting the ballots. This will be done during the random
manual audit to be conducted by the COMELEC immediately after the elections and
during electoral protests.

Optical Scan. In addition to counting the marks on the ballots, the PCOS also scans each
ballot and stores the image in memory. This provides another layer of auditability in
addition to the paper ballots. This will also ensure the ballots are not tampered with after
they have been cast.

Encryption. Transmissions of results will be encrypted using 128-bit encryption. This
means a total of 2128 possible combinations for the encryption key. A device that could
check a billion-billion keys (1018) per second would still require about 1013 years, which
is longer than the age of the universe.

Access Codes. Each PCOS operator will be given a unique access code that will allow
him/her to operate the PCOS machine. This will prevent unauthorized individuals from
operating the PCOS machines and even prevent authorized individuals from operating
other PCOS machines.

Audit Log. The PCOS machine and the consolidation and canvassing system both
maintain an immutable audit log that tracks all users and actions performed on the
system. This will enable the COMELEC to identify any perpetrators who attempt to
manipulate the system or results.

Transparency. Results will be made available immediately after they are transmitted
from the precinct to the central server. This will allow the public to track the unofficial
results in real-time. While the proclamation might take a few days due to the required
verification of the boards of canvassers, the unofficial results should be complete within a
few hours, which practically eliminates the window for manipulation.

Senatorial candidate Jose De Venecia III, who has been promoting himself as some sort of IT expert following his involvement in the ZTE deal controversy, has been pushing for a source code review. Well, here's his chance. The Commission on Eelections has agreed to have the code reviewed. De Venecia will reportedly do the test himself together with the help of IT volunteers from the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsibel Voting.

De Venecia says there's no more time for a complete test and so they will just do random testing on parts of the code. Apparently, De Venecia agrees that this would be enough. This much I can glean from this quote of his:

(quote lifted from tribuneonline.org report)

"If the review and the Systest results are good, we will most likely get a decent chance for a decent elections," De Venecia said.

A PPCRV IT expert als had this to say:

PPCRV’s IT expert Drexx Lagui who was with De Venecia during the meeting revealed that they would also evaluate the report of Systest Labs on the automated election system as well as look at the voting machines’ "application logic."

The two explained that focusing on the voting will give them an idea on how the PCOS machines will count the votes.

"If the application logic is correct, one plus one is always two and not more or less," Lagui said.

Fair enough. I just hope De Venecia and company will do this test ith the best of intentions, that is to really verify that the system is good t go and not just to cast more doubt on the whole automation project.

I'll be keeping a close watch.

programmer

April 11, 2010 • 4:34 pm (Edit)

No one is auditing and showing us the Smartmatic Datacenter. Yes, PCOS = bullet-proof. But how about the back door?

Who will audit, contest (and recount) the number of votes *in totality*?

When all electronic votes are in, the 12M votes winner can just be *easily padded* (depending on voter's turn out, it was 81% 2004) so that the secret GMA-backed presidentiable can win by a margin of 1M votes (Garci style).

With the automated election how can the public know? How can the public check? Comelec needs to be more crystal clear transparent. But this election won't be transparent.

Here's my reply:

For security reasons (OBVIOUSLY) the actual area where the main servers of the Automated Election System will be located cannot be disclosed as of this time.

Who will audit? Comelec, in cases where anomalies are detected and when such anomalies warrant an audit.

Who will contest? The candidates, poll watchers, etcetera.

Who will recount? Comelec.

Regarding padding. This is not "EASY" as one would think it is.

Like any system whose integrity must be assured, the implementation of the projects different phases are chopped up among different people. Programming of one phase of the program is done by one person, another person does networking, another person does PCOS programming, etcetera. So, in order to engineer a means of padding the results from a central area, you'd have to have the collussion or cooperation of DOZENS of people.

Moreover, you have TWO SEPARATE MACHINE COUNTS GOING ON... So, if you manage to cheat the central server, the results shown on it may be different from the results that pass through the CCS.

As for cheating on the level of the PCOS machines, as in the Princeton study (which is a DIFFERENT MACHINE ALL TOGETHER), you would have to get the cooperation of the people who either program the machines in the warehouse (who subject the machines to intensive tests before releasing them) OR get the cooperation of a substantial number of field technicians who will assist in operating the machines in the field. SUBSTANTIAL, meaning, YOU MUST GET THE COOPERATION OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE...

So,in the end, you may succeed in tampering with the results BUT TO TAMPER WITH THE RESULTS WITHOUT GETTING DETECTED IS IMPOSSIBLE!