Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1289 - Trade Union (Repeal) Bill 2017 Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    B1289 - Trade Union (Repeal) Bill 2017, TSR Conservative & Unionist Party


    A

    BILL

    TO

    ensure fair and reliable ballots take place.


    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 - Repeal
    The Trade Union Bill 2015 (V901) is hereby repealed.

    2 - Commencement, short title and extent
    (1) This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent.
    (2) This Act may be cited as the Trade Union (Repeal) Act 2017.
    (3) This Act extends to United Kingdom.

    Notes

    At the very centre of our democracy is fairness and reliability with our voting system. Online ballots do not satisfy this. It is very easy to rig and because of this security risk trade unions should not be allowed to provide online ballots. This therefore makes the ballot process fair and reliable; the exact same thing we strive for in our democracy.

    V901 - https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=3777701

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No, I see no reason why the most efficient form of voting should not be used. Online voting systems can be made to be just as secure (if not more secure) than other forms of voting and are much cheaper to run while being accessible to more people.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Rolling back the years on this one.:rolleyes:

    My theory is that the opposition simply scrolled through Hansard until they found a bill to repeal.

    No.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst I would have serious concerns about using online voting for general elections, trade union ballots are a long way down the hierarchy in my view. Given parties use online voting for their leadership elections I don't see why a strike ballot is somehow more important than that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Online voting is extremely stupid, I see no compelling enough reason to be against this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    No, I see no reason why the most efficient form of voting should not be used. Online voting systems can be made to be just as secure (if not more secure) than other forms of voting and are much cheaper to run while being accessible to more people.
    Except they cannot be made anywhere near as secure and as per usual when this comes up, Tom Scott to the rescue:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. I am not convinced online voting is completely safe.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    That's a shame, I thought this was an ACTUAL trade union repeal bill for a minute...

    Aye anyway
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Online ballots increase turnout, and therefore reduce the chances of a decision that is only supported by a small group. So as long as they are secure they are a good option. Good enough for shareholder votes (for example the Building Society I belong to), so why not for trade unions?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except they cannot be made anywhere near as secure and as per usual when this comes up, Tom Scott to the rescue:
    It would be at least risky to use electronic voting for a national election. For a trade union is definitely safe enough. It's no different to allowing party leaders to be elected through online. Due to the short time frame where the system needs to be secure, it is quite easy to keep an election system secure compared to things like online banking that are already very secure.

    If you think that enough security could not be put on a time-limited event with limited users you must be terrified on a daily basis in regarding the security of the data that our government holds on you. I don't even mean anything the government holds secretly. Everything from tax records to personal details is available in a government system. They are accessed by hundreds of different systems on a regular basis but data security breaches are rare and usually caused by human error. In a trade union vote, the time that you need to secure data is low and you can put processes in place to prevent breaches.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye, electronic voting is unsafe.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Those who are willing to go on strike ought to be willing to vote in person as to augment the gravitas and significance as well as ensure the validity and security of their vote. Furthermore, current systems cannot be deemed secure - even credit agencies who primary goal is to ensure security in regards to personal data fail when investing millions into doing so. A trade union cannot be expected to do so.

    It is with great conviction that I will be voting Aye.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    aye, electronic voting is unsafe.
    What about it is unsafe? It's a time-limited threat so the only real threat is sabotage by those working on the software, either by leaking code or by revealing code. Both of which are also threats to other forms of voting and they can be minimized. Take the security people working with the development of software for the public sector and you're there for such a low importance event such as a trade union vote. It doesn't need updating because it only needs to run for a certain time so it only needs to be protected against all known threats, not future ones.

    Tbh it wouldn't be much harder to adapt the rules to make them more strick and run general elections like this...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    Those who are willing to go on strike ought to be willing to vote in person as to augment the gravitas and significance as well as ensure the validity and security of their vote. Furthermore, current systems cannot be deemed secure - even credit agencies who primary goal is to ensure security in regards to personal data fail when investing millions into doing so. A trade union cannot be expected to do so.

    It is with great conviction that I will be voting Aye.
    You're missing a few key differences. Firstly, a database needs to be run long term. A vote is time limited. That means it only needs to deal with current threats, nothing is going to pop up later and not be noticed in any of the thousands of lines of code. Systems like this would not need updating so a simple waterfall development team would be easy and relatively cheap.

    The second key difference is in terms of the type of threat. Equifax got hacked early in 2017 and the data was only recently released. That shows the time it takes to break modern encryption. Even during the data breach itself the level of access they got was read only. In a similar attack our 'hacker has managed to read the current results.

    In our example here the only real danger comes from internal threats that have nothing to do with the technology but that is the same in other voting methods.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    You're missing a few key differences. Firstly, a database needs to be run long term. A vote is time limited. That means it only needs to deal with current threats, nothing is going to pop up later and not be noticed in any of the thousands of lines of code. Systems like this would not need updating so a simple waterfall development team would be easy and relatively cheap.

    The second key difference is in terms of the type of threat. Equifax got hacked early in 2017 and the data was only recently released. That shows the time it takes to break modern encryption. Even during the data breach itself the level of access they got was read only. In a similar attack our 'hacker has managed to read the current results.

    In our example here the only real danger comes from internal threats that have nothing to do with the technology but that is the same in other voting methods.
    Regardless, my first point still stands - if someone has the conviction to vote in a ballot, they should also have the conviction to do so in person - and Tom Scott made an excellent video (which someone has already referenced) on the Computerphile channel on the issues with online voting; all of which could occur - with simple code injection into any website's underlying code, and someone could simply use other people's details to vote before they do so; altering the vote.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    No, I see no reason why the most efficient form of voting should not be used. Online voting systems can be made to be just as secure (if not more secure) than other forms of voting and are much cheaper to run while being accessible to more people.
    Because it's not safe and it's very easy to rig an online ballot. I'm not quite sure where you're getting this from but it seems you're misinformed because paper ballots are more secure than online ballots.

    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Rolling back the years on this one.:rolleyes:

    My theory is that the opposition simply scrolled through Hansard until they found a bill to repeal.

    No.
    Rolling back the years? Sorry I don't get it.

    It seems you want us to deny that we used common sense to find this bill.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    That's a shame, I thought this was an ACTUAL trade union repeal bill for a minute...

    Aye anyway
    Well... it is an actual trade union repeal bill... because that's what it is... Glad to see you agree though.

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Whilst I would have serious concerns about using online voting for general elections, trade union ballots are a long way down the hierarchy in my view. Given parties use online voting for their leadership elections I don't see why a strike ballot is somehow more important than that.
    It's not so much about importance that we are questioning but security. And unfortunately, online ballots have security risks and are not as secure as the sensible alternative, paper ballots.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Online ballots increase turnout, and therefore reduce the chances of a decision that is only supported by a small group. So as long as they are secure they are a good option. Good enough for shareholder votes (for example the Building Society I belong to), so why not for trade unions?
    They are not secure. "Other organisations use it so why can't trade unions use it to" - isn't really a good argument when the facts say that they are less secure than paper ballots and are very easy to hack.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Because it's not safe and it's very easy to rig an online ballot. I'm not quite sure where you're getting this from but it seems you're misinformed because paper ballots are more secure than online ballots.
    My information mainly comes from working as a Technical Architect for a fortune 500 company. An online election run over a week with even a semi-competent dev team would be safe enough for this kind of election. The only real danger would come from social hacking or sabotage, nothing to do with the software.


    (Original post by ns_2)
    Regardless, my first point still stands - if someone has the conviction to vote in a ballot, they should also have the conviction to do so in person - and Tom Scott made an excellent video (which someone has already referenced) on the Computerphile channel on the issues with online voting; all of which could occur - with simple code injection into any website's underlying code, and someone could simply use other people's details to vote before they do so; altering the vote.
    Electronic voting systems can be cheaper, more efficient and safer. It does also make it more accessible which I think is a good thing, but I think right-leaning people have a tendency to think life should be kept as hard as possible for trade unions to operate but easier for business to operate so I doubt I'll win that argument today.

    The security fears shouldn't be an issue for people though. I've watched the video but most of his points are either irrelevant or miss the point. I'll try to address a few of the concerns from that video.

    1: This would not be for a general election, so the stakes are lower. This means there is nowhere near as much financial or political gain to come from sabotaging it.Nobody would use opensource software for this, mainly for the reasons he mentions. It just wouldn't be needed 99% of the time. A medium-large dev team working with a Waterfall framework would work best. The only real security issue here is the one he mentions, trusting the people who design and load the software. You do that in the same way that we trust people to take our votes away, oversight. The code would be worked on by about 50-100 people, but getting one of those to sabotage it wouldn't be enough. You would need large groups of people across different areas of the waterfall to be complicit as they would need to review each others code. All of this is fairly standard practice anyway, you just sharpen things up because it involves a minor election.

    2: He mentions how this issue is resolved himself. I would add in that in a real system where it is peoples personal computers doing the voting that all the security is actually on that part of the exchange. Once the vote has been received and validated by the server everything will be encrypted and run over secure connections as standard.

    3: This is the part of the system we are actually talking about here. As I mentioned, all of these things are true, except in this case time is not the issue. Time is the real problem for programs. Firstly because dependencies get updated and changed, and updates to your own system can introduce unexpected bugs, especially when a new team works on that code, and secondly because any encryption can be broken with a brute force attack given enough time. In this case, a basic 64bit encryption would take longer to be cracked than the election would last.

    The only valid security flaw is in social engineering and sabotage, but as I've shown this would be basically impossible, especially given the relatively low significance of the elections in question.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Online voting is extremely stupid, I see no compelling enough reason to be against this.
    Do you mind if I ask why you think it is stupid?

    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Aye. I am not convinced online voting is completely safe.
    I urge you to consider the points I've raised in this thread if that is your only reason for being against. The security of the software is not a reason to support this bill.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Rolling back the years? Sorry I don't get it.

    It seems you want us to deny that we used common sense to find this bill.
    2015.

    Why now?:holmes:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It's not so much about importance that we are questioning but security. And unfortunately, online ballots have security risks and are not as secure as the sensible alternative, paper ballots.
    As I said in my initial comment, the question of how important the vote is is linked to how tight security must be. I don't consider a strike ballot to be of such huge importance to ban online voting.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 28, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.