Kobojunkie:

No  . . .  the software did not enter the names in the system. Someone/Some person probably did it. The software is likely still functional, only that they need to SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICT Users of the software . . . hold them accountable for every data entered.

Even you don't get it. Biometric software should only accept a finger print once and should give an alert if you attempt to register twice using different names. Your thumb is your thumb, you can change names and even upload fake pictures but when it comes to registering your thumb you or the users of the software should not be able to duplicate your thumb. That wasn't the case with Iwu where we had Nelson Mandela's name with his 'thumb' same goes for Michael Jackson, Obama Obama and Desmond Tutu.

Iwu was a complete fraud. Believe me I know more than you think about Iwu's registration process than what you know on the surface. It was a complete 41109

deb:

Even you don't get it. Biometric software should only accept a finger print once and should give an alert if you attempt to register twice using different names. Your thumb is your thumb, you can change names and even upload fake pictures but when it comes to registering your thumb you or the users of the software should not be able to duplicate your thumb. That wasn't the case with Iwu where we had Nelson Mandela's name with his 'thumb' same goes for Michael Jackson

Was the last software really biometrics enabled? I don't remember. But yeah, it should throw out duplicate data but is it the case that data was duplicated? Or was it that finger prints were obtained but false names inputted? I still think the software is not to blame here. There are other ways of ensuring data integrity tha have more to do with human factor, than software. If we have shady individuals entering the information, their ought to be checks put in place to catch them. Sure, it could be built into software, or the system but it is highly necessary, and from my experience with biometric ware in Nigeria, that is usually overlooked.

Biometric. Is it really as fail proof as you think? Think again.

This

Kobojunkie:

Was the last software really biometrics enabled? I don't remember that being the case. But yeah, it should throw out duplicate data but is it the case that data was duplicated? Or was it that finger prints were obtained but false names inputted?

The fact is that data can always be manipulated. Biometric or no biometric, if the human element in the loop wishes to "tamper" with it. That is the whole argument against the billions for the software upgrade. Work with what you have make the changes necessary. But work on ensuring the human element is not manipulated. How? I don't know o!

Biometric. Is it really as fail proof as you think? Think again.

This

Kobojunkie:

Was the last software really biometrics enabled? I don't remember that being the case. But yeah, it should throw out duplicate data but is it the case that data was duplicated? Or was it that finger prints were obtained but false names inputted?

You are right it wasn't. It was just finger thumbing.

The fact is that data can always be manipulated. Biometric or no biometric, if the human element in the loop wishes to "tamper" with it. That is the whole argument against the billions for the software upgrade. Work with what you have make the changes necessary. But work on ensuring the human element is not manipulated. How? I don't know o!

There are definitely ways of ensuring people entering data are held accountable for data entered/manipulated. Problem is, even in government, there are barely checks to ensure this is in check. We still use much of the old way of doing things . . . we have fancy tools and try to get the LATEST and the greatest that money can buy but fail, fail, fail at using it to significantly improve our situation. And this is part of my concern with this 120,000 laptops project.

If you have a true and tested solution the only people that can manipulate it are the software developers and not INEC trained staff.

gozzilla:

Biometric. Is it really as fail proof as you think? Think again.

This You are right it wasn't. It was just finger thumbing.

The fact is that data can always be manipulated. Biometric or no biometric, if the human element in the loop wishes to "tamper" with it. That is the whole argument against the billions for the software upgrade. Work with what you have make the changes necessary. But work on ensuring the human element is not manipulated. How? I don't know o!

What is the essence of finger thumbing, like you called it, if you can not do secured verification and prevent multiple registration of the fingers?

deb:

If you have a true and tested solution the only people that can manipulate it are the software developers and not INEC trained staff.

Fa fa fa Foul . . .  !!!  

Software built to specification is at the mercy of those who administer the software. If they allow crap data to be entered, it will be. Think about your windows OS for instance. MS has built it and sent it to you so it is up to you to decide how you want to run it. If you want to disable firewall and let all things flow freely, it is up to you. If you want to allow any tom, dick and harry, sign on with no restrictions, it is up to you.

No doubt there are instances when the software is unable to hold up but when software is built to specification, it will still only work the way the client wants it to, 70% of the time.

deb:

What is the essence of finger thumbing, like you called it, if you can not do secured verification and prevent multiple registration of the fingers?

a) Specification needs to be considered here. . . . was there a requirement for all finger prints to match only one user?

b) It is possible to change/update the name of a voter . . say Tina Omorege to Micheal Jackson. The finger print record is not changed, only it nows belongs to someone named Micheal Jackson. Is there a way to verify that Micheal Jackson even exists? Well, since we have no national database to crosscheck . . NOPE!

deb:

What is the essence of finger thumbing, like you called it, if you can not do secured verification and prevent multiple registration of the fingers?

I meant that when i registered i put my thumb in ink and pressed it against a voters card - that is finger thumbing - (e fit no dey dictionary sha)

onye_ngbu:

I have to fault you on that one Beaf.

Your windows XP and Vista analogy doesnt apply to what the man is suggesting here. Infact it nails it!

Why buy a new Notebook with 3GHz processor and install Vista just to run the same windows office 2003 you have been running extra-comfortably with another PC of 2GHz processor and windows XP.

Remember, he asked:
Voters registration runs on a documentation software and nothing has changed much in [b]the way [/b]voters registration is being conducted and processed for anyone to say the old one is outdated. If you think, there is any that couldnt be corrected by resident software engineers at INEC, abeg tell me.

The man made a whole lot of sense and I wonder how you cant see it that way.

Iwu's 2006 software did not require digitalised representations of your thumbprint or your eyes. There is no amount of stretching that resident software engineers can do to create such a dramatic upgrade. It would be like fixing wings to a bike and trying to fly it, that is how dramatically different biometric and non-biometric systems are.

Also, the mere fact that we had Bill Clintons etc in Iwu's register only shows that its security was non-existent. I believe that from what we know so far, what Jega is proposing is a quantum leap from the unverified manual entry system Iwu introduced; so all requirement and methodology is bound to be radically different.

If we are to query the cost of Jega's system, it clearly cannot be done on the the basis of Iwu's register; so Prof Nwosu's claims are highly out of order.

and the 2010 Version?[img]http://s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=ffffff/txt=ffffff/border=ffffff/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]

gozzilla:

I meant that when i registered i put my thumb in ink and pressed it against a voters card - that is finger thumbing - (e fit no dey dictionary sha)

The difference this time, is that your thumb print will be turned into digital code and stored in a database, so that it can be called up anytime and anywhere, without have to search through paper files. It will no longer be on paper were it can be erased, water can destroy it.
When you vote, the system will look at your fingerprint and compare it with the one it has in its memory and verify if they are the same. . . All done by machine.
It will make rigging a horribly difficult thing to pull off; the usual low tech method of ballot stuffing will simply not work, any rigging (if possible) would have to be done with real voters.

Just for the record, it is possible to duplicate thumb-prints or to temporarily replace them. Any real biometric detection system should utilize prints / optical / retinal scanning to make it harder to fool the systems.

ikenwan:

Just for the record, it is possible to duplicate thumb-prints or to temporarily replace them. Any real biometric detection system should utilize prints / optical / retinal scanning to make it harder to fool the systems.

What? e no suppose hard reach that ooo!! WHat next? We go add DNA put? lol All so man go take vote? lol

ikenwan:

Just for the record, it is possible to duplicate thumb-prints or to temporarily replace them. Any real biometric detection system should utilize prints / optical / retinal scanning to make it harder to fool the systems.

There have been one or two rumours about retinal scanning being part of the process. There is also a listing for camera's, but those don't do retinal scanning. Lets hope it goes that far.

Will the 120,000 laptops come with voice recognition software?

What spec of laptop is the 2,000 USD budgetted for? Data processing systems are not gaming or graphics systems.

Some body should please advise Prof Jega not to fall into this trap.

Beaf:

Iwu's 2006 software did not require digitalised representations of your thumbprint or your eyes. There is no amount of stretching that resident software engineers can do to create such a dramatic upgrade. It would be like fixing wings to a bike and trying to fly it, that is how dramatically different biometric and non-biometric systems are.

Also, the mere fact that we had Bill Clintons etc in Iwu's register only shows that its security was non-existent. I believe that from what we know so far, what Jega is proposing is a quantum leap from the unverified manual entry system Iwu introduced; so all requirement and methodology is bound to be radically different.

If we are to query the cost of Jega's system, it clearly cannot be done on the the basis of Iwu's register; so Prof Nwosu's claims are highly out of order.

I dont know exactly what you mean by 'digitalised representations of your thumbprint or your eyes' but I know that thumbprints were taken for Iwu's register.

Are you now saying that those thumbprints that were taken were not processed digitally?

Nwosu's question about whether there has been a significant change in the way that data is being collected remains valid and I still maintain that this new budget is outrageous.

And also like someone pointed out, these foreign names in the register were inputted by human beings and not the machine itself.
Also, I have not seen Jega's proposal to conclude that it is a quantum leap from what Iwu did.

onye_ngbu:

Also, I have not seen Jega's proposal to conclude that it is a quantum leap from what Iwu did.

yeeeeepp!!!

This is a country that conducted 3 general elections for the past 11 years, now Jega's proposal takes us back to the inception. Iwu's softwares were substandard - what about the laptops? Were Iwu's laptops also substandard? or there were none . . Not until we learn how to do things right with proper accountability, revisiting of bygone issues will remain the center of our priority.

I am not certain about Iwu laptops, but I do know he purchased PCs that were packed into rooms in INEC offices across the country and probably sold off by officers for petty cash. SOme even carried home. I know that for sure. I do however do not know if these are being considered by Jega or if he even has a plan to ensure the same does not happen to the 120,000 laptops he promises.

The whole process is being rushed and not properly thought through. The amount of money we are talking about is just staggering, and I am shocked no one is seriously crying foul.

This just shows the weakness in GJ government. I really dont know what he represents.

Mr Beaf what da thrash you spewing. What is the intrinsic technology backing the data capture and store of voter information. Ordinary PHP can build any software for store of voter list. What do you mean and can you affirm to me that we the developers community at Yaba can not capture and store Nigerians information. As at 2007,we were using electronic voting system for ordinary departmental election. The question is what is the fundamental change in the basic computation and store of voter information that has changed since........

Beaf:


It would seem that every jack is is looking to jump out of obscurity by making crazy statements about the money budgetted for the elections.
This Nwosu guy obviously feels very comfortable making sweeping statements without any backing, an all too common Nigerian disease.

I find it incredible that a software engineer can wonder how "software procured in 2006 become outdated within four years". There are so many holes in his reasoning that it beggars belief. The same man 'said software applications do not become obsolete “rather application features may become outdated.”' If hardware is evolving at breakneck speed, what would even a novice conclude about the software that has to run on it? The everyday home user can get an understanding of what I am saying from the fact that there were several programmes people used very comfortable with Windows XP that blatantly refused to run on Windows Vista; you virtually had to find a replacement. . . And thats software!

Aside from the hardware a piece of software was built to target going obsolete, there are also certain security and speed constraints that plague older systems, especially were computationaly intensive work like processing biometric data is concerned. Talking about this area alone can run to several pages of fruitful discussion.

The software requirements needed for the last elections are totally different from what is being asked for 2011. INEC is talking about gathering fingerprint and eye data, which is light years away from the crudity that produced Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton etc in our voters register.
When software requirements are different, you need new software. No two ways.

Prof Nwosu. . . Fail!