Seoul Accord Annual General Meeting

The Seoul Accord’s Annual General Meeting (SAGM2016) was held last June 3-5, 2016 at the Royale Chulan, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Read more

PSITE National Board (AY 2016-17)

Due to the recent developments with the PSITE National Board, the board met and reconvened in Manila on 15-March-2016 and held another election. Congratulations to the new set of officers listed below, they will bring PSITE into even greater heights! Soar high, PSITE! Mabuhay!!! Read more

Thailand Educational Benchmarking

Last May 23-28, 2015, I joined the Benchmarking Educational Tour of the PSITE National Board in Bangkok, Thailand. Read more

(ACTIS 2014, Japan) Asian Conference on Technology, Information and Socity

Last November 20-23, 2014, I attended and presented a paper entitled “Best Practices and Challenges of Information Technology Education in the Philippines. Read more

SEOUL ACCORD General Membership Meeting

The Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK) invited me to attend the Seoul Accord General Meeting (SAGM2013(Seoul)), Millennium Seoul Hiiton, Seoul, Korea last June 21 to 23, 2013. Read more

Indonesia Educational Benchmarking

Last May 18-25, 2014, I joined the Benchmarking Educational Tour in Jakarta, Indonesia. Read more


Philippine Information and Computing Accreditation Board -- MOA signing Read more

2013 NESRC

Pix taken during the 2013 National Engineering and Science Research Conference (2013 NESRC) held at the Heritage Hotel, Roxas Blvd, Pasay City last March 7, 2013 Read more


PSITE NatCon 2013 Opening Remarks; Read more


A team of four students from the Institute of Computing of the University of Southeastern Philippines clinched the Ideaspace Award and a PhP 100,000 cash prize; Read more

Hongkong Benchmarking Educational Tour

I joined the PSITE National Board Hongkong Benchmarking Educational Tour last January 03-06, 2013; Read more

eGOV Awards 2012

From a shortlist recommended by DOST-ICTO, i was invited to be one of the judges of the eGOV awards final judging last November 8, 2012 at Oxford Hotel, Clark Freeport Zone, Pampanga; Read more

10th National Conference on Information Technology Education

Delivered by Dr. Randy S. Gamboa, PSITE President, during the NCITE 2012 October 19, 2012 in Laoag City; Read more

Top 10 Finalists for the 9th SWEEP Innovation and Excellence Awards!

Two entries from the Institute of Computing had been shortlisted as top 10 finalists for the 9th SWEEP Innovation and Excellence Awards!; Read more

10th Philippine Youth Congress on Information Technology(Y4IT)

The Philippine Youth Congress on Information Technology or "Y4iT" (Youth for IT) is an annual event hosted by UP ITTC and UP SITF in cooperation with the UP ITTC Student Volunteer Corps, JICA, PSITE, CSP, PCS, PSIA, GDAP, EITSC, HSF, and Cyberpress. … Read more

Board Meeting

pix taken during the national board meeting last August 17-19, 2012 at Club Balai Isabel, Barangay Banga, Talisay Batangas.; Read more

Certificate of Recognition: Best Paper

The University of Southeastern Philippines held its 25th University Wide In-House Review; Read more

IBM Web Application Development Training

The Institute of Computing through its extension office with IBM and the Philippine Society of Information Technology Educators-Region X1 … Read more


Konnichiwa , On behalf of the participants both from the Philippines and from other countries, I would like to thank the Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship or ….Read more

Friday, June 17, 2011

FIT4E: my reaction, conflict between TRANSPARENCY and SECURITY

We had our first automated national election last year. The clamor has always been that the entire process should be observable, both from the technology and human standpoint. Dr. Jones presented specific areas where a need for transparency is evident as well as threats to security.

The voting system uses specific software. This is the one that the winning bidder promised to use. For purposes of transparency, how can one make sure that this promised software is in actuality the software used in the system?

All of our technical solutions to the problems described here rest on use of specific software in the voting system, at the tabulating center, or in portable devices. This raises the question, how can an observer assure himself or herself that the software that is actually in use is indeed the very same software that has been approved for use.

As long as it was declared that the software used is in accordance to what is in the bidding document, then, there seems to be no way for the public to determine its veracity. If there is already dishonesty in the software used, would you not expect dishonesty if the numbers that will be produced?

To be transparent, the voting system may be run using that software but only on a read-only access. This is because it may be possible that the contractor would like to protect the proprietary software. The next question that arises is that how can we be sure that the same processor as promised is being used? This process requires careful design of channels where transparency come into play. And there is a overwhelming interest from the public on the integrity of the election machinery. The interest is not only on the voting system acquired, but also in detail how this is tested. For purposes of transparency though, vendors usually show the public that it is being tested and that to prove that they are using the correct software, they physically produce the numbers that the public wants to see.

On the aspect of security, it was presented that there are flaws as far as this is concerned. But again, even the assessment of the voting system security may contain flaws. At the very instant that the software is acquired, security is not the biggest issue. It all starts with transparency. However, security issues are being emphasized when there are names seemingly lost, the voters cannot all vote, when numbers produce or printed are questionable and so on. Security does not only include the software security but most especially the data security. Even securing the data between locations upon transmission is a security issue. Hence, attempts have been done to ensure that the public sees the numbers from the ballot layout, to the totals in the precinct level. But the question again arises whether this is authentic. The authenticity now covers both transparency and security issue.

Too much transparency may compromise security. Does too much security compromise transparency? From the presentation, this is not always the case. Evaluating security strategies may be done by third party evaluators or assessors. Security system requirements are always included in the vendors’ proposals because this I presume is always required by the country. This should be clear and evaluating and verifying it should be easy for the evaluators or the assessing public.

Dr. Jones presentation gave us broad and specific areas where transparency and security come in conflict and personally, I agree with the points raised.

mabuhay ang organizers ng FIT4E ...