Canada’s democracy faces potential disruptions

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/11/2017 (2907 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Cyber threats to voting machines and online disinformation campaigns during the 2016 United States presidential contest and in recent European elections have raised the question whether Canada’s democratic processes are open to such attacks. The short answer is: yes. Technology offers great opportunities for enhanced democracy, but it also involves serious risks.

The risks involve such activities as cyber disruptions of elections, infiltration of the databases and email systems of political parties and the conduct of disinformation campaigns via both traditional media and social media. The extent and probability of the risks depends on the legal, technological, political and social environments of particular countries.

The sources of inappropriate interference can include nation-states, cyber-criminals, terrorists, political actors and just thrill-seeking hackers. The motivations and methods of disruption and harm are varied.

In this article, the focus is on threats to the election process and to the operations of competitive political parties that are essential to a healthy democracy. A second article will examine the dissemination of disinformation, including so-called “fake news,” that potentially confuses and misleads voters.

In the case of Canada, a June 2017 report from the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) examined cyber threats around the world over the last decade. It noted that there were unsophisticated attempts to influence the Canadian democratic process during the 2015 election campaign and predicted there would be multiple intrusions during the election scheduled for October 2019.

For a number of reasons, cyber threats in Canada are less of a risk than in the U.S. Obviously, the fact the U.S. is a powerful country with adversaries in several parts of the globe produces greater risks. Canada is a medium-sized country, but it does have important international connections, such as membership in NATO.

In the U.S., national elections, including for the president and vice-president, are administered at the state and even at the local level. There is no national election body that oversees all aspects of the voting process and partisanship plays a significant role in election management. By contrast, in Canada since 1927, an independent agency called Elections Canada has run national elections in a highly coordinated and professional manner.

The method of voting is also different. The U.S. relies on electronic machines to record and tabulate the votes. The last serious amounts of money spent on such equipment occurred after the “hanging chads” controversy in the 2000 presidential election. A recent study found that the machines in 43 states were seriously outdated and vulnerable to cyber attacks. Despite this finding, the Trump administration has so far refused to spend money upgrading the equipment to alleviate the threat of cyber attacks.

In contrast to the early embrace of e-democracy in the U.S., Canada’s Parliament, based on advice from Elections Canada about the security risks, has followed a more cautious approach and most parts of the voting process in this country remain paper–based. With the benefit of hindsight based on recent events, Canada’s incremental approach seems prudent.

Elections Canada is anticipating a future in which e-voting, backed up by verifiable paper documentation, becomes the norm. For the next election, planned for 2019, voters will be registered and checked at the polls electronically so the familiar ritual of the poll clerk using a ruler and pencil to draw a line through your name will be gone. Also, Elections Canada is working with CSE on the development of protection of the data infrastructure of the voting system.

In the case of political parties, there could be hacking of their email and social media platforms to obtain incriminating and embarrassing information that could be used to blackmail or humiliate leaders and parties. Parties have become repositories of sensitive personal information and are not covered by privacy-protection laws, although they all claim to have security policies and practices meant to assure citizens their privacy is not at risk. It is past time for the parties to bring themselves under the privacy laws.

Normally, Canadians take the integrity of the election process for granted. There are provisions in the Elections Act that authorize Elections Canada to deal with inappropriate intrusions into elections. A past example would be the robocalls during the 2011 election that saw voters directed to the wrong polling stations. In that case, responsibility for regulating the use of robocalls was assigned to the CRTC, the federal telecommunications regulator.

Updates to the mandate of Elections Canada to deal with cyber threats will be necessary, but even after such changes the agency will have to work with other parts of government, with political parties and with the private sector to preserve the integrity of our elections.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba and a member of the Elections Canada Advisory Board. Analysis and opinions are strictly his own.