Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana Riding on the Crest of Truth
Last Updated on Wednesday, 6 November 2024, 21:34 by Writer
Chief Election Officer Vishnu Persaud.
The Chief Election Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Vishnu Persaud, has found that electronic fingerprint biometric registration and voting would be more secure and aims to address allegations of voter fraud and voter impersonation, but he has flagged several concerns including the US$20.7 million price tag for equipment and hiccups in several countries it has been used.
“While biometric technology offers the promise of increased data security and efficiency in the electoral process, issues such as privacy concerns, technical limitations, logistics, potential exclusion, maintenance, training and cost implications must not be overlooked,” he said in a feasibility study that was prepared at the request of opposition A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC)-backed Elections Commissioner, Vincent Alexander.
The study does not give an estimated timeframe for the successful implementation of a biometric identification system but referred to the need to cater for a GECOM decision, constitutional amendments, procurement and installation of equipment countrywide and extensive training of staff at all levels.
Mr Persaud also said Guyana’s Constitution would have to be amended to allow for the use of biometrics. “Clearly, the Constitution bestows the right upon every citizen to vote at General and Regional Elections, providing they meet the eligibility requirements to be registered as electors, and that they are so registered. In this regard, it is essential to note that there is no existing legal provision for the introduction of biometric fingerprint identification at the place of poll. Most key constitutional amendments would require at least 43 votes from the 65-seat National Assembly. The governing People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has 33 seats. Government has already said that any changes to the voting system should await the now apparent snail’s pace constitutional reform process.
The Chief Election Officer said while Guyana’s Data Protection Act would cover the security of the biometric data, there was no evidence in the Official Gazette that the law was operationalised.
In a general finding, the study states that by utilizing biometric technology, such as fingerprint identification, countries can verify the identity of voters more accurately and guard against voter fraud or impersonation. He also said biometric voter identification systems can provide a reliable method to ensure that each individual is only able to cast one vote, thereby reducing the potential for electoral manipulation. “Incorporating biometric identification systems into the voting process requires a comprehensive approach that includes robust safeguards to protect individuals’ rights, rigorous testing to ensure accuracy and reliability, and adequate training for election officials and voters alike,” the study concludes.
The study presented on Tuesday to the seven-member commission, which was seen by Demerara Waves Online News, however, cites concerns about system failure, data protection, no internet access in some remote areas, cyberattacks as well as cultural and other reasons that some people might not want their fingerprints to be captured digitally.
Practically, the study states that manual identification remains a viable option in areas with limited resources or where technology infrastructure is not readily available. Additionally, Mr Persaud said some voters might prefer manual checks due to concerns over privacy with regard to biometric data collection.
The Chief Election Officer said biometric fingerprint identification requires careful planning and implementation to ensure its effectiveness in enhancing voter security while minimizing potential risks related to privacy concerns. Therefore, he said it would be essential that proper protocols are established for handling sensitive biometric data throughout the entire voting process – from digital fingerprint capture during registration through storage after the election – to protect individual privacy rights while maintaining accurate records. Moreover, the Chief Elections Officer said ongoing maintenance efforts would have to focus on updating software components regularly to address vulnerabilities that could potentially impact system integrity or user experience negatively.
The CEO says his study has established that several countries have been adopting biometric fingerprint identification for voting due to several reasons, the main one being t0 verify the identity of voters more accurately and guard against voter fraud, impersonation or multiple voting; voter authentication, increase transparency and trust in the electoral system; streamline voter registration procedures and reduce instances of duplicate registrations or inaccuracies in voter rolls. “Overall, the adoption of biometric fingerprint identification for voting can be viewed as a significant step towards modernizing electoral systems, enhancing security measures, improving efficiency, promoting transparency, and safeguarding the integrity of the electoral processes,” he said.
On the other hand, the study states that there are risks associated with storing and managing biometric data in large databases for fear of breaches and unauthorized access, raising concerns about the security and integrity of the voting process. Other reasons for moving away from biometric fingerprint identification are potential for technical failures and errors leading to instances where legitimate voters are unable to cast their votes due to authentication issues and so undermine the credibility and fairness of the electoral process.
The study states that there are also concerns about the cost and feasibility of implementing biometric systems for voting on a large scale. Setting up and maintaining biometric infrastructure can be expensive, especially for countries with limited resources. Additionally, ensuring that all eligible voters have access to biometric identification devices can be logistically challenging.
Mr Persaud said that in some cases, there are also cultural or social factors that influence the decision to move away from biometric fingerprint identification for voting. He added that some communities may have reservations about using biometric technology due to cultural beliefs or concerns about surveillance.
He said addressing technical issues, improving infrastructure, enhancing voter education, ensuring data accuracy, and overcoming logistical hurdles are crucial steps towards successful utilization of biometrics in future elections. “The implementation of biometric fingerprint identification in voting processes raises several other considerations that need to be carefully addressed to ensure accuracy, reliability, and privacy,” he said.
In instances where the fingerprint could not be used due to age, worn out fingerprints, bandaged index finger, medical conditions or soiled biometric equipment, the Chief Election Officer recommended a fallback to the existing manual system. Mr Persaud said GECOM, political parties and other stakeholders would have to ensure that no one is disenfranchised. “The accuracy and reliability of biometric fingerprint identification technology are also significant ethical considerations. Errors in fingerprint matching could result in voter disenfranchisement or false identifications, thereby undermining the democratic process,” he said. He added that it was essential to address issues related to algorithm bias, false positives/negatives, and system malfunctions to ensure fair and reliable voting outcomes.
In comparing the existing manual voter identification system with that of biometrics, he said the latter offers higher accuracy as it uses unique physical characteristics that cannot be easily replicated or lost, and enhanced security as it is based on unique biological data that cannot be easily duplicated or stolen. He said additionally, biometric systems can be integrated with secure databases to prevent unauthorized access and ensure data privacy. Mr Persaud added that the biometric system offers increased efficiency as it allows for rapid verification of voters’ identities through automated systems. This, he says, reduces wait times at polling stations and streamlines the voting process overall.
He said the manual voter identification system, on the other hand, relies on voters providing valid documentation such as a photo identification to prove their identity but this can be prone to voters not being in possession of their photo identification document. While manual identification has been used traditionally for voter identification due to its simplicity and ease of implementation, Mr Persaud says manual checks can be time-consuming and labor- intensive, thereby increasing the potential for errors. In terms of efficiency, the Chief Elections Officer said manual identification can be time-consuming as each voter must present their documentation for verification by an election official. “This process can lead to long lines at Polling Stations during peak hours and contribute to voter frustration. Furthermore, manual checks require significant resources in terms of personnel,” he added.
Mr Persaud cited concerns in Brazil, Ghana, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines and South Africa where biometric voting systems were used. Among them are technical challenges in which the reliability and accuracy of biometric systems have been questioned due to factors such as poor network connectivity, power outages, hardware malfunctions, and software glitches. “These technical issues have led to delays in the voting process and raised concerns about the effectiveness of using biometrics for voter identification,” the CEO said.
He said in all of those countries, the accuracy and reliability of biometric fingerprint identification systems were also questioned. He pointed out that concerns were raised about false positives or negatives, which could lead to voter disenfranchisement or fraudulent activities if not properly addressed. Operationally, the Chief Elections Officer said training election officials, maintaining equipment, and ensuring smooth operations on election days require significant resources and coordination.
He said another challenge was the lack of adequate voter education on how to use the biometric system properly. Mr Persaud said that resulted in difficulties in capturing accurate fingerprints, and confusion among voters leading to disenfranchisement.
The Chief Elections Officer noted that the United Kingdom, Germany, The Netherlands, and the United States do not use a biometric voting system largely due to privacy concerns.