BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Vanessa Teague

Vanessa Teague appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Cryptography and Securitycs.CYApplicationsArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningSocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

8works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Assessing the accuracy of the Australian Senate count: Key steps for a rigorous and transparent audit

This paper explains the main principles and some of the technical details for auditing the scanning and digitisation of the Australian Senate ballot papers. We give a short summary of the motivation for auditing paper ballots, explain the necessary supporting steps for a rigorous and transparent audit, and suggest some statistical methods that would be appropriate for the Australian Senate. 22 June 2022 Update: The update includes analysis of Senate preference data from the 2022 Australian election.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Assessing Centrality Without Knowing Connections

We consider the privacy-preserving computation of node influence in distributed social networks, as measured by egocentric betweenness centrality (EBC). Motivated by modern communication networks spanning multiple providers, we show for the first time how multiple mutually-distrusting parties can successfully compute node EBC while revealing only differentially-private information about their internal network connections. A theoretical utility analysis upper bounds a primary source of private EBC error---private release of ego networks---with high probability. Empirical results demonstrate practical applicability with a low 1.07 relative error achievable at strong privacy budget $ε=0.1$ on a Facebook graph, and insignificant performance degradation as the number of network provider parties grows.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

You can do RLAs for IRV

The City and County of San Francisco, CA, has used Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for some elections since 2004. This report describes the first ever process pilot of Risk Limiting Audits for IRV, for the San Francisco District Attorney's race in November, 2019. We found that the vote-by-mail outcome could be efficiently audited to well under the 0.05 risk limit given a sample of only 200 ballots. All the software we developed for the pilot is open source.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

An analysis of New South Wales electronic vote counting

We re-examine the 2012 local government elections in New South Wales, Australia. The count was conducted electronically using a randomised form of the Single Transferable Vote (STV). It was already well known that randomness does make a difference to outcomes in some seats. We describe how the process could be amended to include a demonstration that the randomness was chosen fairly. Second, and more significantly, we found an error in the official counting software, which caused a mistake in the count in the council of Griffith, where candidate Rina Mercuri narrowly missed out on a seat. We believe the software error incorrectly decreased Mercuri's winning probability to about 10%---according to our count she should have won with 91% probability. The NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) corrected their code when we pointed out the error, and made their own announcement. We have since investigated the 2016 local government election (held after correcting the error above) and found two new errors. We notified the NSWEC about these errors a few days after they posted the results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The New South Wales iVote System: Security Failures and Verification Flaws in a Live Online Election

In the world's largest-ever deployment of online voting, the iVote Internet voting system was trusted for the return of 280,000 ballots in the 2015 state election in New South Wales, Australia. During the election, we performed an independent security analysis of parts of the live iVote system and uncovered severe vulnerabilities that could be leveraged to manipulate votes, violate ballot privacy, and subvert the verification mechanism. These vulnerabilities do not seem to have been detected by the election authorities before we disclosed them, despite a pre-election security review and despite the system having run in a live state election for five days. One vulnerability, the result of including analytics software from an insecure external server, exposed some votes to complete compromise of privacy and integrity. At least one parliamentary seat was decided by a margin much smaller than the number of votes taken while the system was vulnerable. We also found protocol flaws, including vote verification that was itself susceptible to manipulation. This incident underscores the difficulty of conducting secure elections online and carries lessons for voters, election officials, and the e-voting research community.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

vVote: a Verifiable Voting System

The Pret a Voter cryptographic voting system was designed to be flexible and to offer voters a familiar and easy voting experience. In this paper we present a case study of our efforts to adapt Pret a Voter to the idiosyncrasies of elections in the Australian state of Victoria. This technical report includes general background, user experience and details of the cryptographic protocols and human processes. We explain the problems, present solutions, then analyse their security properties and explain how they tie in to other design decisions. We hope this will be an interesting case study on the application of end-to-end verifiable voting protocols to real elections. A preliminary version of this paper appeared as the 10th February 2014 version of "Draft Technical Report for VEC vVote System". The team involved in developing the vVote design described in this report were: Craig Burton, Chris Culnane, James Heather, Rui Joaquim, Peter Y. A. Ryan, Steve Schneider and Vanessa Teague.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access