Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#71

Post by pedrocr »

brighton36 wrote: post #39
pedrocr wrote: post #4

Paper elections are cheap, reliable and more importantly trustworthy even to people that have no idea what a symmetric key, hash or blockchain even is. But we had to go and screw up by creating extremely insecure voting machines and then come up with crazy schemes like this one to fix them. Do people really think all this complexity is a good thing? Paper elections are very well understood but you can easily come up…

Paper-based elections are not cheap. Blockchain-based elections would have so many advantages, it's not even worth debating it against paper-based.

Paper based elections are cheaper. You need the same polling places and staff yet paper and ballot boxes are much cheaper than polling machines. Your second sentence is laughable, name a single advantage.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#73

Post by badsock »

luchs wrote: post #48
badsock wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely have to trust the software and the hardware. Modifications at the hardware/OS level can deliberately misrepresent the voter input from the touch panel, and can then alter what is displayed on the screen to match what the voter expects. No matter how bulletproof the encryption protocol is, it still needs to be fed a choice via an analog, unencrypted channel because human beings are analog and unencrypte…

You have to trust some hardware, but not necessarily the full stack you listed above. For example, chipTAN is commonly used in Germany to verify online banking. You have to trust the chip on the banking card and the card reader, but not your computer, network connection, or your smartphone. A similar device may also work for online voting. The hardware would be simple enough to audit it. Your computer would never lea…

If the chip has its own display and input, and every step of the manufacturing process is carried out under strict supervision by all parties, and every time there's a firmware update the entire software stack is re-audited, then maybe. You raise a good point.

There's the whole business of securely distributing the chips (so they're not swapped out with counterfeits in transit), dealing with theft (and coersion to not report the theft), etc. But yes, if you can get a never-network-connected, brutally simply, completely automated voting device into 230 million hands, then I can't think off the top of my head how to exploit that. I would move on to trying to exploit the tallying system.

At that point, though, is it really cheaper than paper ballots? Perhaps it's worth it to engage more voters, but it still seems like a terrible risk to take - I'm only very grudgingly aware of computer security matters, just because I can't think of a way to exploit it, doesn't mean that one of the 7 billion people out there won't. And it only takes one.

Also I should point out that my original point stands - what you bring up is a million miles from what they proposed in TFA.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#74

Post by bluejekyll »

smcameron wrote: post #52
badsock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some context: Switzerland has votes on issues about four times a year, and they managed to do this with paper, mostly via mail (if someone local knows otherwise, please correct me). Recently they tried out e-voting, with what I consider predictable results: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/voting-with-a-click_hacking-fear... Also, I agree with ianstormtaylor in that I don't think that what you're proposing would necessari…

Voting by mail enables coercion and bribes.

Where is you evidence? Bribing voters is too difficult and expensive to be worthwhile. It's much easier to block the people through voter suppression laws.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#75

Post by BeingIncubated »

barnacs wrote: post #12
pedrocr wrote: post #4

Paper elections are cheap, reliable and more importantly trustworthy even to people that have no idea what a symmetric key, hash or blockchain even is. But we had to go and screw up by creating extremely insecure voting machines and then come up with crazy schemes like this one to fix them. Do people really think all this complexity is a good thing? Paper elections are very well understood but you can easily come up…

Paper voting doesn't allow for much more citizen involvement than most "democratic" countries have today. You can hold elections every few years, maybe a referendum once or twice a year at most, but any more than that and it becomes inconvenient, inefficient and not so cheap. As a citizen, I want to be more involved. Even in a representative democracy, I want to hold my representatives responsible for their actions.…

After Brexit, I'm not sure I and many others would be comfortable allowing "greater citizen involvment" such as directly voting on bills or policies. I am politically against such a motion and am a proponent of greater technocracy; letting experts decide what policy is best rather than the masses who can easily be duped by demagogues or other post-truth elements.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#76

Post by sanswork »

ClayFerguson wrote: post #69
sanswork wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any system that allows someone to confirm their vote is a system that allows people to be forced to vote for someone.

The "system" in blockchain is always a single database file (that changes over time) but that can be downloaded by anyone at any time, and it's history can be analyzed in private and in secret by anyone any time. It has a checksum at any point in time, so you can know for sure your copy has not been tampered with, or even write a web app to allow others to analyze it, and none of the analysis forces anyone to do anyt…

I'm very familiar with how blockchains work. But if you can verify your vote then I can tell you to prove to me you voted for the person I told you to.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#77

Post by sanswork »

Natanael_L wrote: post #57
sanswork wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any system that allows someone to confirm their vote is a system that allows people to be forced to vote for someone.

Depends on how the verification is done. If it is verifiably derived from your raw vote, then yes. But if it's is tied to the process of voting such that it doesn't reveal the contents but confirm it was recorded right, then it can work. See 3-ballot, and also my suggested scheme; https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/an-mp...

That was an interesting read thank you.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#78

Post by ph14nix »

pedrocr wrote: post #64
ph14nix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What fascinates me in the electronic voting is not the economical benefits of it or computers being involved, but the guarrantees provided by the cryptography. Not the paper itself, but the handritten signatures are driving me crazy. Of course, the particilar implementation of an electronic voting protocol can be hacked. Also, some cryptographic algorithms are not proven to be completely secure, so there is a chance…

You trust paper voting because voting booths are operated by representatives of the different candidates. When it comes time to count no one will let their opponent steal votes for themselves. And the reason you can't add your digital signature to your vote is that you could then prove to someone you had voted for candidate X and collect your bribe. People that want to propose complex electronic voting systems need t…

> And the reason you can't add your digital signature to your vote is that you could then prove to someone you had voted for candidate X and collect your bribe.

I was arguing against treating a blot on a paper as a certification of one's opinion rather than proposing a real electronic voting protocol. Of course, simple digital signature doesn't solve all the problems, it only certifies with known assumptions that I and only I have signed the document.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#79

Post by ClayFerguson »

sanswork wrote: post #76
ClayFerguson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "system" in blockchain is always a single database file (that changes over time) but that can be downloaded by anyone at any time, and it's history can be analyzed in private and in secret by anyone any time. It has a checksum at any point in time, so you can know for sure your copy has not been tampered with, or even write a web app to allow others to analyze it, and none of the analysis forces anyone to do anyt…

I'm very familiar with how blockchains work. But if you can verify your vote then I can tell you to prove to me you voted for the person I told you to.

Someone can also compel me to use my own password to log into my bank account and transfer all my money to them. Every new technology that has ever been invented has always had people like you who can think up highly statistically insignificant scenarios where the technology can be misused.

Re: Votebook – A proposal for a blockchain-based electronic voting system [pdf]

#80

Post by sanswork »

ClayFerguson wrote: post #79
sanswork wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very familiar with how blockchains work. But if you can verify your vote then I can tell you to prove to me you voted for the person I told you to.

Someone can also compel me to use my own password to log into my bank account and transfer all my money to them. Every new technology that has ever been invented has always had people like you who can think up highly statistically insignificant scenarios where the technology can be misused.

You think people being compelled to vote for a specific person is an unlikely event? Unions, employers, organised crime, parents, etc have all over the years tried to force people to vote a specific way. If voting is verifiable they can be successful.
Post reply on HN