31–40 of 208 posts
@Moderators Just to avoid people collating together all e-voting (voting machines and similar) with the tech that Estonia uses (they call it i-voting for that reason), could the title be changed from "e-voting" to "i-voting"?
Edit: actually, just using the word 'online' seems to make the distinction more clearly.
I'm sure this cannot be subverted by an attacker with the resources of USA/China/India/.., or with access to the supply chain from the chip fab onward (don't forget about malware hidden in USB cables!), or or,...
And you'd have to be dead sure, because, unlike with physical votes, there will be few-to-none signs of subversion. You can vote physically, but what do a few physical votes matter when the attacker can change the vote of 30, 50, 70% of the population.
And how do you change the system, when all parties promising to do so can't get enough votes?
Edit: Example of what a voting system must be resistant against: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/adding_backdo...
Also, no method of voting is ever going to be 100% safe. It's not like there haven't been any unfair elections using paper ballots.
That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
How do you avoid it with paper ballots? When your union boss tells you, "send me a picture of your ballot and ID from the booth, if I don't see a mark next to the Foo party, you'll have a problem", you either can spoil your ballot or vote for the Foo party.
It is a pretty smooth system. Voting in the last elections took me about 60 seconds. Also, no method of voting is ever going to be 100% safe. It's not like there haven't been any unfair elections using paper ballots.
That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
>That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Historically, vote buying in the UK and the US used to be rife until it was cracked down upon (which came after it was made illegal). Once that happened it completely disappeared. For voters to sell their votes, somebody needs to advertise that they are willing to buy their votes. That advertisement makes them easy to dete…
"The system has been designed to ensure that voters' computers are not infected by any kind of malware that could change or block their vote." I'm sure this cannot be subverted by an attacker with the resources of USA/China/India/.., or with access to the supply chain from the chip fab onward (don't forget about malware hidden in USB cables!), or or,... And you'd have to be dead sure , because, unlike with physical v…
You could make it so you can view your vote and check it was registered the way intended. If you voted A and it came out B that would be a sign.
That is worrying. How do you know that the voter could vote freely and didn't sell their vote? Corruption around vote-selling is a concern in certain ethnic enclaves in Britain, and there were even elections annulled over that. The foremost concern shouldn't be convenience, it should be that the vote is safe and secret.
How do you know they don't change your physical ballots?
The characteristics of paper elections are well understood and can be shown to be sound very easily to any common citizen. The massive attack surface of electronic elections is poorly understood even by technical people. It's a massive amount of complexity and expense for exactly zero gain.