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

In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#41

Post by muthdra »

markus_v wrote: post #33

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.

It's not about being safe, it's about being provably shareable. When the option of privately sharing your vote is there, it doesn't take long before a malicious candidate forces you to do it or face consequences.

See Halter Vote:

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=7gPvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT144&l...

https://translate.google.com/translate?source=osdd&sl=auto&t...

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#42

Post by drdeadringer »

lolc wrote: post #24
PrimeDirective wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they don't change your physical ballots?

You can inspect and watch the ballots.

What is stopping The Public from watching electronic ballots just as equally as electronic ballots?

If I wanted to see paper ballots, how is that different from wanting to see electronic ballots? I'm not confident that I could successfully petition Government for paper ballots just as much as I could sue a given contractor for same electronic records.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#43

Post by pedrocr »

tim333 wrote: post #39
deogeo wrote: post #32

"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…

>few-to-none signs of subversion 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.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to subvert it to break another of the essential guarantees of voting or to use it to DoS your election.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#44

Post by IanCal »

tim333 wrote: post #39
deogeo wrote: post #32

"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…

>few-to-none signs of subversion 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.

This makes voter intimidation much easier though. Nobody without a court order can check how I've voted, and can't ask me to show how I've voted.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#45

Post by ufo »

rjf72 wrote: post #18
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

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 exactly do you propose vote buying would work? Somebody has to advertise it, somehow validate results, and then engage in widescale monetary transactions in a method that would appeal to a significant number of voters. All while also somehow avoiding all legal issues in the process. And this all needs to somehow be more effective than the typical pattern of just dumping millions/billions into half truths, mudslin…

Are you implying that vote buying and voter coercion are theoretical threats? They are real and very common problems even in old fashioned paper ballot elections.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#46

Post by HarryHirsch »

pytester wrote: post #16
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

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…

When did they stomp out vote-buying in the UK? There is a steady stream of substantiated irregularities around postal ballots (like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/440..., this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/86..., and this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-19397157).

Postal voting should be restricted to the certifiably homebound, if it's open to everyone the opportunity for abuse will be taken.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#47

Post by xorcist »

pedrocr wrote: post #43
tim333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>few-to-none signs of subversion 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.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to sub…

> That's how you get people selling votes.

It's also important to realize that the mere suspicion of other people selling their votes is enough to undermine confidence in the system.

And confidence in the system is pretty much the only thing you have to optimize for.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#48

Post by oarabbus_ »

pedrocr wrote: post #43
tim333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>few-to-none signs of subversion 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.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to sub…

Can't you hash a signature of some manner to your vote in a manner only the individual can know how they voted? After all this is exactly how login/passwords work.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#49

Post by pytester »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #46
pytester wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

When did they stomp out vote-buying in the UK? There is a steady stream of substantiated irregularities around postal ballots (like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/440... , this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/86... , and this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-19397157 ). Postal voting should be restricted to the certifiably homebound, if it's op…

I think 19th century? Not too sure of the exact dates. I do know that it persisted for a while after it was made illegal and then disappeared completely once it actually started being prosecuted.

Vote buying could still re-emerge but it can only flourish in an environment where you can do it openly with impunity - i.e. it's legalized or the cops for some reason think they can't touch you.

Your first link doesn't appear to be about vote buying (looks like low level postal fraud which is something else), the second is only about allegations (and again, postal fraud) and the third link looks like a 404 to me. I would be surprised if anybody's seriously attempted vote buying in the UK in the last 70 years.

Re: In Estonian parliamentary election, 44% of the votes were cast online

#50

Post by riffraff »

pedrocr wrote: post #43
tim333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>few-to-none signs of subversion 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.

Now you can demonstrate to anyone what you voted. That's how you get people selling votes. In any reasonable election system you need to be able to be sure your vote is being counted without at the same time being able to prove who you voted for. The demands of voting are incredibly unsuited to digital systems and definitely to any online voting. For every layer of extra complexity you add there's either a way to sub…

You can avoid that, by having your vote correspond to multiple potential entries.

But that is still pointless cause the person you sold your vote can be physically next to you, or you can film yourself voting.

Online voting is unsafe, and should only be used if any other option is unfeasible.

Post reply on HN