121–130 of 208 posts
Online voting seems like such a bad idea to me. If people want convenience couldn't voting by post be a good compromise? Sure you still have to bring your letter to the post office but that's a more mild inconvenience and it seems more secure than e or i voting.
Newver understood the fascination with e-votes. E-votes are great when you vote for reality shows but for a normal election I think walking to the local booth and vote is a much better idea because it is hackers proof and also only citizens with enough motivation will vote.
> Newver understood the fascination with e-votes. People want convenience. Citizens would like to vote online, and are largely ignorant of the technical challenges that make it impossible to secure, at least on your average everyday Internet connected consumer device. Its the job of us techies to keep shouting from the rooftops how all these implementations of online voting are deeply flawed and exploitable the same…
You would have to have an allowance for certain Disabled and Housebound voters and maybe be allowed to miss one election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there will be few-to-none signs of subversion One thing the Estonian system does is that you can verify your vote on a mobile device by scanning a qr code that you see when you cast the digital vote. A vote can be checked after i-voting for up to three times during half an hour. I imagine if any mismatch was detected the country would shut off i-voting immediately. Further reading: https://www.valimised.ee/en/inter…
You're not supposed to be able to verify votes after the fact because that would enable buying votes.
I like this trend towards e-voting since it seems to be influenced by trends in cutting edge blockchain technology like decentralised autonomous organisations. It means that novel types of national governance may follow from blockchain governance models, such as liquid democracy. This would be a vast improvement over our current representative democracy model since we'd be able to hold politicians accountable more ea…
> such as liquid democracy The German Pirate Party tried liquid democracy, and the result was similar to what's going in Wikipedia: There's a small set of people with more time on their hands than it good for them or others, and it doesn't take long for them to take over.
She was taking about the FCS and People like Guido Fawkes.
Oh "Yahoos" refers to Jonathon Swifts Yahoos not any one employed by Yahoo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typically, the way this is done is through a smartcard, secured and provided by state officials. A vote has to be signed by the key that never leaves this device. So even if you computer is infected by malware down to its USB firmware, it won't be able to fake many things. Just prevent you from voting. My main criticism is that as it is it could still feed the card with the wrong vote to sign. The (state-provided) US…
> a smartcard, secured and provided by state officials [..] The (state-provided) USB reader [..] are not immune to attack either. Unless you go to the extraordinary lengths of making your own hardware in a facility you secure and keep secured for the duration of your democracy , there is no such thing as a 'secure device'. Not when the prize is something so hugely lucrative and advantageous as control over an entire…
It is not without reason that most common fraud here in Sweden (around 80%) is someone calling under false pretense asking a victim to use the hardware token in order for the fraudsters to create a new electronic id which is then used to empty the bank account, create credit accounts, and so on. So far those security tokens has had a perfect track record from a hardware perspective, as much good that does. Maybe that is a bomb waiting to explode but it is hard to see a stronger incentives for criminals than what already exist.
When people here discuss electronic voting, security of the hardware tokens is not usually brought up. It is rather all the other elements which makes it a bad choice. There would be no physical ballots that can be verified, questionable anonymity, and a loss of a controlled voting environment. All the common solutions to those problems usually results in the conclusion that it then easier to just keep the current system as is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how far did Tammany Hall have to scale? How big is Estonia? Do you think every election ever held that can be worth money and power is the size of the U.S National Election? As far as the political will to come down on people for vote buying or intimidation etc. I'm sure that making things illegal when there is a profit to be made at doing it has always succeeded in driving that illegal thing out of existence without…
>How big is Estonia? Are you saying that it's small enough that you can sway the election by threatening to beat up every voter? That's a brave claim. >As far as the political will to come down on people for vote buying or intimidation etc. I'm sure that making things illegal when there is a profit to be made at doing it has always succeeded in driving that illegal thing out of existence without any untoward effect o…
>That's a brave claim.
No, generally the way it works is letting the word get out that if people vote for X you will come kick their ass later. For example if go beat up vocal supporters of X before the election and shout we're going to kill you if you vote for X, we know who votes for who because our hackers can see it online fools. Then people might be, oh I don't want anyone coming by my house and kicking my ass after X wins. So I will either not vote, or I will vote for Y so I don't get my ass kicked or even killed, sob.
If we think you voted for X and we come by your house you better be able to convince us you voted for Y! That actually scales pretty good because you only have to publicly hurt a few people before the election, and then hurt a few people after the election if X actually loses so the next election people will be well I better vote for Y and prove I did it. And people now have to actually vote for Y and show they did.
For example, take the following paper into consideration https://www.aisre.it/images/old_papers/MafiaViolence_Oli&Sbe... and then think, huh what would it be like if they could tell who voted for whom?
I mean the thing you're saying about the only time people ever bought votes was when it was completely legal, maybe that was true - was it also possible to prove who you voted for? I mean I don't know what you are actually referencing with your completely legal vote buying line but the implication that people would not buy votes to get power seems if it were illegal to do so seems incredibly silly given all the other illegal things people do to get power.
Also, I am a bit worried that online voting might give young tech-savvy people an advantage over old and poor people who don't have access to computers or mobile phones. Has there been studies about demographies in these elections?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Estonian_parliamentary_el... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Estonian_parliamentary_el...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a smartcard, secured and provided by state officials [..] The (state-provided) USB reader [..] are not immune to attack either. Unless you go to the extraordinary lengths of making your own hardware in a facility you secure and keep secured for the duration of your democracy , there is no such thing as a 'secure device'. Not when the prize is something so hugely lucrative and advantageous as control over an entire…
Who create the security tokens that banks use? I could see few things more lucrative and advantageous than a perfect backdoor into that hardware, especially since here in Sweden you can create electronic government ID from said token which can be used for everything except voting. It is not without reason that most common fraud here in Sweden (around 80%) is someone calling under false pretense asking a victim to use…
Bottom line is: Conservatives / nationalists are preferred by older folks and these parties lobby against anything that can give votes to liberals. They also know that youngster might skip the voting after all if we would go back to paper voting all together. Also there will be major reputation loss. But since conservatives are against EU, open-trading and anything outside our teeny-tiny pond they don't give a flying fuck about that.