DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System

Post by michaelbuckbee » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #14

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A feature/detriment of per vote verification is that it opens up the entire system to vote buying - are you describing verifying that your vote happened, or who it was cast for?

Not necessarily. Systems that allow you to verify that your vote was included and counted toward the candidate you selected in the booth, but do not allow you to prove to a third party who you voted for, are known, such as Scantegrity [1]. It sounds like the new system has this feature, and also another key feature of Scantegrity which is that the tallying can be done publicly and independently verified. From the art…

Post by gonehome » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #9

swalsh wrote: post #4

My ideal voting system would allow me to have a real time feed of votes as they come in, so that at the end of the night I can check my records vs the "official" records. Names can be detached, all I need is a Ballot id. BallotId can be something as simple as the hash of RegisteredVoterId + password + Salt + ElectionId. As long as the voter remembers their password, they can look up their record, and the record can b…

Your ideal voting system is vulnerable to coercion ("log in and show me who you voted for or else") and phishing. Voting systems should provide confidence to voters that votes are counted correctly, but not permit anyone, including the voters themselves, to learn how they voted after the ballot is cast.

Post by macintux » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

memory_grep wrote: post #22

snowwrestler wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ideal voting system is vulnerable to coercion ("log in and show me who you voted for or else") and phishing. Voting systems should provide confidence to voters that votes are counted correctly, but not permit anyone, including the voters themselves, to learn how they voted after the ballot is cast.

Laws can prevent coercion, at least by major businesses, but another concern is people selling their votes on a black market. Still, to me, the benefits of an open and verifiable voting system would outweigh the downsides.

Post by TomMarius » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

anth_anm wrote: post #24

My design uses paper and pen. Deployment requires mailing ballots out and having places where people can come in to fill them out. 10 million dollars please.

Post by deogeo » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #15

deogeo wrote: post #2

Open source, open hardware? What a joke. Neither are resistant to chip/compiler level attacks such as https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/adding_backdo... and https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html That's all assuming the voting machine is actually running the software/hardware they tell you - how would a voter check? The article briefly mentions "That receipt does not permit you to prove…

I think it's unfair to say there is no point in e-voting besides malice. e-Voting could make it easier / cheaper to deploy polling stations, collect ballots faster, and potentially to use more complex (but more fair and accurate) voting methods like Ranked Choice or others. As for the "We won't tell you how you voted but you can validate it", my first guess would be some kind of PKI where you are given the equivalent…