The Republicans will never allow this
DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
151–160 of 303 posts
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#152Thought experiment: Have, like in aviation, units built of two separate, but parallel architectures designed and built by unrelated, independent manufacturers with software written by independent teams in different languages and deploy them redundantly. (E.g., Airbus does this.) Now you have cranked up the cost for any manipulations to the requirements of successfully attacking two separate architectures in the same realtime timeframe, maybe at several redundant units at once. Leaving the message path. So you're still screwed. (Simply, because the win to cost ratio may be near to infinity. If we have concerns regarding personal messages, how could we possibly guarantee for this one?) Enter the paper trail and printers. – However, does anyone remember the Xerox scanner debacle of misarranged and falsely duplicated data by the compression algorithm, or the debates about Obama's birth certificate (due to image portions duplicated by the compression algorithm)? Things like these went unnoticed for years.
What we may learn from this, a) there's no perfect system involving software, b) if we do not want to invest as much in democracy as we do in shuffling around a few people by aviation, how may we be worth it? Anyway, voting methods shouldn't be about cost reduction.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, you put a gun to my head and tell me to vote for Hillary. I go into the ballot box and vote for Trump. I come out and you ask me if I voted Hillary. I say yes, I voted for Hillary, of course. If there is no possible way for you or me to know (edit: prove) if I'm telling the truth, how is that worth your time and energy? It's not. The benefit of a secret ballot is that it greatly reduces, if not removes, the incen…
Seems like burning an orchard for a few bad apples. It's this really that large of a concern vs voter fraud?
Yes. The U.S. originally did not use secret ballots in federal elections and we switched to them because of widespread coercion.
A durable record that maps votes to voters does not prevent voter fraud, it enables it.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#154Why does this keep coming up? What is the compelling argument against paper ballots? There is no need for results to be known immediately, so how does making voting an exercise done by computers make anything better, particularly when computers are much more vulnerable to remote interference?
Paper ballots aren't scalable or transparent. Open source hardware and software can be audited by anyone and every one and can be formally verifiable.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
How well does it work for people with motor disabilities? Vision disabilities? Does an X mean a choice or they crossed out their choice? What happens when the pens run out of ink? What if they can’t read English? Helpers? What do you pay them? Can they understand that dialect of that obscure language? Do you trust them not to lie about what they’re marking on the ballot for someone? The truth is electronic voting mac…
> Do you trust them not to lie about what they’re marking on the ballot for someone? Do we really think that a large conspiracy of translators for obscure languages is a viable attack?
I was thinking more when helping the visually impaired.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#156Nothing beats paper.
scissors does
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#157Finally. I've been saying this for years, as I'm sure others have.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically the one recent confirmed case of a rigged election in the U.S. was rigged through paper absentee ballots.
Is it really ironic when pretty much all voting is done with paper? Of course the rigged voting would have been through paper ballots when that is what we use.
It’s ironic when I’m responding to someone framing the use of paper ballots as a security feature, yes.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paper ballots are pretty trivial to cheat too, you’re dependent on the honesty of party officials and poll watchers.
It’s also easy to design paper ballots that are really hard to use.
Absolutely.
If you live in a place like I do, we’re a one party place where primary elections are the real elections, and you don’t have the competitive pressures that are inherent to a multi-party contest.
We also had a huge upsurge in “write in” votes, as the paper forms are difficult to interpret.
Re: DARPA Is Building a $10M, Open-Source, Secure Voting System
#160Why does this keep coming up? What is the compelling argument against paper ballots? There is no need for results to be known immediately, so how does making voting an exercise done by computers make anything better, particularly when computers are much more vulnerable to remote interference?
Paper ballots aren't scalable or transparent. Open source hardware and software can be audited by anyone and every one and can be formally verifiable.
> Paper ballots aren't scalable
Paper ballot operational complexity scales linearly with the size of the electorate, which makes them adequately scalable for any practical use. (There's maybe an issue with using paper ballots for some esoteric election methods, because of how operational complexity scales with number of candidates for some type of tallying, but absent a decision that use of one of those methods is desirable that's immaterial.)