41–50 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a security guy I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a citizen I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a security guy I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a citizen I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
> King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology. Oh, really? > Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device. Huh? > Finney says el…
Wholeheartedly disagree-- if casting a ballot was as easy as sending a text instead of receiving and then mailing a letter or going to a polling location, I would predict much higher participation. People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. Votes only matter as groups! So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I…
Countries with political leaders willing to stoop to the tactics of dictators will have a field day.
I don't understand why a bank's website is secure enough to transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't cast a single vote online.
Because casting votes online makes it easy to start voting market where you get perks for voting in desired direction.
It's possible that a much lower price would even work too, since if you were going to vote my way anyway, you'd do it for free. So I only have to convince the voters on the other side (and hope the electoral college doesn't override my proxy votes).
Absolutely amazing that almost all techies in this thread are against this. Of course there is major security risks, and problems that have to be solved, but it is MASSIVELY outweighed by the fact that mobile voting would mean almost 100% voter turn out overnight if done on a national level. What are we at right now, 60% on average, maybe? Our nation's policies would change immediately with such a massive swing in vo…
Why not just allow everyone to vote online, with no registration? Just type in your full name and select a candidate, no email or password required. It'd guarantee 100% turnout - maybe even >100% turnout, if enough bots join the fun!
The problem with digital voting is that it cannot be made sufficiently secure. It's not a matter of "there are problems we haven't solved yet", but rather "there are problems that we provably cannot solve".
> King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology. If they mean that there is a public URL you go to, and then on the site only have to enter you birhdate and name to log in, and then you can vote--that can't be right. There's g…
Of course there is. You also need a User-Agent that says you're a phone. And you can't set the evil bit. ;D
Beyond the security implications (which are huge and ought to be a deal breaker on their own), this seems to have a huge problem in that it's not private. Your abusive spouse/boss/dealer could tell you that they want to see you use the app to vote their way, and there's not much to prevent it. While going to a local precinct is inconvenient, no one knows what you do once you walk in that booth. That's important to av…
The only difference here is whether the post office or a TLS connection are more trustworthy to deliver your vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wholeheartedly disagree-- if casting a ballot was as easy as sending a text instead of receiving and then mailing a letter or going to a polling location, I would predict much higher participation. People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. Votes only matter as groups! So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I…
> People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting. I'm not sure that X% more participation would improve our collective decision making. In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.
Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen.
Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged?
Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a security guy I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.
As a citizen I think this is a REALLY bad idea because of the security implications surrounding it.