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

Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

belenios.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 307 posts

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#171

Post by rstuart4133 »

rcxdude wrote: post #148
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. It's enough for the average voter to trust that some other people - independent experts - are able to verify the vote. Not everyone needs to be an expert at anything. I wrote more about this trust aspect in the appendix of my thesis on voting: https://attejuvonen.fi/thesis

Yes, but then all that's needed to attack the voting system is to trot out your own experts that voice disagreement. Without the means to assess the system for themselves, voters will lose trust in it. Especially in this day and age, when trust in institutions and expects in general is extremely low. (Heck, this attack already works to some extent with the current, extremely transparent system of ballots)

> Yes, but then all that's needed to attack the voting system is to trot out your own experts that voice disagreement.

Which is precisely what Trump did in 2020.

I doubt people made up their minds on whether the 2020 vote was sound based on the mechanics of how the votes were counted. The counting procedure with it's interlocking checks is rather complex, and differs between states. They made up their minds based on what they trusted more - the Trump version of the facts or the testimonies of the people counting the votes and those administering it.

It will be exactly the same with computerised voting. Ideally the software will be open source with reproducible builds. Just as with the present voting system most won't be able the check the actual mechanics themselves, but they likely know someone who knows someone who knows someone who can.

By the by, it wasn't done that way with computerised voting and probably still isn't in many places. I vaguely recall the story of a voting machine breaking down, a technician waving his magic wand over it after voting had closed, and a whole pile of votes fell out. It made the people in charge of the voting process distinctly uncomfortable.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#172

Post by mmaul »

jimhefferon wrote: post #147
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. It's enough for the average voter to trust that some other people - independent experts - are able to verify the vote. Not everyone needs to be an expert at anything. I wrote more about this trust aspect in the appendix of my thesis on voting: https://attejuvonen.fi/thesis

My reading of the news is that in the US (and that I can see, in many places) a lot of people have been convinced not to believe experts.

The trend is growing here to, sadly. It's not people disagree with experts experts but that truth told by the, disagrees with a distorted perception or reality.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#173

Post by makmanalp »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #136
atoav wrote: post #119

One important thing about any voting system – digital or not – is that it has to be good at producing agreeable consent . That means bitter, betrayed and hurt (but reasonable/democratic!) losing parties need to be able to say: yeah we accept the result because we are confident in the outcome of the election. This is something all digital systems are really bad at, even if everything is readable and verifiable, unless…

Disagree. It's enough for the average voter to trust that some other people - independent experts - are able to verify the vote. Not everyone needs to be an expert at anything. I wrote more about this trust aspect in the appendix of my thesis on voting: https://attejuvonen.fi/thesis

As a person who's from a country with, let's say, VERY VERY contested, controversial and eventful elections, the fact that independent poll watchers from different parties and NGOs can independently observe ballot boxes, take photo evidence of countersigned and publicly posted box tallies to send them to their HQs, and then compare and contrast results amongst each other as well as with the official results is a huge boon for transparency and trust in the electoral system.

It's not perfect: more remote and less popular areas go unobserved, and what happens after an official complaint is made is anyone's guess.

But at least almost anyone can add up numbers for themselves and come to a conclusion about what to trust and not trust. And you might think no one would bother, but in my brief experience as a volunteer poll worker they surely do, and zealously so. I can't even begin to imagine what'd happen if the paper ballot was replaced with "trust us, the machine says 37 for party A" or "the magical fingerprint number you don't understand says this ballot was cast for someone else".

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#174

Post by cryptonector »

lesuorac wrote: post #155
atoav wrote: post #119

One important thing about any voting system – digital or not – is that it has to be good at producing agreeable consent . That means bitter, betrayed and hurt (but reasonable/democratic!) losing parties need to be able to say: yeah we accept the result because we are confident in the outcome of the election. This is something all digital systems are really bad at, even if everything is readable and verifiable, unless…

Non-digital systems have claims of fake ballots being inserted all the time. I don't think the answer to people being suspicious of digital systems is to abandon them. It's to either disprove their suspicion or add controls so they become disproven. https://www.google.com/search?q=ballot+stuffing+2020 https://www.google.com/search?q=ballot+stuffing+2016 https://www.google.com/search?q=ballot+stuffing+2012

Precinct-only elections don't quite have this problem because all the people voting are neighbors, and the poll watchers and ballot counters are all neighbors. Hard to engage in shenanigans when the people watching are your neighbors!

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#175

Post by smfjaw »

I wonder why no one has introduced a hybrid of the two, for example, you have a private key on your Gov ID, you turn up to the polling station, sign your paper with your ID, bob's your dads brother.

Seems like this would solve the ballot stuffing issues as well as being easily electronically verifiable, it's just not a fully digital solution

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#176

Post by maxdamantus »

eru wrote: post #168
maxdamantus wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a software developer myself, if an "independent expert" comes out and says that some software system is fully verified, I might trust their allegiance, but I probably won't trust their competence. I wouldn't expect the general population to trust them either.

What if lots of experts come out that way, including people you already trust otherwise? Eg assume both Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds etc say they have reviewed the code?

Then I would ask why the system they're reviewing is different to any other which is meant to be guaranteed-secure (or check that others are asking those questions). We're told every year or so about some SecureBoot vulnerability, which presumably involves code that has been reviewed.

The system doesn't only include the code directly related to voting. It also includes OSes and everything involved in the infrastructure for hosting and communication (the Belenios system in particular involves sending private keys by email, and we're also relying on end user systems being uncompromised (who here likes browser extensions?)). It's not feasible to claim that such a system is secure from a remotely controlled attack (eg, by a lone external actor).

Most of the attack scenarios against an offline voting system are ones that the general population can at least reason about, and they probably involve multiple insiders that would face a serious risk of being ratted out by one another.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#177

Post by EGreg »

atoav wrote: post #119

One important thing about any voting system – digital or not – is that it has to be good at producing agreeable consent . That means bitter, betrayed and hurt (but reasonable/democratic!) losing parties need to be able to say: yeah we accept the result because we are confident in the outcome of the election. This is something all digital systems are really bad at, even if everything is readable and verifiable, unless…

All? Really?

How would you make such a sweeping statement? Can you list the systems you had looked at?

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#178

Post by codedokode »

This is not about government elections, right? Because it seems to have no protection from creating millions of fake accounts and voting in their name.

Another problem with electronic voting is that votes can be bought or people might be pressured to vote specific way. The voter might save hashes/keys as a proof that they voted for a certain candidate and this can be used as a basis for payout or not being punished.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#179

Post by codedokode »

lesuorac wrote: post #155
atoav wrote: post #119

One important thing about any voting system – digital or not – is that it has to be good at producing agreeable consent . That means bitter, betrayed and hurt (but reasonable/democratic!) losing parties need to be able to say: yeah we accept the result because we are confident in the outcome of the election. This is something all digital systems are really bad at, even if everything is readable and verifiable, unless…

Non-digital systems have claims of fake ballots being inserted all the time. I don't think the answer to people being suspicious of digital systems is to abandon them. It's to either disprove their suspicion or add controls so they become disproven. https://www.google.com/search?q=ballot+stuffing+2020 https://www.google.com/search?q=ballot+stuffing+2016 https://www.google.com/search?q=ballot+stuffing+2012

With analog voting you can at least count people coming and see their ballots when tallying. With digital systems this is typically a black box where you have to trust the government.

Re: Belenios: Verifiable online voting system

#180

Post by illiac786 »

codedokode wrote: post #178

This is not about government elections, right? Because it seems to have no protection from creating millions of fake accounts and voting in their name. Another problem with electronic voting is that votes can be bought or people might be pressured to vote specific way. The voter might save hashes/keys as a proof that they voted for a certain candidate and this can be used as a basis for payout or not being punished.

this only solves one problem: make a vote verifiable. It does not solve who is entitled to vote and how to identify this person – how could it? it’s different in every country.

I do think it’s very useful though, it’s like one huge chunk of work done.

Post reply on HN