I don't generally expect society to listen if computer programmers tell them to do or not do something. But, just maybe, they might listen if programmers said, "don't use software for this", en masse. I feel like voting systems that have no voter-verifiable paper backup are a horrible idea and (in the literal sense) a threat to democracy. Is it possible for programmers to somehow get this message across to the rest of society? Or do most other programmers think this is not a problem and the security risks are overblown?
Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#2Multiple engineers have testified before congress that they were ordered to make systems easy to hack. This has been going on for decades and nothing has changed AFAIK. I suspect everything will go fully electronic with no paper-trail, despite my having a paper trail every time I fuel up my vehicle.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#3The part where regulation failed was when the engineers went before Congress and not a Grand Jury to testify.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#4Multiple engineers have testified before congress that they were ordered to make systems easy to hack. This has been going on for decades and nothing has changed AFAIK. I suspect everything will go fully electronic with no paper-trail, despite my having a paper trail every time I fuel up my vehicle.
(sigh) I fear you are correct.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#5Why would you convince them to discard something that is at least better than the alternative? Manual voting systems are easily to hack and more difficult to find who/when or even if it was hacked.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#6Why would you convince them to discard something that is at least better than the alternative? Manual voting systems are easily to hack and more difficult to find who/when or even if it was hacked.
How would you hack a paper ballot?
You see your choices in paper.
You place the paper in a ballot box.
The ballot box is watched by people on both sides.
The ballot box is sealed and transparently transported to a counting facility.
The ballot counting is observed by people on both sides.
The counting facility counts the ballots twice, with both counts having to agree. The counts are communicated to a central tallying location.
The counts for each counting facility and the total are publicly communicated.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#7Interesting enough, i just came across a project that is working on this using the blockchain http://185.25.51.16/papers/VerusVision.pdf
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#8Why would you convince them to discard something that is at least better than the alternative? Manual voting systems are easily to hack and more difficult to find who/when or even if it was hacked.
How would you hack a paper ballot? You see your choices in paper. You place the paper in a ballot box. The ballot box is watched by people on both sides. The ballot box is sealed and transparently transported to a counting facility. The ballot counting is observed by people on both sides. The counting facility counts the ballots twice, with both counts having to agree. The counts are communicated to a central tallyin…
The most important feature of a paper ballot is that the general populace can read them, and understand how they work. The worst feature of any electronic-only voting system is that the general populace cannot verify that they work. This is a bad thing even in the case where no hacking occurred, since it reduces trust in the validity of the outcome by anyone who dislikes the result.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you hack a paper ballot? You see your choices in paper. You place the paper in a ballot box. The ballot box is watched by people on both sides. The ballot box is sealed and transparently transported to a counting facility. The ballot counting is observed by people on both sides. The counting facility counts the ballots twice, with both counts having to agree. The counts are communicated to a central tallyin…
The most important feature of a paper ballot is that the general populace can read them, and understand how they work. The worst feature of any electronic-only voting system is that the general populace cannot verify that they work. This is a bad thing even in the case where no hacking occurred, since it reduces trust in the validity of the outcome by anyone who dislikes the result.
The general populace can't really verify the results of paper ballots either, that would mean letting anyone who wanted to do their own manual counts of all ballots.
Re: Ask HN: Could programmers convince society not to use software voting systems?
#10Multiple engineers have testified before congress that they were ordered to make systems easy to hack. This has been going on for decades and nothing has changed AFAIK. I suspect everything will go fully electronic with no paper-trail, despite my having a paper trail every time I fuel up my vehicle.
Citation?