Is this just an abstract and is there more to this post? I found it quite shallow.
I think it’s just twisting the facts to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
71–80 of 532 posts
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have mail voting as a default in Colorado. When you get your license you are registered to vote and opted in automatically. The one piece that might improve it further is if it came with a stamp to mail back. Otherwise you just drop it off at a drive-up ballot box. You can also vote in person if you want. Hardly anybody does it so there’s never a line. You get text messages each step of the process too. “Your ball…
How do they prevent double voting?
Other states that do this well don't start counting mail in ballots until after polls closed. They know if someone voted in person, so their mail in ballot is rejected before being opened and verified.
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#73* “all your money lives on the internet and it’s safe” * “internet voting is insecure” who wins?
Second is also possible in jurisdictions that issue id cards with cryptographic layer AND ability with the companion app to only prove a scope of the identity. Without saying too much about my home country I believe it's doable.
[dead]
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#74[deleted]
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#75The most important feature of public elections is trust. Efficiency is one of the least important feature. When we moved away from paper voting with public oversight of counting to electronic voting we significantly deteriorated trust, we made it significantly easier for a hostile government to fake votes, all for marginal improvements in efficiency which don't actually matter. Moving to internet voting will further…
The US overwhelmingly uses paper voting (often paired with electronic tabulation). We can't "move back", it's where we are. Electronic tabulation introduces little risk when the ballots are paper.
>Electronic tabulation introduces little risk when the ballots are paper.
Do European and other first world countries favor electronic tabulation?
Is it possible that introduction of all electronic factors reduce trust?
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would also mean someone could force you to show who/what you voted for.
Not necessarily. In Colorado they handle this by putting the ballot in a blind envelope inside a trackable envelope. I can verify the details of the receipt of that trackable envelope to the tallying center where it is verified as untampered and opened under video with multiple people present. The unmarked envelope is added to all the rest of the ballots to be counted.
So then you can verify your vote reached the tallying center, but not that it was tallied correctly. Someone can look at your vote and count it wrong.
I think that's fine and the best we can do, but the person I replied to said you can verify your vote is tallied correctly. That implies checking what the actual vote was.
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#77I live in an economy where people vote with pencils on paper in cardboard booths and at scalable cost, it just works. Obviously the cost also has to scale linearly for the 200+m voter economies, and time becomes a factor, but for community acceptance I still think paper and pen/pencil beats machine hands down. (this is Australia. we have compulsory attendance at voting booths for eligible citizens, you can spoil your…
Australia really uses erasable pencil markings to vote? I would feel much better if they required ink.
Yes, and the reasons are outlined by the Australian Electoral Commission, the independent body that runs Australian elections (see the first FAQ)[0].
There are scrutineers that watch counting happen at the booth once polls close, and who also see and hear the numbers get phoned into HQ. HQ has more scrutineers from all parties checking both postal votes and recounts.
If anything doesn't match up it gets flagged. I think that the ability of every party to watch votes themselves means that trust is increased, and they have skin in the game (if they didn't object at the booth why not!?).
Pen markings are perfectly valid however, so you can bring a pen to the booth to vote with if you'd like to do so.
It's also true of course that erasers don't quite erase pencil. It would be fairly obvious that the paper was tampered with.
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#78The thing about paper ballots is that the ways to cheat with them are well-known ("finding" ballots in the trunk of a car, "losing" ballot boxes on the way to the counting center, counting the ballots behind locked doors with observers not present, and so on), and have been well known for centuries. So the counters to them (ballot boxes sealed with an official seal once full, only sealed ballot boxes will be opened a…
I strongly disagree. If the system is transparent enough and provides mechanisms for verification and control - No reason to distrust it. I would prefer a system where even in 20 years I can go online and check how my vote was counted in older elections - this way stealing my vote would be impossible.
The issue is how to preserve privacy...
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#79I live in an economy where people vote with pencils on paper in cardboard booths and at scalable cost, it just works. Obviously the cost also has to scale linearly for the 200+m voter economies, and time becomes a factor, but for community acceptance I still think paper and pen/pencil beats machine hands down. (this is Australia. we have compulsory attendance at voting booths for eligible citizens, you can spoil your…
Australia really uses erasable pencil markings to vote? I would feel much better if they required ink.
If you're worried about someone taking away your vote by erasing your pencil marking, then you should be equally/more worried about someone spoiling your ballot by voting twice on the same ballot, thereby invalidating it. You just need to trust that the people handling your ballot won't do that.
Re: Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections
#80It’s not that it’s impossible - it’s that the established players are already questionable. And any new entry would require more than any simple company could provide. Heavy investment and collateral is required.
Our livelihoods are increasingly (almost entirely) digital and endure great efforts to abuse. But banking and/or retail operate on a different spectrum. For one they make money. The costs associated allowing their business online may never make sense for a non-profit based activity like voting.
Do we have any examples of internet activity as tempting to infiltrate/pervert that is secure and doesn’t extract value?
Anyways it seems greater damage will be done before we even reach a provably secure system. So paper/pencil voting would be better.
But fear not - even if we abolish voting machines we aren’t out of the hole just yet. We have good company with concepts like Citizens United as well as activities like sweepstakes that try to sway the populace to throw away a vote for a chance at a million. Illegal - sure - but that won’t stop the ostensible infinitely wealthy from enduring a slap on the wrist - or more appropriately a verbal reprimand (which is all that happened last time) for their part in electioneering. And if that didn’t work we have an onslaught of reAlIty and bots that poison our conversations in order to form our world views.
I’m jaded. I’m overly pessimistic. I’ll go now.