Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the bear-alternatives'-problems-in-mind dept.

Government 171

JMcCloy writes "Kevin Poulsen, senior editor at Wired News, asks readers 'Is internet voting safe?' and has a poll at the end of the article. So far, 32% responding actually think that internet voting is worth it, risks and all. It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable." The system described, used in Arizona in last year's election process, isn't just checking a box and clicking a button, but Poulsen lays out some scenarios by which it could be subverted.

cancel ×

171 comments

Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe?' (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235633)

Yes 32%
No 22%
Ron Paul 46%

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236395)

There is a solution to ALL election fraud - the Robinson Method.
Read about it here:

http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&title=the_robinson_method_a_really_simple_way_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Instant results. No fraud. Huge savings in money and time. Ballot boxes in public view at ALL times, from the beginning of the election when they are empty, to the end of the election, when the winner will be clearly visible to all, the minute the final vote has been cast.

Electronic voting was only brought in so that the FRAUD would be easier.

Ask your representative what they think about the Robinson Method - if they tell you they are against it, you can work out what they believe about democracy.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (4, Interesting)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236523)

I actually have the opposite view. I think the reason electronic voting is being done so poorly is to prevent allowing a true democracy strip the power from the current 2 party system.
While not simple to get right, a effective convenient secure system would make voting too simple. We could actually have more rounds of votes, and eliminate needing just 2 candidates at the beginning of the election. More issues could be voted on, more laws, quicker correction on corrupt politicans, etc, etc. Those in power have much more interest in preventing trust-able e-voting than not.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236691)

Which would mean we need this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage [wikipedia.org]
Because the mob can be non-sentient.

No, no, no (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236731)

I am politically active student (Member of the Left Youth of Finland, etc.) in a country that doesn't use two party system and I disagree with all of your points.

I actually have the opposite view. I think the reason electronic voting is being done so poorly is to prevent allowing a true democracy strip the power from the current 2 party system.

Well, I live in a country which has never used electronic voting in electing the parliament. There are currently 14 active political parties in Finland (15 in a few weeks as the Pirate Party recently managed to get enough supporters to register themselves as a party), 8 of which are currently represented in the parliament. (The remaining parties only have representatives at municipal level).

You can't blame the two party system on normal voting being so complicated and electronic voting being the answer or anything. It is political system that has it's merits and flaws but it not only can be but is also very easy to implement even without electronic voting.

While not simple to get right, a effective convenient secure system would make voting too simple. We could actually have more rounds of votes, and eliminate needing just 2 candidates at the beginning of the election.

We have more than two candidates here with still a few rounds of votes. We use this [wikipedia.org] method. Each party has it's own list. Let's say I vote a candidate in the Left Alliance as do 1000 others. The most popular candidate within the left alliance gets 1000 votes, the second most popular within the left alliance gets 500 votes, the third most popular gets 333 votes... After that, candidates from all parties use those numbers to see who gets elected. Again, it has it's flaws but it works quite well.

More issues could be voted on, more laws, quicker correction on corrupt politicans, etc, etc. Those in power have much more interest in preventing trust-able e-voting than not.

Direct democracy is beautiful idea. However... If your problem is that you feel people don't pay enough attention to politics in elections (they don't remember the bad decisions politician have made, etc.) then how do you expect them to pay enough attention that they would have good, well thought out and educated opinion on even more issues?

Also... We aren't talking about electronic voting here. We are talking about internet voting. The kind where violent husband can force his wife to vote for extremist parties because there can not be any precautions to protect from that.

magical thinking (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237337)

as if "simple" voting (really? electronic voting is "simple"?) is the only thing keeping the two party system in place

you're an idiot or a troll, and not a very good one at that

It's safer than lieetin arizona vote (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237409)

I'd rather have the sweedish hackers voting for arizona (home of john McCain) than arizona folks. So yes it's safe in that sense.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238107)

We could actually have more rounds of votes, and eliminate needing just 2 candidates at the beginning of the election

Excellent Idea!! And we could give this process of voting a name to denote its 'first round' qualities... something like 'primaries'. And we could have a really wide variety of positions and viewpoints which we then widdle down to 2.

Now to ensure a diverse set of viewpoints on the ballot these primaries could be broken up into multiple primaries run in parallel. We could call these grouped ideologies "Parties".

I really like this idea! Someone should get on it right away! /Sarcasm

If you ever bothered to actually give a shit about American Politics you might have noticed that we do in fact offer more than 2 choices at the beginning of the election. And that these multiple choices often run the gamut of political ideology. In some ways you might say Gravel was more similar to Ron Paul than they were to people in their own parties especially in viability.

Do you really think there was a large untapped electorate who really wanted to vote for Jon McCain but otherwise would have voted for Dennis Kucinich?

Go participate in primary season if you want more than two choices.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (0, Flamebait)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236719)

Ask your representative what they think about the Robinson Method

lol, wow Mr. Robinson, you're seriously deluded if a) you think posting as AC will fool us and b) you really think anyone would know about your "method", let alone care. You're just a blogger, with everything it implies about how no one cares about whatever you gotta say. Besides, I couldn't bring myself to read your suggestion that would probably fill 20 pages when printed, but it seems very convoluted and basically be not electronic voting. Paper voting works very well, no need for some complicated bullshit.

any place I've submitted it has basically rejected the idea out of hand and has made no comment on it.

Get the fucking hint, if no one cares even to tell you what's wrong with your suggestion, it's probably because they don't consider it even worthy of commenting. Seriously, get the hint. Stop blogging, that shit sucks. Do something worthwhile, like spending time your family, or go to a pub and meet people. Or better yet work out, weighting 400 lbs is hardly healthy.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28237101)

What a brilliant argument. I'm not Mr.Robinson.

But you obviously ARE too stupid to actually read his simple description of a fraud proof, instant result voting method.

How do you KNOW "paper voting works very well"?

"No need for some complicated bullshit"...

Aaahhhh... did the complicated idea bother you?

The Robinson Method is the SIMPLEST voting method possible. And you were too stupid to even understand it, and publicly stated as much! Way to go!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, voting fraud is endemic in so-called 'democracies', just search on Youtube for 'New Hampshire voting fraud'...

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (0, Troll)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237363)

Of course you're not the brilliant Mr. Robinson, you're just one of his numerous avid fans who cruise the interwebs to benevolently spread his word and who coincidentally happen to post on Slashdot just like him.

And like I said, no one cares. Besides it was TL;DR. Anyways, have fun wasting your time fighting windmills, eventually you'll realise that even if you think your idea is the best idea since sliced bread, still no one will care about it.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237115)

Ok, what the hell. The title; "The 'Robinson Method' a really simple way to have trustworthy elections".

Fine. Did you see how long it took to explain? And I thought STV [wikipedia.org] was difficult to explain! Anything that requires 4000+ words to explain is either not simple or badly explained. I suspect in this case it's a little from column a and a little from column b.

Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28237829)

Another moron who is afraid of democracy.

Here's a tip: exclude yourself from all further elections in your country, and let those of us who actually care what happens to us, get on with implementing the Robinson Method.

Are you seriously that stupid, that you couldn't understand it?

Don't answer that.

Irony is... (3, Insightful)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235685)

... an Internet poll about the "safety" of Internet polls.

Especially if you are "persuaded to trust" the results and derive some sort of observation from it.

Safe or not... (3, Interesting)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235687)

I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.

I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.

That being said, the current state of the industry is pathetic. For instance, not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software. If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you're doing it wrong.

Re:Safe or not... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235813)

For me, the biggest problem with e-voting isn't the level of security you can achieve, it's the amount of damage someone can do once they're 'in'. Sure there's bits of fraud and error here and there with conventional ballots, but to guarantee a result requires a lot of suspicious activity. Right now even the military, DoD, etc... can't seem to keep hackers out all the time. Imagine what a back door to an election would be worth on the black market.

bits of fraud and error? (2, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236075)

You have got to be kidding.

Were you watching Minnesota in the last congressional election?

How many ballots have to be 'found' a week after the election to be more then a 'bit of fraud'?

Amazing how they 'found' just enough ballots for their chosen party to pull out the election.

Nothing matters unless they also fix the registration fraud problem anyway.

If you can 'vote early and often' it doesn't matter how you are voting.

Re:bits of fraud and error? (3, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236713)

Were you watching Minnesota in the last congressional election?

which is the entire point. You could watch it because physical ballot papers had to be found. If you are right that it was fraudulent, and I have no idea, then the fraudsters put themselves at a much greater risk. The ballot papers they added could have their genetic material or chemical contamination or many other signs of tampering. With an e-voting system there will be nothing to tell you that there was fraud and they won't have to wait until afterwards to know whether they need to "just add a few more fraudulent ballots". They'll add just enough to be safe (e.g. avoid a recount; avoid a suspicious miscount etc.).

Try not to think about what you could do to make a safe voting system. Instead think "how could I manipulate an e-voting system". When you think about it, you'll find lots of ways to do it for fun and profit. I recommend that everybody in the USA with the opportunity starts trying to fix ballots to go to third parties (even if you support the Republicrats or Democans). That will get e-voting off the agenda quicker than you can possibly imagine.

Re:bits of fraud and error? (2, Insightful)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236949)

What you describe is pretty small time, most of the time. Yes when an election is close you can game the system right now, but for most elections, ones where a candidate is ahead by at least a percentage point, fraud on that scale would be too damned obvious.

With internet voting, where a .01% change and a 1% change require the same amount of effort, swinging an election via fraud becomes much easier.

Re:Safe or not... (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235945)

The source code would have to be open before I would trust it.

Crypto behind e-voting has some similarities with e-cash. Its a really interesting topic.

Open source no pancea (2, Interesting)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236325)

And how do you know that the code running on the server is the same as the code that was opened for public review? How can you ever be sure that an "administrator" (or hacker) hasn't updated values in the database? There are too many possible problems, even running open source. There would need to be a bullet proof algorithm in place, and nobody has proposed one yet (that I've read, and I've looked). I'm willing to admit the possibility, but I think it is impossible.

Re:Open source no pancea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28237163)

You use one of the many verifiable voting schemes via homomorphic encryption. Then it doesn't matter if the actual machines are closed or open source--if it's not doing the right thing (intentionally or not), it will be detected.

Re:Safe or not... (4, Insightful)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236165)

I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.

Your physical security is also an issue.

If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.

But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.

How could you fix this "security hole" in the internet voting scheme?

Re:Safe or not... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236693)

Your physical security is also an issue.

If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.

But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.

How could you fix this "security hole" in the internet voting scheme?

Allow the user to change his vote until the poll closes. It may not be perfect but the mob has a set limited amount of resources and to make a large enough impact they must move on to other homes.

Is that even a legit concern? That sounds like more of a social problem than a technical issue.

Re:Safe or not... (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237049)

It's a social problem, yes, but one that historically people who think about voting in a free society have been concerned with. One way to subvert a nominally democratic system is to add social (or physical, or monetary) pressure to vote for or against someone; one way to make that harder is to make the voter unable to prove who they voted for, so they can just say "yeah I voted for you" and nobody can verify whether that's the case or not.

Re:Safe or not... (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237063)

Allow the user to change his vote until the poll closes. It may not be perfect but the mob has a set limited amount of resources and to make a large enough impact they must move on to other homes.

Is that even a legit concern? That sounds like more of a social problem than a technical issue.

That's a reaction to a symptom, and not a solution. Much more likely is that many controlling spouses will force their partners to vote a certain way. Or would vote for their elderly relatives. And yes, even though this is a social problem, it's not a new one. The privacy of the voting booth was designed to avoid exactly this issue.

In the US, where you can register with a party to get the right to vote, this is a problem, and I'm convinced that it would become FAR worse if people were allowed to vote from home.

Re:Safe or not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28237919)

What about absentee ballots? I've met dozens of people who use them simply because they're more convenient than going to a poll station, but they have the same security concerns brought up in this thread. If there's a way to protect absentee voters from coercion, maybe it would be effective for e-voting as well.

Re:Safe or not... (2, Funny)

Trivial_Zeros (1058508) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236739)

Simple. Have one of the questions be: "Is a member of the mafia standing behind you." Of course, since if a member of the mafia is standing behind them, they will be forced to reply "No", make sure that the answer is switched.

Vote selling is possible (2, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237099)

Last time I voted, I wasn't strip-searched for cameras.

Here's how Tony the Mobster buys your vote: you'll deliver to him a small video of you in the booth, with the ballot clearly made out as a vote for what he wants, and you exiting the booth putting the vote in the urn. The he won't shoot your kneecaps.

He'll probably even help you with a good enough covert camera if your cell phone will attract too much attention.

Anybody got an idea for how to limit this? Tony is a resourceful man, he can send goons to your polling station who'll observe you...

Re:Vote selling is possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28237423)

The last time I voted there wasn't a booth to go into. Ballots were handed out to people waiting in line in a big auditorium. We took them to an empty seat, filled them out, put them into a sealed envelope and turned them in on the way out.

Re:Vote selling is possible (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237929)

A bit too much overhead for just a single vote.

OTOH, getting a few thousands/millions computer infected so they vote they way they "should" is fairly trivial.

It's a bit like the copyright battle. It was no problem when physical media were involved. The overhead to copy a book is nontrivial, and usually it's cheaper to just buy the book. It's very different in the digital world.

Security isn't the question though... (4, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236173)

I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.

But security isn't the question. The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast. Whoever controls the system can make it report whatever results they want, and there's no way to tell if they are telling the truth or not. If your first thought is "well, make it open source," think again [bell-labs.com] .

I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.

The difference being that the banks (which run both ATMs and online banking sites) don't also control the money supply. If they did (e.g., if they could just create money the way the government does) we'd have a major problem. No matter how secure the process is, once it subsumes enough levels that you have know way of knowing if it's just reporting made-up numbers, you have a problem.

--MarkusQ

Re:Security isn't the question though... (1)

Strilanc (1077197) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236509)

Lack of imagination.

For example, consider a commit-or-verify scheme. After you cast a ballot you can either commit the ballot or verify that it was recorded correctly and repeat the process.

Check out VoteBox:
http://www.usenix.org/events/sec08/tech/full_papers/sandler/sandler_html/index.html [usenix.org]

Lack of paranoia (2, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237029)

Lack of imagination.

For example, consider a commit-or-verify scheme. After you cast a ballot you can either commit the ballot or verify that it was recorded correctly and repeat the process.

Phooey. For any such system you can devise, it would be possible to implement a "mock-up" system that appeared to use your clever safe, secure, and trustworthy system but in fact did not (to see this just consider the fact that any software solution could itself be simulated in software). This simulation could be presented to the user while the actual election was run by a guy in another city with a spreadsheet.

If the electronic system encompasses enough of the process and provides perfect anonymity there is no way to be certain that the results are coming from the process you designed and not from some clever simulation of it that looks the same but fudges the results.

-- MarkusQ

VoteBox (2, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237121)

Check out VoteBox:

http://www.usenix.org/events/sec08/tech/full_papers/sandler/sandler_html/index.html

The system you linked to has numerous obvious flaws for internet voting, even after skipping over the fact that it isn't intended for use in an unsupervised environment. For example, a compromised machine could simply delay transmission of a ballot it wished to tamper with until after the user had decided to challenge or cast it. Likewise, the central tabulator could still produce bogus results. And there appears to be nothing that would prevent the transmission of phantom ballots for voters who never showed up. And so on.

-- MarkusQ

Security can be had. (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237127)

But security isn't the question. The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast.

Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems [wikipedia.org]

What you might be saying (and what I'll claim) isn't that there is no secure way of implementing the currently implemented protocol. It's that it's the wrong protocol, since it's basically "1. Tell the vote-counter what your vote is; 2. trust the vote-counter to report the correct final tally."

There are ways to remove the trust requirement.

Re:Security can be had. (2, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237605)

What you might be saying (and what I'll claim) isn't that there is no secure way of implementing the currently implemented protocol. It's that it's the wrong protocol, since it's basically "1. Tell the vote-counter what your vote is; 2. trust the vote-counter to report the correct final tally."

Agreed. Specifically, the anonymity "requirement" means that you're left with nothing but trust, because ultimately you'll want to address problems of the form "These N people voted for X yet X only got N-1 votes" and you can't do that unless you have "These N people" to start with. Otherwise, as long as each candidate that anyone votes for is given at least one vote in the final tally, you're stuck with trust.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. Even that low standard has been failed, as in the case of the guy who objected because he officially got zero votes even though he had voted for himself.

Internet voting vulnerable at all ends (2, Interesting)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236265)

As others have already pointed out, it becomes impossible to verify that our elections officials are acting honestly. Some do; some don't; most have an unfounded trust in their employees/volunteers (to not assist in fraud). This is the big problem.

There are myriad other problems too. What happens if the polls are closed early by to a DDoS attack? How can you guarantee the server won't be hacked? (It happens to banks sometimes.) What about the machines people are voting from? If they're voting from home (and not a kiosk), you can tell your computer to vote for candidate A, your computer can tell you that you voted for candidate A, but the botnet virus on your machine may have voted on your behalf for candidate B.

We're miles away from free and fair elections, but Internet voting is the wrong direction to travel to get there.

Re:Safe or not... (1)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236479)

For instance, not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software. If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you're doing it wrong.

Must be running windows. I know people seem to assume linux is 100% safe, and while its not 100%, its way up there(much more secure than windows) as long as you don't have people downloading porno files that require root to run.

Re:Safe or not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236507)

There is very little difference between an ATM transaction and online banking. Both transmit over the Internet.

Re:Safe or not... (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237513)

The fundamental problem with voting is the requirement of anonymity. That blows away any hope of accountability. Your bank knows who you are, every time you swipe your card or key in your account number. The voting system does not.

Either we do away with voter anonymity, or we quit bitching and get used to our current unfixable system. There is no middle-ground, because you either apply absolute trust, or no trust at all.

Frankly, I think we should stop voting for a while, and let things be decided by coin toss. Statistically speaking, it's mathematically equal to the current voting system.

It is inherently impossible (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237891)

The caveat is that you would have to trust a machine that you cannot trust: The voter's computer.

You would have to send the voter a sealed machine that he MUST NOT BE ABLE to manipulate in ANY way. Not because he could manipulate it, but because it could be manipulated by someone else without the voter's ... but even that wouldn't make it secure... allow me to start at the beginning.

Internet voting suffers from the same problem that internet banking suffers: The (lack of) security on the side of the user. The core problem is that neither you nor the user could verify whether the data sent to you was manipulated or not because you only see what the machine sends you, the user only sees what his machine displays to him. If the machine is compromised, neither you nor the user has a way to detect this. Well, technically the user could, but let's assume the average user and consider him a computer illiterate who couldn't tell a modem from a toaster.

Running a "check" against the machine is pointless as well. You only communicate with the machine you want to check through a defined protocol which can be hijacked as well. It does increase the stakes and it does increase the overhead for a potential attacker, but the "prize" we're talking about is to determine the politics of a county, state or country. I'd say it's usually worth it!

So you could put a tamper-proof machine into your voter's hands. Ok, then the attack has to happen at the ISP level, a DNS cache poinsoning or a reroute through an attacker's machines can at least block the votes that he deems "unfavorable", depending on the protocol it may enable him to actually change votes.

Sorry to burst that bubble. But you can NOT make internet voting safe. And, personally, democracy is IMO too important to trust it to something like the internet. Or machines in general.

Recipe for pseudo democracy (3, Insightful)

LucidBeast (601749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235709)

If I ever start a dictatorship, first thing I do, is get everybody voting electronically.

Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235811)

Second thing - hookers and blackjack in the white house. On second thought, forget the dictatorship.

Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236055)

And the blackjack.

Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235979)

It's all about the candidates. If all of the options are all you then who cares if they use e-voting? It really doesn't matter. All the choices are for your team(s).

That's how I see this debate over e-voting. Until the two party system behind it is fixed it's really not going to matter. Paper ballots can be rigged easily, there is hardly any security. Oh you got a phone bill and a state ID? well that seems legit, step into the ballot booth Mr. Popadopolis.

Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236465)

paper vote fraud (usually) - O(n)

electronic vote fraud - O(1)

I agree that the two-party false-dichotomy is a bigger problem, but we can't deal with that in a vacuum. Electronic fraud is much easier to perpetrate (particularly when mixed with corruption). Paper fraud without corruption: much harder to do. (It does happen, and needs to be addressed, but it's not nearly as big a worry.)

Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237009)

"If I ever start a dictatorship, first thing I do, is get everybody voting electronically."

If I ever start a dictatorship, the first thing I do, is abolish voting alltogether and start a massive propaganda campaign. But that's just me.

Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237971)

But... but people like the idea that they have a choice. Even if it's just Pepsi or Coke, McDonalds or KFC, Reps or Dems, chair or injection. You have a CHOICE!

Sure, either is crappy and you ponder why choosing anyway, but nobody can complain they couldn't choose.

And if they still do, call them crybabies and professional malcontents.

He must mean "Is it secure?". (1)

woverly (223564) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235747)

Although there are limited data available, all indications are that Internet voting is not hazardous. So far it doesn't seem to be carcinogenic, nor has anyone become pregnant or contracted an STD by Internet voting.

We have to assume that if the Internet is secure enough for us to buy stuff, then it is secure enough for voting. Certainly far more effort will be spent to make transactions involving money secure than to make voting secure. From a practical standpoint, only close elections can be stolen anyway. If a close election is stolen, then approximately the same number of persons disagree with the result as if the election were not stolen, so what difference does it really make from the standpoint of quality of outcome?

Good enough isn't good enough here (3, Interesting)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236625)

We have to assume that if the Internet is secure enough for us to buy stuff, then it is secure enough for voting.

Not true, for several reasons. There are several additional security constraints on voting. For example, you cannot be allowed to prove how you voted. Therefore, you cannot receive feedback on how you voted. You can't "balance your checkbook", so to speak. They know this and can set the online balance to whatever they choose. That's without hacker involvement. Online purchases are actually much riskier than most people are willing to consider. "Identity theft" has skyrocketed, and compromising online purchases is one way that's done. Sure the transmission may be secure, but either the client or server may be compromised (and are, regularly). Banks have simply decided to live with a particular level of fraud. HTTPS is only a small part in the equation.

From a practical standpoint, only close elections can be stolen anyway.

Again, not true. The public only needs to belive that it was close. That's not too hard, really.

If a close election is stolen, then approximately the same number of persons disagree with the result as if the election were not stolen, so what difference does it really make from the standpoint of quality of outcome?

I see your point from a pragmatic point of view, but I disagree. I don't want to see people with power getting away with abusing us and grabing more power. It's the principle of the thing. Besides, we don't want to encourage corruption. Period.

Internet Voting (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235789)

There is a negative correlation between a knowledge of computer security and the desire to introduce Internet voting. The more you have of the first the less you want the second. If crackers can get into the Pentagon computers and when we find the plans of Marine Helicopter One in a Tehran coffee shop, then we should realize that getting into a domestic voting system to alter the results is trivial.
The voting machines are about the same security level as WEP.

Re:Internet Voting (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236433)

"Marine One" is a designation, not an aircraft model, but it's a Sikorsky H-60.

The plans for that helicopter are more "proprietary" than "secret." They are routinely provided to contractors who overhaul them, for a fee.

Re:Internet Voting (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236643)

You had a really good point about the negative correlation, but you lost it. Hacking the pentagon is not trivial. It's telling that it is possible. Regular voting machines are more secure than WEP, but that's not saying much. (Home PCs used for Internet voting would have less security than WEP on average, but that's another topic.)

Preaching to the choir (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237311)

Slash tends to be inhabited by techies who 'get it' but I'm thinking the same thing....

4chan
4chan
4chan
4chan
4chan ...

Can't wait until the first letters of the winners spell MUDKIPS!!

Re:Internet Voting (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238033)

That correlation is there, but personally I'd be wary of internet voting because of my experience with internet banking and how (easily) it is manipulated.

The point is, if you have only one channel to communicate with your communication partner, and this channel is not under your or your partner's control, neither you nor him can verify whether the data you sent is actually from you or whether it was manipulated on the way.

And example:

About 2 years ago, I had a fairly interesting piece of malware on my table that altered your online banking transactions on the fly. It downloaded the necessary information from its attack server and sat there waiting for you to make your next transaction. When you sent 100 bucks to Joe, it sent to the bank that you want to send 10k bucks to Igor. The bank confirmed those 10k bucks to Igor and asked for your confirmation key. The malware displayed to the user that 100 bucks were to be sent to Joe and asked the user for the confirmation. The user confirmed, the malware forwarded the key to the bank, and 10k bucks were transfered, even though the user thought he was sending just 100 bucks, and also to someone else.

The bank, despite having good IT security key personnell, cannot in any way determine whether the transaction was what the user intended to do. The user, otoh, is no computer expert and thus believes what his machine tells him.

So while electronic voting may be a security problem due to a possible manipulation from the voting machines' manufacturer or others tampering with them, online voting is at a far bigger risk of manipulation because anyone, not just someone "in the loop" could pull off a large scale election fraud.

Let the computers count the votes (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235795)

Starting one day after computers are granted the right to vote.

Until then let's have people do it. If it's not important enough of an issue for some people to take the time to even count the votes, it's not important enough to put to a vote.

Scary? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235815)

So far, 32% responding actually think that internet voting is worth it, risks and all. It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable."

So you're saying that an internet poll (something that's guaranteed to have a bias towards everything internet) has a strong majority of people agreeing that internet voting is not worth it, and the conclusion you reach is that "[it's] scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable?" The numbers seem to suggest that it actually isn't all that easy to persuade people to trust such a system.

Re:Scary? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238047)

I'm about pro-internet as anyone may be. Freedom in the internet and all that.

I'm about as anti-evoting as anyone may be as well. It's too important to rely on machines for that.

Could be that my background in IT security plays a role. But I think anyone who ponders for a moment could see why it's a good idea to use a medium for voting that anyone with seeing eyes and a halfway decent IQ can verify and test for manipulation.

why not? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235853)

Done right, done well (Bruce Schneier outlines a secure voting system in Applied Cryptography), it's essentially the same thing as a mail-in ballot.

Right now computerized voting is a disaster, but it doesn't really *have* to be that way. Given the proper legal underpinnings, enforcing standards that have been created by a group of genuine experts (ie, not lobbyists), sure. On the other hand, traditional voting ain't broke. It takes a matter of hours to get a result in all but the closest elections. The current/old system works just fine, and if more money is spent, it should be on election monitors and the like, to enforce fair voting and fair counting.

Re:why not? (2, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236033)

Yes, but that requires us to believe that the government will implement digital security right and well. I agree with the statement that is can be done right, but I vote the other way because of the chance that it actually will be done right. Besides, the failure mode of bad internet security is worse than the failure mode of bad physical security imho. There are always people around for physical voting, which itself is a security measure. It's not a foolproof one, but the wrong internet voting system will provide a greater opportunity, both in ease and magnitude of cheating, than physical voting.

Re:why not? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238065)

You can't do it right and you can't do it well. That's the problem here.

You would have to trust a machine that cannot be trusted because nobody who is able to check it for manipulation would do it. How the heck should this be done "right and/or well"?

Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough? (1)

ldconfig (1339877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235879)

Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough? ... Thats a trick question lmao its gotta be hahahahahahahahahaha

Radical transparency? (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235899)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency [wikipedia.org]

With things like 'registered republican' or 'registered democrat' in place, I see no problem with this.. Majority of people that do vote also do not cover their political views anyway, so do we really need anonymous voting ? E-voting or not, this is the only way for voting to be accountable and truly verifiable.

Re:Radical transparency? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235929)

So because people are partisan morons, I have to disclose my vote (note that I vote and am not a registered anything)?

Work in a union shop? (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236013)

You better have voted correctly or you're going to get your legs broken.

Yes we need a secret ballot.

If you are fool enough to trust unions substitute employer, same answer.

Re:Radical transparency? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238101)

I don't know where you are from, but allow me a little story from my country.

In my country, certain parties have certain influence. For example, if you want to work on the railroads, you better be a party member of the socialists. Why? Because. OF COURSE it is no requirement to be one to get a job there, but strangely, socialists are usually far, far more qualified for the jobs... odd, and of course a coincicence...

For large industrial companies, at least if you want a job that doesn't break your back for 1000 a month, the people's party is more the one you should be a member of. OF COURSE it is by no means a requirement, but strangely, their members are usually more qualified... you get the idea.

Now, how many of those do you think are "truely" socialists? Or supporters of a christian-conservative party? And how many are just a member to get the "right" job?

And how many do you think would support the idea of "public" voting?

Maybe convenience is the stronger factor (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235919)

I have a feeling that the voters think its worth it risks and all because they wont have to leave their desk to vote. Safety comes into conflict with convenience here.

Yup (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28235971)

Because our Diebold machines are so accurate...

Not much different than mail in ballots (5, Informative)

Kurt Granroth (9052) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235981)

Whereas "true" Internet voting is a phenomenally bad idea (when implemented in a way that's acceptable to the majority of voters), the Arizona system isn't really Internet voting. It's more "absentee ballots" that use the Internet as the delivery mechanism rather than the normal postal system.

Mail-in ballots are extremely common in Arizona ever since they changed the "absentee balloting" system into a more generic "everybody can use it" system. For instance, I have a ballot automatically mailed to be before every election, no matter how big or small, without me having to do anything but sign up a couple years ago. It's very slick.

The ballot is a normal paper one exactly like those found in the polling place. I fill it out by completing arrows pointing to my choice (easy and not even remotely ambiguous) then put it in a specially coded envelope that I sign and mail in. On the other end, a poll worker opens the envelope, marks that I voted (to prevent multiple votes), saves off my signature, and puts the ballot through the normal recording devices to record my vote. The voter lists in my local polling place have me marked as "mail in" so if I were to drop by on election day, they would accept my ballot but it would only be counted after all other ballots are counted and they can verify that I hadn't already voted.

It's extremely convenient and has made the difference between voting only in the major elections to voting in all of them (and learning a lot more about local candidates in the process). The drawback is that I have to trust that my vote isn't tied with my name. See, when you are at a polling station, then they record that you voted, but your actual ballot isn't in any way tied to you. With the mail-in process, it's possible that that is still the case (maybe the person/system opening the envelopes isn't the one recording the votes)... but you can't know for sure. For all I know, they may have a database mapping people with who they vote for. Honestly, that doesn't bother me at this point. I am pretty vocal about who I vote for and have even publicly posting my voting lists for the world to see before. I guess I would stop the mail-in only if I had reason to believe that my vote wasn't being counted.

Anyway, that's the mail-in system. The "Internet voting" system is effectively that but for people overseas. That option was never available for me since I'm local. The only difference is that instead of putting their ballot into an envelope and signing that, they instead scan it in and upload it to a server. Everything else is identical.

The article does make a few good points on some ways that that system could be subverted. Yeah, there are definitely a few more attack points... but they seem a little far fetched at this point. The level of effort required to implement any of the attack vectors would only be worth it if done at a bigger scale. That is, if this started being available to ALL AZ residents, then it starts to matter. For now... meh.

Re:Not much different than mail in ballots (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236223)

The flaw of mail-in voting is it's not secret. Your spouse, priest, employer -- name-power-trip-here -- can make sure you are voting "right". Only the booth secures that it is your own private decision.

Re:Not much different than mail in ballots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236257)

So what, they steal your mail?

Just drop it off in a postal office mailbox or something if you're that worried about it.

Trust the mail system & trust the person counting your votes. If you don't have digital voting already you're already doing the latter and the mail system, well, if it were to tamper, youd think it would tamper before you get the ballot anyway.

Re:Not much different than mail in ballots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236553)

Person in Power (boss, abusive spouse, parent, whatever): "Just sign the envelope verifying you voted and leave your ballot here with me. I'll take care of it for you"

You do want your job/promotion/raise and/or don't want to be roughed up/kicked out of the house/etc, right? There are a lot of people out there, certainly enough to swing an election a few points, that feel powerless in such a situation and WILL capitulate. Putting them in a ballot booth alone removes their abuser's ability to force them the way the abuser wants.

Re:Not much different than mail in ballots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236603)

If my employer or priest (I'm not religious) tried to coerce me into voting a certain way, I would tell them to fuck off. Also, mail-in or Internet voting provide a convenience to voters if preferred. I don't think they will ever get rid of the voting booth.

Re:Not much different than mail in ballots (1)

jchernia (590097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236853)

The counter-strategy is if you are being intimidated by priest/employer, you go to the cops. They interview a bunch of people at the church/company in private and if they corroborate your story, priest/employer goes to jail. Nothing you can do about spouses though.

I even wonder about that anymore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28237033)

...about the secret ballot in the voting booth. It used to be years ago surveillance cameras were rather large and obvious..now...I doubt you'd even see one hidden on the wall behind your secure little cubbyhole stand they provide, or the ceiling overhead. Even if they couldn't get a secure shot of the vote, they could combine your face and persona with an additional TEMPEST rig type thing that was recording the tallies remotely in the next room to be relayed further, etc, and just matching the timestamps then.

Of course, I don't think that is happening much at all (yet), although I would bet there are a few cameras out there in various polling places...

With that said, I don't think the e-vote fraud goes on much at the client/individual voting booth level, it is one step upstream where the tallies occur on that computer, the one hardly anyone ever looks at or thinks about. They want you fixated on YOUR vote being allegedly secure, when the GROSS VOTE COUNTING is the place where big swings could be introduced with far fewer problems or risks to them of being found out.

Re:Not much different than mail in ballots (1)

letsief (1053922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236813)

How is Arizona's system not susceptible to the same attacks as the more traditional notion of Internet voting systems? You still have problems with having to trust that the software on the election server isn't changing votes. You still have to hope voters aren't being tricked into going to a phishing website and giving up their voting credential- their signature. You still have to worry about malicious code on voters' computers. You still have to worry about denial-of-service attacks. So, what exactly is significantly safer about this type of Internet voting system?

Plus, this system still just relies on comparing voters' signatures for voter authentication. Do you really think the election officials and poll workers verifying these signatures are experts in signature verification? At least with Internet voting there's an opportunity to do stronger, more automated authentication, but this completely avoids that.

The alternative isn't safe, either (1)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235993)

The last few Federal elections in the USA have revealed significant voting machine flaws (both mechanical and electronic) anyway. Actually, I'm bewildered that the gov't doesn't hire professional designers to clearly lay out printed and electronic ballots. The ones I've seen look like they were designed by the sort of person who self-publishes a conspiracy theory newsletter.

The bad thing is work can fource you to vote there (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236015)

The bad thing is work can force you to vote there way my makeing you vote at work while they see the why that you are voting.

Re:The bad thing is work can fource you to vote th (1)

billybob_jcv (967047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236401)

Yeah right - I'm sure that wouldn't end up on the news...

Re:The bad thing is work can fource you to vote th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236461)

No, it is illegal to stop someone from going to a polling place to vote if you're an employer, this includes holding it against them or firing them for it. All you can do is refuse to pay them for time spent doing it. Same with if you volunteer to be a poll worker, it's like jury duty...

Re:The bad thing is work can fource you to vote th (1)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236665)

Marble Cake Also The Game

This is going to sound horrible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236211)

...but I haven't voted in the last 3 elections because I simply can't/don't'/won't stand in line at a local elementary school/post office/whatever to cast a ballot. It's time away from work or my family - and I honestly feel like I'm part of the country where my vote doesn't matter (thanks EC).

If I could do my polling online, I would be voting every time, and probably paying more attention to the elections because people like me could vote. Even if I had been blue or red in the last 20 elections, I still wouldn't feel that manually voting was such a waste of time...maybe there's more people like me.

On the flipside, this also opens the gates to shitholes on the internet like 4chan amassing armies to vote for Rick Astley.

Re:This is going to sound horrible... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237197)

people like me could vote

People like you can vote, you just choose not to.

You probably wouldn't vote if they made it real easy. Its just apathy, there is no cure for that.

Secure compared to what? (1)

PatMcGee (710105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236221)

From my reading of the description, the system that Arizona has isn't all that much more insecure than the paper system they have. There are a very few more ways to attack it, but I think that to perpetrate a major attack, it would be easier to make the attack on the paper side. Given that, I think the electronic system is "secure enough", at least until they make the paper system more secure.

The problem is TV News (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236319)

If the US had "proper" laws controlling the press, this might not be a problem. If TV News had a shred of ethics, this might not be a problem. Neither is the case, so we are faced with a very difficult situation.

The TV News is going to announce a winner before everyone goes to bed. In the case of national elections, this pretty much means midnight Eastern time. They have to do this or they lose relevence and people won't bother watching their election coverage. This then directly affects ratings and they lose money. Big money, on the order of millions of dollars. It is also the case in the US that if Station A doesn't announce a winner then Station B will. No getting away from it.

So we can either have made-up results that are based on exit polls, surveys and trends or we can have official results. One way or the other, there will be results. In 2000 Al Gore was announced the winner a few minutes before midnight by CBS. Nobody else went along with it. However, everyone watching CBS who went to be before the 2:00 AM retraction was convinced the next morning that Bush stole the election right out from under Gore.

Can you imagine if CBS had announced McCain the winner at midnight only to retract it later? What about in 2012? Can we have TV News announcing unofficial winners of national elections? Why is it in the US we are doing this when other countries can take a couple of weeks to announce a winner? No, I don't think the US is going to change and I do not think we are going to get laws passed to prevent news organizations from announcing unofficial results. And there is no way the TV News people are just going to wake up and decide that it might be unethical to announce a winner prematurely.

So we better have quick official results. Official. Binding. Maybe not 100% accurate, but quick. This is one of those cases where there needs to be an answer, a final answer, right away. Doesn't have to be the perfect answer, but it does have to be final.

Speaking as a citizen of Arizona (2, Insightful)

CrosseyedPainless (27978) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236415)

Any change, technological or otherwise, that reduces the influence of the idiots in this state can only be a good thing. Sweet merciful Christ, just look at our senators, our representatives... Napolitano is the first governor in decades that didn't end her term in disgrace or prison, and she gets promoted out-of-state. McCain is our sane senator.

Re:Speaking as a citizen of Arizona (1)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238019)

Unfortunately, you're right... all you have to mention is gays, abortions and illegals in this state and you get people to vote for extreme far-right candidates... :(

Easily secured (1)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236455)

Poulsen's avenue of attack is discussed as if it were an intractable problem of Internet voting. Really, Arizona could defeat this attack with a simple addition to the process: require an additional mailed copy of the ballot. Compare the physical copy with the electronic copy. If anyone's differs significantly, you know there's someone trying to rig the election. As an added bonus, you have a trail for the FBI to follow in determining who's going to spend some quality time in a small room.

Re:Easily secured (1)

letsief (1053922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236699)

If you're going to make everyone mail in a paper ballot, why even bother with the electronic ballot?

PKI is the simple answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28236493)

If every vote were digitally signed, internet voting would be secure. Yes, there would need to be added privacy protections, similar to HIPPA for medical records, to prevent the aggregation of one's voting history, but it would certainly be secure. The simple fact is that it's not *internet voting* that is difficult to secure, it is *anonymous internet voting* that is impossible to secure. People who wish to vote via paper should be able to continue to do so, but if on the internet persons should simply register a X.509 Public Key with their local government to use to validate votes signed with the corresponding Private Key. I for one would welcome internet voting, even at the price of risking my voting history being tracked, because it would INCREASE the voice of the people and DECREASE the voice of corporations and the politicians those corporations support through contributions.

Frankly, the loss of power by the "gatekeepers" of democracy -- political parties and elected politicians -- is the primary reason internet voting will not ever become possible. All the gatekeepers have a strong interest in keeping the cost of consulting the citizens as high as possible. More's the pity.

Re:PKI is the simple answer (1)

letsief (1053922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236745)

Digital signatures only deal with a very, very, small part of the security issues with Internet voting- authentication. The problem with Internet voting is what happens on the client-side. Is malicious code on voters' computers switching votes? Are voters being tricked to going to phishing sites performing some sort of man-in-the-middle attack? Are voters just selling their private keys to the highest bidders?

There are solutions for dealing with privacy in Internet voting systems. Look up blind signatures to get one idea. But, no one really knows how to deal with the client-side security problems. And, even if you could, you still basically end up with a glorified DRE that you can't effectively audit.

MARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME (0, Offtopic)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28236779)

Someone tag it marblecakealsothegame [musicmachinery.com] . Not saying that Arizona's voting system would be even remotely as exploitable as Time's.

A democracy cannot exist... (1)

Paleolibertarian (930578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237295)

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

                    From bondage to spiritual faith;
                    From spiritual faith to great courage;
                    From courage to liberty;
                    From liberty to abundance;
                    From abundance to selfishness;
                    From selfishness to complacency;
                    From complacency to apathy;
                    From apathy to dependency;
                    From dependency back into bondage.

                                                        Alexander Fraser Tytler - 1805

So where in that cycle do you think we are now?

Edwin

You teach us, Anon. You teach us all. (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237335)

Well, when moot is elected president in 2012 or something, I guess we'll know if it's safe or not.

Re:You teach us, Anon. You teach us all. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238125)

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I mean, be honest, wouldn't it be fun? It's not like it matters, anyway.

As it turns out -- it's not (1)

[Zappo] (68222) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237589)

I've been answering this question since I did my master's work on the subject 10 years ago. I commented in particular on an Arizona e-primary trial at one point.

As low-tech as it seems, there really are some useful properties of paper-based systems that seem hard to achieve when the physical tokens are removed.

Here are some recent and not-so-recent posts:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6507&cid=940549 [slashdot.org] Re:Hrmph. Voting unsafe? July 12th, 2000
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27682&cid=2975240 [slashdot.org] Re:All the arguments against online elections *02:06 PM February 8th, 2002
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53211&cid=5263219 [slashdot.org] Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg *05:17 AM February 9th, 2003
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&cid=6434503 [slashdot.org] Re:There is always a Way *12:06 PM July 14th, 2003
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77420&cid=6901725 [slashdot.org] Re:Why not use digital cash-like protocols? *01:49 PM September 8th, 2003
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605423&cid=24086593 [slashdot.org] Re:The problem *01:56 PM July 7th, 2008

Finally, I recently had a several post long discussion with a fellow slashdotter underneath this May 29 2009 post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1249937&cid=28144379 [slashdot.org]

Perfect! (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 5 years ago | (#28237935)

I live in California, and we have electronic voting provided by Diebold. I can tell you that it works perfectly here!

Everyone votes, and a Republican or Democrat wins every time. I'm pretty sure that means democracy.

Technology isn't the issue (1)

igb (28052) | more than 5 years ago | (#28238121)

A hundred comments and no-one seems to have mentioned the problem we're seeing in the UK with postal votes: `heads of family' or even `community leaders' using it as an excuse for block voting. Postal voting was made available on demand, rather than requiring a reason, in the UK a few years ago, with the best of intentions. What's happened now is that oppressive fathers, oppressive husbands and in some cases soi-disant `community leaders' are able to force people to apply for a postal vote (or simply apply for a postal vote in their name and rely on their not complaining) and use it themselves. Internet voting has precisely the same problem: I can take my partner's vote, or my children's vote, and use it. We're now seeing horrendous corruption in certain parts of the country --- decency forbids me from saying where, but let's just say ``Inner city areas where every third shops is a sweet centre''.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...