3 ms·

It does. The article says that you can always cancel your vote later. So vote pro-flowers in front of husband, and then change your vote on your cellphone or i

by nixos 10y ago

It does. The article says that you can always cancel your vote later. So vote pro-flowers in front of husband, and then change your vote on your cellphone or in the library

petertodd 10y ago
That just shifts the problem, and encourages pretty awful behavior like abduction.
- ebalit 10y ago
  No need for abduction, they just need to hold on to the ID to prevent revoting.
  - akytt 10y ago
    So basically like buying votes on paper? You force someone either not to vote or vote in a specific way by restricting access to their id. See, as the paper ballot trumps the electronic voting, all the attack vectors end up being about controlling the physical voting. Which is the exact problem with voting right now everywhere. Also, if you are already capable of doing this, why not take everything the person has? The digital signature is equivalent to the physical one so all non-notaried transactions you can execute exactly as voting. To my knowledge there has been exactly zero cases of forceful id extraction in the past 15 years. Basically, if you can significantly influence the voting outcome, you can significantly alter the financial wellbeing of the society. Which is, yes, a risk but would be more desirable for an attacker.
    - ebalit 10y ago
      You can't buy votes on paper because you need to be alone in the voting booth. You could disable people to vote, but not force them to vote as you want. As for the value of digital signature, I don't think it's legally equivalent to the physical signature, at least in my country. I've yet to see any administration accepting a digital signature.
tyre 10y ago
Same problem. There has to be some deadline, so if you want to ensure compliance than you wait until the last minute and watch them until expiration.
- nixos 10y ago
  You can also vote in advance (in person), which overrides the e-vote
gaur 10y ago
> It does. I read through your parent comment and could not find any sentence for which the response "it does" makes sense. (Maybe the parent comment was edited?)

by nixos 10y ago

It does. The article says that you can always cancel your vote later. So vote pro-flowers in front of husband, and then change your vote on your cellphone or in the library

petertodd 10y ago

That just shifts the problem, and encourages pretty awful behavior like abduction.

ebalit 10y ago
No need for abduction, they just need to hold on to the ID to prevent revoting.
- akytt 10y ago
  So basically like buying votes on paper? You force someone either not to vote or vote in a specific way by restricting access to their id. See, as the paper ballot trumps the electronic voting, all the attack vectors end up being about controlling the physical voting. Which is the exact problem with voting right now everywhere. Also, if you are already capable of doing this, why not take everything the person has? The digital signature is equivalent to the physical one so all non-notaried transactions you can execute exactly as voting. To my knowledge there has been exactly zero cases of forceful id extraction in the past 15 years. Basically, if you can significantly influence the voting outcome, you can significantly alter the financial wellbeing of the society. Which is, yes, a risk but would be more desirable for an attacker.
  - ebalit 10y ago
    You can't buy votes on paper because you need to be alone in the voting booth. You could disable people to vote, but not force them to vote as you want. As for the value of digital signature, I don't think it's legally equivalent to the physical signature, at least in my country. I've yet to see any administration accepting a digital signature.

tyre 10y ago

Same problem. There has to be some deadline, so if you want to ensure compliance than you wait until the last minute and watch them until expiration.

nixos 10y ago
You can also vote in advance (in person), which overrides the e-vote

gaur 10y ago

> It does. I read through your parent comment and could not find any sentence for which the response "it does" makes sense. (Maybe the parent comment was edited?)