6 ms·

I think you could do some secure voting software if all your citizens had a secure two factor signature and you used block chain. I'm not sure why you would do

I think you could do some secure voting software if all your citizens had a secure two factor signature and you used block chain. I'm not sure why you would do it in a non-corrupt country though.

beat 9y ago
Why do something simple, when we can do something complicated instead?
- eksemplar 9y ago
  Well if your country is doing digital elections without citizen signatures and block chain, then chances are you live in a corrupt country. :p
  - pgeorgi 9y ago
    The point is to do pen&paper elections instead. It's the ultimate "open source" solution since everybody who can hold a crayon in the right direction can participate in the verification of the process.
    - eksemplar 9y ago
      The problem with pen and paper elections is that they rely on honest counting. It's true that it's easier to manipulate a terrible digital system but that doesn't mean pen and paper is safe. Block chain technology would offer an open record that couldn't be manipulated, something paper does not. I mean, I live in Denmark, one of the least corrupt countries in the world and we've had politicians caught changing votes with a pencil and an eraser during the count.
      - beat 9y ago
        In Minnesota, honest counting is enforced by process. Any ballot handling, whether marked or unmarked, requires the presence of members of at least two different parties. At no point is a single person (or group from just one party) ever left alone with ballots. We've had two full-on hand recounts at the state level in the past decade or so, and the final results where within a few hundred from the original count in each case, with three million votes cast. Good process solves a lot of problems.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
No, you can't. Elections as completely unlike any other scenario that you might be trying to secure. Two-factor auth is of no use for elections.
- eksemplar 9y ago
  I live in Denmark where we have a digital identity called "nenId". It's the safest form of citizen identification we've ever had and it would be immensely more safe for elections than our current system of sending out paper cards to be traded in for a vote. On top of that the block chain could offer us a record that couldn't be manipulated. Sure we don't have a lot of problems with voter fraud in our current system, but that doesn't mean it's not extremely vulnerable because it relies on honest counting.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    There is no such thing as "safest form" of anything. You have to consider what threats you are trying to defend against. The threats that you have to defend elections against are completely different than anything else. In particular, elections have to defend against a government that tries to stay in power. A centralized form of identification can be the most dangerous thing for an election ever.
3pt14159 9y ago
And how do you prove that all of those citizens exist? We have a secure, provable, relatively cheap method right now: Paper ballots and public observers at elections. Compared to the stakes the cost is peanuts.
- blackkettle 9y ago
  Exactly, and the simple, physically decentralized, distributed, and somewhat resource/time intensive aspects of paper-based balloting are all great checks against easy attacks. The fact that virtually anyone both capable and eligible to vote is also capable of understanding the voting process, as well as what kinds of physical acts are signs of fraud means that many more people can evaluate the process, and determine - even just by looking - whether something fishy is going on at their voting station. Your average voter will be easily convinced that he "doesn't know enough to judge" whether something is fishy with his voting machine, even if something seems to be clearly malfunctioning; "oh don't worry sir, the print out might be wrong, but your vote was definitely counted correctly internally". The rise of any form of electronic voting is really troubling - and don't even get started on anonymity concerns...
- eksemplar 9y ago
  I live in Denmark, every citizen has a social security number and we all have access to a digital identification method called "nemID". It's basically a login that's tied to a piece of paper containing a hash table of numbers you use for two factoring. It's the safest citizen verification system we've ever had and it's basically used for any for of identification in the digital world from banking to using our public sector. Our government as an example used it to send digital mail to everyone in a secure mailbox called "eBoks" saving us billions in not sending paper (and bankrupting our postal service as a side effect). We still use paper ballots for elections but it's frankly easier to fake an identity using those than if you were to sign in with "nemId". Today all you need to be allowed to vote is the paper you received and the right sex/age range. So basically I could vote for my brother if I obtained his ballot. With NemId I'd need his username/password as well as his keycard. Obviously you'd have to anonymize it, but some digital systems being broken doesn't mean they all are or that our current system is that great. I've observed elections in the balkans, and they sure aren't safe or democratic despite being done they way you prefer, because it's so easy to exploit if you manipulate the paper trail.
5trokerac3 9y ago
There is no such thing as a non-corrupt country.

I think you could do some secure voting software if all your citizens had a secure two factor signature and you used block chain. I'm not sure why you would do it in a non-corrupt country though.

beat 9y ago

Why do something simple, when we can do something complicated instead?

eksemplar 9y ago
Well if your country is doing digital elections without citizen signatures and block chain, then chances are you live in a corrupt country. :p
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  The point is to do pen&paper elections instead. It's the ultimate "open source" solution since everybody who can hold a crayon in the right direction can participate in the verification of the process.
  - eksemplar 9y ago
    The problem with pen and paper elections is that they rely on honest counting. It's true that it's easier to manipulate a terrible digital system but that doesn't mean pen and paper is safe. Block chain technology would offer an open record that couldn't be manipulated, something paper does not. I mean, I live in Denmark, one of the least corrupt countries in the world and we've had politicians caught changing votes with a pencil and an eraser during the count.
    - beat 9y ago
      In Minnesota, honest counting is enforced by process. Any ballot handling, whether marked or unmarked, requires the presence of members of at least two different parties. At no point is a single person (or group from just one party) ever left alone with ballots. We've had two full-on hand recounts at the state level in the past decade or so, and the final results where within a few hundred from the original count in each case, with three million votes cast. Good process solves a lot of problems.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

No, you can't. Elections as completely unlike any other scenario that you might be trying to secure. Two-factor auth is of no use for elections.

eksemplar 9y ago
I live in Denmark where we have a digital identity called "nenId". It's the safest form of citizen identification we've ever had and it would be immensely more safe for elections than our current system of sending out paper cards to be traded in for a vote. On top of that the block chain could offer us a record that couldn't be manipulated. Sure we don't have a lot of problems with voter fraud in our current system, but that doesn't mean it's not extremely vulnerable because it relies on honest counting.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  There is no such thing as "safest form" of anything. You have to consider what threats you are trying to defend against. The threats that you have to defend elections against are completely different than anything else. In particular, elections have to defend against a government that tries to stay in power. A centralized form of identification can be the most dangerous thing for an election ever.

3pt14159 9y ago

And how do you prove that all of those citizens exist? We have a secure, provable, relatively cheap method right now: Paper ballots and public observers at elections. Compared to the stakes the cost is peanuts.

blackkettle 9y ago
Exactly, and the simple, physically decentralized, distributed, and somewhat resource/time intensive aspects of paper-based balloting are all great checks against easy attacks. The fact that virtually anyone both capable and eligible to vote is also capable of understanding the voting process, as well as what kinds of physical acts are signs of fraud means that many more people can evaluate the process, and determine - even just by looking - whether something fishy is going on at their voting station. Your average voter will be easily convinced that he "doesn't know enough to judge" whether something is fishy with his voting machine, even if something seems to be clearly malfunctioning; "oh don't worry sir, the print out might be wrong, but your vote was definitely counted correctly internally". The rise of any form of electronic voting is really troubling - and don't even get started on anonymity concerns...
eksemplar 9y ago
I live in Denmark, every citizen has a social security number and we all have access to a digital identification method called "nemID". It's basically a login that's tied to a piece of paper containing a hash table of numbers you use for two factoring. It's the safest citizen verification system we've ever had and it's basically used for any for of identification in the digital world from banking to using our public sector. Our government as an example used it to send digital mail to everyone in a secure mailbox called "eBoks" saving us billions in not sending paper (and bankrupting our postal service as a side effect). We still use paper ballots for elections but it's frankly easier to fake an identity using those than if you were to sign in with "nemId". Today all you need to be allowed to vote is the paper you received and the right sex/age range. So basically I could vote for my brother if I obtained his ballot. With NemId I'd need his username/password as well as his keycard. Obviously you'd have to anonymize it, but some digital systems being broken doesn't mean they all are or that our current system is that great. I've observed elections in the balkans, and they sure aren't safe or democratic despite being done they way you prefer, because it's so easy to exploit if you manipulate the paper trail.

5trokerac3 9y ago

There is no such thing as a non-corrupt country.