15 ms·
Voting system to be used in West Virginia elections is vulnerable
- ruseOps 8y agoAnd are we sure it’s not voat.co? Either way, I’m not surprised.
- iamdave 8y agoAre we sure? Did you read the thread? Or is my sarcasm meter broken this morning? reaches for another coffee
- jessaustin 8y agoIt is definitely a marketing issue that they have basically the same name as that site.
- dangoor 8y agoAs noted later in the thread, this is specifically for people who are overseas at the time of the election and not broadly. That said, this system seems like a bizarre choice given the apparent security issues discussed in the thread.
- everdev 8y agoWhile I'm not into conspiracy theories, I find it strange that for years people were raising alarm bells about vulnerable voting machines and demonstrating how they could change vote totals. In the last presidential election, Trump was a huge underdog and won key counties and states by small numbers (but just enough to avoid a recount). If you were going to rig an election it might look like that. Also it's more than likely that everything was legit and there votes were accurate. But I'm surprised that voting security advocates weren't raising alarm bells or trying to investigate more. We're there no concerns about the machines used in swing states in '16?
- metajack 8y agoWhen did voting security advocates stop raising alarm bells exactly? I think people just stopped listening.
- everdev 8y agoI guess I was surprised when there was a huge chorus of "no one is saying the vote was compromised" the day after the '16 election. I would have thought that the way there election went down with multiple narrow state wins just above the recount level would have had at least some people wanting to take a second look.
- s3m4j 8y agoThere were concerns, there has been several inquiries into it, right after the vote happened. And it's been known for has long as democracy that we shouldn't mechanize voting. That video is from 2014 well before the 2016 US election was a thing : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI edit : interesting how in the recent comments under this video there's cryptoblockchain enthusiasts who have completely missed the point about lack of trust.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 8y agoI'm not sure where you're going with this; the same small number of people have been complaining about poor vote security of these machines for years. It just got drowned in all the other noise of the election.
- jessaustin 8y agoThe best possible result of all the current furor would be a critical examination of voting machines that was actually visible to the general public. Anyone who cares already knows that there are major problems. The general public seems distracted from the issue.
- throwawaymanbot 8y agoVulnerable... which suits one party perfectly. When will we classify said political party a national security threat?
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoThis sounds like that someone/group needs to make very obvious invalidating changes to this. Of course, you'd be tampering with federal systems... But take your pick: secret plausible tampering vs 'Votey McVoteface' and 'Iluv Dems' combined with 100m votes in a state with 8m people
- kartan 8y agoAn automated voting system is very efficient. You only need one person to change all the votes... A good thing about so much people involved in voting is that is harder to cheat. Even an state agent like Russia can influence elections only so much. It was very effective because it just needed to change a few percentage points to tip the balance. The bi-partisan system, gerrymandering and sub-standard education makes democracy fragile. Automated voting systems are much more dangerous. > "It's internet voting on people's horribly secured devices, over our horrible networks, to servers that are very difficult to secure without a physical paper record of the vote." This is a good summary of a few of the problems.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ataturk 8y agoJust to be clear: There has never been any real evidence put forth that Russia tampered with the US elections in any direct manner. They had some bots of Facebook that attempted to sway public opinion, and that's about it. Whether they had individual agents placed as poll workers have never been proven. My own take is that there is corruption in the US voting system and that major cities have some badly corrupted districts that could be fixed if we wanted to: Voter ID, limit absentee ballots, and place neutral observers from outside the county. It's not a matter of being able to fix the problem, it is a matter of will because voter fraud is institutional.
- silverbax88 8y agoThere was never any real evidence they didn't tamper with the elections, either. No forensics on voting machines; no recounts; no risk limiting audits in the target areas.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- colemannugent 8y ago
- api 8y agoWait it's called what? Sounds very professional. Sounds like the system I want counting my votes. Maybe they won out over v0tr.io and Votester?
- rcpt 8y agoNever heard of voatz before. AIUI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Voting is the closest we have to working electronic voting.
- waddlesworth 8y agoHelios works pretty well, and I believe is in actual use for some college elections with people trying to break it. I'm curious to see an implementation of a variant called 'BeleniosRF'[1], which adds the requirement that voting be receipt-free (RF) [1]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/629.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/629.pdf
- microcolonel 8y agoSeems to me that voter IDs should be based on PKI, and the rolls should be self-published under a per-voter key.
- AlexCoventry 8y agoNot enough voters would handle their keys securely. Maybe if every voter was given some kind of hardware which could sign their votes offline. That's a big, risky, upfront expense, though.
- tonysdg 8y agoStill wouldn't work probably -- think of how many times the average person misplaces their car keys in a given year. Now give them a piece of hardware, that they're only going to use every 2 years (which is a stretch given Americans' voting patterns, so realistically it's every 4 years if ever), and tell them to (1) keep it safe and (2) remember where they put it.
- 0x0 8y agoThat would enable people to prove what they have voted, which in turn enables vote-selling and/or for the head of the family to force other family members to vote a certain way.
- 3pt14159 8y agoIf there is one thing I fail to understand it is the impulse to electronic-ify our elections. Why? Do we have a history of securing computers and keeping them secure over time? No. Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons? No. Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question. And without bug bounties there is no legal way for whitehats to pentest these things. We're stuck with shitty scans and guessing at best. Even so, from what I've seen I fail to see why we should trust these votings systems. But the public doesn't care. They don't understand that code is just data and it can alter itself. The voting machine industry has lobbyists. The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.
- Retric 8y agoGraft, paper systems cost less to develop so it's harder to skim money from them. Electronic systems have the nominal advantage of handling disabilities and different languages more easily.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- skywhopper 8y agoSystems can be easily developed for multi-lingual and disabled access that still produce a paper ballot that can be easily verified by the voter and counted by the election judges. There's no reason to electronicify the entire voting process to meet this (legitimate) need.
- SublimeWarior 8y agoIt's cheaper.
- skywhopper 8y agoNo, it's definitely not cheaper to buy, maintain, properly secure, audit, and continually replace inherently insecure electronic systems that are used two or three times a year at most. Elections are also not a place I personally think we should be cheaping out.
- shazzy 8y agoObligatory why electronic voting is a bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
- rmetzler 8y agoObligatory "I rigged an electronic vote" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBI33kOiKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBI33kOiKc
- pablobaz 8y ago€54 million spent in Ireland. End result: "In 2012, KMK Metals Recycling paid €70,267 for 7,500 e-voting machines; 1,232 transport/storage trolleys; 2,142 hand trolleys and 4,787 metal tilt tables." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Ireland
- Freak_NL 8y agoElectronic voting has been tried in a bunch of countries, and subsequently scrapped. We had these abominations in the Netherlands too, they turned out to be insecure, and now we're back to pencil and paper. And still, despite all the solid arguments against electronic voting and the actual experience with those machines, a certain class of influential people keeps bringing it up. Sometimes they're gadget-crazy policy makers who just can't fathom why we're still using a pencil in 2018 (because it works, is transparent, can be understood by any layperson, and instils trust). Sometimes they're politicians who absolutely must have the all the results of an election the same night, and only computers can do that (despite exit polls working pretty well, and there really is no rush). Recently, some are arguing for electronic voting because it would mean people with sight impairments can vote assisted by headphones rather than by a trusted person (there a solutions for the classic paper ballot in the form of a Braille-embossed mould that work pretty well in Germany, you don't need a computer for this). It's a constant battle to keep the public informed about the problems with, and undesirability of, electronic voting after each assault in the media. Why can't we keep this cornerstone of democracy a process powered by pencils, paper, and people instead of opaque IT solutions? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country#Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country#N...
- Thlom 8y agoYou don’t even need pencil, just different paper ballots. In most cases at least.
- skywhopper 8y ago"'You take a photo of your photo ID and then they take a selfie of themselves,' Kersey explained. 'Facial recognition software is then deployed to compare the photo on the ID and the photo of the person who took the picture.'" So it sounds like they verify your identity based on two photos that you provide? So if two photos provided by an unknown person match, then they become a trusted person? Even if there's a separate step that matches that to the DMV database or something... all you actually need is a photo of the person you want to impersonate. But pretending to be someone else for remote voting is already a weak point, and one that would be expensive to exploit on a large enough scale to make a difference. The much much bigger risk is that we have absolutely no way to verify that the votes recorded are correct. This company's app sends the vote to the company's server which stores it in this company's database. That's three steps at which the votes can be easily changed. The question to ask with any proposed voting system is: how can we verify that the counts are accurate? The _only_ way to do that in anything close to a trustworthy manner, is by having an established network of trusted agents (one or more witnesses from each interested party organization at each physical voting location) monitor a human-visible process for collecting paper ballots which can be counted and recounted at will by multiple groups of interested parties. Any system where the votes are ever hidden away from witnesses and accessible, say, in a back room with an unlocked door leading to an empty alleyway ... or on any computer system, is inherently insecure.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago> So it sounds like they verify your identity based on two photos that you provide? So if two photos provided by an unknown person match, then they become a trusted person? Even if there's a separate step that matches that to the DMV database or something... all you actually need is a photo of the person you want to impersonate. I recently signed up for two different mobile banks (Monzo and bunq). Both of them verified my identity by having me take a photo of my passport, but then also recording a video of myself (with my face clearly visible) saying an exact phrase they specified, in one case “My name is $legalname and I'd like to open a Monzo account” and in the other a sequence of random numbers. That seems way more secure.
- 8y ago
- ben_jones 8y agoWhat happens when we receive more votes then the population of West Virginia? Will this information be hidden from the public until it doesn't matter anymore?
- adamnemecek 8y agoI feel like all these solutions right now are very business driven. Is there a legit open source alternative? Voting is a legit hard problem but it influences you more than you realize. The setup of the election basically determines the outcome of the election. I think that the one thing that could improve democracy globally is an internationally agreed upon open-source verified voting system. None of these startups will last long enough to have an impact. There are many problems, voter identity is definitely one. You need some sort of public ledger (the blockchain isn't the worst idea, however proceed with caution).
- fabian2k 8y agoWhat exactly does the blockchain part of the voting app provide here? Are there any details known about how this is supposed to work, especially how to ensure that votes are actually anonymous in this case? And using facial recognition to make sure the right person votes just sounds like it'll end up either trivially exploitable or just cause many legitimate people to be denied as their faces can't be matched. What exactly is wrong with voting by mail? It's pretty easy to do, and it ensures anonymity by wrapping two envelopes inside each other.
- DonHopkins 8y ago>What exactly does the blockchain part of the voting app provide here? It was essential for bilking investors out of $2.4 million. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/smartphone-voting-is-coming-just-in-time-for-midterms-voatz https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/smartphone-voting-is... >“A HORRIFICALLY BAD IDEA”: SMARTPHONE VOTING IS COMING, JUST IN TIME FOR THE MIDTERMS >A Boston-based start-up promises to let West Virginians vote via app. Critics call it “the Theranos of voting.” >Enter Voatz. With a name reminiscent of a plot device in Idiocracy, Voatz is a mobile election-voting-software start-up that wants to let you vote from your phone.
- wmgries 8y agoThe blockchain part of the voting app provides a buzzword.
- monocasa 8y agoAlso, doesn't facial recognition historically have worse accuracy with people of color?
- komali2 8y ago>Note that the article is pretty clear: this is only for those people overseas, mostly troops stationed abroad. Still a terrible idea, but somewhat less terrible than statewide voting via mobile phone. ^Tweet in sub...chain (how the fuck do we describe twitter comments?) It's horrible, but I almost hope somebody hack these votes in the most disruptive, obvious way. I think the country could use a good slap in the face when it comes to both infosec and voting security.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ryanmarsh 8y agoI initially read that as "Voat to be used in West Virginia elections" and became immediately alarmed. Always google your company name first folks.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- DonHopkins 8y agoWhat the hell kind of a company name is "Voatz"? Can you buy Voatz with Flooz and Beenz Bux? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com
- pavel_lishin 8y agoI thought it was that Reddit alternative for fascists.
- fake-name 8y agoThey added a 'z'. Considering their security practices and cluelessness, they also seem to be mostly for fascists.
- kimdotcom 8y agoIt is only for overseas military from WV using mobile devices for voting on foreign soil. No cause for concern.
- RIMR 8y agoThey literally based their entire software off of IBM's "Marbles" program. That's just a Blockchain PoC. The fact that they're trying to take the simplest, most exploitable form of Blockchain and dressing it up as an innovation already puts a bad taste in my mouth, but the fact that this garbage software is now being used for a federal election is horrifying. It also doesn't help that more than one of the leaders of this company are Russian nationals...
- davidgerard 8y agoI wrote this up: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/08/07/west-virginia-and-the-voatz-blockchain-voting-system-scaling-and-security-concerns/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/08/07/west-virgini... They're sloppy with security, and they're ludicrously unable to scale. And they've put this out in an environment with state-backed hackers. It's very blockchain.
- Thespian2 8y agoVoting presents uniquely difficult challenges, you need integrity, strong authentication, verifiability, and anonymization. As others have stated, this particular scheme's weakness to tampering lies at the receiving end of the app's server. There are other privacy problems with the "send a selfie" of the on-duty soldiers I won't get in to. But ultimately, voting has unique constraints. The voter needs to be able to verify their vote was counted correctly, outside observers need to be able to verify totals, but not identify individual votes, and the whole system needs assurances only those who are supposed to vote, do so.
- partiallypro 8y agoEveryone here that I've read so far is close to going fringe conspiracy theorist on this issue. Electronic machines in the US are hard to hack en masse, because they require you to take them apart...and most neighboring jurisdictions don't even have a matching processes or voting systems. You all seem to say that paper ballots are safer and more transparent...but that's just factually wrong. Where do you think the term "ballot stuffing" comes from? There are videos of the Russian election just this past year of boxes being stuffed with paper ballots. It happened in the 1800s in the US, especially around the time when black Americans could begin voting. The solution is simple and most places already do this, but each voting machine prints a matching paper receipt that can be matched with an electronic record. My jurisdiction already does this, it prints out of the back of the machine when you're done, but my vote is also electronic. Those of you insinuating that Republicans (generally this is what people are hinting at) or Democrats are conspiring to rig elections via electronic voting are acting insane. If either party wanted to rig the election they could do it with paper or electronic ballots...and I highly doubt the vote tallies would be so close or that both parties would have so many seats flip every 8-10 years in toss up areas.
- Mangalor 8y agoBallot stuffing is a diagnosable problem. Electronics obfuscate. It's the principle that matters.
- partiallypro 8y agoNot really? Because we don't pool the votes together into a mass pool, we can see a county by county break down of votes, if the votes are off people are going to notice in the electronic world. Not just that but as I said, you can have both a paper and digital ballot for verification. You can also have "check-in" numbers (which I believe most polling places do) to make sure the number of check-ins match the vote tally.