3 ms·

> technology mentioned above is ... in fact see wide spread use for purposes of fraud prevention for financial systems Different organizations have different s

> technology mentioned above is ... in fact see wide spread use for purposes of fraud prevention for financial systems Different organizations have different security needs Financial systems can use the relative cost of a security measure compared to the cost of a breach to decide whether to implement the security; they consciously accept a certain level of failures. Also, they can use insurance to mitigate exploits after they happen. Voting systems cannot tolerate failures, at least in theory. Every vote must count. Also, at least for some elections, the value to the attacker is much higher than what can be gained from financial institutions; a foreign intelligence service has much more to gain than money from controlling a US presidential election, for example, and an investor could make billions by knowing the outcome ahead of time. Finally, there is no mitigation after a breach: Insurance won't save a fraudulent election.

ypzhang2 8y ago
Sure, whether the ID verification tool in question is appropriate or enough of a mitigation for election purposes is arguable. In fact it could very well be that no electronic verification process would be enough, since as you say, every vote can potentially be crucial and therefore ANY margin of risk might be unacceptable. The point I am making is that its not as simple as described to "spoof" this tool, and to give some background on its usage since it seemed to be a novel verification tool for the OP
- forapurpose 8y ago
  I meant to add to your point, not disagree with it. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. > every vote can potentially be crucial I'll also add that every vote is important because the number of votes is important. Winning 70-30 will get much different behavior than winning 50.01-49.99; the latter representative had better pay attention to the 49.99's needs. And that can matter down to the smallest geographical levels - if everyone in your neighborhood votes, politicians will pay much more attention.

ypzhang2 8y ago

Sure, whether the ID verification tool in question is appropriate or enough of a mitigation for election purposes is arguable. In fact it could very well be that no electronic verification process would be enough, since as you say, every vote can potentially be crucial and therefore ANY margin of risk might be unacceptable. The point I am making is that its not as simple as described to "spoof" this tool, and to give some background on its usage since it seemed to be a novel verification tool for the OP

forapurpose 8y ago
I meant to add to your point, not disagree with it. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. > every vote can potentially be crucial I'll also add that every vote is important because the number of votes is important. Winning 70-30 will get much different behavior than winning 50.01-49.99; the latter representative had better pay attention to the 49.99's needs. And that can matter down to the smallest geographical levels - if everyone in your neighborhood votes, politicians will pay much more attention.