9 ms·
I have said dozens of times and I will say it again. I am a technophile, but the only sane way to vote is with pen and paper with manual counting.
by on_and_off 8y ago
I have said dozens of times and I will say it again.
I am a technophile, but the only sane way to vote is with pen and paper with manual counting.
- stochastic_monk 8y agoEveryone who is in cybersecurity or computer science says no, this is a terrible idea. The primary reason for not having a paper trail is so you or someone else can change results and not be caught. Cf. Georgia clearing its election server and degaussing its backups 3 times each when subpoenaed. [0] [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/days-after-activists-sued-georgias-election-server-was-wiped-clean/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/days-after-activ...
- SkyMarshal 8y agoSo are you agreeing or disagreeing with OP? Sounds like you're disagreeing at first, but your example seems to agree.
- nothrabannosir 8y agoHe is corroborating and elaborating. All agreement. The example fits the thesis.
- ComputerGuru 8y agoI don’t think your referenced case has anything to do with the technology. That is clear and obvious subversion of the law and destruction of evidence. If it were paper ballots instead, they could put in place “safety” and “privacy” “environmentally friendly” procedures to shred all paper trails just as easily. Laws aren’t worth a damn if you’re not willing to enforce them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 8y agoIf I may, I'd like to offer a different perspective. In my job as a prosecutor, something I see over and over again is juries wanting to believe the defendant, even when their story isn't credible. If you have a likeable defendant and there's any doubt, reasonable or not, juries will acquit. So when the little old lady government worker who could be your grandmother says that she was just doing what she thought she was supposed to and golly gee she doesn't understand this whiz-bang computer stuff ("They keep talking about digital evidence, and I just feel hopeless putting up my defense... I don't even know what digital evidence is!")... it's very hard to convince a jury it was intentional. Shredding paper ballots is a lot more of a compelling narrative to put in front of a panel.
- ynniv 8y agoExactly. Destroying those drives was spun as "oops we made a mistake". It's a lot easier to believe that someone accidentally erased a drive, even three times, than that someone accidentally destroyed millions of sheets of paper.
- acct1771 8y agoYet another example of how we've become enslaved by letting people wander around without understanding technology that makes their world run daily.
- stephengillie 8y agoShredded paper can't be recycled - at least around the Seattle region. But it makes great compost.
- darawk 8y agoI disagree strongly. There are cryptographically secure algorithms for voting, that allow you to ensure that your vote has been counted in the final tally (and counted correctly), by returning to you a token that will be incorporated into the final count. You can also securely determine the precise number of votes cast. All of this without sacrificing anonymity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_sy... For more. We absolutely should be using these systems and the fact that we have allowed electronic voting machines to be used that do not conform to these protocols is an absolute travesty of democracy, considering how easy it would be.
- MichaelApproved 8y agoEven if the concept is secure, implementation of any electronic voting system will never be secure. All voting is vulnerable to hacks, even paper and pen. The key is to make it as expense as possible to hack a vote. In-person paper voting is pretty much as expensive as it gets. Never mind that the general public will never understand what you said or ever implement anything like it.
- darawk 8y agoNo...it's much more expensive to hack an E2E auditable cryptographic voting scheme. Infinitely expensive. > Never mind that the general public will never understand what you said or ever implement anything like it. They don't need to understand it. It just needs to be in place, so that we can audit votes properly.