4 ms·

No...it's much more expensive to hack an E2E auditable cryptographic voting scheme. Infinitely expensive. > Never mind that the general public will never under

by darawk 8y ago

No...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.

r00fus 8y ago
But the payoff is so much higher. And I never believe someone who says something is unhackable... social engineering is a non-removable threat vector.
- darawk 8y ago
  This isn't software security it's cryptography. The guarantees are much stronger here.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    And yet cryptocurrency theft, scams and bugs are rampant.
    - darawk 8y ago
      This is different. If you'd bothered to understand how the system works, you would understand why that is so.
michaelmrose 8y ago
It's not "infinitely" expensive to find an exploit and one person having discovered such a flaw can compromise the election. In reality land what we actually build IT wise is normally hot garbage. We know how to hold honest paper elections. Let's do that instead of hoping that 10 years from now and 10 billion later we can have a secure election.
- darawk 8y ago
  Sigh, listen man. Just learn about how it works or stop commenting. You're wrong.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Feel free to educate me regarding how "it" works if you feel my opinion is in error. It seems unlikely that any system will constructed any time soon which doesn't involve onerous secret key distribution, is provably correct, doesn't allow someone to prove after the fact to a third party that they voted a certain way, is secure against insider and outside manipulation, can be verified in a way that an average person could understand. All properties of presently available paper voting solutions.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > Feel free to educate me regarding how "it" works if you feel my opinion is in error. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/670.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/670.pdf > It seems unlikely that any system will constructed any time soon which doesn't involve onerous secret key distribution, is provably correct, doesn't allow someone to prove after the fact to a third party that they voted a certain way, is secure against insider and outside manipulation, Paper ballots aren't secure against insider or outsider manipulation and they definitely aren't provably correct. I don't see any reason why it should be necessary for the average person to understand how the system works. It should be sufficient that they can verify it, given sufficient knowledge.
      - grzm 8y ago
        > ”I don't see any reason why it should be necessary for the average person to understand how the system works” It’s important so people have faith in the system. Yes, verifiability can help with that, but trust in math that few can really understand is a barrier. This can be exacerbated as distrust in algorithmic feed generation and social media manipulation grows. You’re savvy enough to see beyond this, but that’s not the point: that trust needs to be solid and widespread for people to have faith in the process. This is a human issue, not a technical one.
myrion 8y ago
No, people do need to understand it or they won't believe it's too be trusted. Hacking an election is not even necessary if your can make a large segment of the population believe that it was done. Eroding all trust in the democratic system is just as bad as actually changing the results.

by darawk 8y ago

r00fus 8y ago

But the payoff is so much higher. And I never believe someone who says something is unhackable... social engineering is a non-removable threat vector.

darawk 8y ago
This isn't software security it's cryptography. The guarantees are much stronger here.
- XorNot 8y ago
  And yet cryptocurrency theft, scams and bugs are rampant.
  - darawk 8y ago
    This is different. If you'd bothered to understand how the system works, you would understand why that is so.

michaelmrose 8y ago

It's not "infinitely" expensive to find an exploit and one person having discovered such a flaw can compromise the election. In reality land what we actually build IT wise is normally hot garbage. We know how to hold honest paper elections. Let's do that instead of hoping that 10 years from now and 10 billion later we can have a secure election.

darawk 8y ago
Sigh, listen man. Just learn about how it works or stop commenting. You're wrong.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Feel free to educate me regarding how "it" works if you feel my opinion is in error. It seems unlikely that any system will constructed any time soon which doesn't involve onerous secret key distribution, is provably correct, doesn't allow someone to prove after the fact to a third party that they voted a certain way, is secure against insider and outside manipulation, can be verified in a way that an average person could understand. All properties of presently available paper voting solutions.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Feel free to educate me regarding how "it" works if you feel my opinion is in error. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/670.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/670.pdf > It seems unlikely that any system will constructed any time soon which doesn't involve onerous secret key distribution, is provably correct, doesn't allow someone to prove after the fact to a third party that they voted a certain way, is secure against insider and outside manipulation, Paper ballots aren't secure against insider or outsider manipulation and they definitely aren't provably correct. I don't see any reason why it should be necessary for the average person to understand how the system works. It should be sufficient that they can verify it, given sufficient knowledge.
    - grzm 8y ago
      > ”I don't see any reason why it should be necessary for the average person to understand how the system works” It’s important so people have faith in the system. Yes, verifiability can help with that, but trust in math that few can really understand is a barrier. This can be exacerbated as distrust in algorithmic feed generation and social media manipulation grows. You’re savvy enough to see beyond this, but that’s not the point: that trust needs to be solid and widespread for people to have faith in the process. This is a human issue, not a technical one.

myrion 8y ago

No, people do need to understand it or they won't believe it's too be trusted. Hacking an election is not even necessary if your can make a large segment of the population believe that it was done. Eroding all trust in the democratic system is just as bad as actually changing the results.