6 ms·

Everyone told them you can't have secure electronic voting.

• bozho 8y ago
  And yet, they do have it ;)
  • TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
    Not according to experts in electronic voting system security.
    • Avamander 8y ago
      Could you provide sources for your claims?
    • kristerv 8y ago
      source please. So far I've only seen "experts" hack some old 20 US voting stations that are a joke in comparison.
      • mnyary 8y ago
        Independent Report on E-voting in Estonia https://estoniaevoting.org/press-release/ https://estoniaevoting.org/press-release/ This is from 2014.
        • rstuart4133 8y ago
          There are too many concepts covered by the term e-voting. I'm sure the OP wasn't claiming the concept discussed in your link is a universally accepted as secure. That's because someone who thinks any voting method that allows a votes to be bought and sold is of course in a state of sin. Internet voting is one of those methods. Who knows, the OP may have also not been claiming purely electronic voting is a solved problem. Opinions may vary on that one, depending on how secure you think end-to-end audited voting is in practice. If all voters took the time to do the 60 second audit procedure it would of course be perfectly secure, but that's an unrealistic assumption. Which leaves a hybrid system - were the voting is done electronically using an end-to-end auditable system and the initial count is done electronically, but each vote is also printed and manually placed in the ballot box by the voter in the normal manner so if something goes wrong they can be manually re-counted. If that is what the OP is talking about then they are right - such a system is faster to use, gets the counting done near instantaneously, easier to use (particularly for voters with disabilities), is more accurate (because it can point out mistakes in the vote), is less wasteful (because how to vote cards and information on candidates can be presented electronically) and of course is more secure than the existing manual system. And yes, on that the experts agree pretty much universally. The sad thing is I only know of one electronic voting system that did it that way, and it was only a trial. All other deployed e-voting systems I've seen were mostly windows desktop's enclosed in an impressive looking box. Some things in this world are very hard to explain.
      • TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
        http://estoniaevoting.org http://estoniaevoting.org
• Strom 8y ago
  That's a statement that applies to everything, including classic paper voting. It's never a question of whether there's absolute security, because nothing has it. It's about comparing the security and other benefits of different systems.
  • specialist 8y ago
    Not quite. The Australian Ballot works pretty good. Private voting, public counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot Like all systems, requires funding and attention, of course. Comparatively... There is no electronically mediated equivalent of the one-way hash of dropping your ballot into the box suitable for elections in the USA. Because our ballots are complicated and our units of administration (precincts) are small. Meaning any end-to-end auditable system for hashing ballots won't generate the necessary hash collisions to hide one's ballot within the herd of ballots.
  • 3K7m7bUZyWA1KCD 8y ago
    It's really hard to fake paper voting IMO. I'm a Greek citizen. At the voting place of the city where I was born and am registered since, there are many rooms. Depending on the initial letters of your last name, you have to go and vote in a specific one. Each room has at least two randomly conscripted citizens, responsible to strike out your name from the list they have, once you drop your single vote envelope. Reminds me of the jury duty of USA citizens. Every few rooms have police officers (very possibly also randomly chosen) inspecting and protecting the procedure.
    • fpoling 8y ago
      My father worked few times in voting stations in Belarus in the beginning of nineties. He was amazed how easy it would be to subvert the voting results. His observation was that especially late into counting everybody was tired and focused on the counts to the point that a person can walk to the table, grab some ballot papers and put some fake ones. I guess nowadays with video recording etc. it will be harder, but still. What really makes the paper ballots secure is that counting fraud does not scale. It is impossible to do it on substantial number of voting stations with nobody noticing even in semifunctional democracy. With electronic voting scaling an exploit to all voting machines is straightforward.
• spuz 8y ago
  The article doesn't mention voting. Not sure why it's relevant to Estonia's ID cards.