6 ms·

> The state will soon roll out a new, $100 million voting system which Raffensperger said will have a new iPad-based check-in system, which they can track and d

> The state will soon roll out a new, $100 million voting system which Raffensperger said will have a new iPad-based check-in system, which they can track and delete data remotely if they get stolen. I'm confused. Why are these records on the device at all? Why not a server? Why spend $100 million just to move it from paper to an iPad?

wtallis 7y ago
They need to be able to check in voters on election day even if the polling place's internet connection drops.
- aloknnikhil 7y ago
  I get that. But you could always fallback onto another way of reaching the server (LTE/4G) or even a direct connect to some central server close by. I mean, this is sensitive data that is essentially being replicated across the whole state onto devices that are not heavily guarded apparently. Surely there are better ways to handle this? And as connectivity gets better, I think there should be a push to adopt client-server architectures for critical infrastructure. How would remotely wiping an iPad help? What if the stolen iPad is never allowed to connect to a network?
  - jefftk 7y ago
    This is not sensitive data; voter registration information is public and available for purchase from the government.
    - Beldin 7y ago
      Sidenote: whether this is appropriate is a completely different discussion. To me, as someone from a country where this data is considered sensitive, the fact that you can purchase this data is mind-boggling.
      - an_account 7y ago
        It’s to help prevent voter fraud. Anybody who cares can check who voted and when. Also, your name, birthday, and address will never be very private. You give it to so many different people/companies.
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        The UK eventually picked an interesting compromise. There are two versions of the list of voters: * A list that's available for purchase electronically, used by marketers, you can opt in or out of this list when registering to vote or renewing a registration. I have no idea why anybody would choose to be on this list; when it was last my job to care, the size of the list was falling but not as precipitously as I'd expect. * The full list, available electronically to a limited set for specified purposes: law enforcement and intelligence for obvious reasons, candidates standing for election in order to send out literature to voters, elected politicians likewise, the Credit Reference Agencies for name + address matching on credit applications, I'm sure there's a few others, but most people don't have this. The full list also exists on paper for anyone to read, but the law is clear that even if you were interested in painstakingly copying data from the paper records that's illegal unless you already have a purpose for which you'd be able to buy an electronic copy. This allows people to be individually nosy still, which feels proportionate. e.g. "How are fifteen people registered in the two bed cottage next door to me? I should go ask someone what's up with that." The UK still doesn't have a secret ballot though which is crazy. If we're going to have the technical capability to reverse ballots we should use it OR if we don't want to use it, we should stop marking ballots so that it'd be technically possible to reverse them. Parliament periodically asks witnesses about this, but like the US Congress periodically asking whether ¢1 coins make sense (no, no they don't) it doesn't act on what it gets told.
hnaccy 7y ago
You can't rig paper.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Ballot box stuffing? "Losing" boxes from certain districts?
  - sb057 7y ago
    Both impossible if votes are submitted and counted in public without transportation of the ballot box. And before you say this is impractical, that is exactly what they do in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMlxtvPeWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMlxtvPeWU
    - gordaco 7y ago
      Also in Spain. Votes are counted literally in the voting table, right after closing it. The counting is verified by three (randomly chosen) citizen and also by one person per party. Then the tallies are aggregated. And the vote distribution per table is then made public (which then can be compiled by the press to make interactive maps like this: https://elpais.com/politica/2019/05/01/actualidad/1556730293_254945.html https://elpais.com/politica/2019/05/01/actualidad/1556730293... ).
      - codedokode 7y ago
        We have similar system in Russia. The votes are counted after closing the polling stations, and the result table is signed by election commitee members and signed copies are given to candidates' representatives and observers. Later the results for every polling station are published on the Internet. Also we have cameras that stream the video on the Internet in real time. Of course this system still allows falsifications. But it is still better than any electronic system because the violations are easily noticeable.
    - Beldin 7y ago
      Yes, there are attacks on paper voting systems. Yes, there are procedural countermeasures against many of these attacks. One of the greatest advantages of paper voting systems is that we have decades (if not centuries) of experience with subversion attempts and appropriate defenses and that these defenses are often procedural, not technical. This means that many attacks can be prevented and you don't have to be an expert to do so.
kabdib 7y ago
I am personally in favor of simple, physically based voting systems. The kind that can still work reliably during periods of unrest and mistrust.
- erichocean 7y ago
  Purple finger tech has yet to be improved upon...
- an_account 7y ago
  Paper ballot, electronic counting. Best of both worlds. You get a quick count, but also if there’s shadiness/hacking going on you can always recount the paper. Some states seem to be moving towards absentee voting over the internet, which will be a mess when accusations of hacking start flying.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Voting over the internet? Oh dear... But it theoretically could be a use case for blockchain. Still I don't get it why voting in the US is so complicated and difficult. Even India does a better job. There is also a reason why most other western countries have a paper ballot, they are harder to temper with.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > Voting over the internet? Oh dear... But it theoretically could be a use case for blockchain. Upon deployment of such scheme, it will be quickly discovered - or claimed - that some of the voters had their voting software MITMed, or their computers hacked, or whatever. With electronic voting, you have to secure the whole chain, starting from a person interacting with their device. It's not like finance, where you can paper over malware or direct attacks on people's devices through police investigations, reimbursements and insurance payouts. Mere accusation of a e-voting's equivalent to Zeus being deployed would call an election into question.
    - masonic 7y ago
      Paper ballots are easy to tamper with when there are chain-of-custody issues regarding the ballots.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tssva 7y ago
They computerized for the same reason most things are, higher efficiency leading to lower cost. It speeds up the check-in process which means each polling location can handle a larger number of voters reducing the cost of elections. After the fact records need to be updated to reflect which voters have actually voted. It is much faster, less labor intensive and less error prone to gather that information electronically from some iPads than pay people to review paper records and enter that information into a computer. The information is stored locally on the iPads because doing so on a server greatly increases both the potential failure scenarios and the potential attack surface of the system. Think about the impact of that server going down or a DDOS of the server. Also think about the communication infrastructure needed to and within the polling place for those iPads to reliably be able to reach the server.

wtallis 7y ago

They need to be able to check in voters on election day even if the polling place's internet connection drops.

aloknnikhil 7y ago
I get that. But you could always fallback onto another way of reaching the server (LTE/4G) or even a direct connect to some central server close by. I mean, this is sensitive data that is essentially being replicated across the whole state onto devices that are not heavily guarded apparently. Surely there are better ways to handle this? And as connectivity gets better, I think there should be a push to adopt client-server architectures for critical infrastructure. How would remotely wiping an iPad help? What if the stolen iPad is never allowed to connect to a network?
- jefftk 7y ago
  This is not sensitive data; voter registration information is public and available for purchase from the government.
  - Beldin 7y ago
    Sidenote: whether this is appropriate is a completely different discussion. To me, as someone from a country where this data is considered sensitive, the fact that you can purchase this data is mind-boggling.
    - an_account 7y ago
      It’s to help prevent voter fraud. Anybody who cares can check who voted and when. Also, your name, birthday, and address will never be very private. You give it to so many different people/companies.
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      The UK eventually picked an interesting compromise. There are two versions of the list of voters: * A list that's available for purchase electronically, used by marketers, you can opt in or out of this list when registering to vote or renewing a registration. I have no idea why anybody would choose to be on this list; when it was last my job to care, the size of the list was falling but not as precipitously as I'd expect. * The full list, available electronically to a limited set for specified purposes: law enforcement and intelligence for obvious reasons, candidates standing for election in order to send out literature to voters, elected politicians likewise, the Credit Reference Agencies for name + address matching on credit applications, I'm sure there's a few others, but most people don't have this. The full list also exists on paper for anyone to read, but the law is clear that even if you were interested in painstakingly copying data from the paper records that's illegal unless you already have a purpose for which you'd be able to buy an electronic copy. This allows people to be individually nosy still, which feels proportionate. e.g. "How are fifteen people registered in the two bed cottage next door to me? I should go ask someone what's up with that." The UK still doesn't have a secret ballot though which is crazy. If we're going to have the technical capability to reverse ballots we should use it OR if we don't want to use it, we should stop marking ballots so that it'd be technically possible to reverse them. Parliament periodically asks witnesses about this, but like the US Congress periodically asking whether ¢1 coins make sense (no, no they don't) it doesn't act on what it gets told.

hnaccy 7y ago

You can't rig paper.

oh_sigh 7y ago
Ballot box stuffing? "Losing" boxes from certain districts?
- sb057 7y ago
  Both impossible if votes are submitted and counted in public without transportation of the ballot box. And before you say this is impractical, that is exactly what they do in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMlxtvPeWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMlxtvPeWU
  - gordaco 7y ago
    Also in Spain. Votes are counted literally in the voting table, right after closing it. The counting is verified by three (randomly chosen) citizen and also by one person per party. Then the tallies are aggregated. And the vote distribution per table is then made public (which then can be compiled by the press to make interactive maps like this: https://elpais.com/politica/2019/05/01/actualidad/1556730293_254945.html https://elpais.com/politica/2019/05/01/actualidad/1556730293... ).
    - codedokode 7y ago
      We have similar system in Russia. The votes are counted after closing the polling stations, and the result table is signed by election commitee members and signed copies are given to candidates' representatives and observers. Later the results for every polling station are published on the Internet. Also we have cameras that stream the video on the Internet in real time. Of course this system still allows falsifications. But it is still better than any electronic system because the violations are easily noticeable.
  - Beldin 7y ago
    Yes, there are attacks on paper voting systems. Yes, there are procedural countermeasures against many of these attacks. One of the greatest advantages of paper voting systems is that we have decades (if not centuries) of experience with subversion attempts and appropriate defenses and that these defenses are often procedural, not technical. This means that many attacks can be prevented and you don't have to be an expert to do so.

kabdib 7y ago

I am personally in favor of simple, physically based voting systems. The kind that can still work reliably during periods of unrest and mistrust.

erichocean 7y ago
Purple finger tech has yet to be improved upon...
an_account 7y ago
Paper ballot, electronic counting. Best of both worlds. You get a quick count, but also if there’s shadiness/hacking going on you can always recount the paper. Some states seem to be moving towards absentee voting over the internet, which will be a mess when accusations of hacking start flying.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Voting over the internet? Oh dear... But it theoretically could be a use case for blockchain. Still I don't get it why voting in the US is so complicated and difficult. Even India does a better job. There is also a reason why most other western countries have a paper ballot, they are harder to temper with.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Voting over the internet? Oh dear... But it theoretically could be a use case for blockchain. Upon deployment of such scheme, it will be quickly discovered - or claimed - that some of the voters had their voting software MITMed, or their computers hacked, or whatever. With electronic voting, you have to secure the whole chain, starting from a person interacting with their device. It's not like finance, where you can paper over malware or direct attacks on people's devices through police investigations, reimbursements and insurance payouts. Mere accusation of a e-voting's equivalent to Zeus being deployed would call an election into question.
  - masonic 7y ago
    Paper ballots are easy to tamper with when there are chain-of-custody issues regarding the ballots.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tssva 7y ago

They computerized for the same reason most things are, higher efficiency leading to lower cost. It speeds up the check-in process which means each polling location can handle a larger number of voters reducing the cost of elections. After the fact records need to be updated to reflect which voters have actually voted. It is much faster, less labor intensive and less error prone to gather that information electronically from some iPads than pay people to review paper records and enter that information into a computer. The information is stored locally on the iPads because doing so on a server greatly increases both the potential failure scenarios and the potential attack surface of the system. Think about the impact of that server going down or a DDOS of the server. Also think about the communication infrastructure needed to and within the polling place for those iPads to reliably be able to reach the server.