4 ms·

Fair enough. If I understand correctly, the server only uses the user's identity to generate a random serial number, then only remembers the serial number and t

by pacala 6y ago

Fair enough. If I understand correctly, the server only uses the user's identity to generate a random serial number, then only remembers the serial number and the fact that user X has generated a serial number. With that, we are left with the following attack vectors: the server and its software, either via hacking or via subtle rule tweaks, targeted ballot invalidation, voter pressure. As a technopesimist, I'm especially uncomfortable that a key piece of the process is an opaque blob of silicon that can't meaningfully be inspected by a human observer. Echoes of Diebold voting machines, plus billions of dollars poured into elections. But I can see why HN audience is prone to be persuaded this is a good idea.

Beltiras 6y ago
I generally think that paper and pencil are far superior to electronic machines for voting. Algorithms and computing can enable methods to support paper voting. Clarification: serial number is mailed with the ballot, contains a signature (like two part keys for API f.ex.). You submit the serial for signing through authentication mechanism (verifying the voter). The signature can be either PKI or hash. This way you can validate serials, signatures and have them independent from the ballot after separation. If you have designated drop-off locations you insure the ballots are tamper-proof after being filled out (barring massive system-wide fraud).
- pacala 6y ago
  In practice, vote secrecy does not appear to be a priority concern of the authorities. More so when you have to educate more than 3000 local authorities [number of counties in US] to pay attention to the issue. I did a quick duckduckgo for images of US mail-in ballots, and found many instances of mail that have the sender information on, as is customary for US postage. Found even a couple pictures of ballot envelopes from Portland, Oregon, where they explicitly ask the voter to provide a return address, that is to tie their identity to the ballot: https://imgur.com/ZRHuLWd https://imgur.com/ZRHuLWd http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/northwestnews/files/styles/related/public/201605/mail_in_ballot_0.jpg http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/northwestnews/files/s...

by pacala 6y ago

Beltiras 6y ago

I generally think that paper and pencil are far superior to electronic machines for voting. Algorithms and computing can enable methods to support paper voting. Clarification: serial number is mailed with the ballot, contains a signature (like two part keys for API f.ex.). You submit the serial for signing through authentication mechanism (verifying the voter). The signature can be either PKI or hash. This way you can validate serials, signatures and have them independent from the ballot after separation. If you have designated drop-off locations you insure the ballots are tamper-proof after being filled out (barring massive system-wide fraud).

pacala 6y ago
In practice, vote secrecy does not appear to be a priority concern of the authorities. More so when you have to educate more than 3000 local authorities [number of counties in US] to pay attention to the issue. I did a quick duckduckgo for images of US mail-in ballots, and found many instances of mail that have the sender information on, as is customary for US postage. Found even a couple pictures of ballot envelopes from Portland, Oregon, where they explicitly ask the voter to provide a return address, that is to tie their identity to the ballot: https://imgur.com/ZRHuLWd https://imgur.com/ZRHuLWd http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/northwestnews/files/styles/related/public/201605/mail_in_ballot_0.jpg http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/northwestnews/files/s...