5 ms·

But the voter does not need to understand encryption... just the designer of the system.

by Gunax 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago
Are you suggesting they just trust the designer? Most ordinary people aren't going to do that. They'll just say 'no thanks'. A once-in-a-lifetime referendum in the UK in 2011 about a change to voting systems was solidly defeated because most people said 'I don't understand this it's too complicated' - and that was just AV. Most ordinary people don't want or trust any kind of fancy voting idea at all. I don't see that changing either.
- lhorie 6y ago
  > Are you suggesting they just trust the designer? Most ordinary people aren't going to do that That's quite literally what people do when buying stuff from amazon. People are just afraid of change. In places where e-voting has been implemented people generally trust that the system works, just like they trust a lock symbol in their amazon shopping cart page.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    When people buy stuff on Amazon they can verify that they received the goods. They can't verify their vote was counted correctly.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      Receiving your goods doesn't guarantee you weren't a victim of a scam or id theft. Package theft is also a thing, etc. Similarly, You can't verify a paper ballot was counted correctly (see recounts and how the numbers don't match). Yet we're ok with these systems. Clearly infallibility isn't a prerequisite for trust. Besides, as I mentioned elsewhere, auditable e-voting systems do exist and have been used in various parts of the world.
      - pessimizer 6y ago
        > Receiving your goods doesn't guarantee you weren't a victim of a scam or id theft. No it doesn't. People are frequently victims of scams and id theft because of the trust necessary to use online systems. This is something that is important to avoid in voting, or else your country collapses.
        lhorie 6y ago
        Sure. My argument is that it takes more than even people losing money (a pretty high bar already IMHO) for the trust in a system to be eroded beyond the point of outright distrust. For better or for worse, familiarity and trust correlate strongly, but technical security and trust don't correlate much (see people ignoring security warnings because kitten photos) Take, for example, elections in Brazil. They've been electronic for decades and people trust its accuracy. There hasn't been a single known case of tampering even though the country has a notoriously corrupt political landscape (see every scandal and impeachment since the 80s) I would even bet money that if the US rolled out nationwide e-voting somehow, within 5 election cycles the majority of americans would say they trust it in polls. Based on familiarity alone.
- Gunax 6y ago
  On the contrary, I think that's exactly what most people do. Have you personally verified TLS? I have not, but I still use it.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I don’t use it to vote though.

But the voter does not need to understand encryption... just the designer of the system.

by Gunax 6y ago

But the voter does not need to understand encryption... just the designer of the system.

Are you suggesting they just trust the designer? Most ordinary people aren't going to do that. They'll just say 'no thanks'. A once-in-a-lifetime referendum in the UK in 2011 about a change to voting systems was solidly defeated because most people said 'I don't understand this it's too complicated' - and that was just AV. Most ordinary people don't want or trust any kind of fancy voting idea at all. I don't see that changing either.

lhorie 6y ago
> Are you suggesting they just trust the designer? Most ordinary people aren't going to do that That's quite literally what people do when buying stuff from amazon. People are just afraid of change. In places where e-voting has been implemented people generally trust that the system works, just like they trust a lock symbol in their amazon shopping cart page.
- anoncake 6y ago
  When people buy stuff on Amazon they can verify that they received the goods. They can't verify their vote was counted correctly.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    Receiving your goods doesn't guarantee you weren't a victim of a scam or id theft. Package theft is also a thing, etc. Similarly, You can't verify a paper ballot was counted correctly (see recounts and how the numbers don't match). Yet we're ok with these systems. Clearly infallibility isn't a prerequisite for trust. Besides, as I mentioned elsewhere, auditable e-voting systems do exist and have been used in various parts of the world.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      > Receiving your goods doesn't guarantee you weren't a victim of a scam or id theft. No it doesn't. People are frequently victims of scams and id theft because of the trust necessary to use online systems. This is something that is important to avoid in voting, or else your country collapses.
      - lhorie 6y ago
        Sure. My argument is that it takes more than even people losing money (a pretty high bar already IMHO) for the trust in a system to be eroded beyond the point of outright distrust. For better or for worse, familiarity and trust correlate strongly, but technical security and trust don't correlate much (see people ignoring security warnings because kitten photos) Take, for example, elections in Brazil. They've been electronic for decades and people trust its accuracy. There hasn't been a single known case of tampering even though the country has a notoriously corrupt political landscape (see every scandal and impeachment since the 80s) I would even bet money that if the US rolled out nationwide e-voting somehow, within 5 election cycles the majority of americans would say they trust it in polls. Based on familiarity alone.
Gunax 6y ago
On the contrary, I think that's exactly what most people do. Have you personally verified TLS? I have not, but I still use it.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I don’t use it to vote though.