3 ms·

> Online voting seems like such a simpler approach. It is! Until you try to secure it. Then it isn't.

by ebg13 6y ago

Shared404 6y ago
And even if you do secure it, if Joe McCitizen can't understand it, it does you no good.
- u801e 6y ago
  There are plenty of things that people do online without really understanding how it works, but they still do it. Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted. Also, it can be an option in addition to voting in person or by mail (like you can do now with taxes).
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted. There's a lot of handwaving in this sentence about what can be done. We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. You think we can do a better job when control of a nuclear power with the world's largest economy rests in the balance? > like you can do now with taxes I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me.
    - u801e 6y ago
      > We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. This is hyperbole at best. In most cases, international policy does not change all that much regardless of what major party member happens to be president of the US. > I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me. Unless you have taken the time to fine tune your payments such that you don't receive a refund or owe a significant tax payment, then someone else filing can effectively get your refund, or put information in there that can land you legal trouble or have you owe a significant payment when you actually do not. That said, we have been able to file taxes online for many years now. It would be nice if we could get with the times and do the same for voting.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        The problem is voting has to be simple enough that the average citizen can verify it. That is impossible to do with computers with the current average level of computer literacy.
        ebg13 6y ago
        That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it. The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. They further keep equating property theft scenarios, where you would easily notice that your money went to someone else, or personal harrassment scenarios, where your first consequence is a human individual audit not a national election outcome, with scenarios where you'd have no idea that your vote was changed unless you start implementing policies that would allow people to sell their votes, which is something that we don't allow for a reason. Paper ballots kept in small batches distributed among thousands of precincts that are counted by hand with opposition observers are hard to systematically rig. Bits in a cloud machine somewhere that lose all connection to your action are not. They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.
        u801e 6y ago
        > The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert. This also assumes that those who want to vote online have the knowledge to properly secure their private key. > They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_. Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president? I would say that gerrymandering has done far more to disenfranchise voters compared to theoretical attacks against the personal devices of those who choose to vote online.

> Online voting seems like such a simpler approach. It is! Until you try to secure it. Then it isn't.

by ebg13 6y ago

> Online voting seems like such a simpler approach. It is! Until you try to secure it. Then it isn't.

Shared404 6y ago

And even if you do secure it, if Joe McCitizen can't understand it, it does you no good.

u801e 6y ago
There are plenty of things that people do online without really understanding how it works, but they still do it. Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted. Also, it can be an option in addition to voting in person or by mail (like you can do now with taxes).
- ebg13 6y ago
  > Online voting could be done securely over the network and could be authenticated with a certificate associated with one's voter registration that's anonymized in a way that doesn't reveal any information about the voter other than whether they have already voted. There's a lot of handwaving in this sentence about what can be done. We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. You think we can do a better job when control of a nuclear power with the world's largest economy rests in the balance? > like you can do now with taxes I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me.
  - u801e 6y ago
    > We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. This is hyperbole at best. In most cases, international policy does not change all that much regardless of what major party member happens to be president of the US. > I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me. Unless you have taken the time to fine tune your payments such that you don't receive a refund or owe a significant tax payment, then someone else filing can effectively get your refund, or put information in there that can land you legal trouble or have you owe a significant payment when you actually do not. That said, we have been able to file taxes online for many years now. It would be nice if we could get with the times and do the same for voting.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      The problem is voting has to be simple enough that the average citizen can verify it. That is impossible to do with computers with the current average level of computer literacy.
      - ebg13 6y ago
        That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it. The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. They further keep equating property theft scenarios, where you would easily notice that your money went to someone else, or personal harrassment scenarios, where your first consequence is a human individual audit not a national election outcome, with scenarios where you'd have no idea that your vote was changed unless you start implementing policies that would allow people to sell their votes, which is something that we don't allow for a reason. Paper ballots kept in small batches distributed among thousands of precincts that are counted by hand with opposition observers are hard to systematically rig. Bits in a cloud machine somewhere that lose all connection to your action are not. They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.
        u801e 6y ago
        > The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert. This also assumes that those who want to vote online have the knowledge to properly secure their private key. > They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_. Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president? I would say that gerrymandering has done far more to disenfranchise voters compared to theoretical attacks against the personal devices of those who choose to vote online.