3 ms·
Totally. I recently had a crazy notion for losslessly scrambling the sequence as well. Mostly for protecting voter privacy (order in which ballots are cast). O
by specialist 5y ago
Totally.
I recently had a crazy notion for losslessly scrambling the sequence as well. Mostly for protecting voter privacy (order in which ballots are cast). One of the major blockers to fully digital voting.
I haven't found any hits using terms like "cryptographic timestamps." Surely I can't be the first.
- seoaeu 5y agoVoter privacy for digital voting doesn't solve much. It doesn't seem to be possible to both cryptographically prove to a voter that their vote was counted correctly (integrity) while simultaneously preventing them from being at risk of coercion to share who they voted for (privacy).
- specialist 5y agoTotally. I remain 100% opposed. "Cryptographic timestamps" would only solve one of the many blockers. Sadly, others will continue to push their harebrained ideas. One thing I learned as an activist is that offense beats defense. Meaning it's easier to promote a correct solution than oppose all the bad solutions. So if a digital equivalent of the Australian Ballot system (private voting, public counting) exists, I better find it.