3 ms·
Right. I agree with the author on principle, but introducing 'modern' tools to an existing industry, even the act of replacing 'antiquated' software, must be me
by abnercoimbre 2y ago
Right. I agree with the author on principle, but introducing 'modern' tools to an existing industry, even the act of replacing 'antiquated' software, must be met with skepticism [0] and fear.
[0] https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
- emmanueloga_ 2y agoThis is still funny and true about the software profession at many levels, but specifically about electronic voting, I recently listened to this podcast about Venezuela's last election [0], which highlights how computer voting can be done so safely that people were able to (clandestinely!) use the system to double-check the election results. -- 1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/848/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/848/transcript
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- LiKao 2y agoI usually like XKCD because it has much more depth than other comics. But I don't really like this one. The threat model for airplanes, elevators and voting machines is completely different. Airplanes and elevators are build and maintained by trusted parties that have at least some interest in security and safety (avoiding bad reputation) and the largest threat is accidental failure. Voting software is build by potentially untrusted parties with malicious attacks as the main threat including potential attacks by those in control and maintaining the machines. Yes, we have very good solutions for the first problem. But to my knowledge we absolutely lack solutions for the second problem. There are some good ideas, but they all make a trusted party assumption somewhere, and we just haven't figured out how to justify this assumption.