3 ms·

>100% Fraud Proof This is a highly problematic claim, I am not aware of any serious security specialist who guarantees any system is 100% fraud proof. http://

>100% Fraud Proof This is a highly problematic claim, I am not aware of any serious security specialist who guarantees any system is 100% fraud proof. http://v-app.io/landing http://v-app.io/landing seems to be the real application behind this, which seems to be a much better and wider version of Doodle, the voting application. If anyone from v-app is listening I don't think you should mix v-initiative.org with v-app.io/organising things in a democratic way.

bowlofpetunias 12y ago
It's not just a highly problematic claim, it's 100% false. Any democratic digital vote is in itself 100% fraud, because it lacks two fundamental elements: 1) Completely transparent and verifiable for all voters. 2) The guarantee that anyone can cast their vote free of immediate external pressure. That's why we have paper ballots and voting booths. Anyone who claims otherwise, anyone who claims this system is merely "outdated" isn't talking about free and democratic elections. This project is a fraud.
- neilk 12y ago
  Uncertain why you got downvoted - perhaps "fraud" is a bit too strong but you are mostly correct. Even if you had a device and protocol that was perfectly secure, if you vote from home, someone else can demand to see you cast it. Or, if it's an app on your phone or a website, there will be an enormous incentive to either monitor your votes or hack them from the rest of the OS. I've looked into this question a lot and as far as I can tell, there's no way around it. At best, you might be able to distribute relatively secure machines to many places. Maybe every place that has minimal security, like pharmacies or post offices. Or possibly you have some scheme that allows you to repudiate coerced votes later - but that also offers more opportunities for coercion! That still leaves the problem of verifiability. We might imagine a relaxed standard of verifiability where almost any geeky person can verify the vote is good. I don't have any real ability to verify paper ballots for even a local election, as they are held in a warehouse somewhere. Maybe ubiquity of verification trumps ease of understanding.

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

It's not just a highly problematic claim, it's 100% false. Any democratic digital vote is in itself 100% fraud, because it lacks two fundamental elements: 1) Completely transparent and verifiable for all voters. 2) The guarantee that anyone can cast their vote free of immediate external pressure. That's why we have paper ballots and voting booths. Anyone who claims otherwise, anyone who claims this system is merely "outdated" isn't talking about free and democratic elections. This project is a fraud.

neilk 12y ago
Uncertain why you got downvoted - perhaps "fraud" is a bit too strong but you are mostly correct. Even if you had a device and protocol that was perfectly secure, if you vote from home, someone else can demand to see you cast it. Or, if it's an app on your phone or a website, there will be an enormous incentive to either monitor your votes or hack them from the rest of the OS. I've looked into this question a lot and as far as I can tell, there's no way around it. At best, you might be able to distribute relatively secure machines to many places. Maybe every place that has minimal security, like pharmacies or post offices. Or possibly you have some scheme that allows you to repudiate coerced votes later - but that also offers more opportunities for coercion! That still leaves the problem of verifiability. We might imagine a relaxed standard of verifiability where almost any geeky person can verify the vote is good. I don't have any real ability to verify paper ballots for even a local election, as they are held in a warehouse somewhere. Maybe ubiquity of verification trumps ease of understanding.