3 ms·
Public key cryptography in my eyes is the only proper way to do electronic voting, but it has a severe cost - the lack of secrecy. As anyone knows, the lack of
by snuxoll 11y ago
Public key cryptography in my eyes is the only proper way to do electronic voting, but it has a severe cost - the lack of secrecy. As anyone knows, the lack of secrecy comes with even more severe ramifications, the purchase of votes, pressure from friends/family/employers, the potential to be arrested in a fascist government, the list goes on.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoThere might be some validity to that, but I think you are blurring the lines between a private key being issued to someone and others knowing their vote, which would only happen if other know their public voting key.
- snuxoll 11y agoPublic key cryptography by nature requires a persons identity SOMEHOW be tied to their private key. Even if I get a private key issued by the government without any identifying information embedded in it, it's still tied to my identity, at the very least whoever administers the vote knows who I voted for - at least with a paper ballot no one but me knows what ballot I submitted.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoTrue, although I think a centralized organization for identity, while not at all ideal, is different than everyone knowing who you voted for. I wonder if there are methods for mixing identities. Bitcoin mixing services have many people put coins into a pool, then outputs balances to new addresses. It isn't a 1:1 comparison at all, but I wonder if there are methods that could be used. If more than one identity service is used I wonder if the multiple keys could be mixed to create a unique key that only the voter knows.