[Split Thread] Electronic voting - Page 6

Mongrel · 3rd August 2018, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

What could be more transparent than a block chain?

Other than that you are saying that if certain problems were overcome then they wouldn't be overcome.

What sort of blockchain^WP? Which sort do you think the government would want?

We're saying that once certain problems are overcome you've addressed that problem, there's still a pile of other problems over there which have yet to be solved

Upchurch · 3rd August 2018, 06:19 AM

There is a line from Harry Potter that I always thought summed up computer security perfectly:

Quote:

The Prime Minister gazed hopelessly at the pair of them for a moment, then the words he had fought to suppress all evening burst from him at last.
“But for heaven’s sake — you’re wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out — well — anything!”
Scrimgeour turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, “The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister.”

From Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 1 - "The Other Minister"

No matter what solutions anyone comes up with, it is only ever a matter of time before it can be compromised. Security is a technological and psychological arms race with, really, no end. Any move over to online voting would immediately become a giant international target. The question is, as I asked above, how much of an increase in voter fraud would be acceptable for the convenience? Because there is no question that voter fraud would constantly be on the rise.

Blue Mountain · 3rd August 2018, 07:34 AM

I'm a long time computer programmer with some interest in security; for example, I have a good understanding of how public/private key infrastructure works and how SSL/TLS works. I also read Bruce Schneier's Schneier on Security blog. I heartily agree with most posters here who posit that it's pretty much impossible to completely secure an e-voting process end-to-end.

Having said that, Estonia has had e-voting in general elections for over a decade now. [wikipedia].

Now, there is one huge difference between Estonia and the US: the e-voting system works in part because Estonia has a mandatory national ID card. The physical card is a smart card with an embedded cryptographic microprocessor. Try selling that in the States!

Upchurch · 3rd August 2018, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Now, there is one huge difference between Estonia and the US: the e-voting system works in part because Estonia has a mandatory national ID card. The physical card is a smart card with an embedded cryptographic microprocessor. Try selling that in the States!

Maybe we could use the photo ID required to buy groceries?

Mongrel · 3rd August 2018, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Maybe we could use the photo ID required to buy groceries?

Or your SSN - no one knows that, right

jimbob · 3rd August 2018, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate

Originally Posted by jimbob

The UK has a system that is robust with effective anonymity unless an investigation is required when the paper trail can be looked into.

I have no doubt that nobody could find how I voted unless there was a court order.

pencil and paper FTW.

The system is supposed to be able to prevent even this. I'm dubious if a court in a common law jurisdiction is competent to even ask this.

I'm not sure whether I am misunderstanding what you are saying here - so apologies if I am going off on the wrong track.

There have been (few) occasions* in the UK where attempted double voting, voting as another person, or ballot tampering have been investigated

https://www.electoralcommission.org....a-and-analysis

It would be possible with the UK system to tie a particular vote to a particular person - we vote with numbered ballot papers and the number is recorded when we collect the ballot paper in the polling station. This would allow checking for ballot paper tampering, but it wouldn't be an easy job, and except in very particular circumstances the cross reference will not be performed. It would be easier to see whether a person's vote had been used (i.e. to check for possible personation, or double voting).

*In 2017, there were 104 alleged voting offences.

jnelso99 · 3rd August 2018, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mongrel

Or your SSN - no one knows that, right

At the school where I went to college, that was your student ID. It was used everywhere - to buy stuff at the cafeteria, to get into bars, etc. Not exactly a secret.

Mongrel · 3rd August 2018, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by jnelso99

At the school where I went to college, that was your student ID. It was used everywhere - to buy stuff at the cafeteria, to get into bars, etc. Not exactly a secret.

And as Segnosaur pointed out at #186 150 million people had their personal details (including SSN) exposed in the Equifax breach last year.

Even though your Social Security card isn't meant to be used as ID...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

psionl0 · 3rd August 2018, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Of course I did. “Addressing” and “agreeing with” are two separate things.

Evidently, so are "knowing what a post says" and "disagreeing with a post".

lomiller · 3rd August 2018, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

What could be more transparent than a block chain?

That all depends on how you propose to use it, something you have refused to tell anyone.

Upchurch · 3rd August 2018, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Evidently, so are "knowing what a post says" and "disagreeing with a post".

Oh, I see. Are you under the impression I have a problem with blockchain itself? I don't. The problem is the question of GIGO and the transparency of what happens on the ends, like with the bitcoin exchanges. Especially on the voter side.

blockchain is great. It does not solve the underlying weaknesses of an online voting system. Continually posting "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!" doesn't change that.

jimbob · 3rd August 2018, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

What could be more transparent than a block chain?

Other than that you are saying that if certain problems were overcome then they wouldn't be overcome.

What could be more transparent? A full literal paper trail. My vote goes into a ballot box under supervision, the ballot box goes to the count under supervision, the count is supervised.

As has been said, the attack methods for a paper vote are easily understood and also would require a lot of people on the ground to affect the outcome in most elections.

Can you explain a bolockchain-based-system where anonymity is preserved whilst allowing traceability of votes if an investigation is needed?

acbytesla · 3rd August 2018, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is what everybody is accusing me of. Their strawman argument is that I am urging the adoption of blockchain technology right NOW!. That is why I listed some of the problems that could be addressed in post #133.

If concerns about the originating computer could be overcome, would you still say "nay" to electronic voting?

YES
If I asked a thousand people what blockchain is and how it works. How many could say what it is or describe how it works? People understand how paper and pencil works.

Every other day people read about breaches in software. Hackers all over the world are constantly at work trying to break or crack a code. I don't care how safe or unbreakable one might think their new code or lock might be, someone, somewhere seems to find a way to break it.

How do you assure them that their vote is secure in this environment? I don't think you can.

jimbob · 3rd August 2018, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I was just thinking exactly the same and wondering if the typical number of voters per polling station might be significantly less in the UK than the US.

<edit> This suggests England has around 50,000 polling stations, so a little over a thousand voters per station on average. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32229745
<edit some more> And this (2004 figures) suggests the US equivalent is about 1200 voters per polling place so not much difference. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.8868.pdf

The electoral commission is interesting - note that special considerations need to be made if polling stations are serving a larger number of voters.

https://www.electoralcommission.org....ganisation.pdf

Quote:

Polling station staff

2.16 You must appoint and pay a Presiding Officer and such Poll Clerks as
may be necessary to staff each polling station. This cannot be any person
who has been employed by or on behalf of a candidate in or about the
election.

2.17 In order to ensure that voters can receive a high-quality service, when
deciding on the allocation of electors and staff to polling stations you will need to ensure that polling stations are properly staffed, giving consideration to the factors set out in paragraph 2.20 below.

2.18 The Commission recommends the following ratios (which exclude postal
voters) when allocating electors and staff to polling stations:

A polling station should not have more than 2,500 electors allocated to it.
In addition to a Presiding Officer, there should be one Poll Clerk for
polling stations with up to 1,000 electors.
One additional Poll Clerk should be appointed for polling stations with up to 1,750 electors.
One further Poll Clerk should be appointed to a polling station with up to the maximum of 2,500 electors.

2.19 These ratios are recommended minimum levels: there may be
circumstances in which you wish to employ a higher number of staff.

2.20 Any polling station over 2,000 electors will create particular challenges in ensuring voters can vote without delay, taking into account the hours of poll and the fact that voters will not typically vote in an even spread across the day. To be able to respond to these challenges, staff should be capable of being deployed flexibly to respond to peaks in voter activity and limit the time voters are expected to queue to receive their ballot paper. One mechanism for managing larger polling stations effectively could be to split the register within that polling station to create two separate issuing desks, each managed by two members of staff, thereby doubling the capacity for processing, while recognising that there would need to be sufficient space within the polling station for this to operate effectively.

psionl0 · 3rd August 2018, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Continually posting "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!" doesn't change that.

It's a good thing I don't say that but I'm sure that you won't let an inconvenient fact like that stop you.

Segnosaur · 3rd August 2018, 09:35 AM

[quote=Blue Mountain;12382893]Having said that, Estonia has had e-voting in general elections for over a decade now. [wikipedia].
Yup. And lets take a look at Estonia....

The claim is that they've run electronic voting for several elections without problems. But from the wikipedia article:
a team of International computer security experts released the results of their examination of the system, claiming they could be able to breach the system, change votes and vote totals, and erase any evidence of their actions if they could install malware on the election servers.
...
In 2011 Paavo Pihelgas created a trojan that was theoretically able to change voter's choice without user noticing.

Furthermore, from: https://www.csoonline.com/article/32...-using-it.html
hilarious operational security failures, including an official video of the pre-election process that showed wi-fi passwords posted on the wall, administrators filmed typing in root passwords, and a software build system that was also being used to play PokerStars.

Also, from the same article it mentions Australian state elections that used electronic voting...
The NSW state election of 2015 was so insecure that one seat in the upper house of the state parliament may have been decided by hacked votes. In response to the scandal, the electoral commission went to great lengths to avoid transparency regarding the security issues...

Which highlights 2 problems:
- That hacking during an election can go undetected (the claim is that Estonia's elections have been fair and the system secure, but if they had been hacked, who could tell?)
- That the response by the government will typically be "No problem exists" rather than to confront security flaws

Quote:

Now, there is one huge difference between Estonia and the US: the e-voting system works in part because Estonia has a mandatory national ID card. The physical card is a smart card with an embedded cryptographic microprocessor. Try selling that in the States!

Another difference is that Estonia has a rather small voter base and very little political influence in the world. The U.S. has a HUGE (and extremely divided) voter base, and with a huge economy and significant political influence it serves as a much more tempting target.

Leftus · 3rd August 2018, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

My physical signature is a random scribble that anyone could fake, my digital signature is 128-256 bit encryption depending on the exact application that... no you are not going to fake that.

Ballots are not signed. In fact, signing ballots voids them. But even if they were, the problem is that how do we know that your digital signature is yours and not an imposter? How do we stop them from signing up for e-ballots before you do? Hell, how do we even know that you are you?

Paper ballots limit the total amount of fraud possible by a single entity. Electronic ballots open up voter fraud to largely amounts. One person can attempt to be 140 million voters.

Roughly 40% of the US population doesn't vote. One person could impersonate all of them and nobody would know. There is no way to verify the credentials since they are, in fact, legitimate. They have the right names, drivers licenses, SSNs, and so on. And once the have that identity, the genuine voter would have an uphill battle getting it back.

You would have to solve, or have a mitigation method, for the issue of ID theft. Blockchain does nothing to solve that. How would you handle 10,860,005,571 bad ballots? Looks like enough to determine an election.

TheGoldcountry · 3rd August 2018, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Leftus

How would you handle 10,860,005,571 bad ballots? Looks like enough to determine an election.

I think we could safely dismiss those results without investigation.

acbytesla · 3rd August 2018, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Leftus

Ballots are not signed. In fact, signing ballots voids them. But even if they were, the problem is that how do we know that your digital signature is yours and not an imposter? How do we stop them from signing up for e-ballots before you do? Hell, how do we even know that you are you?

In my state, it's all mail in ballots. The ballots are not signed, but the envelope you put the ballot in must be signed.

Upchurch · 3rd August 2018, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

It's a good thing I don't say that but I'm sure that you won't let an inconvenient fact like that stop you.

I'm very sorry.

I seemed to have confused you with another poster in this thread.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Blockchain technology has the potential to make electronic voting unhackable.

Originally Posted by psionl0

However, that is not as important as the fact that the entire blockchain is publically available for anybody who wishes to find any "flaws". Any voter would be able to examine the blockchain and verify that their votes were not tampered with.

Originally Posted by psionl0

You missed the point that a hostile computer can not overcome the "proof of work" that the blockchain requires.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why don't you learn about the blockchain then tell us how this works.

Originally Posted by psionl0

What has any of that got to do with a blockchain? You do know the difference between an exchange and a blockchain don't you?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Until you learn the difference between the blockchain and an exchange you are just posting utter rubbish.

Originally Posted by psionl0

The point of the blockchain is that it is not some super secret voting file stored on government computers.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Bitcoin exchanges are a weak point in the currency exchange system but the blockchain itself is the most secure, immutable thing invented in cyberspace.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Nobody has mentioned any problems with using blockchain.

Originally Posted by psionl0

All of the real and imagined problems with electronic voting listed here have nothing to do with blockchain itself.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Maybe when a blockchain puts Uber out of business we will get a better idea of what can and what can not be done with blockchain technology.

Originally Posted by psionl0

What could be more transparent than a block chain?

And that doesn't include the ones that other psionl0 didn't mention blockchain by name.

Again, I think blockchain is a legit way of encrypting the votes. But honestly, that was probably the easiest part of the whole electronic voting issue.

TheGoldcountry · 3rd August 2018, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

In my state, it's all mail in ballots. The ballots are not signed, but the envelope you put the ballot in must be signed.

That's what I've done for awhile.

Segnosaur · 3rd August 2018, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is what everybody is accusing me of. Their strawman argument is that I am urging the adoption of blockchain technology right NOW!. That is why I listed some of the problems that could be addressed in post #133.

If concerns about the originating computer could be overcome, would you still say "nay" to electronic voting?

First of all, its not just problems on the "originating computer" that need to be overcome. People have posted about multiple attack vectors that could be used to interfere with electronic voting, so its not just the originating computer that needs to be dealt with.

Secondly... lets say we do admit Blockchain is a valid and secure way to store votes. I'm quite willing to say that if all of the security problems could be addressed then electronic voting would be OK. Are YOU willing to admit that all of the other problems are so intractable that the remainder of the security issues will not be solved until after the heat death of the universe?

Seriously, its like arguing we should accept voting through ESP, assuming the problems of telepathy could be solved.

If I had to give a list of concerns about electronic voting, the technology used to record the votes (be it blockchain or whatever) would not be be at the top of my list. In fact, I don't think it would even be in my top 10.

This reminds me of the movie "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", where the 2 main characters are driving a car that had caught fire. A cop pulls them over for speeding (their speedometer had melted in the fire), and asks if they think their car is safe to drive. One of the characters points out that the Radio still works. That's what blockchain is to electronic voting... one extremely tiny (and almost irrelevant) issue among so many, much more serious issues.

Leftus · 3rd August 2018, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

In my state, it's all mail in ballots. The ballots are not signed, but the envelope you put the ballot in must be signed.

But they aren't kept, most likely. They certainly aren't matched to the ballot. I would doubt the signatures are looked at past the "does it exist" or not. If it was discovered that someone else signed the envelope a week, or month later, how would they resolve the issue?

Signatures on tax returns are required. They are not verified. They just have to exist. Spelling isn't even checked.

psionl0 · 3rd August 2018, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

[spoiler]
....
[/spoiler]
*

Thank you for pointing out that I never said "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!"

* Unfortunately the quote button doesn't include your quotes inside the spoiler tags so those interested will have to look at your original post.

Upchurch · 3rd August 2018, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Thank you for pointing out that I never said "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!"

Don't be ridiculous. That was a parody of what you've been arguing in this thread and was never intended to be a literal quote.

jimbob · 3rd August 2018, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

First of all, its not just problems on the "originating computer" that need to be overcome. People have posted about multiple attack vectors that could be used to interfere with electronic voting, so its not just the originating computer that needs to be dealt with.

Secondly... lets say we do admit Blockchain is a valid and secure way to store votes. I'm quite willing to say that if all of the security problems could be addressed then electronic voting would be OK. Are YOU willing to admit that all of the other problems are so intractable that the remainder of the security issues will not be solved until after the heat death of the universe?

Seriously, its like arguing we should accept voting through ESP, assuming the problems of telepathy could be solved.

If I had to give a list of concerns about electronic voting, the technology used to record the votes (be it blockchain or whatever) would not be be at the top of my list. In fact, I don't think it would even be in my top 10.

This reminds me of the movie "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", where the 2 main characters are driving a car that had caught fire. A cop pulls them over for speeding (their speedometer had melted in the fire), and asks if they think their car is safe to drive. One of the characters points out that the Radio still works. That's what blockchain is to electronic voting... one extremely tiny (and almost irrelevant) issue among so many, much more serious issues.

Basically it's like this:

https://xkcd.com/538/

TheGoldcountry · 3rd August 2018, 12:48 PM

I might be in favor of "e-voting" if I thought there was a big problem that it could solve.

The big problems I see with voting are disenfranchisement and gerrymandering, which aren't technology problems.

Jim_MDP · 3rd August 2018, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

I might be in favor of "e-voting" if I thought there was a big problem that it could solve.

The big problems I see with voting are disenfranchisement and gerrymandering, which aren't technology problems.

Late to the party here, sorry...
A major problem I see is turnout, which both mail and e balloting would address.
Our limited hours are arguably an issue as well... same response.
I mean honestly... voting on a Tuesday?

TheGoldcountry · 3rd August 2018, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Late to the party here, sorry...
A major problem I see is turnout, which both mail and e balloting would address.
Our limited hours are arguably an issue as well... same response.
I mean honestly... voting on a Tuesday?

That was out-of-date 70 years ago. Now it's just irrelevant.

Turnout has always been a problem, but if someone is so apathetic that they won't vote unless it's an easy app on their phone, then nothing is going to fix that.

Mongrel · 3rd August 2018, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

That was out-of-date 70 years ago. Now it's just irrelevant.

Turnout has always been a problem, but if someone is so apathetic that they won't vote unless it's an easy app on their phone, then nothing is going to fix that.

Another board I hang out at has a lot of retail workers, people with two jobs or job and college, rely on public transport etc.

There are valid reason why it's hard to get out and vote, it's incorrect to assume apathy, and an easy remote vote would probably help greatly. It's still not a vote for app or web voting, just refining current rules to help these people.

Leftus · 3rd August 2018, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Late to the party here, sorry...
A major problem I see is turnout, which both mail and e balloting would address.
Our limited hours are arguably an issue as well... same response.
I mean honestly... voting on a Tuesday?

California has both early and vote by mail. Total turn out for 2016? 36% I'm not sure how much e-ballots would add to the legitimate vote count.

The problem really isn't access.

Blue Mountain · 3rd August 2018, 03:43 PM

[quote=Segnosaur;12383049]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Having said that, Estonia has had e-voting in general elections for over a decade now. [wikipedia].
Yup. And lets take a look at Estonia....

The claim is that they've run electronic voting for several elections without problems. But from the wikipedia article:
a team of International computer security experts released the results of their examination of the system, claiming they could be able to breach the system, change votes and vote totals, and erase any evidence of their actions if they could install malware on the election servers.
...
In 2011 Paavo Pihelgas created a trojan that was theoretically able to change voter's choice without user noticing.

Furthermore, from: https://www.csoonline.com/article/32...-using-it.html
hilarious operational security failures, including an official video of the pre-election process that showed wi-fi passwords posted on the wall, administrators filmed typing in root passwords, and a software build system that was also being used to play PokerStars.

Also, from the same article it mentions Australian state elections that used electronic voting...
The NSW state election of 2015 was so insecure that one seat in the upper house of the state parliament may have been decided by hacked votes. In response to the scandal, the electoral commission went to great lengths to avoid transparency regarding the security issues...

Which highlights 2 problems:
- That hacking during an election can go undetected (the claim is that Estonia's elections have been fair and the system secure, but if they had been hacked, who could tell?)
- That the response by the government will typically be "No problem exists" rather than to confront security flaws

Another difference is that Estonia has a rather small voter base and very little political influence in the world. The U.S. has a HUGE (and extremely divided) voter base, and with a huge economy and significant political influence it serves as a much more tempting target.

All great points. Despite the fact Estonia has electronic voting, the process is not completely secure, and that in a nation with just over a million people. And probably doesn't have the deep political divides we see in the US.

Getting it to work in the USA? There are some major hurdles to overcome. For now, paper provides the best combination of privacy with an audit trail. Those are much more important than knowing who has been elected microseconds after the polls close.

psionl0 · 3rd August 2018, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Don't be ridiculous. That was a ~~parody~~ strawman of what you've been arguing in this thread and was never intended to be a literal quote.

ftfy.

TheGoldcountry · 3rd August 2018, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mongrel

Another board I hang out at has a lot of retail workers, people with two jobs or job and college, rely on public transport etc.

There are valid reason why it's hard to get out and vote, it's incorrect to assume apathy, and an easy remote vote would probably help greatly. It's still not a vote for app or web voting, just refining current rules to help these people.

That wasn't remotely my point. In fact, that's what I meant by disenfranchisement. Some people really want to vote, and have to overcome hurdles to do so, while others can do it easily with very little effort and don't even care to make a tiny effort.

Upchurch · 4th August 2018, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

ftfy.

Straw man. Right.

Roughly a third of your posts, at the time I counted, were either extolling or defending blockchain by name. I’d estimate another sixth to a third we’re doing the same without mentioning it by name. I’m estimating about half to two-thirds of your posts have been promoting blockchain. You have the second most posts in this thread. So, yes, you have been hawking blockchain pretty heavily in this thread.

Again, blockchain is an interesting technology, but it is largely inconsequential to the core problems of electronic voting.

Mongrel · 4th August 2018, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Straw man. Right.

Roughly a third of your posts, at the time I counted, were either extolling or defending blockchain by name. I’d estimate another sixth to a third we’re doing the same without mentioning it by name. I’m estimating about half to two-thirds of your posts have been promoting blockchain. You have the second most posts in this thread. So, yes, you have been hawking blockchain pretty heavily in this thread.

Again, blockchain is an interesting technology, but it is largely inconsequential to the core problems of electronic voting.

And somehow, in all that, never a good explanation why. There's some snide "LOL, you don't understand blockchain" but never actual information beyond "It's secure" (both quotes paraphrased)

psionl0 · 4th August 2018, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Mongrel

And somehow, in all that, never a good explanation why. There's some snide "LOL, you don't understand blockchain" but never actual information beyond "It's secure" (both quotes paraphrased)

I gave an explanation of how blockchain worked and the role it could play in an electronic voting system early on in this thread.

Unfortunately, that explanation has been buried by the many voluminous posts that accuse me of of being madly in love with blockchain.

Upchurch · 4th August 2018, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I gave an explanation of how blockchain worked and the role it could play in an electronic voting system early on in this thread.

It could, but so what? You might as well be arguing what language to write the app in. I mean, yeah, great, but it doesn't address the fundamental problems with online voting.

jimbob · 4th August 2018, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I gave an explanation of how blockchain worked and the role it could play in an electronic voting system early on in this thread.

Unfortunately, that explanation has been buried by the many voluminous posts that accuse me of of being madly in love with blockchain.

I guess you are talking about these

Originally Posted by psionl0

It is not just an older video, it is out of date.

Blockchain technology has the potential to make electronic voting unhackable. It even has the ability to maintain voter privacy (Monero style).

Originally Posted by psionl0

@Ambrosia, I understand your skepticism. Up until a few years ago I also would have thought that this was not possible.

Yet it has been achieved in the banking industry. If you think that gaming elections is worth money then imagine if you could game banking. Yet thanks to encryption technology and other security measures, online banking is about as safe as writing a paper check or visiting the local branch of your bank. This has been achieved despite the hostile nature of the internet.

What makes blockchain different is that it is fully decentralized. There may be 1000s or even 100000s of nodes all working on verifying votes and adding them to the blockchain. One individual can not control that many nodes. A node can not add a block to the chain without doing a "proof of work" process (essentially guessing the correct number - known as a nonce). Once a block has been added, it can't be altered or at least, it can't be altered without recalculating the nonce of all future blocks that have been added and that difficulty increases exponentially high after a few blocks.

The software that does all of this is open source so that anybody can examine it. However, that is not as important as the fact that the entire blockchain is publically available for anybody who wishes to find any "flaws". Any voter would be able to examine the blockchain and verify that their votes were not tampered with.

I'm not saying that it is foolproof but "hanging chad" fisacos or ballot box tampering is much less likely to occur with this technology.

That is not true either. It is virtually impossible for somebody to do a transaction against a wallet or alter a wallet transaction without possessing the user's private "key". The same goes for tampering with votes and digital voting cards.

Which misses the point that WilliamSeger (amongst others) has made.

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

It takes software to get input from some device and build a blockchain entry. My online banking is not safe if my PC has been hacked with a key logger.

I can be prepared to accept that Blockchain can be secure. I can't see how one can explain it to the majority of the population.

I can't see how it prevents bad information being entered into the system in the first place. An electronic system is vulnerable to the inputs being subverted. There is also a large incentive to attempt this. A paper system would require far too many people for covert attacks to achieve much.

Mongrel · 4th August 2018, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I gave an explanation of how blockchain worked and the role it could play in an electronic voting system early on in this thread.

Unfortunately, that explanation has been buried by the many voluminous posts that accuse me of of being madly in love with blockchain.

I apologise, you gave an explaination for how one sort of blockchain^WP worked.

On a more thorough reading though, what's the proof of work? How are you going to be able to generate the robust key that is one of the lynchpins of blockchain while still being able to process people at a speedy rate?

How do you stop a 51% attack, and you may want to read up on botnet swarms before answering.
A search for 'Blockchain security' got this article from MIT Technology Review, from the article;

Quote:

So in the end, “secure” ends up being very hard to define in the context of blockchains. Secure from whom? Secure for what? “It depends on your perspective,” says Narula.

3rd August 2018, 06:00 AM	#201
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: 20 minutes in the future Posts: 1,821	Originally Posted by psionl0 What could be more transparent than a block chain? Other than that you are saying that if certain problems were overcome then they wouldn't be overcome. What sort of blockchain^WP? Which sort do you think the government would want? We're saying that once certain problems are overcome you've addressed that problem, there's still a pile of other problems over there which have yet to be solved
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer

3rd August 2018, 06:19 AM	#202
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 30,847	There is a line from Harry Potter that I always thought summed up computer security perfectly: Quote: The Prime Minister gazed hopelessly at the pair of them for a moment, then the words he had fought to suppress all evening burst from him at last. “But for heaven’s sake — you’re wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out — well — anything!” Scrimgeour turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, “The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister.” From Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 1 - "The Other Minister" No matter what solutions anyone comes up with, it is only ever a matter of time before it can be compromised. Security is a technological and psychological arms race with, really, no end. Any move over to online voting would immediately become a giant international target. The question is, as I asked above, how much of an increase in voter fraud would be acceptable for the convenience? Because there is no question that voter fraud would constantly be on the rise.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2018, 07:34 AM	#203
Blue Mountain Resident Skeptical Hobbit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg Posts: 5,434	I'm a long time computer programmer with some interest in security; for example, I have a good understanding of how public/private key infrastructure works and how SSL/TLS works. I also read Bruce Schneier's Schneier on Security blog. I heartily agree with most posters here who posit that it's pretty much impossible to completely secure an e-voting process end-to-end. Having said that, Estonia has had e-voting in general elections for over a decade now. [wikipedia]. Now, there is one huge difference between Estonia and the US: the e-voting system works in part because Estonia has a mandatory national ID card. The physical card is a smart card with an embedded cryptographic microprocessor. Try selling that in the States!
	__________________ The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.

3rd August 2018, 07:37 AM	#204
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 30,847	Originally Posted by Blue Mountain Now, there is one huge difference between Estonia and the US: the e-voting system works in part because Estonia has a mandatory national ID card. The physical card is a smart card with an embedded cryptographic microprocessor. Try selling that in the States! Maybe we could use the photo ID required to buy groceries?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2018, 07:45 AM	#205
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: 20 minutes in the future Posts: 1,821	Originally Posted by Upchurch Maybe we could use the photo ID required to buy groceries? Or your SSN - no one knows that, right
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer

3rd August 2018, 07:59 AM	#206
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 18,248	Originally Posted by catsmate Originally Posted by jimbob The UK has a system that is robust with effective anonymity unless an investigation is required when the paper trail can be looked into. I have no doubt that nobody could find how I voted unless there was a court order. pencil and paper FTW. The system is supposed to be able to prevent even this. I'm dubious if a court in a common law jurisdiction is competent to even ask this. I'm not sure whether I am misunderstanding what you are saying here - so apologies if I am going off on the wrong track. There have been (few) occasions* in the UK where attempted double voting, voting as another person, or ballot tampering have been investigated https://www.electoralcommission.org....a-and-analysis It would be possible with the UK system to tie a particular vote to a particular person - we vote with numbered ballot papers and the number is recorded when we collect the ballot paper in the polling station. This would allow checking for ballot paper tampering, but it wouldn't be an easy job, and except in very particular circumstances the cross reference will not be performed. It would be easier to see whether a person's vote had been used (i.e. to check for possible personation, or double voting). *In 2017, there were 104 alleged voting offences.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2018, 08:08 AM	#207
jnelso99 Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 751	Originally Posted by Mongrel Or your SSN - no one knows that, right At the school where I went to college, that was your student ID. It was used everywhere - to buy stuff at the cafeteria, to get into bars, etc. Not exactly a secret.
jnelso99 Muse Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 751

3rd August 2018, 08:36 AM	#209
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 12,942	Originally Posted by Upchurch Of course I did. “Addressing” and “agreeing with” are two separate things. Evidently, so are "knowing what a post says" and "disagreeing with a post".
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

3rd August 2018, 08:54 AM	#210
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,094	Originally Posted by psionl0 What could be more transparent than a block chain? That all depends on how you propose to use it, something you have refused to tell anyone.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,094	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

3rd August 2018, 09:10 AM	#211
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 30,847	Originally Posted by psionl0 Evidently, so are "knowing what a post says" and "disagreeing with a post". Oh, I see. Are you under the impression I have a problem with blockchain itself? I don't. The problem is the question of GIGO and the transparency of what happens on the ends, like with the bitcoin exchanges. Especially on the voter side. blockchain is great. It does not solve the underlying weaknesses of an online voting system. Continually posting "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!" doesn't change that.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2018, 09:21 AM	#212
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 18,248	Originally Posted by psionl0 What could be more transparent than a block chain? Other than that you are saying that if certain problems were overcome then they wouldn't be overcome. What could be more transparent? A full literal paper trail. My vote goes into a ballot box under supervision, the ballot box goes to the count under supervision, the count is supervised. As has been said, the attack methods for a paper vote are easily understood and also would require a lot of people on the ground to affect the outcome in most elections. Can you explain a bolockchain-based-system where anonymity is preserved whilst allowing traceability of votes if an investigation is needed?
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2018, 09:22 AM	#213
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 18,008	Originally Posted by psionl0 That is what everybody is accusing me of. Their strawman argument is that I am urging the adoption of blockchain technology right NOW!. That is why I listed some of the problems that could be addressed in post #133. If concerns about the originating computer could be overcome, would you still say "nay" to electronic voting? YES If I asked a thousand people what blockchain is and how it works. How many could say what it is or describe how it works? People understand how paper and pencil works. Every other day people read about breaches in software. Hackers all over the world are constantly at work trying to break or crack a code. I don't care how safe or unbreakable one might think their new code or lock might be, someone, somewhere seems to find a way to break it. How do you assure them that their vote is secure in this environment? I don't think you can.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

3rd August 2018, 09:23 AM	#214
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 18,248	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge I was just thinking exactly the same and wondering if the typical number of voters per polling station might be significantly less in the UK than the US. <edit> This suggests England has around 50,000 polling stations, so a little over a thousand voters per station on average. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32229745 <edit some more> And this (2004 figures) suggests the US equivalent is about 1200 voters per polling place so not much difference. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.8868.pdf The electoral commission is interesting - note that special considerations need to be made if polling stations are serving a larger number of voters. https://www.electoralcommission.org....ganisation.pdf Quote: Polling station staff 2.16 You must appoint and pay a Presiding Officer and such Poll Clerks as may be necessary to staff each polling station. This cannot be any person who has been employed by or on behalf of a candidate in or about the election. 2.17 In order to ensure that voters can receive a high-quality service, when deciding on the allocation of electors and staff to polling stations you will need to ensure that polling stations are properly staffed, giving consideration to the factors set out in paragraph 2.20 below. 2.18 The Commission recommends the following ratios (which exclude postal voters) when allocating electors and staff to polling stations: A polling station should not have more than 2,500 electors allocated to it. In addition to a Presiding Officer, there should be one Poll Clerk for polling stations with up to 1,000 electors. One additional Poll Clerk should be appointed for polling stations with up to 1,750 electors. One further Poll Clerk should be appointed to a polling station with up to the maximum of 2,500 electors. 2.19 These ratios are recommended minimum levels: there may be circumstances in which you wish to employ a higher number of staff. 2.20 Any polling station over 2,000 electors will create particular challenges in ensuring voters can vote without delay, taking into account the hours of poll and the fact that voters will not typically vote in an even spread across the day. To be able to respond to these challenges, staff should be capable of being deployed flexibly to respond to peaks in voter activity and limit the time voters are expected to queue to receive their ballot paper. One mechanism for managing larger polling stations effectively could be to split the register within that polling station to create two separate issuing desks, each managed by two members of staff, thereby doubling the capacity for processing, while recognising that there would need to be sufficient space within the polling station for this to operate effectively.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2018, 09:30 AM	#215
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 12,942	Originally Posted by Upchurch Continually posting "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!" doesn't change that. It's a good thing I don't say that but I'm sure that you won't let an inconvenient fact like that stop you.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

3rd August 2018, 09:35 AM	#216
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,154	[quote=Blue Mountain;12382893]Having said that, Estonia has had e-voting in general elections for over a decade now. [wikipedia]. Yup. And lets take a look at Estonia.... The claim is that they've run electronic voting for several elections without problems. But from the wikipedia article: a team of International computer security experts released the results of their examination of the system, claiming they could be able to breach the system, change votes and vote totals, and erase any evidence of their actions if they could install malware on the election servers. ... In 2011 Paavo Pihelgas created a trojan that was theoretically able to change voter's choice without user noticing. Furthermore, from: https://www.csoonline.com/article/32...-using-it.html hilarious operational security failures, including an official video of the pre-election process that showed wi-fi passwords posted on the wall, administrators filmed typing in root passwords, and a software build system that was also being used to play PokerStars. Also, from the same article it mentions Australian state elections that used electronic voting... The NSW state election of 2015 was so insecure that one seat in the upper house of the state parliament may have been decided by hacked votes. In response to the scandal, the electoral commission went to great lengths to avoid transparency regarding the security issues... Which highlights 2 problems: - That hacking during an election can go undetected (the claim is that Estonia's elections have been fair and the system secure, but if they had been hacked, who could tell?) - That the response by the government will typically be "No problem exists" rather than to confront security flaws Quote: Now, there is one huge difference between Estonia and the US: the e-voting system works in part because Estonia has a mandatory national ID card. The physical card is a smart card with an embedded cryptographic microprocessor. Try selling that in the States! Another difference is that Estonia has a rather small voter base and very little political influence in the world. The U.S. has a HUGE (and extremely divided) voter base, and with a huge economy and significant political influence it serves as a much more tempting target.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

3rd August 2018, 09:51 AM	#217
Leftus Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 822	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue My physical signature is a random scribble that anyone could fake, my digital signature is 128-256 bit encryption depending on the exact application that... no you are not going to fake that. Ballots are not signed. In fact, signing ballots voids them. But even if they were, the problem is that how do we know that your digital signature is yours and not an imposter? How do we stop them from signing up for e-ballots before you do? Hell, how do we even know that you are you? Paper ballots limit the total amount of fraud possible by a single entity. Electronic ballots open up voter fraud to largely amounts. One person can attempt to be 140 million voters. Roughly 40% of the US population doesn't vote. One person could impersonate all of them and nobody would know. There is no way to verify the credentials since they are, in fact, legitimate. They have the right names, drivers licenses, SSNs, and so on. And once the have that identity, the genuine voter would have an uphill battle getting it back. You would have to solve, or have a mitigation method, for the issue of ID theft. Blockchain does nothing to solve that. How would you handle 10,860,005,571 bad ballots? Looks like enough to determine an election.
Leftus Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 822

3rd August 2018, 10:02 AM	#218
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,682	Originally Posted by Leftus How would you handle 10,860,005,571 bad ballots? Looks like enough to determine an election. I think we could safely dismiss those results without investigation.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

3rd August 2018, 10:20 AM	#219
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 18,008	Originally Posted by Leftus Ballots are not signed. In fact, signing ballots voids them. But even if they were, the problem is that how do we know that your digital signature is yours and not an imposter? How do we stop them from signing up for e-ballots before you do? Hell, how do we even know that you are you? In my state, it's all mail in ballots. The ballots are not signed, but the envelope you put the ballot in must be signed.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

3rd August 2018, 10:20 AM	#220
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 30,847	Originally Posted by psionl0 It's a good thing I don't say that but I'm sure that you won't let an inconvenient fact like that stop you. I'm very sorry. I seemed to have confused you with another poster in this thread. Originally Posted by psionl0 Blockchain technology has the potential to make electronic voting unhackable. Originally Posted by psionl0 However, that is not as important as the fact that the entire blockchain is publically available for anybody who wishes to find any "flaws". Any voter would be able to examine the blockchain and verify that their votes were not tampered with. Originally Posted by psionl0 You missed the point that a hostile computer can not overcome the "proof of work" that the blockchain requires. Originally Posted by psionl0 Why don't you learn about the blockchain then tell us how this works. Originally Posted by psionl0 What has any of that got to do with a blockchain? You do know the difference between an exchange and a blockchain don't you? Originally Posted by psionl0 Until you learn the difference between the blockchain and an exchange you are just posting utter rubbish. Originally Posted by psionl0 The point of the blockchain is that it is not some super secret voting file stored on government computers. Originally Posted by psionl0 Bitcoin exchanges are a weak point in the currency exchange system but the blockchain itself is the most secure, immutable thing invented in cyberspace. Originally Posted by psionl0 Nobody has mentioned any problems with using blockchain. Originally Posted by psionl0 All of the real and imagined problems with electronic voting listed here have nothing to do with blockchain itself. Originally Posted by psionl0 Maybe when a blockchain puts Uber out of business we will get a better idea of what can and what can not be done with blockchain technology. Originally Posted by psionl0 What could be more transparent than a block chain? And that doesn't include the ones that other psionl0 didn't mention blockchain by name. Again, I think blockchain is a legit way of encrypting the votes. But honestly, that was probably the easiest part of the whole electronic voting issue.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2018, 10:25 AM	#221
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,682	Originally Posted by acbytesla In my state, it's all mail in ballots. The ballots are not signed, but the envelope you put the ballot in must be signed. That's what I've done for awhile.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

3rd August 2018, 11:02 AM	#222
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by psionl0 That is what everybody is accusing me of. Their strawman argument is that I am urging the adoption of blockchain technology right NOW!. That is why I listed some of the problems that could be addressed in post #133. If concerns about the originating computer could be overcome, would you still say "nay" to electronic voting? First of all, its not just problems on the "originating computer" that need to be overcome. People have posted about multiple attack vectors that could be used to interfere with electronic voting, so its not just the originating computer that needs to be dealt with. Secondly... lets say we do admit Blockchain is a valid and secure way to store votes. I'm quite willing to say that if all of the security problems could be addressed then electronic voting would be OK. Are YOU willing to admit that all of the other problems are so intractable that the remainder of the security issues will not be solved until after the heat death of the universe? Seriously, its like arguing we should accept voting through ESP, assuming the problems of telepathy could be solved. If I had to give a list of concerns about electronic voting, the technology used to record the votes (be it blockchain or whatever) would not be be at the top of my list. In fact, I don't think it would even be in my top 10. This reminds me of the movie "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", where the 2 main characters are driving a car that had caught fire. A cop pulls them over for speeding (their speedometer had melted in the fire), and asks if they think their car is safe to drive. One of the characters points out that the Radio still works. That's what blockchain is to electronic voting... one extremely tiny (and almost irrelevant) issue among so many, much more serious issues.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

3rd August 2018, 11:30 AM	#223
Leftus Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 822	Originally Posted by acbytesla In my state, it's all mail in ballots. The ballots are not signed, but the envelope you put the ballot in must be signed. But they aren't kept, most likely. They certainly aren't matched to the ballot. I would doubt the signatures are looked at past the "does it exist" or not. If it was discovered that someone else signed the envelope a week, or month later, how would they resolve the issue? Signatures on tax returns are required. They are not verified. They just have to exist. Spelling isn't even checked.
Leftus Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 822

3rd August 2018, 11:38 AM	#224
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 12,942	Originally Posted by Upchurch [spoiler] .... [/spoiler] * Thank you for pointing out that I never said "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!" * Unfortunately the quote button doesn't include your quotes inside the spoiler tags so those interested will have to look at your original post.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

3rd August 2018, 11:42 AM	#225
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 30,847	Originally Posted by psionl0 Thank you for pointing out that I never said "but but but ...blockchain is awesome!" Don't be ridiculous. That was a parody of what you've been arguing in this thread and was never intended to be a literal quote.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2018, 11:58 AM	#226
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 18,248	Originally Posted by Segnosaur First of all, its not just problems on the "originating computer" that need to be overcome. People have posted about multiple attack vectors that could be used to interfere with electronic voting, so its not just the originating computer that needs to be dealt with. Secondly... lets say we do admit Blockchain is a valid and secure way to store votes. I'm quite willing to say that if all of the security problems could be addressed then electronic voting would be OK. Are YOU willing to admit that all of the other problems are so intractable that the remainder of the security issues will not be solved until after the heat death of the universe? Seriously, its like arguing we should accept voting through ESP, assuming the problems of telepathy could be solved. If I had to give a list of concerns about electronic voting, the technology used to record the votes (be it blockchain or whatever) would not be be at the top of my list. In fact, I don't think it would even be in my top 10. This reminds me of the movie "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", where the 2 main characters are driving a car that had caught fire. A cop pulls them over for speeding (their speedometer had melted in the fire), and asks if they think their car is safe to drive. One of the characters points out that the Radio still works. That's what blockchain is to electronic voting... one extremely tiny (and almost irrelevant) issue among so many, much more serious issues. Basically it's like this: Actual actual reality: nobody cares about his secrets. (Also, I would be hard-pressed to find that wrench for $5.) https://xkcd.com/538/
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2018, 12:48 PM	#227
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,682	I might be in favor of "e-voting" if I thought there was a big problem that it could solve. The big problems I see with voting are disenfranchisement and gerrymandering, which aren't technology problems.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

3rd August 2018, 01:26 PM	#228
Jim_MDP Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: N.Cal/S.Or Posts: 6,676	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry I might be in favor of "e-voting" if I thought there was a big problem that it could solve. The big problems I see with voting are disenfranchisement and gerrymandering, which aren't technology problems. Late to the party here, sorry... A major problem I see is turnout, which both mail and e balloting would address. Our limited hours are arguably an issue as well... same response. I mean honestly... voting on a Tuesday?
	__________________ ---------------------- Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything. "Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust. "Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

3rd August 2018, 01:50 PM	#229
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,682	Originally Posted by Jim_MDP Late to the party here, sorry... A major problem I see is turnout, which both mail and e balloting would address. Our limited hours are arguably an issue as well... same response. I mean honestly... voting on a Tuesday? That was out-of-date 70 years ago. Now it's just irrelevant. Turnout has always been a problem, but if someone is so apathetic that they won't vote unless it's an easy app on their phone, then nothing is going to fix that.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505 Last edited by TheGoldcountry; 3rd August 2018 at 01:53 PM.

3rd August 2018, 03:17 PM	#230
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: 20 minutes in the future Posts: 1,821	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry That was out-of-date 70 years ago. Now it's just irrelevant. Turnout has always been a problem, but if someone is so apathetic that they won't vote unless it's an easy app on their phone, then nothing is going to fix that. Another board I hang out at has a lot of retail workers, people with two jobs or job and college, rely on public transport etc. There are valid reason why it's hard to get out and vote, it's incorrect to assume apathy, and an easy remote vote would probably help greatly. It's still not a vote for app or web voting, just refining current rules to help these people.
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer

3rd August 2018, 03:19 PM	#231
Leftus Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 822	Originally Posted by Jim_MDP Late to the party here, sorry... A major problem I see is turnout, which both mail and e balloting would address. Our limited hours are arguably an issue as well... same response. I mean honestly... voting on a Tuesday? California has both early and vote by mail. Total turn out for 2016? 36% I'm not sure how much e-ballots would add to the legitimate vote count. The problem really isn't access.
Leftus Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 822

3rd August 2018, 03:43 PM	#232
Blue Mountain Resident Skeptical Hobbit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg Posts: 5,434	[quote=Segnosaur;12383049] Originally Posted by Blue Mountain Having said that, Estonia has had e-voting in general elections for over a decade now. [wikipedia]. Yup. And lets take a look at Estonia.... The claim is that they've run electronic voting for several elections without problems. But from the wikipedia article: a team of International computer security experts released the results of their examination of the system, claiming they could be able to breach the system, change votes and vote totals, and erase any evidence of their actions if they could install malware on the election servers. ... In 2011 Paavo Pihelgas created a trojan that was theoretically able to change voter's choice without user noticing. Furthermore, from: https://www.csoonline.com/article/32...-using-it.html hilarious operational security failures, including an official video of the pre-election process that showed wi-fi passwords posted on the wall, administrators filmed typing in root passwords, and a software build system that was also being used to play PokerStars. Also, from the same article it mentions Australian state elections that used electronic voting... The NSW state election of 2015 was so insecure that one seat in the upper house of the state parliament may have been decided by hacked votes. In response to the scandal, the electoral commission went to great lengths to avoid transparency regarding the security issues... Which highlights 2 problems: - That hacking during an election can go undetected (the claim is that Estonia's elections have been fair and the system secure, but if they had been hacked, who could tell?) - That the response by the government will typically be "No problem exists" rather than to confront security flaws Another difference is that Estonia has a rather small voter base and very little political influence in the world. The U.S. has a HUGE (and extremely divided) voter base, and with a huge economy and significant political influence it serves as a much more tempting target. All great points. Despite the fact Estonia has electronic voting, the process is not completely secure, and that in a nation with just over a million people. And probably doesn't have the deep political divides we see in the US. Getting it to work in the USA? There are some major hurdles to overcome. For now, paper provides the best combination of privacy with an audit trail. Those are much more important than knowing who has been elected microseconds after the polls close.
	__________________ The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.

3rd August 2018, 06:50 PM	#233
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 12,942	Originally Posted by Upchurch Don't be ridiculous. That was a ~~parody~~ strawman of what you've been arguing in this thread and was never intended to be a literal quote. ftfy.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

3rd August 2018, 07:30 PM	#234
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,682	Originally Posted by Mongrel Another board I hang out at has a lot of retail workers, people with two jobs or job and college, rely on public transport etc. There are valid reason why it's hard to get out and vote, it's incorrect to assume apathy, and an easy remote vote would probably help greatly. It's still not a vote for app or web voting, just refining current rules to help these people. That wasn't remotely my point. In fact, that's what I meant by disenfranchisement. Some people really want to vote, and have to overcome hurdles to do so, while others can do it easily with very little effort and don't even care to make a tiny effort.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

4th August 2018, 03:48 AM	#235
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 30,847	Originally Posted by psionl0 ftfy. Straw man. Right. Roughly a third of your posts, at the time I counted, were either extolling or defending blockchain by name. I’d estimate another sixth to a third we’re doing the same without mentioning it by name. I’m estimating about half to two-thirds of your posts have been promoting blockchain. You have the second most posts in this thread. So, yes, you have been hawking blockchain pretty heavily in this thread. Again, blockchain is an interesting technology, but it is largely inconsequential to the core problems of electronic voting.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe. Last edited by Upchurch; 4th August 2018 at 03:55 AM.

4th August 2018, 04:06 AM	#236
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: 20 minutes in the future Posts: 1,821	Originally Posted by Upchurch Straw man. Right. Roughly a third of your posts, at the time I counted, were either extolling or defending blockchain by name. I’d estimate another sixth to a third we’re doing the same without mentioning it by name. I’m estimating about half to two-thirds of your posts have been promoting blockchain. You have the second most posts in this thread. So, yes, you have been hawking blockchain pretty heavily in this thread. Again, blockchain is an interesting technology, but it is largely inconsequential to the core problems of electronic voting. And somehow, in all that, never a good explanation why. There's some snide "LOL, you don't understand blockchain" but never actual information beyond "It's secure" (both quotes paraphrased)
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer Last edited by Mongrel; 4th August 2018 at 04:09 AM.