Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Town Holds First Internet Vote
felix.rauch writes "According to an article on Swissinfo, a small town near Geneva (Switzerland) held the first Internet-based vote this weekend. 44% of the voters (323) cast teir ballot over the Internet. Officials believe it may have been the first Internet-vote worldwide. While the Swiss media seem enthusiastic about the project, I see serious security and privacy concerns. The voters had to enter a 16-digit password, as well as their birthplace, date of birth and another number sent to them by post. Personally I think Internet-voting should be avoided until it's implemented by an open zero-knowledge protocol and checkable afterwards. Who can give a guarantee that nobody tampers with the results or creates a database with citizens voting information?"
an open zero-knowledge protocol and checkable afterwards.
The only issue is that voting implies that you are who you claim to be! Technically is seems difficult to break the link between identification and vote... especially if you want it to be checkable afterwards.
May I use your sig please?
"Who can give a guarantee that nobody tampers with the results or creates a database with citizens voting information?"
Given that this can already be done now with existing paper-based voting (certainly in the UK and the US anyway), I don't see that it is any different.
I guess the best solution is to maintain the option for Internet or in-person voting, that way people can chose which way to vote as they please.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Simply put there is no way to protect from direct voter tampering. Whats to keep an abusive husband from forcing his wife to vote his way. Whats to stop Unions from setting up there own Internet connected voting places where they can stand over peoples shoulders. Or what if someone decides to vote from work and thier conservative boss walks up behind them and notices they are voting Democrat. Nope, bad idea.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Personally, I would like to see this here in the UK as well. It has already been suggested here that voting by SMS might be on the cards for UK citizens, to encourage the 18-25's to be less apathetic. I can't see that being workable though, because it would involve the phone networks who can't necessarily be trusted.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Who can guarantee that doesn't happen with regular voting? When it all comes down you are trusting the people who count the votes, and the people who collect the votes, that nothing shady is happening from when you vote to when it's counted.
They had four points of authentication and if you want two more points have them authenticate both their MAC address and IP. Sure, both can be forged but to have all 6 points of data line up in a database would take a determined person.
The real concern I have with Internet voting is that to the general public, the security concerns it raises makes having identifier chips on electronic devices seem like a good idea. The answer lies in education. So long as you accept the fact that NO security is absolute then you can move into the grey areas of increased security.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
Simply put there is no way to protect from direct voter tampering.
As many people have already pointed out - There is "no way to protect from direct voter tampering" using traditional systems. I would accept the argument that any new system should be at least as secure as whatever system it is replacing/supplementing. However, to not implement a system until it is 100% gauranteed is foolish at best, especially when the result is more participation in the voting process, which is good for everyone (except perhaps the groups that depend on low-turnout.)
Whats to keep an abusive husband from forcing his wife to vote his way.
Nothing. Other than the laws designed to protect wives from abusive husbands in general. i.e. What's to protect her from being beat up nomatter how she votes?
Whats to stop Unions from setting up there own Internet connected voting places where they can stand over peoples shoulders.
Nothing. What's to stop unions from sending a couple of goons to stand outside the polls and remind you about the union stance and imply they might be checking your results?
Or what if someone decides to vote from work and thier conservative boss walks up behind them and notices they are voting Democrat.
This is just dumb. If you don't want to have a political argument at work, don't vote from the office. What's to stop your boss from checking the net logs and seeing that you regularly log into pro-abortion sites (or whatever)?
Nope, bad idea.
As far as I'm concerned, you gave no real reason why this is a "bad idea" - nothing unique to this implementation.
One real concern that I would have if this was implemented on a large scale, would be a proliferation of black-market votes. Certainly people sell their votes now, but as voting becomes easier, entering into the vote market also becomes more convinient. Whether or not this should be illegal is a completely different issue though.
This will potentially lose the concept of the secret ballot. There is no way to show that the voters were not coerced into voting the way that they did. It's quite easy to have someone look over their shoulder and tell them which way to vote.
Even beyond base digital sercurity concerns is the fact that internet voting occurrs from non-monitored locations. So what's to stop Candidate X's staffers from driving a couple of vans through the ghetto or a senior citizen's retirement community, load 'em up, bring 'em to a computer and say "If you let us watch you cast your vote for Candidate X, we'll give you $50".
Even with webcams,etc.,etc., there is NO way to ensure that internet voting is not coerced voting.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
Voting is a privelege in the US, and should not be a convenience.
Voting is a right. Period.
All citizens should be given equal access to vote. Currently city-dwellers have a much shorter trip to "Mecca" than those in rural areas. Internet voting, coupled with phone voting, and snail mail voting helps to balance the inequities in access. Not to mention, there are those who are physically disabled and may find it more than just "inconvenient" to go to a poll.
The purpose of a vote is not to challange the citizenry, or setup some kind of obstacle course were they "win" the right to vote, but to provide them with the oppurtunity to express their opinion. We should not loose sight of that end.
There are some people who sacrificed their lives so you could do all of the above.
This is exactly the reason we should enable as many people to vote as we can. That right was/has been/is being fought for and earned for everyone not just those who "take it seriously" and want to navigate some jungle so that the process coincides with their mental heroic fantasies.
Even if a system could be invented that guarantees security, integrity and privacy, the "proof" that it could be trusted would be beyond the man in the street.
Everyone (well nearly everyone) can see and understand Xs, bit's of paper, security vans and vote counting.
Try explaining non-repudiation, PKI infrastructure and certification to one of your maiden aunts.
Will she be more or less convinced that the next President really won?
If people don't understand it they won't trust it. And if they don't trust it they won't use it.
VoterApathy*=2;
Voting is a privelege in the US, and should not be a convenience
Maybe in the US voting is considered a privilege. In my country, voting is considered a right, even a necessity to legitimize the democratic system. Low participation rates are considered a Bad Thing so if internet voting raises participation, this would be good.
Regards, Wizord.