Online Voting In 2004 To Require Windows

letxa2000 writes "According to this article at CBS, a trial Internet voting system will be made available to 100,000 voters in 2004--particularly military and overseas U.S. citizens. As an American living overseas I think this is a step in the right direction. But the article also says 'Voters using SERVE can register to vote and cast their ballots from any computer using Microsoft Windows with Internet access.' Why the Windows requirement? Is that really going to make online voting secure?"

Comments

one reson why

[mpost4]

The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have (and yes I am being overly optimistic here) if this works for them the next platform will be Mac. Linux may never get it, unless more people use Linux, and I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate.

""I think Internet voting is a good idea for this population if you can assure security, but I'm not confident that they can do that," said John Dunbar, a project manager at the Center for Public Integrity" -- this statement is what will not alone them to open up the source code, people will be just to afraid that people will mess with the results of the system.

They are already afraid that this could open up security problems for the results "Other computer security experts call the project an open invitation to election tampering."

I don't know if this will make voting secure, in fact I think it will open it up to attackers, but how are we going to convince the government of this, write to you legislator, and senator, I am sure there are some proactive Slashdot readers that know more about this issue that could try to enlighten the ruling parties. I don't know what the answer is, but at lest they are looking at moving the process forward.

Re:one reson why

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an implementation that doesn't tie you down to any single platform? What if someone wants to vote with Win95, or a beta of Longhorn (I guess even warez doodz might vote) and it's "not supported"?

I think they should try to concentrate on creating a solid, platform independent system. There's absolutely no valid reason it couldn't be.

For the record, I think at this current point in time, electronic voting is a bad idea.

Re:one reson why

[PeeCee]

The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have

Well, why use exclusively Windows/Linux/*insert-your-OS* ? Why not use a more open solution (say, a system with a secure web interface) that does not depend on the OS? It hardly seems fair that people should need to depend on any product whatsoever to vote.

I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate

So should we prefer security by obscurity then? Wouldn't it be better to use an open, provably secure system that everyone can scrutinize so people can be sure stuff is being done the right way instead of just hoping nobody's discovered a hole? Of course I realize this would require some serious testing to make sure all the bugs were ironed out, but after a while I think it would make people much more confident to know how it was working behind the scenes. Look at it this way: would you rather go vote by pressing buttons on a black box the government has set up which they claim works the right way, or do you prefer knowing how the system actually works (how ballots are collected, carried, counted, etc) and feel safer?

Re:one reson why

[harlows_monkeys]

Security through obsurity is worthless

Everyone says this, but not one understands what it means.

What it means is that obscurity is not sufficient for security. It does not mean that obscurity is not helpful as part of an overall security system.

Hoo boy

[thatguywhoiam]

Gigantic partisan flamewar in 3...2...1...

I have no comment on the usage of Windows in this manner; the security of that operating system has been analysed to death and we all know what the outcome was.

I have a much bigger fundamental problem with this non-accountable electronic voting process that does not produce a verifiable paper ballot for each vote cast. Aside from any nefarious purposes in the design, having any system where the voting power is aggregated and sorted electronically - and nearly instantly (relatively speaking) - will prove too tempting for someone to sabotage.

I would think that at the very least, one should implement an electronic voting system on a transparent, open operating system, just for plain accountability.

And now its time to open the robot polls... and the robot results are in.

Imagine...

[nacturation]

from the article:

Imagine casting a vote for president from a cybercafe in Thailand, an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf or a laptop computer at home.

Coincidentally, as I'm typing this, thousands of terrorists, pranksters, and ne'er do wells are imagining the exact same possibility.

Re:Why Windows? And why not Palladium?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, the Palladium software is not sufficiently ubiquitous at this time for use in SERVE."

*whimpers in fear*

Did anybody notice the STATES they're testing in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohio, Florida... eh... Need I remind people that most every state they plan on testing this in are key swing states? Sure, it says a "handful of counties" -- but let's be realistic, pick the most key counties for your candidate, alter the votes enough, swing the state in favor of whomever votes. With black box voting (with no auditable source), this is entirely possible.

Long live paper ballots!

Ironic

[Bruha]

That the Courts say MS illegally used IE to monopolize the Browser market.. then they go back and make it a requirement to vote.

However I'm sure in whomever's ignorance that wrote the requirement it's more of a baseline of what you need. Unless it's some ActiveX voting booth which will be the next great virus..

voting.klez.E

curiousity.....

[morgajel]

what exactly is SERVE? is it a website? a program? an authentication scheme? I browsed over the article looking for that, and didn't see it.

So why is Windows a requirement- client side software? if so, why does it matter what browser you use? it's obviously not a vb app that calls IE, because they say it works with netscape 6+ as well.

If it's browser independent(straight html) then it should work on any system. I don't think netscape uses vbscript, so I don't think that would be a hinderance either.

Perhaps they just listed windows because they didn't want people with an old Tandy or 386 trying it. Perhaps they didn't mean to offend the linux and Mac users, they were just ignorant of their existence.

If someone is bored, they could try contacting the creators of this project and see if they could get mozilla and opera added to that list of broswers, as well as linux.

Actually, perhaps the mozilla team could petition to have themselves added to the list if they meet all of the requirements. It would be good publicity to say "yes, we're government certified to handle your votes, and we have a better track record than IE. try us."

You're wrong - obscurity is not helpful

[Goonie]

Obscurity is almost *never* helpful in designing a secure system, because any system that relies on keeping the details of its workings secret is going to be vulnerable to anybody that *does* learn those workings. Just as importantly, if the system is open to public scrutiny, it can be checked for flaws, whereas if it is kept secret security holes that were missed by the developers can be left wide open.

Re:That's not true

[Durandal64]

Please try and learn something about the American political system. Modern liberals believe that the government can and should have more of a hand in regulating the free market and can be an active force for social benefit, while believing that it lacks the competence to dictate personal morality to citizens. Conservatives are the opposite. They believe that the government should stay out of the free market and should not interfere in societal problems, but that it should police the personal morality of its citizens. This is why most anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-drug people are conservatives, while the proponents for affirmative action, marijuana legalization and social welfare programs are liberals.

The only more or less consistent party is the Libertarian party. Libertarians believe in a small government for the free market, society and citizens' personal lives. Libertarians are generally pro-choice, pro-gays and don't care what you choose to shoot into your body, whether it be heroin, cocaine or Drano. They also tend to take conservatives' views on the free market regulation and social welfare programs.

In short, if conservatives had their way, we'd lose all our personal liberties (it's no big mystery why conservatives tend to be Christians). If liberals had their way, we'd lose any sense of personal responsibility because of unending societal support. Choose which liberties you want to sacrifice to which side, but don't pretend that one side is trying to rob you of all your rights and freedoms while the other is benevolent. You're only deluding yourself.