VeriSign and Secure Internet Voting

Bucky Katt writes "VeriSign announced Monday that it will provide key components of a system designed to let Americans abroad cast absentee votes over the Internet."

Comments

OMG

[tbase]

So we won't have to have physical access to log in and change votes with MS Access and no password? For the love of God, when is the mainstream press going to pick up on this?!?!?!?

This is going to be a fiasco

[TerryAtWork]

The USA is handing over democracy (in a small but growing way) to a no-vision for-profit firm that has a proven lack of ethics.

This is going to get worst before it gets better.

Re:This is going to be a fiasco

[DanoTime]

Many, many times proven a lack of ethics... I really think this is going to turn out like the old Real Networks fiasco where personal info was recorded. This company will eventually need another revenue stream and... oh, lookie here! Look at all this information!

Re:This is going to be a fiasco

[bconway]

*groan* Much like the way they currently "hand it over" to the companies they pay to provide voting and counting machines? Or is the fact that it would be done over the Internet somehow vastly different? If so, do you work for the US patent office? I have a very common idea, but want to implement it on the Internet, and therefore I believe it worthy of a patent.

This could be good

[slimak]

Naturally most /.ers are going to complain about this for various reasons generally involving security. However, this could be a good thing IF a GOOD system is actually developed (now or in the future). I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.

Chances are though that this first pass will not be great, which will slow/stop future development due to cries of the public for and end to insecure online voting.

Re:This could be good

[tsg]

I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.

People who don't care enough to vote don't care enough to be informed. Pointing at "voter apathy" and claiming it's the problem is extremely short sighted. Voter apathy is a symptom, not the cause. Making voting easier to get better turnout is just going to ensure that more uninformed people are going to vote. I can't see how this is a good thing. Make people care about the issues and they'll find the way to the polls all by themselves.

Re:This could be good

[sakshale]

I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines

And, of course, you don't have to worry about someone in power monitoring the way you vote at your home/work/cafe...

One of the nice things about polling places is the effort the staff goes through to prevent "voting by intimidation". Those protections are not available at your home/work/cafe.

what about..

[myspys]

.. making people IN the country vote?

last vote less than 50% or something voted

what about fixing that problem first?

geez..

Re:what about..

[micromoog]

That raises the question: if it's that easy, will it encourage people who have absolutely NO knowledge of the issues or candidates to vote anyway? Isn't that more dangerous to democracy than not voting at all?

Re:what about..

[CWCarlson]

That's a problem? I think you're mistaken. Why should any effort be made to involve people in a political process in which they have no interest?

Not voting is as much a right as voting. The fact that the US has dismal voter turnout only indicates to me that the general population feels disenfranchised and powerless.

The only way to get more people to vote is to make them feel empowered, and that should be the real goal. Higher voter turnout, then, would merely be a nice side-effect.

Re:Aren't they obligated then...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Whenever the word "sanctity" is used in political or commercial endevours, be very suspect of the speaker. It's almost a dead-givaway for someone with a separate agenda.

better?

[twitter]

This is going to get worst before it gets better.

How do you think things will get better? There are few if any local independent news papers because they have all been crushed by big coroprate owned national broadcasters and "news" services like MSNBC. The same people have made sure that individuals have a hard time publishing on the internet, so everyone has to go through providers or portals where they can be shut down. Now the loop is being closed with black box voting, which is impossible to audit. Even if you could tell people the truth, they won't be able to do anything about it.

Vote against this kind of thing NOW.

Re:better?

[antic]

Vote against this kind of thing NOW.

Vote how? They will own the voting process...

It's a downward spiral.

Re:better?

[corbettw]

Wow, talk about apples and oranges.

No one *allowed* Amazon to "dominate the book sales industry" (somehow I doubt Amazon sells more books than either Barnes&Noble or Borders, though they probably have better margins than the other two). Consumers decided they preferred the convenience of shopping for books online, and Amazon was pretty much first out the gate. Personnally, the only reason I sometimes shop in small bookshops is when I feel my ego getting too big and I need some abuse to make it go down (though that isn't nearly as effective as going to a used CD store, or a game store).

Now, Comcast: it doesn't matter if people want them or not, they have a government sanctioned monopoly. Government intrusion into the market gave us the cable companies, do you think *more* government intrusion into the market would help? (Hint: the answer has two letters and rhymes with "know".)

As for Microsoft, they've used various OEM contracts and dominance in one area to establish dominance in others. A true, bona fide, illegal monopoly. Which the courts have already acted on/are acting on, though nowhere near the level they should be. But even with MS, their products have been improving drastically in the last two or three years. Why? Possibly because of all the other alternatives out there now, a la Mac, Linux, OpenOffice.org, etc. etc. etc. So even a monopoly can't ignore (or control) the market forever.

So let me get this straight...

[quantax]

Now're going to become further dependant on Verisign? I understand this project has been in development well before Verisigns latest screw ups, but at this point, it would be rather foolhardy to become tied to Verisign and any software they make; they've proven they choose profiteering over everything else. So why put this sort of responsibility in their hands when history proves that they may abuse it?

Another profitable revenue stream!

[Paul Doom]

Here is an excerpt from an email notification you will get after using the Verisign absentee system in 2004: "Valued Voter, At VeriSign we care deeply about freedom, democracy, and your right to privacy. Due to this fact, we are informing you of a change to our privacy policy. Line 428 which formerly read:

"Verisign will in no circumstances share your personal or voting information with 3rd parties."

now reads:

"In some cases, Verisign may share personal and voting information on customers with Verisign partners. This is standard business practice, and will lead to a more enjoyable voting experience for our users. In addition, it represents Verisign's commitment to capitalism, which is the sole foundation the United States was built upon. God Bless these United States, fellow patriot."

While most users will enjoy the benefits of this sharing (like customized Donkey or Elephant themes on parter sites, or voting record targeted product newsletters), some may wish to opt out. If you wish to opt out, please send your request to:
U.S. Department Of Justice
c.o. Sec. John Ashcroft950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Please look out for infromation on new MyDemocracyBuilder features in the coming months, including our exciting new "AutoVote" system!

Sincerely,
Verisign Support "

Only in limited cases...

[pangian]

Notice that the article only talks about using Internet voting as an alternative to absentee voting for citizens abroad and only in U.S. government agencies where secure Internet-enables voting stations can be set up. This is good .

Internet voting on a large scale will never take place due to logistical [for lack of a better word] rather than technical reasons. Electoral law requires that your vote be made in a manner that is free from influence (intimidation or vote buying). This is controlled by ensuring that voting goes on in select locations where campaigning is not permitted. Even campaign posters within sight of a voting station must be taken down.

With Internet voting, essentially anyplace could be a voting station. I could set up a little voting party for my friends and let them vote on my computer. Don't mind that there is paraphernalia all around for my candidate, or that I'm looking over your shoulder. After the party, laptop and cell in hand, I could help all the little old ladies in my neighborhood vote too.

[Your sig here]

The nontechnological concern...

[djeaux]

While I can certainly see the "logic" for providing an "easier" way for voters overseas to cast absentee ballots, this extends a concern that I've long had about the voting process...

By making it brainlessly easy for someone to vote, are we not making it so the voter does not have to plan to vote. And if a person doesn't plan to vote, how informed is their choice going to be?

Many states have already implemented "motor voter" systems where folks don't even have to explicitly register to vote -- it's just attached to their drivers license registration. Literacy tests & poll taxes -- once of which helps ensure that the voter can read the ballot & the other further forces voters to plan to vote -- were thrown out long ago as infringements on the civil rights of unschooled procrastinators.

I believe whole-heartedly that the political establishment of the United States does not want voters to be informed or to pre-plan the act of voting. The reasons for this ought to be self-evident to those of us who are capable of reading a ballot or planning our activities more than 10 minutes into the future.

Turning briefly to "secure" online voting (so this comment stays "on topic"), maybe the Verisign system couldn't be decrypted but it would be very possible for a determined attacker to simply mangle the packets so the votes wouldn't count.

Re:Replace the Electoral College w/ Folger's Cryst

[bladernr]

Malaysia uses a pure democracy form of government. A friend of mine from there, who is ethnic Chinese, tells me that open-discrimination is perfectly legal by the majority Malay against the minority Chinese. (there is even something about the minority subsidizing housing for the majority, even though the majority is financially better off)

The PM of Malaysia is quoted as saying the duty of the democracy is to better the majority. Strictly speaking, that is true in that form of government.

That is why I support the Republic form is government. Republic is representative rule, not majority rule. Each stakeholder in the US system should be represented. Arguments about the rights of any minority make sense only in a Republic. In a democracy, who cares about minorities? We all vote in self-interest, and majority rules.

To repeat an oft repeated quote, Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

uhm

[waspleg]

you already are one; lets not forget how many presidents we have that WERE NOT ELECTED BY THE POPULAR VOTE this is probably one of hte main reasons we have such low voter turn out; becuase no one feels like their vote matters the gov't does wahtever the fuck it wants to do anyway; even the Nazi's had kangaroo courts we dont' even have those we just deport people outside the country for tortu err questioning... we live in neither a democracy nor a republic; this is an oligarchy (yes it could be spelled oilgarchy at the moment)