Slashdot Mirror
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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?!?!?!?
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
So if you misspell the name of your candidate, Verisign will use its * wildcard to vote for its CEO automatically!
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.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Yes, the algorithms for secure anonymous fraud-proof voting exist, but I don't think the implementations are up to the task yet - in particular, if they cannot be independently verified before, during and after the elections.
There's just too much potential for a fraud to justify dropping the good old pencil-in-the-number-of-your-candidate method.
And, for our next trick, we absolutely won't replace the electoral college with internet voting. Even if it were secure, it would take the power out of the hands of the elite and give it to the people.
However, wouldn't it be nice if we (the US, if you can forgive my inclusive pronoun) were a democracy instead of a republic? If internet voting is good for the goose, then shouldn't it be good for the gander? We just need to replace those old and moldy voting booths with shiny new internet-enabled booths.
Of course, as a programmer, I'll believe the voting scheme is "secure" when monkeys fly out of my butt.
As I recall, none of the absentee ballots made any difference in the 2000 presidential election.
Someone must have thought, "Lets let absentee voters vote electronically, we're just going to throw out their votes anyway!"
Nothing lost, nothing gained.
Fight or flight its all the same
Live to die another day
--Ryan
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.
While I'm usually skeptical of Internet voting, I'm actually in favor of it in the limited case of American personnel overseas, because it is better than the current system. Presently, most absentee votes don't even get counted, unless the margin of victory is less than number of absentee ballots. While this is technically accurate and efficient, it kinda sucks to be one of those people who's vote is never even considered.
On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake (with electronic voting machines, which is different from Internet voting) and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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]
This is purely bad principle. This is outsourcing voting. Elections should be handled as much as possible by regular people. Companies should provide paper, pencils, and maybe some refreshments.
Now I RTFA and I understand this is for military absentee ballots. But this will set precedence. Who will get the job next year? Don't you think the standards applied here will eventually be used for absentee ballots for State Department personnel? And then eventually the general public?
If the government is not capable on its own of running a fully electronic election, then they should not be doing it. Period. Forget the cost of alternative systems or even the impossibility. If the DOD cannot handle this internally (they should, they handle billions of dollars of secrets) then I think it is a step to far to outsource it.
"The sanctity of the vote can't be compromised nor can the integrity of the system be compromised"
Doesn't that line make you feel worried. At least they could say,"we have the best security and experience." But no, "the integrity of the system [can't] be compromised."
On that note, using Verisign's software, if you aren't sure who you want to vote, you can just put an asterisk after the first letter, and Verisign will choose whoever has the corresponding last name that paid them the most money!
http://mediagoblin.org/
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.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
I live abroad and frankly, I'm just not quite prepared to trust my vote to the internet. I'll be sending my vote by mail and would encourage other expats to do the same.
I certainly don't trust Verisign. I think the first few elections using this technology should be limited to say, a few thousand votes so as not to have a significant impact on the results (of course, given what happened in Florida, a few thousand votes might have a significant impact). Maybe it would be even better to run the electronic voting at the same time, requiring mail-in ballots and compare the results and not count the electronic voting until it's proven itself. Mail-in ballots aren't anonymous votes, so it should be easy enough to compare.
Even then, I don't know that that would work. I'd eventually like to see secure internet voting, but I'm just not sure the implementations are there yet.