Pentagon Cancels Internet Voting System

Ben B writes "The Pentagon won't use an Internet voting system for overseas U.S. citizens this fall because of concerns about its security, an official said Thursday. The official, who requested anonymity, said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the decision to scrap the system because Pentagon officials were not certain they could 'assure the legitimacy of votes that would be cast.' Computer security experts who last month reviewed the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE, had urged the Pentagon to scrap the system, saying it was too vulnerable."

Comments

That's nice. Does it finally kill the idea?

[ObviousGuy]

It's bad enough that the internet was going to be used to count votes outside the country. How much worse would it be with all those illegals voting online here inside the U.S. borders?

Can't this be fixed?

[El]

Couldn't they just require every voter to encrypt and sign their vote with a unique PGP key? Or are they assuming voters are too stupid to do this?

Re:Can't this be fixed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't they just require every voter to encrypt and sign their vote with a unique PGP key?

OMG! You solved the problem! And in one sentence too! Could you tackle spam next? Thanks.

Re:Can't this be fixed?

[Shut the fuck up!]

Hmm, I have a partial solution for spam too. However, it relies heavily on the invention of teleportation and time travel. I am sort of waiting on that before putting much more work into it.

Aww

[goon america]

But my "Internet Vote Accelerator" spyware would've made me trillions richer!

From a non-expert perspective

[The I Shing]

I'm not a security expert, but voting on the internet strikes me as being about as secure as locking up your bicycle with twist-ties.

I'm glad they've dropped this idea.

Re:From a non-expert perspective

[t0qer]

I'm not a security expert, but voting on the internet strikes me as being about as secure as locking up your bicycle with twist-ties.

I've been in twist ties handcuffs before and I can assure you they are VERY SECURE.

Re:From a non-expert perspective

[indianajones428]

I've been in twist ties handcuffs before and I can assure you they are VERY SECURE.


I hope you're confusing twist ties with zip ties.

Re:I really have to question

[Rotten168]

Well, the Pentagon considered the implication that worldwide "hackers" could alter the outcome of the election. And seeing as how popular GWB is worldwide, their decision was wise.

Admit it

[ObviousGuy]

Aren't you just the tiniest bit curious to see how cool a Sharpton presidency would be?

Just imagine all the quotes he'll leave for posterior.

S.E.R.V.E

[skzbass]

SERVE another acronym brount to us by the people who concocted such obcenities as: US VISIT and US PATRIOT ACT. Who is this wonderful group you ask? why the Federal Acronym Reasearch Team (who mysteriously doesn't go by their acronym)

Re:Secret ballots?

[Kenja]

" If someone's vote is observed (and they might be pressured into this by husband/wife/friend etc...) I can easily see people avoiding voting for controversial canidates, or somebody who their friends oppose."

See, thats why the porn star didn't win the California election.

For once...

[blueZhift]

...military intelligence is not an oxymoron!

good riddance

[vijayiyer]

Now if only we can get rid of the idea of spending taxpayer money domestically for fancy touch screens and computers, and return to good old foolproof (well, except maybe for the most foolish) making holes in paper or pulling a lever, we'll be all set, and maybe we can trust the voting system. Oh wait - you don't need to prove who you are when you register to vote. Never mind.

Old ways

[t0ny]

I guess they will just have to go back to the old method of giving your absentee ballot to your local alderman.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet voting system cancels YOU!

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I already voted 96,000 times...for NOTHING?!?

Simple - sell all the votes

[NotQuiteReal]

Simple:

1) Constitutional amendment banning all taxes.
2) Fund all Govt programs via voting fees.
3) Each vote costs one dollar [serial number verification posted]
4) buy as many votes as you like, but only in your district.

Basically you vote for representatives to spend the money they have. Not the system now, where you vote for representatives to spend money they don't have and take from wherever they can.

I could be wrong, but I still think it would be hard to "buy" enough representatives to, say "drop all pollution laws" or whatever you think "rich evil corporations" would buy votes for. At the same time, I imagine it would greatly limit the "feature creep" of benefits that government has become. If "people" really want all this stuff why do I (and others who are net payers) feel so screwed at our (high) tax situation?

I could blather on... this is a ridculous idea, but logically, what is so wrong about the idea that those who are paying for govt programs shouldn't have a bit more say in what they will be?

The opposite point of view is that 6 guys in a dark alley "out vote" you when they say you need to pay "taxes" to support their next McDonald's run...

In the News: 7 Florida Judges crack Voting Server

[hol]

After ruling readable punch card ballots illegal and ruling in favor of Blacks with Misdemeanor convictions can't vote in spite of what the election law and constitution say, the Judges announced today that "all your votes are belong to us" - presumably Dubya agreed.

Uh... I think my US Visa just got cancelled ...
NO CARRIER