Absentee Ballots by Email?

tordia writes "Bruce Schneier has come out against a plan proposed by the Missouri Secretary of State, Matt Blunt. Blunt's proposal would allow "soldiers at remote duty stations or in combat areas cast their ballots with the help of e-mail." The plan arose when Jim Avery, a Missouri State Representative and National Guard soldier currently on active duty in Iraq, told Blunt that the fax machines required by the current Missouri absentee ballot law are rare, but most soldiers have access to computers. A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office downplays the privacy and security considerations by saying, "If the soldier is uncomfortable with this process, he or she should not consider this option". I agree with Bruce when he says "This is troubling"." Like many things, this is a wonderful idea in theory; it's just that darn implementation that things get...messy.

Comments

Email gateway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they just use an email -> fax gateway of some sort?

And, if they plan to use email, this seems like the perfect chance to try out digital signatures. The military could organize it.

Re:Email gateway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah, AFAIK, these guys are in a much better position to judge Bush's foreign policy and the situation in Iraq than a bunch of whiny asshats back home.

My nephew was in Iraq. His squad was ambushed, he was shot 3 times - in the arm and in both thighs. He just got back home last week with the purple heart, and earned a medal of valor for setting off a flare after the ambush (which took out their communications as well).

Despite the fact he was wounded in Iraq, he doesn't consider it an unjust war, and plans to vote for Bush. He told me he saw first-hand the difference we've made in that country, and there's no way anyone can convince him that the war was wrong.

Where are the experts??

[bhima]

Why is it that Bruce Schneier is the only person that can speak intelligibly about security?

I know cryptology is complex but christ, there are a few tenants that even I have picked up reading his most excellent newsletters. Am I the only one who reads these? I can see it now: the US government winds up in Schneider's 'dog house' along with the rest of the shady dealers.

And me having to vote from Vienna

Re:Yesss!

[Mork29]

You actually bring up a good point. Soldiers used to vote republican. It's just how it was. This year, it's changed alot. There is alot of debate amongst soldiers on who they'll vote for, and we seem to be split as much as the polls on who is going to be voting for who. This is a big push to get us to vote. (You can look at my e-mail address to see why I said we). Soldiers could really play a big part in this election in alot of the swing states. I think that soldiers certainly deserve to be given every possible means of easy and secure voting possible. The president is the commander in chief and that effects soldiers more than any body else. Voting is difficult in the military, but it's something that we've earned. The system does have to be secure and safe though. I pray for the day when E-Voting is a possiblity. Well, as an agnostic I don't really pray.... but you get what I mean.

Great Idea!

[justforaday]

This is a great idea!!! Now where can I dig up a list of overseas soldiers??? Ahhh yes...I knew there was a reason why I bookmarked this story...

But how secure is faxing your vote?

[the_skywise]

Okay, emailing a vote is not exactly secure, but how secure is faxing a vote?

Oh sure, they can "see" a signature but how many people in the voting office are going to check the signature against the one on file? (IE, how many dead people vote in elections?)

Re:Some thoughts

[gclef]

Unfortunately (or fortuantely, depending on your point of view), the federal government doesn't run the vote. The states do. So, for the Armed Forces to run a voting system themselves, they'd have to abide by 50 different sets of laws about how the vote should be run...basically making setting it up impossible.

Honestly, the simplest system (absentee balloting) seems to be the best in this case, and has worked fine for years. Why we're trying to replace something that isn't broken is beyond me.

More than digital signatures.

[goombah99]

More than digital signatures are needed. There has to be feedback to the soldier that his vote was cast and counted at the central polling place. There is a technology that can do this from the company "vote here" which allows the voter to call in later and check that their vote was recieved unchanged without actually telling them the vote (basically it tells them an encrypted checksum that cant be reversed to reveal the vote even by brute force). This does not prevent the client computer casting the ballot from making a mistake or being corrupted malicously or otherwise. But it does solve the transmisson and feedback problem. I oppose this tehcnology for general public use (favoring paper trails due to their ability ot be recounted) but for soldiers overseas prompt ballot collection may take priority over recountability since the risk is greater that your ballot wont be counted at all than it will be miscounted.

why just for military?

[tuxette]

Why not for all U.S. expatriates, if you're going to do something like this at all?