Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"If the soldier is uncomfortable with this process, he or she should not consider this option"
:(
.mil or gc.forces.ca email addys to people handing out Gmail invites, to prevent personal info being circulated that could lead down a dangerous path if the enemy decided to look them up. This has been largely difficult to reign in, but for the most part it's a fairly anonymous exchange. No worse than name, rank, serial number. And that's the idea. But if you have to fill out an absentee ballot in this email scheme, it would require much more personal info or it could be easily abused.
That's the worst excuse for bad security I have ever heard, and I think that if it was applied on all other systems, it would be a huge disaster. Look at the ATM for example. What if instead of a bank card, we shifted to an email scheme for withdrawing and depositing money? Email cheques are fairly secure but they have a password scheme and they don't rely soely on email. There's also no private information being transferred with an email cheque, just a link that requires a password over a secure connection. But what if we just made up email money and passed it around? Huge security flaw there. Take it one step further, why not add salt to the wound, by suggesting that if you don't like the insecure system, don't use it! Duh.
If soldiers send their private info over email, this also produces a security risk if the enemy gathers intel on soldiers to use against their families. Bad bad bad idea.
I'm one of the admins of Gmailforthetroops.com and we've had to let everyone know that we only want soldiers to privately provide their
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I run a few mailservers :). Every day the spammers and viruswriters come up with a new way to defeat whatever anti-spam and anti-virus measures I implement. It's a case of running as fast as we can to stay in the same place!
So maybe the spammers will decide who gets to be president this time, instead of the Supreme Court.
I'm going to call this election early:
John Kerry: 80,000 out of 150,000 votes
George Bush: 160,000 out of 150,000 votes
give soldiers ability to send regular postal mail?
a week before Nov 2, simply gather up everyone's ballots (sealed in envelopes), then mail them back home. IIRC, this is what was done in 2000, and many other elections pre-fax machines.
Why is it that politicians seem to do everything in their power to undermine public
confidence in the election process? What's wrong with having miltary poll stations
in Iraq and then simply flying the ballot boxes back? Sure, it's more expensive
that e-mail but if the US government can spend billions to put a democracy in the middle east
surely a few million dollars could be set aside to insure integrity of the US vote.
Simon
Oh, I see. If you're worried about security, don't use the system. Right. So, what's to prevent someone from using this system for me in my name? Who decides which ballot is valid in the case of multiple submissions? I certainly hope someone rethinks this idea before it gets implemented. There is simply WAAAAAY too much potential for abuse.
-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Bush: 1,356
Kerry: 1,498
Nader: 1
L337 D00d Linus Torvalds: 82,239,123
It's not as bad as it might sound. The only "internet-type" involvement in the process is actually data being moved over MILNET. Very little of MILNET is publicly accessible. When the ballots get to the DoD, they are faxed to the appropriate election officials in Jefferson City, MO.
Not ideal, but it's not as insecure as I would have imagined.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
You know, only the US (of developed Western democracies at least) makes such a big fricken' mess out of the whole voting process. Pieces of paper and ballot boxes actually work. They may be slower, they may be more expensive, but they WORK and they are transparent. They are scaleable and the hardware is cheap. Recounts are easy and verifiable.
Prediction: the US will be convulsed over the reliability and fairness of its elections procedures every four years for the forseeable future.
Countries using ballot papers and boxes will get their results a bit slower, but will not be convulsed.
As for the argument that e-voting makes it easier for people to vote, thus increasing democratic participation, all I can say is, if you care so little about your vote that you can't be bothered to leave the house to cast it (I"m assuming those who are housebound are catered for) you don't deserve to vote.
Sheesh. I have used up my 'fricken' quotient for today but it was worth it.
Some old technology is very good. Like the bicycle. When I worked in TV we used to bike tapes around rather than using the internet, because as our tech director used to say, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a man on a motorbike".
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
A lot of us libertarians used to vote republican too. Funny how Bush and the neocons destroyed everything the Republican party once stood for - small government, stay out of business, etc; and turned it into a far bigger-spending-party (record deficits immediatlly after Clinton's record surplus) than even the democrats, and turned it into the party of the Church - and human rights bashing not only overseas but to gays (marriage) and minorities (patriot act) at home as well.
It'll feel wierd as a libertarian to vote for a democrat, but the republicans really changed the last couple years.