Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kaspersky Says Lack of Digital Voting Will Be Democracy's Downfall

Posted by samzenpus on from the vote-online-or-die dept.

hapworth writes "Eugene Kaspersky, founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, has warned that one of the greatest cyber threats facing the world is the lack of effective online voting systems, claiming that unless young people can vote online they won't bother at all and the whole democratic system will collapse. Not everyone is buying that theory, however (and there's reason to suspect Kaspersky has a vested interest in online voting, which may need his firm's cybersecurity products). As producer James Lambie writes, 'Ultimately, the digital native's disenchantment with voting is based less on a lack of suitable technology and more on disillusionment with the craven and anemic political choices they are presented with.'"

6 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Enact mandatory voting by Balial · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Australia getting to the polls on voting day is mandatory. You're fined otherwise. This really gets people to vote. Digital only leads to vulnerabilities.

    1. Re:Enact mandatory voting by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Personally, I'd argue that making voting mandatory but restricting the electorate to those with a given minimum level of education and/or minimum intelligence would be the smart move, but change the rules for being in school from being mandatory for under 16s to being mandatory for under BSc/BAs regardless of age. (Likewise, eliminate the age of responsibility/majority - unlike cheese and wine, people do not improve with age alone - and replace it with a proficiency of responsibility. I don't care if you're 16, 60 or 600.)

      1. Not everyone is suited for a college degree. Period. That does not automatically mean they are less intelligent.
      2. Make rules for voting other than 'citizen' and 'breathing' and we would immediately see massive manipulation of those rules. And *you* will not be one of the manipulators.

      I just want to see 'citizen' and 'breathing' enforced.

  2. Stats disagree by cappp · · Score: 4, Informative

    The official stats seem to disagree, or at least suggest that there's more to consider than just age/membership in a wired generation.

    Consider for instance the breakdown in voting participation over the last 4 presidential elections (.pdf warning) - voter participation of those between 18 and 34 (what I would consider to be the net generation) has increased, in many cases markedly. Consider for instance that 18 to 20 year olds in 1996 had a 31.2% rate, 2000 saw a 28.4, 2004 had a 41% and 2008 had 41%. Similarly 21 to 24 saw 33.4, 35.4, 42.5, and 46.6. Similarly overall participation has increased across the board - 50.3% in 2000 to 57.1 in 2008.

    If anything one could argue that the rise of the internet has increased participation through the development of targeted demographic outreach like that popularly attributed to Obama's campaign success. Combine that with the ready stream of polarising online news, politicised communities, and use of social media and you've got a recipe for maximum outreach with minimum investment.

    1. Re:Stats disagree by deapbluesea · · Score: 3, Informative

      Taking four data points and not controlling for any other contributing factor you can say lots of things, but nothing meaningful.

      Sorry, I don't think I'm understanding you. The assertion is: "voter participation of those between 18 and 34 (what I would consider to be the net generation) has increased, in many cases markedly". The numbers then show that the voter participation among those age groups has increased. What "controlling for any other contributing factor" is needed to reach the conclusion that the thesis is correct based on the data?

      If you're referring to the next paragraph, he clearly starts with "One could argue". Not even remotely the same as claiming statistical correlation of any kind, just another thesis presented based on the (successful) validation of the original thesis.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
  3. Re:Honestly.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Informative

    True, but you shouldn't introduce artificial barriers to voting. The US for example has gotten rid of tests to qualify for voting precisely because it disenfranchised certain voters.

    And traded it for the current system that effectively disenfranchises any voter who can't afford his own personal lobbyists.

    Go go two-party clusterfuck.

  4. Re:Honestly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You could require everyone who wants to vote take a citizenship test every decade or so. But lots of people would get butthurt and cry RACIST!!!! Actually, there's nothing in the constitution that says who gets to vote, just reasons that aren't acceptable to discriminate on (race/gender/age above 18/ability to pay a poll tax). There's nothing that says you can't discriminate against felons, people who can't pass a test, people who smell bad, whatever criteria you like. You could also give voting rights to 10 year olds if a state voted for it.

    Yes, it's not in the Constitution.

    It's in the FUCKING VOTING RIGHTS ACT YOU MORON.

    There's a reason there's more to US law than the Constitution. Apparently you've never heard of the concept that Congress doesn't have to add something to the Constitution to make it law. But in fact, that's actually in several amendments, and was found to be necessary in 1965.

    http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php

    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript

    Sorry dude, but your pedantry test failed.