Slashdot Mirror


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

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.'"

38 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Ho ho ho, that's rich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People are jiggering electronic voting machines, online polls get stuffed more than a dimestore pornstar, contentious elections are par for the course every four years.

    Seems like digital voting is eroding democracy more than anything else, Kapersky.

    1. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by IAmR007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Electronic doesn't necessarily mean insecure. Public key cryptography with keys in voter cards is a possibility. Encrypt the vote with your public key and the government's public key, then sign. You could then check that your vote was counted and counted correctly either online with a cheap smartcard reader or at a library if you don't have a reader. The keys would be signed to verify identity and could also include a photo.

      The reason current electronic voting machines are insecure is that they have no electronic security whatsoever, not inherently because they're electronic.

    2. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by Pi1grim · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Estonia is a shining example of that. They have implemented online voting with smartcards and system is even more tamper-proof, than pen-and-paper voting, as a person can re-vote any number of times he/she wants to and only the last one will count.

    3. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by IAmR007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could also potentially separate the vote tallying and voter tracking by generating unique random IDs. This would allow the public to check the government's results via methods similar to bitcoin.

    4. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>>as a person can re-vote any number of times he/she wants to and only the last one will count.

      This is what we should have for our House of Representatives. We will keep the same politicians, in order to have their meetings and craft the bills, but when it comes to the final passage, it will be decided by the People online. That way stupid stuff like TARP will not pass (almost 80% of Americans were against it). The Senate would still function normally, with politicians voting "aye" or "nay", so as to block any bad bills the People's House might pass.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by psiclops · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you fully prove the same about pen and paper voting then your comment will have some merit.

      you can't - because there's no such thing as a foolproof system - just ones that you don't know how to break yet.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    6. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, my mother was a dimestore pornstar, you insensitive clod!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by mea_culpa · · Score: 3

      See Bitcoin and the number of large scale breaches for an example of what can go wrong. No matter how secure the 'vote' is, it all breaks down when what ever human interfacing component that handles the 'vote' gets compromised.
      Something as simple as voting should adhere to the KISS principle as much as possible and remain as transparent and non-digital as possible.

      I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.
        - Stalin

    8. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by gwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can explain to anybody with the most basic literacy level how to count the votes at his booth. They will do it once, twice or thirty times â" The results will match. Anybody can understand this happens at every booth, and they can audit it. And everybody will understand that you ad up the results of tens of booths to get a result for the district/electoral college/whatever. And that gets repeated nationwide. And that's it. My 85 year old aunt can act as one of the auditors.
      Try to get her to audit the code for an electronic booth. I won't even start to describe how impossible that is.
      That's the reason that led to Germany's Supreme Court to mandate that e-voting is against the constitution in 2009.

    9. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Provide evidence that every voter of average intelligence will also understand it.

      If you can't or they can't, it's asking you to rely on your masters. And that's not democracy.

      No, that's saying people who are stupid, lazy or just don't care have to rely on their masters. That's the way it should be. Part and parcel of democracy is the responsibility of the individual. I may not understand the mathematics behind public key cryptography, but I can understand the general principles. For the hardcore maths, I can ask any mathematician I trust to verify them; I'm not relying on the government telling me they're secure. And the mathematics for these things are available for public scrutiny, which is the important part.

      Besides, I'm not convinced the average voter understands all the complexities of the electoral system they're participating in now anyway.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason why TARP passed was because without it we would have fallen into the Great Depression II. The real trouble is that the many of the same people who foam at the mouth about TARP are also somehow think that softening the already weak banking regulations more would work as a stimulus. The simple fact is that the Republican House that was elected in the 2010 has worked hard to keep banks 'too big to fail'. Sure to a lessor extent the Dems are also to blame, but I'd argue that it's just political Darwinism, where only the well financed survive.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    11. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is modded funny, but should be modded insightful.

      This is America. Anything that makes it harder to commit election fraud gets colored as disenfranchisement and racist.

      Police aren't allowed at polling places because minorities are scared of them. Meanwhile, the Black Panthers can stand outside polling places with clubs and not a thing is done about it.

      Welcome to America.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    12. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'd do what they do already: not pass anything we wanted to pass, shovel through the stuff we don't want to pass via loopholes, political tricks, misinformation, and waiting until the fewest possible people are watching.

      Furthermore, if we can't manage to vote twice every year between about 5 candidates (or 2 if you ignore the primaries, which most people do), what makes you think we'll be able to handle voting many more times a year?

      Lastly, I think of myself as better informed and smarter than the average voter, and I don't know if TARP was a good idea or a bad idea. I know most other voters were stronger in their convictions about it than I was, I don't think that means anything though.

    13. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not until we quit electing lawyers and former lawyers, it won't. :) (Speaking from a US perspective.)
      They're all crooks, but we've managed to elect the entire club of crooks who spend all their time thinking up new ways to stick it to the average citizen.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    14. Re:Ho ho ho, that's rich. by FearTheDonut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the same law which allows some rather obnoxious Tea Party members stand outside polling places shouting about their concerns. Yes, this is America - those laws work for both sides.

  2. Honestly.. by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good!

    I’ve always hated this push to get people to go out and vote. That’s not what’s important. The message that should be going out is to educate yourself enough to make an actual decision, THEN vote! Going into a booth (or online) and selecting a random choice because MTV told you it’s your duty to vote is only going to make things worse.

    If someone won’t vote unless they can do it in less than 10 seconds... their opinion is probably worth very little, and would rather not have it diluting the already thin pool.

    1. Re:Honestly.. by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>>selecting a random choice because MTV told you itâ(TM)s your duty to vote is only going to make things worse.

      What's actually making it worse is that most of these people just vote on name recognition. Which is why existing politicians win again-and-again. I know I did that when I was 18, just voting for the name I knew. (I'm wiser now.) There ought to be some basic test like: "Please identify the first president of the United States: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison." If you fail to answer correctly your vote doesn't count, because you obviously don't care enough to learn your own country's history, and don't care about the current president either.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Honestly.. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Besides, the electorate at large can't really make educated decisions about policy. They try, but ultimately the best you can do is set the tone for the type of politician you want to represent you, not have a perfect mesh of policy ideas.

      When people are young they tend to be fixated on certain issues, pot legalization, the environment, cost of education that sort of thing. Not that those issues aren't important, but they don't exist in a vacuum, and as you get older and spend more time being aware of the broader scope of government (as an insurance system, as a source of stable investment through bonds, as a regulator of various things and so on) you realize more about how you need to vote as a broader ideological vote than a specific issue vote, and you get more worried about not the other guy, or the one who will hit 3 of the 5 things you like rather than the one who will only do 2 of the 5 kind of thing.

      But in the end, the vast majority of the electorate wouldn't recognize a liquidity trap even if they were in one, and aren't capable of understanding how to vote about the issue because of that. Governments are necessarily large complex operations, and you end up trading off wacky things like individual health care mandates against military bases in swing districts or missile defence for aid against assad in syria. The public as a whole are never really going to grasp tradeoffs like that, and certainly not 4 or 5 years worth of potential future tradeoffs at a time.

    3. Re:Honestly.. by kanto · · Score: 4, Funny

      There ought to be some basic test like: "Please identify the first president of the United States: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison." If you fail to answer correctly your vote doesn't count, because you obviously don't care enough to learn your own country's history, and don't care about the current president either.

      Or you don't care about playing Leisure Suit Larry.

    4. Re:Honestly.. by cloricus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer something productive like widely shown moderated public debates like we have in Australia. This could be the basis of an enforced voting question to ensure the voter at least bothered to skim an hours TV. We get away without the voter question as several million of our population watch the shows and discuss it after with those who didn't.

      Our two successful formats are 'the worm' and 'Qanda'.

      • In the worm a panel of the countries best media journalists ask targeted policy questions of the two contending political leaders and an audience (either right/left or swing only) controls an opinion graph that is shown to the TV audience in real time.
      • For Qanda a balanced audience including undecided voters and online viewers may ask literally any question and a moderator enforces either a reasonable answer or an admission of some type. The audience and moderator ensure facts are kept forfront so very little spin survives the process without embarrasment.
      --
      I ate your fish.
    5. Re:Honestly.. by psiclops · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if only a certain type of people (in this instance those who care about US history) are allowed to vote then you are no longer representing all of the people, which would be un-democratic.

      Secondly caring about history and current political matters are two very different things. in Australia even some of the the most politicaly active people may not know the first prime minister - because it's not really relevant, and not really taught in schools.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    6. Re:Honestly.. by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh please do fight on. I do, even though the cause is lost to any rational analysis. But we lost the war the second we crossed the event horizion of 50% of the country falling into the Taker class.

      There were any number of almost as bright lines we have been crossing the last century. Go look at the footage of the more sane pols from the Great Society era who warned we were spending our children and grandchildren's inheritance... they were right. It's all spent. The social security 'trust fund' is just a bunch of IOUs from the government to be paid by the government; meaningless. Things that can't continue, don't. Bailouts just postpone the Doom! and we are so screwed there isn't enough wealth on the planet to bail the West out of the hole it has managed to dig itself into.

      Our money has no intrinsic value and since we are now calling it into existence trillions at a time even stupid people are figuring out that it doesn't have any real value. And again, we are so far in that rabbit hole we probably couldn't reverse course even if we wanted to.... and we don't.

      And so on.

      But we should fight anyway, because if we surrender we certainly lose and in the era of rapid change we live in we just might be able to struggle long enough to make it to a game changer. Because while all the wealth on Earth can't bail us out, if we doubled our wealth we could probably at least buy enough time to do it again. And somewhere along the way we might invent a political game changer and end the century of progressive misrule.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    7. Re:Honestly.. by DeSigna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our politics are a bit more modest than the media gala that goes on in the US. There's no parades or huge rallies, just old dudes talking and occasionally going on a shopping centre tour kissing babies and shaking hands.

      What I find interesting is how our mandatory voting affects the polls. We have a lot more swinging voters than hardline idealists and since they're forced to vote, the attitude is they might as well make (at least) a semi-informed decision. I just wish election campaigns weren't epic sledging matches and our politicians would stop throwing their rattles out of the pram.

      I'd be all for electronic voting so I could spend more time at the sausage sizzle on election weekends and less in a queue. It would be great if it increased public participation in policy as well as elections, and if politicians weren't as tightly bound by the parties as they are now and could properly work with their electorate.

  3. 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 Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ugh.

      I'd rather a small turnout of people making an actual decision.

      Voting isn't what's important. Having an opinion is. 100% voter turnout isn't worth much if 70% of that turnout picked randomly.

      Unless they figure a good way to validate that someone is making a serious choice (and force them to do so), all this does is dilute the already very thin pool of educated voters.

    2. 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.

  4. This will be by design by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you think the current crop of politicians WANT people to be engaged and empowered to pick their governments?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  5. Excuses by skelly33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I say stop making excuses for and pandering to "young people". If they can't integrate with the "real world" IRL then they can just starve to death in their pathetic little digital corners. There are plenty of things in life that require one to get off one's own ass - voting is one of them.

  6. 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.
  7. vote online = vote the bosses way at work or get f by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    vote online = vote the bosses way at work or get fired.

    That is may be a worst case but on line voteing opens up that kind of abuse.

  8. IMHO it's more likely that... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...digital voting will be democracy's downfall.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. Can we say "HELL NO"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is from a company that is Russian, and by coincidence discovers the US might be at fault for Flame just as there is a tug-of-war between ICANN and a Russian/Chinese backed UN body for control of the Internet.

    If anyone has any clue at all, electronic voting is just ripe for being hacked. Look at what the Black Box voting site reported, from monkeys hacking voting booths, to standard keys that fit any RV fitting the locks on the voting computer. Without a solid paper component, it is a heck of a lot easier to forge results in a way that is completely detectable. At least with hanging chads, someone somewhere had to hold up pieces of paper and say they were not usable. Just being electronic means that a country's elections can be completely compromised by a foreign body.

    Hmm... I'm sure there are plenty of countries who don't like the US who would love to influence elections. Making voting electronic just means the hack will be untraceable. I'm sure advocating E-voting would help lots in this department.

    Hell with e-voting. We need paper trails, as what was shown with the voting machine stories.

  10. What's that buzzing noise I hear? by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds suspiciously like preliminary marketing buzz for a new Kaspersky Labs software venture: create perception of a problem so they can then leap in and solve it. As irredeemably cynical as I am about human motives, behavior, and so-called intelligence, even I don't believe that a lack of e-voting will be a significant deterrent to people voting. The proximal cause of most people not voting, as demonstrated time and time again, is disillusionment with the whole process and the mediocre - at best - results... "why bother when my vote doesn't count and I have no idea who the 'better man' actually is?"

  11. Re: having an opinion by macraig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Voting isn't what's important. Having an informed opinion is.

    There, fixed that for you. And exactly how do you propose that people get informed, when 90% of what they read and see and hear is mis-information?

  12. Right, but then you lose part of the guarantees by gwolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A very important factor in a democracy is the secret of the vote. If I can prove my vote was cast for a given option, then the gate is open for parties buying it â" Or punishing me for voting according to my will.

  13. This has to be one of the worst ideas ever by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why?

    Vote buying.

    Right now, if someone "buys" my vote, they have no idea if I actually followed through. Which means vote buying doesn't occur.

    With online voting, they can watch over your shoulder and pay you after you've voted for their preferred candidate.

    No need for expensive campaigns, just hand out cash to enough voters to get elected.

  14. I'm sorry, but he's an idiot by Casandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Electronic Voting cannot be democratic as it doesn't conform to the minimal standards.

    So far nobody has proposed an electronic voting system which can be proven to not be manipulated by anybody. If you need a degree in math to understand how the security works, it may be suitable for an election in the maths department of an university, but it is not suitable for the general population.

    The pen an paper system can be checked by everybody, not just specialists who might fear for their job if they became politically active.