Slashdot Mirror
Blockchain-Based Elections Would Be a Disaster For Democracy (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: If you talk to experts on election security (I studied with several of them in graduate school) they'll tell you that we're nowhere close to being ready for online voting. "Mobile voting is a horrific idea," said election security expert Joe Hall when I asked him about a West Virginia experiment with blockchain-based mobile voting back in August. But on Tuesday, The New York Times published an opinion piece claiming the opposite. "Building a workable, scalable, and inclusive online voting system is now possible, thanks to blockchain technologies," writes Alex Tapscott, whom the Times describes as co-founder of the Blockchain Research Institute. Tapscott is wrong -- and dangerously so. Online voting would be a huge threat to the integrity of our elections -- and to public faith in election outcomes.
Tapscott focuses on the idea that blockchain technology would allow people to vote anonymously while still being able to verify that their vote was included in the final total. Even assuming this is mathematically possible -- and I think it probably is -- this idea ignores the many, many ways that foreign governments could compromise an online vote without breaking the core cryptographic algorithms. For example, foreign governments could hack into the computer systems that governments use to generate and distribute cryptographic credentials to voters. They could bribe election officials to supply them with copies of voters' credentials. They could hack into the PCs or smartphones voters use to cast their votes. They could send voters phishing emails to trick them into revealing their voting credentials -- or simply trick them into thinking they've cast a vote when they haven't.
Tapscott focuses on the idea that blockchain technology would allow people to vote anonymously while still being able to verify that their vote was included in the final total. Even assuming this is mathematically possible -- and I think it probably is -- this idea ignores the many, many ways that foreign governments could compromise an online vote without breaking the core cryptographic algorithms. For example, foreign governments could hack into the computer systems that governments use to generate and distribute cryptographic credentials to voters. They could bribe election officials to supply them with copies of voters' credentials. They could hack into the PCs or smartphones voters use to cast their votes. They could send voters phishing emails to trick them into revealing their voting credentials -- or simply trick them into thinking they've cast a vote when they haven't.
I like how "blockchain technology" now means everything. Certainly everything related to cryptography. Sure, you could do something like have everyone cryptographically sign their vote and then you could have it anonymously verifiable. What does that have to do with a block chain?
right here
Can we just have vote by mail in all 50 states already? It's 2018. I shouldn't have to go to the polls. If somebody's trying to force you to the polls it's because they don't want you to vote.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I suppose it's barely possible that my vote isn't being counted, but I would be VERY surprised if that were the case, other than trivial clerical errors. The problems we need to solve are things like "People are not database records", and "People don't listen" and "People who listen screw up all the time" and "Infrastructure is selected by committees of people, and people are terrible at their jobs". Basically we're way past the point where mere technical issues dominate the problem space, the big problems are social and political issues which aren't reasonable to blockchain your way out of.
Also, believe me, if you take someone who suspects that the system is rigged against them, introducing a digital voter ID and an explanation involving crypto math is NOT going to make them comfortable. I would have thought that would be self-evident from a few minutes paying attention to Facebook.
The point is not that voting by blockchain could be hacked or rigged. The point is that with pretty much any system that relies on computers to tally the votes, the results can not be independently verified end-to-end by laymen. Everyone can understand how voting by paper ballot works, how the ballots are counted, and how the count is verified, and that means everyone can participate in safeguarding or verifying an accurate count. That is where "public faith in elections" comes from.
Besides: rigging a paper based election is possible but the number of people you need to involve scales linearly with the amount of votes you want to falsify, increasing chances of being caught. That's not the same for computer based voting; fraud is much easier to hide, and easier to carry out on a massive scale.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
There's a fundamental problem with online voting... and it would be a huge problem, even IF you could absolutely guarantee 100% security: it's a serious threat to secret ballots. Right now, in most places, if an ultra-frail person shows up to vote who needs assistance, they election officials will provide a poll worker to help them, but WON'T allow a family member or anyone else to accompany them, for that precise reason.
Right now, a husband and wife can easily cancel out each other's votes. If online voting is allowed, there's little to stop the spouse with more power in the relation ship (or who's less ambivalent about voting) from voting on the other's behalf after getting the spouse to log in.
There are other opportunities for coercion... say, an employer (or union, or any other group) who decides to "encourage voting" via the internet "right now" (in at least semi-public view, with at least some social pressure to vote the "right" way). Think: a politically-active church that, instead of marching its congregation off to early voting at a polling place nearby, passes around tablets after the second collection while encouraging people to vote the "right" way in front of their friends, neighbors, and family members.
Let's not forget the possibility of rounding up a bunch of poor people and offering to pay them $20 apiece if they come "vote online" and cast verified ballots for the "right" candidates.
THIS is why voting needs to occur in private, but in a public location where individual voters CAN'T be coerced by anyone.
The right to a secret, coercion-free ballot is absolutely fundamental. It's at least equal in importance with security, and is arguably part of "integrity". It's a fundamental problem with internet voting that simply CAN'T be solved.
Obviously, it's also a potential problem with absentee ballots sent by mail... the difference is, absentee ballots are an edge case, generally used by a relatively small number of voters. Yeah, there are some elections now held by mail only... but they're for local races that few people care about anyway. The more powerful the office, the greater the stakes.
The sole purpose of voting is to convince the losers they lost a fair election, so the winner's can govern with a mandate.
to be convincing There are only three things about any voting system that are important
1. the secret ballot
2. THat everyone can see how it works and and thus see how it's secured
3. That there's a way to recount that is traceable to the voters own hand written ballot.
Anything else is dross. Crytposystems, proof your vote was counted, etc, all nice but not important if you lose any of the above 3.
All these online voting systems utterly destroy the secret ballot and the also harm the other two.
Sheer stupidity.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't think this happens in America, but in some countries people sell their vote, for money, food, jobs or to show "respect". As a result they elect mafious politicians who not only are grossly incompetent, but also deliberately keep their electors in a state of need, in which they will be easily led to sell their vote again and again.
With the secret ballot, those politicians need various tricks to have their "clients" prove that they voted whom they had to vote. If they could instead have them vote by phone, comfortably in front of them or of one of their "representatives", their racket would be much easier, and this would further degrade the quality of the government.