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.
they already do that. It's not as easy to lie to your spouse as you think. And I am way, way more concerned with this kind of coercion.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You, Sir, are a fucking idiot with your 'vote by mail' and everybody with this 'vote online' and other bullshit schemes.
EVERYONE has the RIGHT to a VOICE, a SAY.
Therefore EVERYONE has the right to VOTE.
Therefore there are ZERO, NONE, NO restrictions that can be placed upon voting other than "ONE HUMAN, ONE VOTE".
Therefore EVERY system and registration and whatever other scheme you come up with is utter statist bullshit.
All you need to do is get your ass to a booth, cast your fucking paper ballot, AND get your fucking finger marked with indelible stain.
THAT'S IT. Fucking simple.
STOP TRYING TO MAKE SIMPLE SHIT SO GODDAMNED COMPLICATED AND STATIST.
BTW, voting republican or democrat is a waste of time. They both FORCE you at gunpoint to make you do things you do NOT want to do. That's called SLAVERY.
FREE YOURSELVES and vote libertarian voluntarian.
If you don't know what those are, search them out.
Starting with, say, Larken Rose.
You really think this strawman would make a statistical difference when compared with the sheer amount of participation tamper-evident mail-in voting would achieve?
Weigh it against "I have one day to vote, gotta take some unpaid time off work.. now gotta find my polling station.. different every year.. oh look it's 21 miles away.. wait they say they're out of ballots.. hmm, now they say there's a hyphen in my name in their DB that doesn't match my ID" type bs many states have to deal with.
The "problem" with mail in voting is it's not absolutely perfect. It is, however, the best option we have to have the highest possible turnout of eligible voters under the current systems. Which is why it's so strongly pushed back against in highly gerrymandered states.
It's just basic human behavior. If you want people to participate, you make it as easy as possible. Tamper evident mail-in with paper trails just also happen to be the most secure method we currently have.