Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Is Building a $10 Million, Open Source, Secure Voting System (vice.com)
samleecole writes: For years security professionals and election integrity activists have been pushing voting machine vendors to build more secure and verifiable election systems, so voters and candidates can be assured election outcomes haven't been manipulated. Now they might finally get this thanks to a new $10 million contract the Defense Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched to design and build a secure voting system that it hopes will be impervious to hacking.
The first-of-its-kind system will be designed by an Oregon-based firm called Galois, a longtime government contractor with experience in designing secure and verifiable systems. The system will use fully open source voting software, instead of the closed, proprietary software currently used in the vast majority of voting machines, which no one outside of voting machine testing labs can examine. More importantly, it will be built on secure open source hardware, made from special secure designs and techniques developed over the last year as part of a special program at DARPA. The voting system will also be designed to create fully verifiable and transparent results so that voters don't have to blindly trust that the machines and election officials delivered correct results.
The first-of-its-kind system will be designed by an Oregon-based firm called Galois, a longtime government contractor with experience in designing secure and verifiable systems. The system will use fully open source voting software, instead of the closed, proprietary software currently used in the vast majority of voting machines, which no one outside of voting machine testing labs can examine. More importantly, it will be built on secure open source hardware, made from special secure designs and techniques developed over the last year as part of a special program at DARPA. The voting system will also be designed to create fully verifiable and transparent results so that voters don't have to blindly trust that the machines and election officials delivered correct results.
That is very important and didn't see that listed in there in the top level checkoff marks.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Oh please, Texas just paid out a couple million because they decided that people couldn't become citizens, and never bothered to cross-check with naturalization files.
Oops.
building us a voting system?
That would be like the Fox counting the Chickens.....
Rick B.
Vote by mail is growing rapidly and in many places exceeds polling place voting. VBM increases voter turnout and solves so many problems that polling place voting probably isn't worth salvaging.
Mod parent as funny :)
Open source software does not mean you get to make code changes in THEIR source code. You can only see it and fork-it and make your own evil voting software.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
This special 'secure' open hardware: Will you actually ensure there is a reference platform available, for less than say 500 usd to the average consumer, so that we can develop on, test, diagnose, and verify this hardware ourselves, or use it to ensure the security and authenticity of our own application code?
If not, then it is just a 10 million dollar sham. The software, even if perfectly secure by itself, is not trustworthy unless the underlying hardware is trustworthy, and the underlying hardware isn't trustworthy unless everyone can buy an example of it, ideally right off the production line, and swap/not swap their example for one of the government units, helping to ensure that the entire government run hasn't been compromised itself since they knew the start/end manufacturing serials for their own batch of units.
Obviously they would still need to verify some number of those units to make sure they weren't backdoored (although doing it at the assembly location/warehouse on one big event day would handle it nicely. Once that step is done and the traded serials can be verified in the field, we will have almost trustworthy electronic voting. Particularly if each machine cryptographically signs its voting lists when finished, and ideally provides the voter a hash to verify their vote matches what they input while retaining their anonymity until and unless they need to contest a miscast vote.
What's next, letting EVERY citizen vote?
The voting system will also be designed to create fully verifiable and transparent results so that voters don't have to blindly trust that the machines and election officials delivered correct results.
And ... it comes with a free unicorn!
Having studied this issue for a very long time I'm perpetually frustrated with the Computer scientists constantly injecting overly clever desiderata that can only be implemented at the sacrifice of core requirements of voting systems.
the core requirements are
1. Secret ballot so no one can tell how you voted.
2. Secret ballot so you cannot prove to anyone how you voted even if you want to. (too often ignored)
3. transparency at a level where an ordinary person can reasonably see how the security works
4. Robust against operator errors. Mistakes happen, power gets lost, protocols are not followed.
5. Resistant to cheating.
6. in the event of a failure, Ballots must be re countable-- preferably at a precinct level
What the computer scientists is inject nice-to-have but unnessassary desiderata, like "crytpographic proof your vote was counted" and encrytption. These, to date, always sacrifice one of the requirements. For example, many (not all) proof of vote systems will violate 2, allowing you to prove how you voted. indeed many touch screens allow proving how you voted using a video inside the voting booth (whereas paper ballots have to be publically deposited and videos can be prevented). Many (not all) cryptosystems reduce the number of people who know the keys but this comes at the price of concentration where a few people can change all the ballots without detection, whereas distribnuted precint counting makes whole sale attacks hard.
Serial numbers on ballots, to the voter, appear to offer a way to track their ballot to them. Even if you tell them the cypto prevents this an ordinary person cannot possibly tell that. Ballots need to be indistinguishable.
Thus I worry that people doing this are trying to "improve" something with "more features" that already has a good solution. namely hand marked paper ballots and optical scan.
when an optical scanner breaks down you can still collect the ballots. People can still vote. And you don't get long lines when you are short on equipment or the power goes down because all you need is more pens and desks. Optical scans are easy to recount by humans at a precint level.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Do you prefer $50 to vote for who I tell you or a bullet in the knee of your daughter?
It's frankly none of your or anyone else's business who someone else votes for. You don't have to look much further than the hate mob that social media has devolved into to see why this would be a terrible idea. Never mind all of the little situations like a spouse threatening their partner if they don't vote a certain way and now being able to verify that outcome.
I've posted this before, but it's worth saying again.
In the early 2000s, there was a GNU project to build a secure online voting system. They ceased work in 2002, citing the project as being at best difficult and at worst, impossible. They quoted Bruce Schneier, one of the foremost experts in computer security as saying "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers... [B]uilding a secure Internet-based voting system is a very hard problem, harder than all the other computer security problems we've attempted and failed at. I believe that the risks to democacy are too great to attempt it."
I see no evidence that Schneier has changed his mind or that any other comparably qualified expert has suggested he's wrong.
How do you cope with "I'll kill your family if you don't vote for x"? And I don't mean that problem literally - but the more general problem of a voter who faces consequences if they vote the wrong way.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The real issue with electronic voting isn't even the hackability of the system. Or the fact that an exploit scales to an entire country. The real problem is that there's no assurance anymore. A very simple process turns into something opaque.
For you americans who don't understand how voting is done properly in the rest of the world, it goes like this:
You put an X in the circle or box of your choice (sometimes several X in several boxes, but nothing too complicated). Then you seal that paper in an envelope or you simply fold it. Then you drop it into a box. That box is watched over by volunteers from all the major parties and basically everyone who cares to spend his time checking that the election is done properly. These same people at the end of the day open the box and count the votes.
At no point is anything not accounted for. At no point is there an attack vector. The whole thing is so simple that an idiot can understand it and that's the point - because it means that every idiot or non-idiot can check it and verify that all is well. Think the box has been tampered with? Go and check the box. Think the paper is special? Go and check the paper. Think some votes were thrown into the box at the beginning of the session? Check the box at the beginning, then seal it, and at the end count the number of paper slips against your very simple tally sheet of people who voted.
There are ways to fuck with the system, of course, there always are. But the low-tech approach also means they are low-tech and can be spotted. Tell me how you'll find the kernel-level backdoor in the voting system that knows which bits to flip in-memory without leaving any traces on the disk. And the number of people capable of validating a system at such a level are low enough to be pressured or bribed.
A highly distributed low-tech system is exactly what we want for something like elections.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'd bet 100 dogecoins that they're using blockchains. Trendy. That part about transparency kind of tips it off. Whatever happened to paper ballots, anyway?
Have you read my blog lately?
1. There is very little evidence of illegals voting.
2. How is this stealing if it's done by the states?
3. Enfranchising citizens is bad?
Oh, it's much, much worse. You really need to look at the big picture. It is a known fact that their chemtrails trigger enzymes they injected into your bloodstream when they vaccinated you, that turn you into a mindless drone who will vote for any candidate the deep state Ivy-league Fake News Illuminati tells you to. Our only hope is that the courageous Russian freedom fighters will oversee our elections from outside the left wing mind control zone and ensure that saviors like Trump get elected. They are trying to stop this with their "secure voting" nonsense, but it's a desperate last-ditch attempt that will surely fail.
Or maybe they're just trying to make voting systems more resistant to tampering. But only the crazies believe that.
I don't have to deal with that, but I never put signs out in my front yard, or join a campaign. Maybe you should ask those folks how they deal with it.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Illegal Aliens are not Citizens
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
DNC rigged their primary to make Sanders lose.
Evidence of rigging a national election vs your BS. But go ahead and ignore it like a good little liberal.
Illegal Aliens are not Citizens
Neither are legal ones. What's your point?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I don't understand how nobody ever mentions this but voting machines can't be both anonymous AND verifiable.
The only way to check on the count is to ask the machine itself so it's no verification at all.
That should be obvious to anyone thinking about it for more than 2 minutes.
But whatever a man can make, a man can break.
E Proelio Veritas.
No one was removed from any roles and no one was disenfranchised. the list was merely intended to be the basis for investigations.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
States also joined with the arrangement at the time that they could keep slavery. Things change.
Even so, it was always possible for the populous states to have a popular-vote covenant. So the small states should have known that when they ratified the constitution.
Giving the answers to questions is shady, but not illegal. Whereas Trump money laundering for the Russian mob and accepting hacker help from Vladimir Putin, then kissing Putin's cock on television and lying to the US voters?
That's treason. Rope is coming.
The 1960 John F. Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon election is widely acknowledged to have been rigged
There have been no changes in the law to prevent exactly the same thing from happening now and there are no efforts to determine if it still happening.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You didn't mention "blockchain", no funding for you. ;-)
Statistical noise. In addition, there's no reason why a law (which frankly probably already exists) couldn't prohibit vote coercion, invalidating such a blatant example as you presented. Any cases of some evil white patriarch strong arming his binder of women into voting the way he wants are statistical noise. How many people vote completely randomly? Where's your hand wringing over that?
1. First machine is a touch screen. Voters make selections on screen.
2. Once done a paper ballot with their selections is spit out, and they can visually check the ballot
3. Second machine is a optical reader from a different vendor, and must use a different OS from the 1st machine. Paper ballot is inserted and read.
4. Results from both machines are fed to a computer to be compared. If they match, vote goes through. If they do not match, vote is scrubbed and voter asked to try again.
You have verification from two independent systems AND a paper ballot at the end.
You are welcome.
Holy shit, SCORES? Literally DOZENS? Obviously this is a clear and present danger to our democracy! Yikes!
Yeah, because a handful of votes at the "correct" time and place can't have disproportionately wide ramifications ... oh wait
... oh wait.
Now replace parent with employer, phone pics of paper ballot or paper verification for a "bonus".
Or replace employer with a political operative paying out cash.
Its not like these weren't problems in America's past
You mean like put it in a vault like an ATM? I don't know how people survive in the real world without trusting electronic funds transfers. Money is a little more important to most people than a single vote in a single election and yet nobody is putting on their tinfoil hat about that.
I have personally seen shuttle buses of non-English-speaking illegals being taken to more than one voting location in Spokane WA.
Is there a particular reason you decided to join their conspiracy instead of reporting it?
Also, do your telepathic powers only reveal citizenship status, or can you get other information?
Alternatively, and far more likely, you're lying.
Statistical noise.
We literally just had to throw out an election in North Carolina over vote-buying (via paid workers tampering with absentee ballots)
In addition, there's no reason why a law (which frankly probably already exists) couldn't prohibit vote coercion
We know about the problem in North Carolina because people are getting charged with a crime. Didn't stop them from doing it in the first place.
Also, there's really good evidence that this is the second election where this particular consultant did this.
How many people vote completely randomly?
Exceptionally few. There's no incentive to show up when you're just going to vote randomly. So you don't go out of your way to go to a polling place.
I read this entire comment thread and was both surprised and disappointed at the lack of the obligatory xkcd.
Gotta hold elections after we have been greeted as liberators.
Tell your abusive husband about your "law" prohibiting coercion. Tell the "volunteers" that go to the retirement home that it's illegal.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The DARPA system also uses paper ballots as an intermediary (prints the ballots, then inset into scanner for tabulation.) If you're personally delivering it, the only advantage a "vote by mail" ballot has over this system is that someone else can fill it out for you/observe your vote. Which is only an advantage if you're selling your vote
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Source?
Evidence?
After two years of this unbelievable extensive investigation, so you a shred of evidence to back up your absurd conspiracy theory?
So, you read the article and quoted it here. Except #4 doesn't happen automatically (the optical reader tabulates, checked against a human count of the paper ballots). And the whole system is made by one company.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
and witnesses to watch over the local count.
Candidates suggest some of their own trusted witnesses, gov has a few witnesses, civil society has some witnesses.
Then count the nations votes in front of many witnesses.
Everything adds up as each vote is seen and counted in front of many people.
No code, computers to vote with are needed.
Computer systems are liked by failed nations governments that want to subtly flip votes.
Use paper to vote and photo ID every citizen.
Enjoy some democracy without computers and illegal immigrants voting.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Keep sucking on the FoxNews teat, imbecile.
You're overreacting. There's a vaccine for chemtrails.
That was hilarious... I think. Honestly, things are to the point now where I can't even be sure if you're joking. I sincerely hope you are.
Might makes right irrelevant.
If there are people that would do this, why don't those people simply go to campaign rallies and threaten daughters there?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Another scenario:
The bad guys go to campaign rallies taking pictures and jotting down names. They find out where people work and live. Then afterwards, they can go house to house tying up their victims before voting day so that they can't vote. Muwahaha...!!!
But they don't do that. Because these people that are shooting daughters in the knees don't exist. And if they do, secret voting isn't stopping them.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I understand what you're saying, it just doesn't apply. Look, people put signs in their yards. They facebook the SHIT out of their political feelings. They go to political rallies waving flags of their party. They put bumper stickers on their vehicles...
Don't you think that if people were going to go around breaking knees (this is the most famous, Hollywood-induced, stereotyped fear when it comes to anti-secret voting) they'd be able to do it based on all of that?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.