16 ms·

> Online voting is insecure, period Starting like that the author saves our time by letting us know that 1. This is a biased take. 2. There will be no attemp

> Online voting is insecure, period Starting like that the author saves our time by letting us know that 1. This is a biased take. 2. There will be no attempt to asses overall security, its weak and strong points. But I still have read it to learn that the author says that paper voting solves security problems. Here’s the bonus point: 3. The author ignores security issues with paper voting.

gonzo41 3y ago
Voting is a human trust problem. More people can understand voting with paper and pencil than computers. And this is mostly because everyone knows someone who's been ripped off online with no recourse. No one really trusts computers. Pencil and paper solves the trust issue. And the issues of security around paper voting such as it's security, lots of guards, public counts etc, costing a bit more, are better understood than SSL, layer 1,2,3,4 securities, and verifiable systems.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >And this is mostly because everyone knows someone who's been ripped off online with no recourse. No one really trusts computers. Online scams are a human problem, not a computer problem. People also get scammed via telephone. If someone asks you for your CC number and you give it to them, then the medium is not that important.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    Our current technology encourages human misunderstanding. There’s nothing in the human evolution that would prepare us for nonstop phishing attacks. It absolutely is a computer failure because we haven’t changed, they have.
- meowfly 3y ago
  I think you make a good point. Purely from the public trust perspective, paper and pencil seems so simple it makes people trust the system is secure. If the claim is it's cryptographically impossible for this system to be cheated, most of us would still have to trust the experts making those claims. However, it's beyond simply the public needing simple systems; the number of experts that would be required to lie about the certainty of a system is low enough that you really do create a less secure system. Paper ballots are harder to cheat because the systems scale in a way that you require more people in on the heist, which is the hardest part of any scam.
  - the_snooze 3y ago
    Additionally, paper voting is easy to administer. Anyone can volunteer to administer a paper-based election and understand all the processes involved. The same can't be said about black-box cryptographic magic. Scrutability and accessibility go a long way in establishing trust. Putting elections behind technical complexity does the opposite.
V__ 3y ago
I think what the author means is, that online/digital voting is more insecure than paper voting. I don't think that is a biased take. An attack on paper voting is always going to be more complex thus making it more secure.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  You just invented a moderate position that explicitly did not exist in the article.
- vmfunction 3y ago
  >I don't think that is a biased take. An attack on paper voting is always going to be more complex thus making it more secure. Until some genius figure teleportation, then cats are out of the bag ;-) Anyone knows if Star Trek figured that one?
RandomLensman 3y ago
Are there largely unsolved security issues with paper voting? Why can countries like Germany pull that normally off quite well (other than local ineptitude in Berlin, perhaps)?
- viktorcode 3y ago
  Yes. Voting under duress, when a voter is forced to vote in a specific way and make a selfie of them with the filled ballot as proof. It’s solved by allowing to cast the vote electronically as many times as you like until election ends. Voter suppression. Voting day can be a workday, ballot box can be in a remote location: those factors together remove day workers who can’t take a day off from voting. Partially amended by mail voting, completely eradicated by electronic voting. And the biggest issue: trust. The less democratic a country is, higher the chance that the electorate commission is dependent on government. There’s no way for a voter in paper based election to check if their ballot was counted in the end. Once again, can be solved with electronic voting.
- mariusor 3y ago
  You can bet money on the fact that when electronic ballots will have the similar tenure as paper ones, they will be equally secure. I think Schneier, and possibly everyone else, is overlooking one simple thing, nothing needs to be perfect on the first try. Iteration on electronic voting is possible all the way up until you hinge serious stakes on it. A country level organization experimenting with technology to improve the experience of voting and lowering the bar for exercising one's citizenship rights should make us glad, not dismissive. The article series Schneier is basing his critique on is getting this right: > The e-voting system currently being developed by Swiss Post has been significantly improved. However, further developments, some of them substantial, are still required.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    I am not sure why anyone should switch to something different so that it can eventually be as secure as paper - maybe I misunderstand. What experience needs improving in the paper ballots that needs to go beyond paper? What bar needs to be lowered and is that desirable?

gonzo41 3y ago

Voting is a human trust problem. More people can understand voting with paper and pencil than computers. And this is mostly because everyone knows someone who's been ripped off online with no recourse. No one really trusts computers. Pencil and paper solves the trust issue. And the issues of security around paper voting such as it's security, lots of guards, public counts etc, costing a bit more, are better understood than SSL, layer 1,2,3,4 securities, and verifiable systems.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>And this is mostly because everyone knows someone who's been ripped off online with no recourse. No one really trusts computers. Online scams are a human problem, not a computer problem. People also get scammed via telephone. If someone asks you for your CC number and you give it to them, then the medium is not that important.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Our current technology encourages human misunderstanding. There’s nothing in the human evolution that would prepare us for nonstop phishing attacks. It absolutely is a computer failure because we haven’t changed, they have.
meowfly 3y ago
I think you make a good point. Purely from the public trust perspective, paper and pencil seems so simple it makes people trust the system is secure. If the claim is it's cryptographically impossible for this system to be cheated, most of us would still have to trust the experts making those claims. However, it's beyond simply the public needing simple systems; the number of experts that would be required to lie about the certainty of a system is low enough that you really do create a less secure system. Paper ballots are harder to cheat because the systems scale in a way that you require more people in on the heist, which is the hardest part of any scam.
- the_snooze 3y ago
  Additionally, paper voting is easy to administer. Anyone can volunteer to administer a paper-based election and understand all the processes involved. The same can't be said about black-box cryptographic magic. Scrutability and accessibility go a long way in establishing trust. Putting elections behind technical complexity does the opposite.

V__ 3y ago

I think what the author means is, that online/digital voting is more insecure than paper voting. I don't think that is a biased take. An attack on paper voting is always going to be more complex thus making it more secure.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
You just invented a moderate position that explicitly did not exist in the article.
vmfunction 3y ago
>I don't think that is a biased take. An attack on paper voting is always going to be more complex thus making it more secure. Until some genius figure teleportation, then cats are out of the bag ;-) Anyone knows if Star Trek figured that one?

RandomLensman 3y ago

Are there largely unsolved security issues with paper voting? Why can countries like Germany pull that normally off quite well (other than local ineptitude in Berlin, perhaps)?

viktorcode 3y ago
Yes. Voting under duress, when a voter is forced to vote in a specific way and make a selfie of them with the filled ballot as proof. It’s solved by allowing to cast the vote electronically as many times as you like until election ends. Voter suppression. Voting day can be a workday, ballot box can be in a remote location: those factors together remove day workers who can’t take a day off from voting. Partially amended by mail voting, completely eradicated by electronic voting. And the biggest issue: trust. The less democratic a country is, higher the chance that the electorate commission is dependent on government. There’s no way for a voter in paper based election to check if their ballot was counted in the end. Once again, can be solved with electronic voting.
mariusor 3y ago
You can bet money on the fact that when electronic ballots will have the similar tenure as paper ones, they will be equally secure. I think Schneier, and possibly everyone else, is overlooking one simple thing, nothing needs to be perfect on the first try. Iteration on electronic voting is possible all the way up until you hinge serious stakes on it. A country level organization experimenting with technology to improve the experience of voting and lowering the bar for exercising one's citizenship rights should make us glad, not dismissive. The article series Schneier is basing his critique on is getting this right: > The e-voting system currently being developed by Swiss Post has been significantly improved. However, further developments, some of them substantial, are still required.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I am not sure why anyone should switch to something different so that it can eventually be as secure as paper - maybe I misunderstand. What experience needs improving in the paper ballots that needs to go beyond paper? What bar needs to be lowered and is that desirable?