Ariel Feldman, a computer science professor at the University of Chicago...

Is he right? What do you think? Is there really no way to build computers that are sufficiently protected against malicious software to enable trustworthy fully electronic voting?

Other urls found in this thread:

verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/
archive.is/wLPer
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Sort of. At the least, so long as there is a non-zero chance you should be wary. Are you really okay with a 1% chance to rig elections? How about .01%? .001%? Paper voting generally has less chances to screw with it, since you can sit there and see the votes being tallied in real time. Of course you can just find a box of untallied votes in a warehouse, but it's much harder.

Well it sure doesn't help when electronic voting machines use closed-source proprietary software.

DNC did the rigging themselves and the GOP is old people that don't care

Nope, there's no way you can completely trust them. Even if they claim to use open source software, how do you know it's not been replaced, or the hardware backdoored?

Fam, we've already established all hardware is backdoor'd.

Literally life is backdoored.
You can't walk your dog without giving information to NSA about what you ate for breakfast.
And the food you ate for breakfast, its backdoored as well. Its traveling through your body gathering statistics and information about how you are doing. Then, the nutrients from the food that travels through your blood veins is also backdoored, giving them important information upon the condition of your heart, your brain, and other various important parts.
You are slave, a slave to reality.
Solution: Death

Why don't muritards just use paper and pencils like actually civilized countries that are also actually democratic do?

The worst part of it is that the companies who make the electronic machines don't want anyone to know. They use every trick they can to keep vulnerabilities secret, thinking that you can have security through obscurity. I've heard about researchers having to meet shady people and work in secrecy to just get their hands on a voting machine to test it.

Because there was a corporate coup ~30 years ago and it's over now. Public opinions has zero impact on policy making.

A lot of places still do use paper ballots. It's decided on by the county, I believe. Here's a map by state, and if you go to verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/ you can look at each county and see how they do it.

Australia's talking about bringing in electric voting machines.

Hope something big happens in US elections so talks are terminated

What's the point of DRE with VVPAT

Why not just skip DRE.

VVPAT is just an anonymous voting receipt from the machine. VVPAT doesn't work without some kind of DRE, since it needs a machine to print the receipt (and that machine would become the DRE).

yeah so like
if you're gonna leave a paper record
why not just use pencil and paper and skip the expensive machine

Because machines make it easier to count. You can still audit a percentage of the paper record to ensure things haven't been tampered with, but that depends on the quality of the audit to ensure it represents the total machine count correctly.

With DRE, you can have accessibility options to help disabled people (speakers for blind, etc), or can be programmed to support different languages (as required by the 1965 voting rights act). With paper ballots, you need to print out ballots in different languages. It's also faster, because they check the DRE records first, and then check the VVPAT later.

topcuck

A Blockchain-based voting machine would probably work best.

Not sure if it'd be entirely possible (cryptographically) to hide the identity of a user's vote (from Govt), but all votes tied to a Govt. issued private ("spending") key.

In this way, a user could confirm that their own vote was recorded correctly while verifying that the tallies themselves have not been tampered with.

Or you could just, stick to the tried and true method instead of something that has a million ways to exploit and a billion unknown ways to exploit

So far, I don't think there's even been an exploit (that's severe) found in Bitcoin (->some

Tallying by hand leaves us far less open to "exploits" as votes are always monitored by people of different interests, before, during, and after votes, and are transported by numerous people and kept for years in case some problem occurs. Anyone who's worked as an election official in a real country will tell you how impossible it would be to rig the results in a state, let alone the nation.

I suspect you may've fallen for the Pro-Cryptocurrency Meme friend. Don't. As evident by the problems with Bitcoin governance atm, cryptocurrency is just another meme that will do nothing to undermine the Fiat Bankers, assuming it isn't just another Bankers' trickery.

It's the way of the future, but will be a while to implement even if things go in a positive direction

Argue your beefs with crypto please.

Done properly, the only two feasible exploits that I can see are:
1. 51% attack/mining centralisation
2. Chain spam (mitigated somewhat by transaction fees)

The fact that it's shown vulnerbilities before, including the ones you listed.

Now please argue your beefs with the tried and true pencil and paper voting that has had centuries to prevent vote rigging and is used by proper democracies please.

1. Online voting impossible.
2. Cost associated with having people tally the votes.
3. Tallies are non-verifiable (trusted) - Possiblities of corruption/miscounting.

archive.is/wLPer

this is a bad Holla Forums joke.

Online voting is fucking shit. It's a shit idea, and anyone who's behind it doesn't understand why out voting system is the way it is.

If people can vote online, there is no way to prevent vote intimidation. At a polling station, they ensure that you're alone when you vote. That means your union boss can't stand over your shoulder to make sure you vote for the "right" guy. Online voting doesn't have this protection. Someone could stand over your shoulder and threaten you with bodily harm if you don't vote the right way.

Also, online voting just opens you up to the dangers of shitty software used online. You can bet your life that any online system would become a massive target for state and nonstate actors. Sure, if the software is implemented without bugs, it will be secure, but do you really want to stake the future of your country on the belief that a program is 100% bug free?

Buzzfeed is trash but I'd say a computer science professor has at least some level of credibility.

topkek