Smart Voting

AndrewJRenko · 30-10-2018 02:24PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. A thousand times yes.

We use security measures in all walks of life. I use online banking and I consider my money to be important to me so why not vote by phone?

Because online banking has no requirement for anonymity - the secret ballot.

Connecting your voting record to your identity is a huge danger for any electoral system.

dulpit · 30-10-2018 02:49PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Any form of voting can be hacked. Make it as secure as possible and move on.

If you can hack e-voting of some sort, then theoretically you can hack the entire election.

If you can come up with some way to do same with the current model you can hack what? 1 box? 1 constituency? Still bad, but not as bad as the entire election being affected.

xckjoo · 30-10-2018 03:08PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. A thousand times yes.

We use security measures in all walks of life. I use online banking and I consider my money to be important to me so why not vote by phone?

Any form of voting can be hacked. Make it as secure as possible and move on.

I also think polling stations should be open for more than one day to give easy access to more people who aren’t free that day. Polling should be open across the weekdays and weekend make sure it covers as many people’s time off work as possible.

Imagine if voting was easy for people other than retired old people. We might actually get politicians to care about young people and their needs. As it stands the best single demographic to aim for is the old people because they’re the ones most likely to vote.

Open voting by phone and open polling stations for 5-7 days for a vote. That would get your turnout up.

I don't understand how people find it so difficult to get to the polling stations on time IF they're properly registered at their primary address. Are other peoples polling stations further away than mine? Is it just a case of people being registered at their parents house and never moving it?

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 04:28PM

xckjoo wrote: »

If you can't get it secure on dedicated hardware, how would you expect it to be secure in software only? I think you underestimate the difference between theory and practice with this kind of thing.

Hardware is easier to attack, it has to be moved around and so will be "offline" at various stages.

A blockchain is online all the time, what is there for someone to hack?
I'll know if my vote is changed but no one else will, in any case, you cant alter the history of a blockchain, thats kinda the point.

If someone were to tamper with my vote at the moment no one would be any the wiser, not even I would know.

If this is just about increasing voter turnout, why not make voting mandatory like they do in Australia? >90% turnout for most votes!

For me its not just about turnout.

xckjoo · 30-10-2018 04:38PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Hardware is easier to attack, it has to be moved around and so will be "offline" at various stages.

A blockchain is online all the time, what is there for someone to hack?
I'll know if my vote is changed but no one else will, in any case, you cant alter the history of a blockchain, thats kinda the point.

If someone were to tamper with my vote at the moment no one would be any the wiser, not even I would know.

For me its not just about turnout.

Have you worked with blockchain applications?

30-10-2018 04:42PM

I'm a grunt in IT and everyone I talk to just laughs about this. There is no need I can see (make voting 2 days if someone really can't find time in the 15 hour window the polls are open) for a great overhaul of the system.

Aside from anything else it wouldn't require skilled, clean hacking to **** it up. Just knowing it was hacked could be enough to create the desired effect. Also the amount of data would be pretty small and portable.

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 04:45PM

xckjoo wrote: »

Have you worked with blockchain applications?

Yup, you?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a grunt in IT and everyone I talk to just laughs about this. There is no need I can see (make voting 2 days if someone really can't find time in the 15 hour window the polls are open) for a great overhaul of the system.

Aside from anything else it wouldn't require skilled, clean hacking to **** it up. Just knowing it was hacked could be enough to create the desired effect. Also the amount of data would be pretty small and portable.

What are you hacking though?
Since every vote is publically accessible it would be pointless to "hack" anything, everyone who had their vote changed would know and the result would be void.

In any case, how do you retrospectively amend entries in a blockchain?

xckjoo · 30-10-2018 04:52PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Yup, you?

No not directly. Was involved with a number of projects that looked at it but it was never used in the end. Can I ask if any of your projects made it to market/completion? For all the talk about it a few years ago it never seemed to get much uptake in actual products. I've moved jobs since then though so not keeping up with the technology

30-10-2018 05:18PM

GreeBo wrote: »

What are you hacking though?
Since every vote is publically accessible it would be pointless to "hack" anything, everyone who had their vote changed would know and the result would be void.

In any case, how do you retrospectively amend entries in a blockchain?

51% attacks would be the first thing I would think of. Also are we just jumping straight to making everyone's vote publicly accessible because that's a pretty huge shift.

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 06:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

51% attacks would be the first thing I would think of. Also are we just jumping straight to making everyone's vote publicly accessible because that's a pretty huge shift.

All addresses are public, as with a normal blockchain, but only you know which address is yours.

Hidden in plain sight.

The 51% (actually they are 50% +1 rather than 51% )attacks would only be possible if any old punter(s) could write to the chain, but access to the chain would only be via the app the government ( or whoever) released.

Any hacker would have 24 hours (or less) to hack after which point the vote would be over.

Prior to the vote the addresses or in fact the chain wouldnt even exist, so nothing to attack.

Limiting your exposure would greatly limit the ability of anyone to do anything evil to the vote, and as its all always in plain sight, everyone would know if the results had been tampered with.

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 06:05PM

xckjoo wrote: »

No not directly. Was involved with a number of projects that looked at it but it was never used in the end. Can I ask if any of your projects made it to market/completion? For all the talk about it a few years ago it never seemed to get much uptake in actual products. I've moved jobs since then though so not keeping up with the technology

Used in some internal cases, nothing public has been released...yet!

30-10-2018 06:07PM

GreeBo wrote: »

All addresses are public, as with a normal blockchain, but only you know which address is yours.

Hidden in plain sight.

And where is that stored?

The 51% (actually they are 50% +1 rather than 51% )attacks would only be possible if any old punter(s) could write to the chain, but access to the chain would only be via the app the government ( or whoever) released.

And how is that secured?

Any hacker would have 24 hours (or less) to hack after which point the vote would be over.

Prior to the vote the addresses or in fact the chain wouldnt even exist, so nothing to attack.

Limiting your exposure would greatly limit the ability of anyone to do anything evil to the vote, and as its all always in plain sight, everyone would know if the results had been tampered with.

Yes, and once it's known it's been tampered with confidence is shot. Will people believe a company that it was tampered with but not affected?

xckjoo · 30-10-2018 06:07PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Used in some internal cases, nothing public has been released...yet!

Slightly leading question: Is that because the practicality of implementing solutions is different from the theoretical promise they hold?

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 06:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And where is that stored?

Im not following the question....are you asking where is the chain/public ledger stored?
Its stored on the device of anyone who voted.

And how is that secured?

Its secured because there is a copy for everyone who voted and they must all reconcile.

Yes, and once it's known it's been tampered with confidence is shot. Will people believe a company that it was tampered with but not affected?

Firstly I dont see how anyone can tamper with it, the chain will ignore anything that attempts to rewrite history, can you elaborate on how you see someone tampering with a blockchain based solution as basically its raison-d'etre is to prevent that from happening.

Who is the company btw?
Its impossible to tamper but not affect.

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 06:11PM

xckjoo wrote: »

Slightly leading question: Is that because the practicality of implementing solutions is different from the theoretical promise they hold?

Not really, or at least not yet!
You have to find the use case first, no point in just trying to stick 'blockchain' onto the end of a product unless its actually adding some value.

gctest50 · 30-10-2018 06:16PM

Does it all matter anyway ? It's like having to choose between AIDS or cancer

xckjoo · 30-10-2018 07:22PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Not really, or at least not yet!
You have to find the use case first, no point in just trying to stick 'blockchain' onto the end of a product unless its actually adding some value.

Ya that's kinda my point. What's the added value here? We've a working system now. As far as I know access to voting is not a deciding factor for if people vote or not. Apathy is probably the biggest factor

. I could maybe see a case for it being used for the register but even then I'm not comfortable with such a new technology being used for such an important thing. The potential benefit doesn't out weigh the potential risk.

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 07:47PM

xckjoo wrote: »

Ya that's kinda my point. What's the added value here? We've a working system now. As far as I know access to voting is not a deciding factor for if people vote or not. Apathy is probably the biggest factor . I could maybe see a case for it being used for the register but even then I'm not comfortable with such a new technology being used for such an important thing. The potential benefit doesn't out weigh the potential risk.

My point was not that blockchain doesn't add value to something, more that it doesn't just magically add value to *everything*.

Access to voting has to be a deciding factor for some, if you dont have access you cant vote.

I dont see that it adds risk, if implement correctly and I think it has many benefits, not least of which is the count. As soon as the polls close you have a definite result.

As for having a working system now, we had horses yet we are all (mostly!) driving cars now...horses worked...why change?
There a literally millions of examples of things that we have improved and evolved, why not the voting process?

El_Duderino 09 · 30-10-2018 08:41PM

xckjoo wrote: »

I don't understand how people find it so difficult to get to the polling stations on time IF they're properly registered at their primary address. Are other peoples polling stations further away than mine? Is it just a case of people being registered at their parents house and never moving it?

Students living away, people working away from home on that day, shift workers who work long hours, people who are very busy on polling day and people who are busy and have other things to do apart from making sure their voting admin is correct.

The one group who have bog all to do apart from make sure their voting admin is correct and get to the polling station on time, is the old people.

Old people are no more relevant than any other age demographic but they have way more influence on politics than they ought to. They also tend to have regressive views and care relatively little for the lives of young people.

Young people will one day be old, but old people will never be young. Throw it open to get as many people as possible to bite and we might see some innovative policies coming from government.

AndrewJRenko · 30-10-2018 08:50PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I'll know if my vote is changed but no one else will, in any case, you cant alter the history of a blockchain, thats kinda the point.

The fella you sold you vote to would know after you show him. He'll want you to show him your vote before he pays you. The current system prevents vote selling, but you want a new system that facilititates vote selling.

Same for duress voting, where a domineering partner or parent or employer requires you to vote in a certain way and looks for proof.

It's not a sound basis for an electoral system.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-10-2018 09:58PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see that it adds risk, if implement correctly and I think it has many benefits, not least of which is the count. As soon as the polls close you have a definite result.

That's not a feature, that's a bug.

There is no transparency in the count process - as opposed to now, where literally every vote counted is observed being counted.

GreeBo · 30-10-2018 10:26PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's not a feature, that's a bug.

There is no transparency in the count process - as opposed to now, where literally every vote counted is observed being counted.

How is there no transparency?
Literally every vote is visible to anyone who wants to take a look, anyone can add them up and confirm the result for themselves.
Its the same way we can go and look and see how much bitcoin there is, anyone can go do this because every transaction is visible to the public.
Now no one else knows your address, but you do and you can check it at anytime.

It couldn't be *more* transparent!

AndrewJRenko · 30-10-2018 10:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Now no one else knows your address, but you do and you can check it at anytime.

It couldn't be *more* transparent!

So you can sell your vote, or be put under duress to vote in a certain way. In fact, with long ballot papers, you could be pressured to vote with a specific sequence of candidates that is fairly likely to be unique - so the organisers of the ballot steal just have search the published papers to look for that particular sequence to confirm that you've done what you're told.

It's not going to work.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-10-2018 11:15PM

Sorry I thought you said that people would only be able to see their own vote, you didn't.

I'd still be worried about people using unsecured endpoints to vote though.

And let's say Joe Bloggs goes to the authorities saying that his vote is showing up as X when he meant to vote Y - how can we prove whether it was user error, a malicious actor, or Bloggs just trying to stir up trouble? Any questionable paper votes are reviewed in detail by several parties.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-10-2018 11:31PM

With a paper voting you aren't allowed to use cameras in the polling station.
So the only way someone else can see how you voted is to be there.

You may remember the debacle of the UK in the election last year ?

Theresa May lost her majority by just 93* votes out of an electorate of 46,843,896.

One person in half a million, that's how close May was to not needing the DUP.

It would be very hard for humans to stuff before the votes were counted because the exact contents are unknown.

For a computer that knows the count as it happens it's trivial.

Brexit is costing the UK economy £500m a week in lost tax revenue.
That's worth a hell of a lot more than one bitcoin.

*20 Kensington (lost to Labour)
21 Perth & North Perthshire (SNP)
22 Dudley North (Labour)
30 Newcastle-under-Lyme (Labour)

The next closest was 48 Crewe & Nantwich (Labour)

ectoraige · 30-10-2018 11:38PM

GreeBo wrote: »

its no harder to force someone now.
I dont have to tell anyone my actual address, I can just pick one that matches what they told me to vote and they will be none the wiser.

So if your vote is tampered with, can you prove it? Can the conspirators just shout "fake news!" and claim you and the other people saying their votes were flipped are just sore losers?

GreeBo · 31-10-2018 12:12AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sorry I thought you said that people would only be able to see their own vote, you didn't.

Yeah, the idea would be everyone can check their own vote, but no one else knows what your vote is.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd still be worried about people using unsecured endpoints to vote though.

Would need to figure out what the best way of authenticating people is alright, but that could possibly be done by in person during voter registration.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And let's say Joe Bloggs goes to the authorities saying that his vote is showing up as X when he meant to vote Y - how can we prove whether it was user error, a malicious actor, or Bloggs just trying to stir up trouble? Any questionable paper votes are reviewed in detail by several parties.

How do you question a paper vote though? You might question its validity (not marked correctly etc) but there is no way for the voter themselves to question the vote.
Individuals would likely be ignored as cranks, if thousands of people are claiming it then you probably want to investigate something.

i'd say thats a better situation than we have today, where no one knows of any vote manipulation?

In any case, there is no way for someone to modify a vote after its cast.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

With a paper voting you aren't allowed to use cameras in the polling station.
So the only way someone else can see how you voted is to be there.

"aren't allowed"? What stops you snapping a photo on your phone while you are in your booth where, by design, no one can see what you are doing?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You may remember the debacle of the UK in the election last year ?

Theresa May lost her majority by just 93* votes out of an electorate of 46,843,896.

One person in half a million, that's how close May was to not needing the DUP.

It would be very hard for humans to stuff before the votes were counted because the exact contents are unknown.

For a computer that knows the count as it happens it's trivial.

tbh, what I am mostly taking from that is that, as denied previously on this thread, one box of votes is enough to change an election result.
I'd fancy my chances much more on being able to somehow tamper/replace/etc a box of papers than hack into a public blockchain and alter it without *anyone* being able to spot a fork in the chain and bring it to attention.

I don't get your point about the computer knowing the count?
What computer? There is no computer, it a public ledger.
You could have the votes encrypted until voting closes, and then release the private key so to make the actual votes viewable by all, but again, even if one nefarious person has access to the private key in advance, there is nothing that can do.

Thats the whole point of blockchain, you cant alter it once its been written. Its effectively append only, no possibility to rewrite the past as each new transaction/vote is built upon the last, if you change an earlier vote the chain simply doesn't work.

ectoraige wrote: »

So if your vote is tampered with, can you prove it? Can the conspirators just shout "fake news!" and claim you and the other people saying their votes were flipped are just sore losers?

Can you prove it with todays paper vote?
Would you even know if you vote was tampered with? The simple answer is that you dont know, no one does, other than the fella doing the tampering.

GreeBo · 31-10-2018 12:15AM

Btw, for everyone so concerned about some big bad computer doing evil things, literally you whole life today is run by computers that you have zero control over or really access to. If a banks computer decides that you have no money, then you have no money.

AndrewJRenko · 31-10-2018 12:39AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah, the idea would be everyone can check their own vote, but no one else knows what your vote is.

No-one except the fella that you show your vote to when you sell your vote - the fundamental flaw in your proposal that you keep ignoring.

GreeBo wrote: »

How do you question a paper vote though? You might question its validity (not marked correctly etc) but there is no way for the voter themselves to question the vote.

i'd say thats a better situation than we have today, where no one knows of any vote manipulation?

Can you prove it with todays paper vote?
Would you even know if you vote was tampered with? The simple answer is that you dont know, no one does, other than the fella doing the tampering.

This is no opportunity to tamper with today's paper vote. Everything is done in public view.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd fancy my chances much more on being able to somehow tamper/replace/etc a box of papers than hack into a public blockchain and alter it without *anyone* being able to spot a fork in the chain and bring it to attention.

'somehow' doesn't cut it. Please explain specifically how and when you're going to tamper with the sealed ballot box and replace it with your papers, given that you won't know the seal being used, or the punch pattern being used, or the exact number of votes in the box. Please explain.

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw, for everyone so concerned about some big bad computer doing evil things, literally you whole life today is run by computers that you have zero control over or really access to. If a banks computer decides that you have no money, then you have no money.

That's completely untrue. Banking, for example, is a highly regulated industry, with external supervision, controls and guarantees. Banks don't get to decide that 'you have no money'. And if they take your money, there is a Government guarantee to ensure you get it back.

And for the umpteenth time, the difference between banking systems and voting systems is the requirement for anonymity - the secret ballot.

xckjoo · 31-10-2018 12:55AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Students living away, people working away from home on that day, shift workers who work long hours, people who are very busy on polling day and people who are busy and have other things to do apart from making sure their voting admin is correct.

The one group who have bog all to do apart from make sure their voting admin is correct and get to the polling station on time, is the old people.

Old people are no more relevant than any other age demographic but they have way more influence on politics than they ought to. They also tend to have regressive views and care relatively little for the lives of young people.

Young people will one day be old, but old people will never be young. Throw it open to get as many people as possible to bite and we might see some innovative policies coming from government.

They're all pretty weak excuses. It's easy to register a new address. They even send people door to door to do it for you. It's easy to ensure you're on the register. Voting happens regularly so you can't be so busy you never have time to do it. I bet if there was a cash reward for voting people would suddenly find the time. I do think the register system needs an overhaul but it's not like it's some impossible task. You can't blame old people for having influence because they're the only people that bother to vote. They have the same access as everybody else. If you think students aren't voting because they can't reach the polls then how does that explain the turn out rates for student union elections? They're offered in person and remote voting and the turn out rates are still abysmally low. More people turned out to impeach that UCD president a few years ago than voted in the original elections. It's apathy plain and simple.

Smart Voting

Comments