Blockchain-based elections would be a disaster for democracy | Ars Technica


10 bookmarks. First posted by lanebecker 9 days ago.


"Blockchain voting would be much, much worse. Hardly anyone understands how a blockchain works, and even experts don't have a good way to observe the online voting process for irregularities the way an election observer does in a traditional paper election. A voter might be able to use her private key to verify how her vote was recorded after the fact. But if her vote wasn't counted the way she expected (or wasn't counted at all) she'd have no good way to prove that she tried to vote a different way."
9 days ago by jonerp
"Online voting would be a huge threat to the integrity of our elections—and to public faith in election outcomes."
blockchain  voting  dopost 
9 days ago by niksilver
Timothy Lee:
<p>"Mobile voting is a horrific idea," said election security expert Joe Hall when I asked him about <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/experts-criticize-west-virginias-plan-for-smartphone-voting/">a West Virginia experiment</a> with blockchain-based mobile voting back in August.

But on Tuesday, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/opinion/online-blockchain-voting.html">published an opinion piece claiming the opposite</a>.

"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 says these concerns are no big deal because voters can always check later to see if their vote was recorded properly.

"Because of the clear chain of custody, citizens could prove that their voting tokens had been stolen," he writes.

But let's think about how this would play out in practice. Suppose it's mid-November 2020 and Donald Trump has narrowly won reelection. A few thousand voters in key swing states come forward to say that they intended to vote for Trump's opponent but their vote was recorded for Trump instead. Thousands of others say they tried to vote for Trump—or against him—but their votes weren't counted.

Was that due to hackers meddling with the vote, technical snafus, or user error? Were some of them just misremembering how they had cast their ballots? There would be no way to know for sure.</p>


Why replace something that everyone understands with something that doesn't? Paper ballots are simple, really hard to forge, checkable.
blockchain  democracy 
9 days ago by charlesarthur
"Blockchain-based elections would be a disaster for democracy"
from twitter
9 days ago by tante
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

Thousands of others say they tried to vote for Trump—or against him—but their votes weren't counted ... Was that due to hackers meddling with the vote, technical snafus, or user error? Were some of them just misremembering how they had cast their ballots? There would be no way to know for sure ... An important property for an election is finality
security  misc 
9 days ago by zephyr777
RT : The case against blockchain-based online voting.
from twitter_favs
9 days ago by charisse
RT : The case against blockchain-based online voting.
from twitter_favs
9 days ago by mathewi
The case against blockchain-based online voting.
from twitter_favs
9 days ago by lanebecker