I distrust any blanket assertion that such things are "technologically impossible." I'd agree to "highly improbable", given the ridiculous frequency with which consumers' or citizens' private data is regularly leaked, by corporations and government agencies alike. And given the stupidly insecure and inaccurate electronic voting machines we've seen before, I'd say it's probably "impossible" for some companies to create a secure system.
But properly working, secure authentication and crypto is a thing. It's
"we'll probably figure out how create a system that uses authenticated electronic ledgers to prevent fraudulent tampering (blockchains, etc) while still preserving anonymity."
We'll probably not.
Authentication means "undoubfully identifying something's author (or owner)". Anonymity means "impossibility to identify something's author (or owner)".
See the problem?
I'm with you about distrusting "any blanket assertion", but in this case is an obvious logical impossibility, not even physical impossibility (i.e.:
"we'll probably figure out how create a system that uses authenticated electronic ledgers to prevent fraudulent tampering (blockchains, etc) while still preserving anonymity."
We'll probably not.
This is not impossible. In fact it is a solved problem. Blind Signatures [wikipedia.org] can be used to do this. I actually designed and mostly implemented such a system: Source and docs here [github.com]. I also was not the first to do this (David Chaum deserves far more credit than I do: his contributions to cryptography have enabled so many amazing things including my little experiment).
That system lets everyone vote exactly once, maintains secret ballot, and gives voters the tools to confirm their vote was counted, and if not they
Please explain what steps you have taken in your voting protocol to ensure that, on election day, any voter can verify that the voting software and hardware actually preserves his/her anonymity and prevents cheating. Don't forget to explain why allowing for this verification by any voter on election day does not introduce any opportunity for tampering. Please keep things short, let's say ~1000 words, start from first principles, and limit yourself to concepts understandable by all voters.
See David Chaum's voting methods. As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic experts who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation. At some point, you'll have to decide whether to trust that. If I could check their credentials and see that it was unanimous, I would believe that, to our present knowledge, it is a valid and unbroken voting method.
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through t
As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation.
Climate warming is easier to understand, there are over 2000 scientists who can and do testify that it is real and still 50% if not more of the population doubts it. And you think the testimony of a paltry 100 cryptographers will be sufficient?
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems, and only if the results from all three agreed perfectly would the election be considered valid.
So either there are three computers and the voter must enter his vote three times without mistakes otherwise the results will differ causing everyone to doubt the system; or you have a four computer sending the vote data to the three others, after having tampered of l
"Technologically impossible?" (Score:1)
I distrust any blanket assertion that such things are "technologically impossible." I'd agree to "highly improbable", given the ridiculous frequency with which consumers' or citizens' private data is regularly leaked, by corporations and government agencies alike. And given the stupidly insecure and inaccurate electronic voting machines we've seen before, I'd say it's probably "impossible" for some companies to create a secure system.
But properly working, secure authentication and crypto is a thing. It's
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
"we'll probably figure out how create a system that uses authenticated electronic ledgers to prevent fraudulent tampering (blockchains, etc) while still preserving anonymity."
We'll probably not.
Authentication means "undoubfully identifying something's author (or owner)". Anonymity means "impossibility to identify something's author (or owner)".
See the problem?
I'm with you about distrusting "any blanket assertion", but in this case is an obvious logical impossibility, not even physical impossibility (i.e.:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"we'll probably figure out how create a system that uses authenticated electronic ledgers to prevent fraudulent tampering (blockchains, etc) while still preserving anonymity."
We'll probably not.
This is not impossible. In fact it is a solved problem. Blind Signatures [wikipedia.org] can be used to do this. I actually designed and mostly implemented such a system: Source and docs here [github.com]. I also was not the first to do this (David Chaum deserves far more credit than I do: his contributions to cryptography have enabled so many amazing things including my little experiment) .
That system lets everyone vote exactly once, maintains secret ballot, and gives voters the tools to confirm their vote was counted, and if not they
Re:"Technologically impossible?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See David Chaum's voting methods. As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic experts who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation. At some point, you'll have to decide whether to trust that. If I could check their credentials and see that it was unanimous, I would believe that, to our present knowledge, it is a valid and unbroken voting method.
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through t
Re: (Score:2)
As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation.
Climate warming is easier to understand, there are over 2000 scientists who can and do testify that it is real and still 50% if not more of the population doubts it. And you think the testimony of a paltry 100 cryptographers will be sufficient?
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems, and only if the results from all three agreed perfectly would the election be considered valid.
So either there are three computers and the voter must enter his vote three times without mistakes otherwise the results will differ causing everyone to doubt the system; or you have a four computer sending the vote data to the three others, after having tampered of l
Re: (Score:2)
"As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic experts"
Or one could use a system so obvious no cryptographic experts are needed to start with.
"Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems"
This would help to avoid flaws, not to avoid malice.
The Space Shuttle used to use the same approach (because the flaws avoiding). Now, imagine that NASA wanted (secretly) for the shuttle to crash