Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Technology

In a Blow To E-Voting Critics, Brazil Suspends Use of All Paper Ballots (arstechnica.com) 120

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: In a blow to electronic-voting critics, Brazil's Supreme Court has suspended the use of all paper ballots in this year's elections. The ruling means that only electronic ballot boxes will be used, and there will be no voter-verified paper trail that officials can use to check the accuracy of results. In an 8-2 majority, justices on Wednesday sided with government arguments that the paper trails posed a risk to ballot secrecy, Brazil's Folha De S.Paulo newspaper reported on Thursday. In so doing, the justices suspended a requirement that 5 percent of Brazil's ballot boxes this year use paper. That requirement, by Brazil's Supreme Electoral Court, already represented a major weakening of an election reform bill passed in 2015. Speaking in support of Wednesday's decision, Justice Gilmar Mendes equated proponents of voter-verified paper trails to conspiracy theorists. "After the statements made here [by those who defend paper votes], we have to believe that perhaps we did not actually reach the moon," Mendes was quoted as saying. "There are beliefs and even a religion around this theme."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In a Blow To E-Voting Critics, Brazil Suspends Use of All Paper Ballots More

In a Blow To E-Voting Critics, Brazil Suspends Use of All Paper Ballots

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @06:05PM (#56752650)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • For the love of FSM, mod this plus infinity insightful. Computerphile does a brilliant job of summarizing why e-voting is an absolutely terrible idea.

  • Because after one bored asshole in his mom's basement decides to elect himself president, they will be rubbing their assholes and wondering what happened.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You assume that the votes from the boxes will actually be taken into account when determining the final result. How cute.

    • And because some hypersensitive Trumpophile thought they detected a dig in your comment, you picked up a cowardly Offtopic mod. Congratulations!

  • Electronic ballot boxes are safe and tamper proof, and in other news: vaccines cause autism, the Earth is flat and I have found a cure for cancer.

  • I'm not the ludite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swistak ( 899225 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @06:11PM (#56752688) Homepage
    I'm definitely against the electronic voting though. Especially in light of the fact that lots of those are closed source solutions, and many of them were shown to be hackable.

    The fact in the matter is - once you have paper voting, performing fraud is so much harder then changing some numbers.

    When I make a vote on a paper with a ball pen, it's nearly impossible to change it without a mark without replacing whole box. If someone gives me a tablet or a computer. How do I know that when I click my vote was marked correctly? Without me personally inspecting the code, then inspecting the hardware, I can never be sure.

    Some sources: http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... [thehill.com] It took hackers _minutes_ to hack into several different voting machines, and once it's modified there's really no way to prove the vote was different.
    • News flash. All electronic devices a pretty much hackable.

      • Love to see you hack my single pull single throw lightswitches
        The bi-metal thermostat in my home
        My analog toaster oven
        My mechanical sprinkler timer (Hell if you can figure out how to get it to go off at the right time and length of time I would like to see that)
        The up down control on my boat lift
        My paper tape reader
        or even my mark sense card reader

        • All of those are extremely hackable as they have no security protocols whatsoever. You don't seem to understand what hacking is; it doesn't require doing it remotely, nor is it limited to full-fledged computers.

          I could hack your thermostat's temperature sensor so it never turns off. I could hack your toaster by *adding* a microcontroller to its power circuit, to make the timing digital; same with your sprinkler timer. Hack your boatswitch by flipping the function of the buttons, or adding a remote trigger

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      TFA: government arguments that the paper trails posed a risk to ballot secrecy,

      ...lots of those are closed source [software] solutions, and many of them were shown to be hackable.

      Indeed. All known approaches pose exposure and tamper risks; it's a matter of weighing the level.

      Maybe It'll take a bad event to wake them up. Let's hope ethical hackers bust in and leave a harmless but illustrative warning. Change some votes to Mr. Goatse or something. The look on the inspectors' faces when they google it will be

    • If someone gives me a tablet or a computer. How do I know that when I click my vote was marked correctly? Without me personally inspecting the code, then inspecting the hardware, I can never be sure.

      The electronic voting machine i used in this past Tuesday's election used a monitor, scroll wheel, and buttons to let you select which candidates you wanted to vote for. After you finished voting, it showed you your votes on the screen and asked you to make sure those votes were correct. Then it printed your

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Then it printed your votes onto a piece of paper, and asked you to confirm that the printed ballot accurately reflected your choices. That seemed to me a sensible method of electronic voting. Use a computer to reduce the expense and confusion of custom-printed ballots for every election.

        Uh, as long as there's a qualification process of sorts pre-printing a ton of ballots for each candidate at a printing press is likely to be far cheaper than doing it at every voting booth. Don't get me wrong I see a lot of privacy and security advantages of paper ballots but economics is not one of them. All that manual labor is expensive. Dealing with physical paper is expensive. The eVote is cheaper.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by thogard ( 43403 )

          The idea is the computer system knows the numbers and that gets reported nearly instantly when the election is over and then scrutineers check the paper ballots to verify it matches the info that the computer sent out. That sort of system would be very handy for preferential voting.

          I expect a secure electronic voting system is impossible but I would love to see it because like most automation, it could eliminate an entire class of useless middlemen - namely politicians.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sfcat ( 872532 )

            The idea is the computer system knows the numbers and that gets reported nearly instantly when the election is over and then scrutineers check the paper ballots to verify it matches the info that the computer sent out. That sort of system would be very handy for preferential voting.

            I expect a secure electronic voting system is impossible but I would love to see it because like most automation, it could eliminate an entire class of useless middlemen - namely politicians.

            Scantron paper ballots have done this for a long, long time. Then poll workers call in the results (but this could be done via an app I guess). e-voting has no benefits over paper ballot other than the ability to hack an entire election at once with no audit trail. If these voting systems were highly secure and added something to the election somehow then I would support them, but the simple fact is, they don't.

        • All that manual labor is expensive

          Democracy is important enough that any place should have enough volunteers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            Actually, it's better to have employees. With employees you have a contractual arrangement and a useful contractual sanction, as well as a legal one. Volunteers are great in countries where they can be trusted not to be actually working for one of the parties standing. Volunteers from parties can have a valid role in overseeing things, though.

        • Uh, as long as there's a qualification process of sorts pre-printing a ton of ballots for each candidate at a printing press is likely to be far cheaper than doing it at every voting booth.

          Instead of printing a complete ballot on a piece of card stock, you're only recording voting results on a piece of receipt paper. I'd be shocked if it weren't cheaper.

    • . . . and many of them were shown to be hackable . . .

      I think pretty much all of them [wired.com] have been shown to have more holes than a sieve. You can thank me for the dramatic hyperbole later.

  • Diebold and Harris (Score:5, Informative)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @06:11PM (#56752694) Journal

    Just a reminder that Republicans are fighting every initiative to require paper ballots in the US. Even in the rare red state where a paper ballot initiative has been put forth by a Republican lawmaker, the state party has fought it and they only passed with the full support of Democrats.

    http://humphreyonthehill.tnjou... [tnjournal.net]

    https://www.cnet.com/news/repu... [cnet.com]

    http://www.governing.com/topic... [governing.com]

    • Just remember it was the butt-hurt Democrats that insisted on electronic voting after Al Gore showed Hillary how to win the popular vote but lose the election.

      Before anyone decided to argue about stolen elections, just a reminder that the right wing newspaper the NY Timesdeclared that there was no way Al Gore could have won the 2000 election in Florida, and losing Florida cost him the Predidency.

    • Good to see you are so strongly opposed to elections that can be rigged! Then I assume you are 100% in support of showing proof of identification when voting as well? What's the use of a "secure system" if we do not ensure who is using the system is supposed to use the system?

      • Then I assume you are 100% in support of showing proof of identification when voting as well?

        Fuck that noise.

        1) In-person vote fraud is on the order of a few dozen votes out of billions cast. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

        2) The cases voter ID proponents point to invariably wouldn't have been prevented with ID's. Convicted felon? Voted in person and by mail? Have residences in more than one district or even state and voted in each? Not prevented by ID!

        3) Voting is a right. You do not have

        • It's actually over a thousand proven cases [heritage.org] of voter fraud. I guess you don't care about those, eh? "Not enough to matter" - and yet we've had hundreds of elections change on as few as 1 vote...

          Now, I agree with you that voting IS a right - and, in the Constitution, it is reserved for citizens only:

          Amendment 14: the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States

          Amendment 15: The right of citizens of the United States to vote

          Amendment 19: The right of citizens of the United States to vote

          Amendment 24: The right of citizens of the United States to vote

          Amendment 26: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote

          Funny, each time the right to vote is mentioned it's brought up in terms of CITIZENSHIP. Non-citizens are NOT allowed to vote. I guess we ignore those who chose to break the law? Or do you believe we should p

          • It's actually over a thousand proven cases of voter fraud.

            Repeating an argument that was just debunked is a sign of cult thinking. Go look at your own link - it's replete with duplicate votes, petition fraud, felons - NOT. PREVENTED. BY. VOTER. ID.

            and, in the Constitution, it is reserved for citizens only

            Undocumented immigrants aren't going to be voting because they don't want to bring attention from the state. Green card holders are going to have regular drivers licenses, so your precious voter ID laws

            • From the list [ice.gov]. Fraudulent vote by an illegal immigrant. Voter ID and proof of citizenship would have prevented that one. And your second point? See the link - illegal immigrant voting in the 2008 election.
            • PS: if we don't have to prove citizenship to vote, then why do we need to prove it to procure a firearm?

        • An ID requirement works *fairly* only in countries with universal/mandatory ID for all citizens.

  • Corrupt or incompetent. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They're smart men, so I'd opt for corrupt.

    • They're smart men, so I'd opt for corrupt.

      Alas, here is the dilemma of the voter in a democracy. Do you vote for the knave, or the fool?

      Answer: vote for the knave, because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk.

      For readers in the USA: I leave it as an exercise to decide whether the knave or the fool ascended to the WH in 2016.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        I leave it as an exercise to decide whether the knave or the fool ascended to the WH in 2016.

        It was the fool. Now what do I win?

  • How are proponents of voter-verified paper trails the conspiracy theorists when the other side has
    the crackpot conspiracy theory that "paper trails pose a risk to ballot secrecy"?
    I have no problem with electronic voting systems but they all should print a receipt for the voter
    and that receipt should be deposited in a ballot box before the voter leaves the building
    which solves both problems nicely. No conspiracy required.

    • Who is to say the printed ballot has no water mark identifying you and your vote? Not that I think it is likely, but is at least possible.

      This would be possible even with traditional paper votes, but a little bit harder to execute.

      • Who is to say the printed ballot has no water mark identifying you and your vote? Not that I think it is likely, but is at least possible.

        This would be possible even with traditional paper votes, but a little bit harder to execute.

        As long as you are not logging into the device, there is no connection between you and the receipt. You just get permission to enter the room, use one of the devices, and deposit a single receipt in the door on your way out. Watermarks and/or serial numbers on paper ballots can interfere with ballot secrecy but you shouldn't have either. This does leave open the chance of box stuffing but that's easy enough to prevent by making sure that the number of registered voters matches the number of electronic en

  • Sad.

    Talk about fixed elections ...

  • Rigged elections on track (Score:4, Insightful)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @06:59PM (#56752932)

    They put Lula in jail but forgot to make him ineligible. Now forecasts tells he should win by a 10% margin. It was high time to make sure the people's vote would not be taken into account, hence electronic voting.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      It was high time to make sure the people's vote would not be taken into account, hence electronic voting.

      Well in that respect I think that Trump being in office shows the system is "working". Unless the tin foil hat brigade decides Trump is just a puppet and the plan all along. Who knows...

      • Well in that respect I think that Trump being in office shows the system is "working".

        The question here is a lot about how democrats chosen their candidate

  • No need to worry about your preferred candidate ever losing again! No more nasty anarchists, white supremacists and putin lovers causing problems. Never have a Trump, ever again! The only thing wrong with democracy is the voters and this neutralizes them perfectly.

  • I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this â" who will count the votes, and how.

    He was referring to a Communist Party vote, but the same principle applies.

  • Let m get this straight.., (Score:3)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @07:22PM (#56753044) Homepage Journal

    So because Brazil decides to go completely electronic voting that somehow invalidates the arguments against election technologies that provide an actual physical audit trail?

    Having no physical audit trail simply means the government will be telling you 'just trust us' after they announce the election result.

  • For the people commenting that now the elections will be rigged etc, please notice Brazil has been using e-voting machines for 20 years, that boat has sailed a long time ago.

    I prefer the electronic voting, it is a lot faster to vote and get the results, and it is not like paper voting is any safer: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/wo... [bbc.com]

    The best reason to go electronic is to avoid pressure on voters. People used to "sell" their vote for pennies, the ticket from paper voting was the proof they voted for the buyer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sabriel ( 134364 )

      Your "best reason" is wrong. Paper voting in Australia does not have that problem; the system is quick, efficient and designed specifically to prevent parties - political or criminal - from being able to change or know who you vote for.

  • Complete Secrecy (Score:4, Funny)

    by techdolphin ( 1263510 ) on Friday June 08, 2018 @07:30PM (#56753092)

    "In an 8-2 majority, justices on Wednesday sided with government arguments that the paper trails posed a risk to ballot secrecy."

    The justices are right about one point, E-voting has complete ballot secrecy. The ballots are so secret that nobody knows if the ballot count is accurate.

  • This is a presentation given by a google engineer about using encryption to verify paper ballot elections:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    I highly recommend watching because it's in depth but also tackles general election security. I don't know that this can be applied to electronic voting though.

  • If there were three completely independent vote counting systems managed by 3 completely independent organizations that would be a reasonable measure against tampering. If there is a discrepancy for a given voting station then you could take either the two counters that agree or the average count. If the systems are way off, you could invalidate all the votes at that station and have anyone who voted at that station vote again.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, it wouldn't. It would get a bit more expensive, though.

      The typical e-voting fraud in Brazil so far has been to outright steal or damage the equipments located where the opposing candidate has a known majority. urn hacking is rare, expensive, and ends up resulting in the same as stealing it (all votes in that urn are invalidated).

      Now, I would not be surprised if it did change into government-sponsored fraud on the next election. The guys who are directly getting benefits from the current government *a

  • So Brazil has decided to go papertrail-less on voting, how strange, I wonder why. Could it be perhaps that in such systems systematic tampering is impossible to prove after the fact & very unlikely to be detected at the time. No, the Brazilian government are all honest upstanding people who would never stoop to such. https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com] On the other hand...
  • This is not a blow to the critics. It is a blow to democracy in Brazil.

  • Welcome to the moon, judge Mendes (Score:3)

    by Kirth ( 183 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @04:14AM (#56754408) Homepage

    Where people hacking your voting machines within 90 minutes is apparently only a conspiracy theory:
    http://fortune.com/2017/07/31/... [fortune.com]

    I guess you believe in the easter bunny and the security of E-Voting?

  • E-voting is such an interesting case of "the client doesn't know what he wants" - basically all people with a little more than passing IT competence know it is a bad idea, for many reasons. Sure - you could in theory add blockchains or whatever to it to make it a bit more sensible, but why bother? Never touch a working (paper voting) system!

    But people that do not grok IT, out of ignorance or malice, really love the idea of e-voting, and are surprisingly hard to convince of their error.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close