Hacker News Reader

Comment by benchaney | Hacker News Reader

What if the UUID is secret?

I'm not sure what that would mean. How do you keep the UUID secret in a way that you can use for verification?

You send it to the person who it belongs to. Then when the want to check if their vote went through properly, they can look up the vote that corresponds to their UUID.

Okay. What prevents someone else from accessing the UUID, either before or after its sent to the person it belongs to? I could be missing something, but I think this is still vulnerable to coercion or vote selling.

How would they go about accessing it? Presumably people can protect information they deem private. Like their social security number for instance.

Threats of physical violence? Bribes? There are ways to design the system that guarantee that the voter can verify they voted but can't prove who they voted for. No need to keep the UUID secret. It's very desirable to have a system that we can trust even if conditions aren't necessarily antagonistic.

BTW, thanks for engaging in this discussion. It's important and it's helping me rethink through all of this.

Those are problems with all voting systems. In the current system someone could Threaten/Bribe you to take a selfie with your ballet after it has been filled out.

Okay. I'll grant that there are likely ways to potentially coerce or sell votes in any system. If there are straightforward, inexpensive ways to make it more difficult to do so, we should.

The private, non-electronic ballot box makes it pretty hard. That's one of the main beauties of the system.

Which is exactly why that should be banned as well.

You could take the selfie, throw away the ballot and make a new one.

The poll workers can and will force you to do that. They take great pride every election in telling the local TV news types doing human interest stories that taking pictures of ballots accomplishes little other than pissing off the 80 year old poll workers who now have to work even harder. Some probably do successfully slip thru the system.

Another option is making a fake ballot. The local newspaper used to helpfully publish their suggestion of how a devout left wing progressive would fill out their ballot. They're currently the establishment, so they're likely to be the largest problem, and its solved right there.

That would be noticed by poll workers. No curtains anymore.

What if everyone has to come up with a unique UUID? There could be some rules, like it has to be 40 chars long.

You still have to trust the machine that prints it. Which, I will admit, is still better than the current system. However, there are public ledger voting systems with stronger anonymity guarantees. So, my opinion is that if we're going to do it all over again, we might as well do it right.

"You still have to trust the machine that prints it"

And if I'm understanding correctly (and I might not be), you can confirm that the printout is accurate.

Well, sort of. You have to trust that the printed ID is unique.

Good point. That'd be an issue with any verification system isn't it?

Edit to add: If you can confirm that all of the ids are unique and that the total number of ids are correct, that would go a long way towards verification, along with checking arbitrary receipts against the results, regardless if the ids are pre-printed or printed afterward.

I'd prefer not having any printers involved though. Pre-printed ballots would work just fine and there's one less piece of equipment involved during the actual vote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com