I Bought Used Voting Machines on EBay for $100 Apiece. What I Found Was Alarming
wired.com
wired.com
Just wait until the next-next generation of voting machines has network access. Then exploitation can really scale.
And in some cases, contrary to the mantra, "security by obscurity" is indeed an important _layer_ of security. But I'm not sure if this is one of them. Of all the domains that one would expect state actors to be trying to exploit, I'd think voting would be near the top. And I don't think trying to only make sure "authorized" people can get their hands on a voting machine is going to be much of a barrier to a state actor. The thing better really be secure no matter how much an attacker knows about it, to defend against state actors, no?
And of course these _weren't_. But I don't think making it harder to buy an old machine on ebay would provide enough barrier to the attackers in the realistic threat model, to even bother doing it. Better to spend the focus on the actual security of the machine. I feel like the "lifecycle management" of machines that the author prioritizes as a solution is a misdirection.
> By simply regulating and monitoring the sale of used voting machines more closely, we would create a huge barrier to bad actors.
A HUGE one? To the intelligence agency of a foreign state? I doubt it. If you think it was a huge one, it's a false sense of security that may lead you to insufficiently prioritize more important fixes. (Which may be _not using digital voting machines_.)
I'm glad France is sticking to simple paper and ballot are publicly open.
Please expand.
As is, voting machines are the worst idea imaginable. I have yet to read any positive argument for voting machines.
I'm not a fan of insecure voting machines myself but I can come up with some reasons why one would want to use machines.
Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I would much rather wait one more day to have the definitive name of my new president than have a machine decide that for me 24hours earlier.
> not prone to human error or counter bias / agenda
That's why vote counting is a public ceremony; and also why the "voting neighborhoods" are quite small. See e.g. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F16828 (in French). At least 2 people count the votes, etc.
We get the benefits of electronics with the benefits of a tried and tested paper ballot system. We no longer have people arguing over stray pencil marks or trying to cross out mistakes.
We even get some extra checks on the paper system: today, if there is a discrepancy between the count of people coming to vote and the number of ballots we don't know which is wrong - this would introduce a third number to compare against.
Electronic voting machines were rushed in following the whole "hanging chad" thing, and were done terribly, with credible accusations of corruption involved (see Diebold, who are still out there under a different name) when a better ballot design process would have done the trick, but that doesn't mean we cant get some benefits from electronics, so long as we put accuracy and verifiability first.
At some point we will want voting from home (outside of mail in) and I'd rather shake out bugs gradually than expect some future generation to get it right the first time
Maybe do a combination? Voting machine that prints a hard copy of your vote. Activate by scanning your passport or other proof of voting right, centralized secure repository of who has voted or some kind of deduplication of votes when counting.
You just put the paper of the candidate you want to vote for in the ballot box and that is it.
I understand there is more complicated voting system (e.g where you can rate candidate), but when do you need to choose one option in several, why would anybody want to use a different voting paper design ?
Say hello to the butterfly ballot: https://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html
> You receive each paper by the post before an election AND there is always all the papers in the voting place anyway.
That opens the possibility to observe people picking up the paper of $CONTROVERSIAL_CANDIDATE and dropping it into the box, thus revealing who they voted for.
You are supposed to pick at least two papers and usually there are enough paper so that everyone can pick one of each. Then you go to a booth, hidden behind a curtain and put one of the paper in an envelope (given after the official has checked your elector's card), discard the other paper in a basket case, then drop the envelope in the ballot box.
Of course it limits the possibilities of the vote: one person can only vote for one candidate, on the other hand, it's easier to understand for the voters.
A google on “US state general ballot sample” gave me this: https://cdn.ballotpedia.org/images/3/33/Colorado_sample_ball...
Ocassionaly, we have hundreds of candidates for one office (ex California governor recall replacement that got Arnold Schwarzenegger into office).
There are two problems with that:
1. People consider it discreminatory unless the US mass-distributes some voter ID thing that is near-forced into the possession of everyone who can vaguely verify their identity (which I disagree with but whatever)
2. More importantly, someone will fuck up the 'secret' part of the secret ballot, which will get leaked/hacked into the public, which in the current level of public discourse would probably end in WWIII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified_paper_audit_tra...
>> Activate by scanning your passport or other proof of voting right, centralized secure repository of who has voted or some kind of deduplication of votes when counting.
This part (i.e - authorize the voter) should always be separate from actual voting system to protect the system of secret ballot for a true democracy.
Is it legal to pay someone to vote a certain way? Saying 'no' does not mean it is a truly secret ballot, but it is something.
Is the ballot printed by the govt as opposed to parties or organizations? (Meaning there is an "official ballot" and not just any piece of paper) At one point this was a new thing.
Are you doing an oral vote?
As it is, I think in general you end up with no obligation to share your vote, but that is not the same as any legal obligation to make the voting booth well concealed, depending on state, but that is no small amount of reading between the lines and conjecture on my part, so dont trust me too much.
Why is it shocking that you can buy used voting machines? Why is it alarming the data is there and unencrypted? Why wouldn't a government (or supplier) sell on used hardware? Why would tamperproof screws stop you getting access? (They're for proof of access!)
It's nothing like sensitive medical data (a comparison made in tfa). It's anonymous data that should be publicly available.
The only concerning thing here is that these crappy machines were used in the first place. At least they're being flogged off now.
- A central authority(government) can control issuance of new keys and maintain the association between keys and personal information. There are already plenty of gov ID cards which support digital signatures and can be used to sign voting keys as well. At the same time personal info would not show up on the blockchain.
- Blockchain explorers would be used as a way to verify the votes are legit by virtually anyone
- NVOs, governments, etc can run the blockchain nodes to ensure integrity of the blockchain
In combination with well designed UIs we can have simple voting apps that can make e-voting a breeze (see the Smart-ID implementation for a great example of such tech).
Obviously the attack vector shifts to the gov servers running the key issuance but its easier to do opsec on a datacenter level than on individual voting machines scattered around the country. There's also a question of the integrity of the voting app, but that can/should be open-sourced and audited.
We obviously have the tech and the capabilities to create very effective e-voting solutions. Would even go so far as to say that a proper solution would drastically change the way we think about voting - it would make on-boarding a lot easier and provide some form of 'direct' democracy that we are already seeing flourish in countries like CH. So it seems very shady to me that we end up with BS like this thats very easily exploited and discarded as ineffective.
This means that you can tie a vote to a key, thus a person?
That's not how voting should work. Any vote cast must be secret. Or what's to prevent any one group from blackmailing you (or any other voter)?
> Voting app
You mean that a thug could coerce me into casting my vote from home?...
> There's also a question of the integrity of the voting app, but that can/should be open-sourced and audited.
+ constantly verify that the machine was not tampered with (evil maid) + make sure the hardware was not compromised (supply chain attacks) + ... on TONS of devices?...
> We obviously have the tech and the capabilities to create very effective e-voting solutions.
No, clearly we don't! The current paper ballot model has been battle-tested since elections became a thing. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
Fair point, but they do not have to maintain the association with the voting keys. Derivative keys can be signed without it imho.
> You mean that a thug could coerce me into casting my vote from home?...
Dont be naive, things like this happen already even with paper votes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_train
> + constantly verify that the machine was not tampered with (evil maid) + make sure the hardware was not compromised (supply chain attacks) + ... on TONS of devices?...
I agree that's a problem that needs consideration, but we've solved many such issues before. There are quite a few ID, banking, authentication, etc. apps running quite fine and well on consumer devices.
E-voting is a general term that describes methods of voting that involve electronics. While some solutions are indeed terrible, that doesn't mean all are.
That's weird. I don't understand that "filling" paper ballots. In France, we get to pick N papers with only one candidate's name printed on each. We then discard and seal in the envelope the papers we want once we're in the "isolation room".
> I agree that's a problem that needs consideration, but we've solved many such issues before.
No, we never had the entire destiny of any one country rely on a single piece of tech running on untrusted devices. Banks can contact any individual if their logins were leaked or if their money transfer appear suspicious; but as votes cast must be kept secret, you can't do anything similar with voting.
> E-voting is a general term that describes methods of voting that involve electronics. While some solutions are indeed terrible, that doesn't mean all are.
Still waiting for a viable solution - so far I don't know of one.
One of the key features of a secret ballot voting system is that there's no practical way to tie a voter to a vote.
If you have a direct relation between a voter and a unique key, and that key and a vote, you've basically built an automated corruption system.
And a lot of people might not be entirely comfortable with the assertion that it's fine, only the government knows who you voted for.
The association between vote keys and personal info does not need to exist. ID keys have to be issued by the gov but the vote signature keys can be derived from them and/or signed by a 3rd party like an NVO or a combination of govs/NVOs.
Specifically, the criteria that you can't trace a voter to a vote but you need to ensure a voter only has one vote (or at most one if voting isn't mandatory) is really hard to reconcile.
I also happen to believe a way might be found but by handwaving "zero knowledge proof" in the same way that you're handwaving blockchain.
If you have already a list of public keys for each voter why do you even need a blockchain to verify anything? You just through the list of signed votes to ensure uniquness, and you can confirm you personal vote is genuine but that is all you can do.