topic Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay? in Tech Talk

Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

Caute_cautim — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 23:11:13 GMT

Hi All

Given the discussion going on in Computerworld; it leads to some interesting outcomes:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3430697/why-blockchain-could-be-a-threat-to-democracy.html?page=2

Would you trust today's voting systems, either intentionally being online or unintentionally?

How much trust would you put in them?

Regards

Caute_cautim

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

CraginS — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 23:22:54 GMT

@Caute_cautim wrote:
Hi All

Given the discussion going on in Computerworld; it leads to some interesting outcomes:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3430697/why-blockchain-could-be-a-threat-to-democracy.html?page=2

Would you trust today's voting systems, either intentionally being online or unintentionally?

OMG, NOOOO!

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

Caute_cautim — Tue, 13 Aug 2019 23:27:09 GMT

@CraginSFully expected this reaction, but obviously there are others fully involved in the technology, and they are stuck in their "lobster pot" by default. The Russians and Chinese Hacking groups are simply going to make good on manipulation promises on those who go have gone down this road already.

Regards

Caute_cautim

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Nay or Nay or NAYNAY?

rslade — Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:35:02 GMT

> Caute_cautim (Community Champion) posted a new topic in Tech Talk on 08-13-2019

> Would you trust today's voting systems, either
> intentionally being online or unintentionally? How much trust would you put in
> them?

I would trust them (either non-paper machine voting or online voting systems) as
far as I could throw a wet mattress up a spiral staircase.

If someone implemented online voting "protected" by blockchain I'm sure they'd
cut so many corners you could corner the scrap paper market.

Repeat after me: blockchain is NOT the answer.

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing
without work. - Emile Zola
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Nay or Nay or NAYNAY?

dcontesti — Wed, 14 Aug 2019 13:25:54 GMT

Rob summarized my feelings on this one....

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

Shannon — Wed, 14 Aug 2019 20:59:19 GMT

@Caute_cautim wrote:

Would you trust today's voting systems, either intentionally being online or unintentionally?

How much trust would you put in them?

I would trust such systems / scenarios just as much as I trust Facebook....

In my country --- India --- voting isn't done online yet, instead they make use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which manufacturers claim are secure. (I don't buy that)

Being based in the Gulf, I'm not usually present during elections, but I got a taste of it some years back --- and it didn't taste good.

Before casting my vote, I had to sign on a register, confirming that the details --- name, ID, photograph and address --- there were correct. Well, everything was, save the photo, which was that of someone else!

When I told the officer that I couldn't proceed to sign, his reply was: "It's okay; just sign & cast your vote; the photograph error will be corrected later."

(Needless to say, I opted not to sign the register or vote)

Seeing them overlook an inconsistency like that, all I can say is that it makes little sense to secure systems that cater to a flawed process.

P.S. What I described was what I saw in India; I suppose it's done properly in the Western world.

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

DAlexander — Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:53:31 GMT

I'd be interested to hear what anyone thinks IS the answer.

I am not an election history expert but I would venture to go out on a limb here and say that there has likely never been a fully trustworthy voting system. @Shannon highlights some issues with EVM and how insecurity can be inherent in that process. I must say though, one particular Western country I know of would find it nearly impossible to mandate voters sign a register (much less produce an ID card) without opening themselves up to claims of some sort of -ism.

Paper ballots seem like a popular way to avoid the evil hackers and ensure a fair election but, as I understand, China and Russia both still use paper ballots so, enough said there...

I look at it much like information security where nothing is foolproof and one should assume the enemy is already "inside the wire." The challenge here is to manage the risks so you can better defend against the threats. Can we leverage technology to do that better than the traditional paper methods? I believe we can and I also think block chain has a lot of potential to reduce single points of manipulation. There are aspects that need to be addressed before it can go mainstream but I think the larger issue will be ensuring every voter has access to the technology to begin with.

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

rslade — Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:41:02 GMT

> DAlexander (Newcomer III) posted a new reply in Tech Talk on 08-16-2019 06:53 AM

> I'd be interested to hear what anyone thinks IS the answer.

Having been a poll clerk and deputy returning officer, I'd say that everything safe
involves paper in some way. I know that Americans say their elections are much
more complex than ours, but there are systems wheree you mark the paper ballot,
the machine reads and counts the votes, but it keeps the (paper) ballots in a bin so
that there can be a recount or a check.

> I am not an
> election history expert but I would venture to go out on a limb here and say
> that there has likely never been a fully trustworthy voting system.

Probably true, in the sense that we can never guarantee 100% security in pretty
much anything, but the extent voting machines and online voting systems are
massively insecure. Check out http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/search?query=voting
for some studies and discussions.

> Paper
> ballots seem like a popular way to avoid the evil hackers and ensure a fair
> election but, as I understand, China and Russia both still use paper ballots

Well, yes, you *do* have to have just a wee bit of independent scrutiny and
oversight ...

> Can we leverage technology to do that better than the traditional
> paper methods?

As noted, there are machines to do the counting, but retain the ballots for
recounts. There are also some interesting paper ballots where the voter retains
part of the ballot which can prove what the original vote was.

> I believe we can and I also think block chain has a lot of
> potential to reduce single points of manipulation.

Oh, dear, he's drunk the blockchain koolaid ...

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
As one gets older, one discovers everything is going to be
exactly the same with different hats on. - Noel Coward
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

CraginS — Fri, 16 Aug 2019 21:11:41 GMT

@DAlexander wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what anyone thinks IS the answer.

I am not an election history expert but I would venture to go out on a limb here and say that there has likely never been a fully trustworthy voting system. ...
...
The challenge here is to manage the risks so you can better defend against the threats. Can we leverage technology to do that better than the traditional paper methods? I believe we can and I also think block chain has a lot of potential to reduce single points of manipulation. There are aspects that need to be addressed before it can go mainstream but I think the larger issue will be ensuring every voter has access to the technology to begin with.

Daniel,

If we are to approach the idea of a "voting system," we must understand that it is in reality a system of systems, which involve a complex set of paper and electronic systems and processes. To see my quick list of that set, please review my blog post

DHS Security Tip 19-001, Best Practices for Securing Election Systems

When you understand the interconnected processes and multiple very different paper and computer systems, you will see that there is no single computer system capable of managing a safe and secure election.

As for believing you can "solve" election security with a blockchain solution, please tell us the framework you think blockchain might fit into.

As @rslade Grandpa Rob noted, I, too, am concerned t you may have drunk the blockchain koolaide. However, if you can describe a meaningful use of blockchain for any one of the 10 processes I list in my blog post, I will correct that concern.

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

DAlexander — Sat, 17 Aug 2019 11:09:12 GMT

Gentlemen, I must admit, I like Kool Aid. They have some interesting new flavors including Sharkleberry Fin (which, I’m shocked the PETA folks haven’t called for a world-wide boycott of yet due to the similarity to “shark fin” rather than Huck Fin) but my favorite has always been Tropical Punch. Easy now, back away from the keyboard slowly so you don’t break a hip…that was a joke and I am fully aware that the phrase refers to Jim Jones and his Jonestown followers. Save yourselves the effort of typing out a history lesson for us.

Now, your Kool Aid comments do exemplify a major problem with our cyber security field and worse, with current trends in general. See, the world is not binary. Not everything is good/bad, yes/no, blue/red, etc. Likewise, not all innovation is done by an evil enterprise out to steal our souls like the technophobes want us to believe. You may remember back when Socrates spoke out against writing because it would instill “forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories.” The same sort of doom-and-gloom statements were also made regarding the printing press, radio, television, and the Internet yet, here we are, alive and well.

Douglas Adams once described a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

To be clear, I was very deliberate in saying that blockchain has a lot of POTENTIAL; not that it is the answer today. It no doubt has areas of insecurity that must be addressed before applying it blindly to a system (or systems within a system as if that matters) that is as important as the voting process. It does seem to me that things like transparency and auditability in our elections would be a good thing to strive for. All I am saying is that blockchain is something that should be explored. It is based on cryptography meaning, based on math, so in theory, a solution would be able to be proven mathematically. Wouldn’t it be great to PROVE an election is accurate?

@CraginS, I can think of at least one of your 10 processes that could benefit from this. Think of a case where a voter is issued a token (think “coin”) upon registration and the global blockchain record then gets updated with that transaction. Regardless of location, this person could vote electronically after “depositing” the token. This could provide better accessibility for people that may not have the means to physically travel to the voting station due to cost, security, health, or any other reason. It could also ensure every voter only cast one vote. Just my two cents (pun intended).

@rslade, I find it difficult to make the connection that your duties as a poll clerk and deputy returning officer correlate directly to the claim that “everything safe involves paper in some way.” Seems a bit of a stretch to make that claim with such a small sample size. I suppose paper ballots are sufficient in countries with populations less than the state of California (don’t apologize Canada, it’s not your fault; people just tend to avoid cold climates and those moose are huge!!!) but it doesn’t scale well when accuracy or speed matter. It also goes without saying that the more human hands you add to any process, the more opportunity you provide for human emotions, motives, incompetence, or plain old mistakes to contaminate the results.

In the end, am I drinking the Kool Aid? No, but I am guilty of taking a few sips to see how it tastes.

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

CraginS — Sat, 17 Aug 2019 16:05:01 GMT

@DAlexander wrote:
Gentlemen, I must admit, I like Kool Aid. ...

To be clear, I was very deliberate in saying that blockchain has a lot of POTENTIAL; not that it is the answer today. ... It does seem to me that things like transparency and auditability in our elections would be a good thing to strive for. ...

@CraginS, I can think of at least one of your 10 processes that could benefit from this. Think of a case where a voter is issued a token (think “coin”) upon registration and the global blockchain record then gets updated with that transaction. Regardless of location, this person could vote electronically after “depositing” the token. This could provide better accessibility for people that may not have the means to physically travel to the voting station due to cost, security, health, or any other reason. It could also ensure every voter only cast one vote. Just my two cents (pun intended).

Daniel,

Thank you for continuing this discussion. There are many valid aspects about blockchain and election management worth delving into. You suggested use of blockchain for voter verification at the time of voting, which I listed as process #5, Voter validity check upon distribution of ballots or appearance at polling place. You are right, that one step may be able to use blockchain to maintain the authoritative database for issued tokens. That could assist with one of the ways to interfere with elections: voter fraud, that is, either ineligible or ghost voters casting ballots. This is also the step with current controversy over voter identification. Recall that proponents of Voter ID want to ensure that only valid, eligible voters take part in the election. Opponents of Voter ID contend that the very process of requiring an approved identity token at the time fo voting is a form of voter suppression. The challenge of whether and how to carry out voter ID at the polls is different from the same two questions for remote or online voting. I'll set this discussion aside for the time being. Suffice it to say that a cryptographic token could be a useful ID token for online voting, whether its validity check is based on a blockchain database or a more traditional database.

But this leads us to the essential question that should be addressed on every blockchain proposal: Will the blockchain implementation be better than existing database processes in use for the same goal? Better could be lower cost, more efficient operations, or higher security. For blockchain to be truly useful for the online voter ID token, we should understand whether blockchain can show itself "better (cost, efficiency, security) than other available token and database systems. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that issue.

Next, and highly relevant to the goal of developing trustworthy election systems, is whether the improvement to the voter ID challenge alone should be the basis for going to online voting. I suggest that there are several other steps in the overall election process that are still too tenuous for us to accept online voting as being trustworthy. That is, we really need to have a trust and risk basis for the entire election system of systems (my 10 election processes) before diving into apprising the overall system.

@DAlexander wrote:
Gentlemen, I must admit, I like Kool Aid. ...

In the end, am I drinking the Kool Aid? No, but I am guilty of taking a few sips to see how it tastes.

As for our Kool Aid comments, Grandpa Rob @rslade and I are both concerned that the rampant fascination of blockchain as the miracle drug to cure all our ills is too much like past industry fascinations with areas such as PKI. You are right, there may be situations in which a well managed blockchain may be better (cost, efficiency, security) that traditional database solutions. However, we keep seeing comments that "blockchain will fix that" without any concrete framework or design proposed, or without the clear demonstrations of the nature of the better that would result. Meaningful proposals for using blockchain must be based on a complete understanding of how blockchains belly work, as well as a full understanding of the business process that is being proposed for conversion to blockchain. Too many of the causal "et's use blockchain" have appeared to lack either of those understandings.

I look forward to Rob's comments in his reply there.

Best to you, and sincerely, let's keep this conversation going.

Re: Blockchain for online voting? Yay or Nay?

Caute_cautim — Sun, 18 Aug 2019 20:43:13 GMT

Interesting Computer World have also added more fuel to the debate:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3430697/why-blockchain-could-be-a-threat-to-democracy.html?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Read%20more%3A%20Why%20blockchain-based%20voting%20could%20threaten%20democracy&utm_campaign=Computerworld%20Fintech%20and%20Blockchain&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Fintech%20and%20Blockchain&utm_date=20190818204126

Lets keep it going.

Regards

Caute_cautim

Re: 16 Million Americans Will Vote on Hackable Paperless Machines

rslade — Sun, 25 Aug 2019 01:30:32 GMT

A study by researchers at New York University found that at least 16 million Americans in eight states will vote on completely paperless machines in the 2020 U.S. elections, despite a strong consensus among cybersecurity and national security experts that paper ballots and vote audits are necessary to ensure election security.

Re: 16 Million Americans Will Vote on Hackable Paperless Machines

Shannon — Sun, 25 Aug 2019 05:47:56 GMT

This could mean a great job opportunity for all adept hackers, I suppose they are sending their resumes discreetly...

Re: 16 Million Americans Will Vote on Hackable Paperless Machines

Caute_cautim — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:23:13 GMT

I would think most sane people, would avoid this engagement entirely - unless they themselves have something to prove to themselves and their ego.

Regards

Caute_cautim

Re: 16 Million Americans Will Vote on Hackable Paperless Machines

bratmena — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 20:54:23 GMT

https://deslave-info.blogspot.com/2024/06/how-to-hold-referendum-without-asking.html there is something here