Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security United States

VeriSign and Secure Internet Voting 290

Posted by CmdrTaco from the oh-this-will-work-out-great dept.
Bucky Katt writes "VeriSign announced Monday that it will provide key components of a system designed to let Americans abroad cast absentee votes over the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VeriSign and Secure Internet Voting More

VeriSign and Secure Internet Voting

Comments Filter:

  • OMG (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:36AM (#7093296)
    So we won't have to have physical access to log in and change votes with MS Access and no password? For the love of God, when is the mainstream press going to pick up on this?!?!?!?
    • Well, there is one benefit to using Verisign...

      Given the problems I had legitimately changing my domain name details, hackers should have a difficult time breaking in... :-p After all, what good is admin access if the bloody thing doesn't work anyways?

    • Re:OMG (Score:3, Interesting)

      by micromoog ( 206608 )
      For the love of God, when is the mainstream press going to pick up on this?!?!?!?

      NPR did a story last week on closed voting systems, and specifically mentioned Diebold and the "no-printers" argument. It's a start.

    • Re:OMG (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MarkJensen ( 708621 )

      What is this about MS Access? I RTFA, and the only thing I saw was:

      • Military members must use their Common Access Cards (new military ID)
      • and
      • Currently, it is in demonstration, so they have targeted Windows OS as the test platform, due to its ubiquitosity (if that is a word! lol)

      Given that the interface appears to be browser-based, this can be migrated to MaxOS, and *nixes if testing goes well.

      However, there was one disconcerting item on the serveusa.gov FAQs. This item:

      Does SERVE use Microsoft's

      • Re:OMG (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
        Does SERVE use Microsoft's Palladium software architecture?
        No, the Palladium software is not sufficiently ubiquitous at this time for use in SERVE.

        Put asside your RIAA induced predjudices, just for a second. Exactly why would you not want to use trusted hardware for secure voting?

        Palladium would be an ideal base to use. You might well want to go to the trouble of creating and signing your own version of the nexus under a different hardware key. But if the technology was available today I would be usin

        • That is the point...DO YOU TRUST M$...and the answer HAS GOT TO BE NO. If you use their products or NOT, they have shown a severe disregard for security, customer security especially, the entire legal system, and personal freedom and privacy. There are DOZENS of platforms with KNOWN TRUSTED security systems that have undergone years of testing, say TANDEM(HP) and ATALLA encryption, it is good enough for ATMS it should be good enough for voting.

  • GREAT! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TiMac ( 621390 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:37AM (#7093301)
    So if you misspell the name of your candidate, Verisign will use its * wildcard to vote for its CEO automatically!

  • This is going to be a fiasco (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:38AM (#7093304)
    The USA is handing over democracy (in a small but growing way) to a no-vision for-profit firm that has a proven lack of ethics.

    This is going to get worst before it gets better.

    • Many, many times proven a lack of ethics... I really think this is going to turn out like the old Real Networks fiasco where personal info was recorded. This company will eventually need another revenue stream and... oh, lookie here! Look at all this information!
    • *groan* Much like the way they currently "hand it over" to the companies they pay to provide voting and counting machines? Or is the fact that it would be done over the Internet somehow vastly different? If so, do you work for the US patent office? I have a very common idea, but want to implement it on the Internet, and therefore I believe it worthy of a patent.

    • better? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:52AM (#7093450) Homepage Journal
      This is going to get worst before it gets better.

      How do you think things will get better? There are few if any local independent news papers because they have all been crushed by big coroprate owned national broadcasters and "news" services like MSNBC. The same people have made sure that individuals have a hard time publishing on the internet, so everyone has to go through providers or portals where they can be shut down. Now the loop is being closed with black box voting, which is impossible to audit. Even if you could tell people the truth, they won't be able to do anything about it.

      Vote against this kind of thing NOW.

      • Re:better? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by antic ( 29198 )
        Vote against this kind of thing NOW.

        Vote how? They will own the voting process...

        It's a downward spiral.

      • Yes, the next time you guys see electronic voting on the ballot, vote against it$!#!@#% Oh wait, it isn't on the ballot. It probably never will be. Ah, shit. Now what do we do?

        Revolt?

      • Re:better? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bladernr ( 683269 )
        There are few if any local independent news papers because they have all been crushed by big coroprate owned national broadcasters...

        How, exactly, were they crushed? If their readers left their paper to read one of the "big corporated owned..." outlets, then they could not secure advertisers, then how is it the fault of those big corporate interests? If the public really wanted those independent papers, they would support them. Its called free-market at work (or, democracy expressed through the market).

        • They were crushed because big media companies can bundle advertising packages together and share costs for wire services and reporting. You can go to an ad agency and purchase a full spectrum of advertisements to appear on tv, radio, billboards, newpapers, busses, magazines, etc for less money than it would cost to call individual, smaller outlets.

          The vast majority of US markets have one newpaper that is affiliated with one of the big corporate media groups.
      • Vote against this kind of thing NOW.

        You think that will actually help, or will it just give you a warm fuzzy "I did something good today" feeling inside?

        Of course if the issue you're against never appears on the ballot and all candidates up for election are in favor of it, then I guess voting against it isn't really an option. Whatcha gonna do now?
    • I simply dont see why using paper ballots is such a bad idea.

      Without a verifiable voter trail, the potential for fraud is massive. VeriSign has been less than trustworthy these days. Lets all spike this immediately so that it never happens.

      I wonder how big VeriSign contributes to Republican politicians?

      This whole electronic voting thing is a major league mess. If these e-voting machines printed out a paper ballot, there would be no problem. Democracy is too important. Take the time, and do it right so t
      • In australia voting is all done on paper, and moreso it is compulsory.. and there is rarely any trouble with the process.

        Every person over 18 goes onto a voting roll, they check you off that list when you enter a venue that has been set up to take votes (or when they receive an absentee vote by mail), they hand you a peice of paper, you tick the appropriate boxes and place it into a large locked container.

        Simple, and there is a paper trail, and the expenense of counting the votes by hand is minimal.

        Austr

  • In related news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:38AM (#7093309) Journal
    Verisign has pulled a suprise victory in the California recall election.
  • Since Verisign thinks it owns the Internet (i.e. the Sitefinder/wildcard domain scandal) I assume that it will also assume it owns the democratic process and can change it as it seems fit.

    But hey, with an electoral system where the guy with the most votes loses (i.e. Al "Internet" Gore) then maybe it might even be an improvement. Hmmm.

    • actually, there has not been a single recount which actually showed Gore as having more votes. They've counted, counted, re-counted, and counted again and they still can't get the answer they want. Its a shame for them, but I think they just have to realize that Bush did win, even though he may have only won by a small margin.
      • They've counted, counted, re-counted, and counted again and they still can't get the answer they want.

        Actually if you count the votes on any basis other than the one that Gore's campaign asked for Gore would have won. But that is not the point.

        The point is that the rules required a recount at the request of either candidate if the vote was narrow. The Republicans ignored that requirement and under the direction of the governor and the returning officer prevented the recount.

        The fact is that it was th

    • Nah. This is just for absentee ballots, via the Internet. It will be a loooooooong time before that replaces voting booths for non-absentee people.

      Regardless, it was Accenture that got the contract for this. They just signed a deal with VeriSign to provide "key pieces". Given that VeriSign is a well-known encryption key provider, my guess is they'll be providing the public-key encryption methods to authenticate absentee voters.

      Ok, I'm done, you can put your tinfoil hats back on now.

      -j

  • Electronic voting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:40AM (#7093336)
    Why is there such an obsession with electronic voting.

    Yes, the algorithms for secure anonymous fraud-proof voting exist, but I don't think the implementations are up to the task yet - in particular, if they cannot be independently verified before, during and after the elections.

    There's just too much potential for a fraud to justify dropping the good old pencil-in-the-number-of-your-candidate method.

    • The real supporters of electronic voting want such a system so they CAN rig it! Why do we use mechanical voting machines? Why do we use electronic ballot counters? Why do we NOT count ballots at the polling place before we haul them to the court house? All of that is done to make elections EASIER to rig. It sounds like it is safer but it really is just a shell game designed to hide the methods behind trickery. Ask any magician. You hide your tricks with distractions and illusions that are just the opp

  • Replace the Electoral College w/ Folger's Crystals (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sleight ( 22003 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:40AM (#7093339)
    And, for our next trick, we absolutely won't replace the electoral college with internet voting. Even if it were secure, it would take the power out of the hands of the elite and give it to the people.

    However, wouldn't it be nice if we (the US, if you can forgive my inclusive pronoun) were a democracy instead of a republic? If internet voting is good for the goose, then shouldn't it be good for the gander? We just need to replace those old and moldy voting booths with shiny new internet-enabled booths.

    Of course, as a programmer, I'll believe the voting scheme is "secure" when monkeys fly out of my butt.
    • However, wouldn't it be nice if we (the US, if you can forgive my inclusive pronoun) were a democracy instead of a republic?

      Absolutely not. The kind of democracy to which you refer is also known as "mob rule".
    • it would take the power out of the hands of the elite and give it to the people.

      That only works if the people are informed.

    • Re:Replace the Electoral College w/ Folger's Cryst (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bladernr ( 683269 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:57AM (#7094024)
      Malaysia uses a pure democracy form of government. A friend of mine from there, who is ethnic Chinese, tells me that open-discrimination is perfectly legal by the majority Malay against the minority Chinese. (there is even something about the minority subsidizing housing for the majority, even though the majority is financially better off)

      The PM of Malaysia is quoted as saying the duty of the democracy is to better the majority. Strictly speaking, that is true in that form of government.

      That is why I support the Republic form is government. Republic is representative rule, not majority rule. Each stakeholder in the US system should be represented. Arguments about the rights of any minority make sense only in a Republic. In a democracy, who cares about minorities? We all vote in self-interest, and majority rules.

      To repeat an oft repeated quote, Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

    • and the will of the majority tends to trample that which it can. We are republic for that very reason, to prevent majorities from taking away the rights of the non-majority.

  • They count absentee ballots? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SaXisT4LiF ( 120908 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:41AM (#7093344)
    As I recall, none of the absentee ballots made any difference in the 2000 presidential election.

    Someone must have thought, "Lets let absentee voters vote electronically, we're just going to throw out their votes anyway!"

    Nothing lost, nothing gained.
  • ...you'll be redirected to a site for entering into the elections?

  • This could be good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slimak ( 593319 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:43AM (#7093362)
    Naturally most /.ers are going to complain about this for various reasons generally involving security. However, this could be a good thing IF a GOOD system is actually developed (now or in the future). I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.

    Chances are though that this first pass will not be great, which will slow/stop future development due to cries of the public for and end to insecure online voting.

    • Re:This could be good (Score:4, Informative)

      by I8TheWorm ( 645702 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:21AM (#7093714) Journal
      I agree about the voter turnout, and that's something this country really needs. The United States now ranks 139th out of 167 of the world's democracies in voter turnout [commondreams.org] which is just plain sad. The majority of folks don't actually vote (but love to complain about our law/policy makers). I'm sure some (most?) candidates count on that low turnout.

      I don't agree on the first pass comment though. I think a bad show on the first pass will eliminate a chance of it ever happening again.
      • Perhaps if the ballot included a "None of the above".

        Or perhaps if there was a voting scheme that meant that if you voted for your favorite, but appearantly unpopular, candidate you wouldn't be throwing your vote away.

        Or perhaps...

        There's lots of reasons for the low voter turnout. One of them is that both major candidates are so vile that it sickens one to think of voting for either. Voting for "The lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. And it ignores the other possible choices.

        Still, they'v

    • Re:This could be good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tsg ( 262138 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:24AM (#7093744)
      I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines. Overall voter turnout could be boosted.

      People who don't care enough to vote don't care enough to be informed. Pointing at "voter apathy" and claiming it's the problem is extremely short sighted. Voter apathy is a symptom, not the cause. Making voting easier to get better turnout is just going to ensure that more uninformed people are going to vote. I can't see how this is a good thing. Make people care about the issues and they'll find the way to the polls all by themselves.

    • Well, there are two points that have to be made when it comes to internet voting:
      1) Only middle class and higher will be able to easily use this system (have internet connections). The very poor will have to wait in line and vote the oldfashioned way, or wait in line for access to the public library PC (if they have a library with connections nearby - think ghettos). The poorest peoples have the exact same right to vote, and making it effortless for those "with" money, and still laborous for those "witho

    • Now the loop is being closed with black box voting, which is impossible to audit

      Is that good? No, this is not a troll. I always thought that higher turnout is, by nature, good. But after reading it, I got to thinking...

      People at the bottom turn out much better than people at the top. Thats because if you are at the bottom you want to fight, but, if you are already a winner, you get lazy. That seems to me to keep improving the situation of those at the bottom (in theory, anyway).

      Now, lets say that we g

    • I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines.

      I would love to be able to vote from the comfort of your home/work/cafe, too. At the moment I think that will be easiest to do with a worm that infects your computer to make a man-in-the-middle attack possible, but we'll have to see Verisign's implementation before anyone works out the actual details. Fortunately for people who are tired of that "one man, one vote" nonsense, it's impossible for
    • I for one would love to be able to vote from the comfort of my home/work/cafe without having to wait in lines

      And, of course, you don't have to worry about someone in power monitoring the way you vote at your home/work/cafe...

      One of the nice things about polling places is the effort the staff goes through to prevent "voting by intimidation". Those protections are not available at your home/work/cafe.

    • Absentee/remote voting should stay as it is now - a last resort for people who can't get to the polls on election day. Why? Because it's the best way to be sure that everyone can vote without coercion.

      If you can vote from the comfort of your home, there's nothing to stop thugs from showing up at your home and asking you politely to vote for the candidate of their choice (and you get to keep your fingers unbroken in the bargain).

      If you can vote from your office desktop, there's nothing to stop your super

  • what about.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by myspys ( 204685 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:43AM (#7093367) Homepage
    .. making people IN the country vote?

    last vote less than 50% or something voted

    what about fixing that problem first?

    geez..

    • The difference is that people who are stationed overseas want to vote, and typically do so in larger proportions than the continental American population. And how would you propose "making" people vote in the first place? No, it's better to spend effort where people are asking for the expenditure.

    • Re:what about.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CWCarlson ( 2884 )
      That's a problem? I think you're mistaken. Why should any effort be made to involve people in a political process in which they have no interest?

      Not voting is as much a right as voting. The fact that the US has dismal voter turnout only indicates to me that the general population feels disenfranchised and powerless.

      The only way to get more people to vote is to make them feel empowered, and that should be the real goal. Higher voter turnout, then, would merely be a nice side-effect.

  • Bigger is better (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:43AM (#7093373) Homepage Journal
    Big Business, meet Big Government. Imagine the synergies! Imagine the data-mining possibilities! We can sell it to the public as an opportunity to improve the democratic process. They'll buy it, because Americans have infinite faith in technology to solve all political and social problems.

    If a majority of eligible voters actually voted, would we even be bothering with all this crap about electronic voting?

  • Be patriotic, and love Verisign (Score:3, Funny)

    by digitalgimpus ( 468277 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:49AM (#7093414) Homepage
    [sarcasm]
    We have to love them them now. Put sitefinder behind us. Verisign is an American company helping America.

    IF we complain about sitefinder being an abuse of power... the terrorists win.

    BTW: heard those servers are going to be powered by SCO software ;-)

    [/sarcasm]

  • I could see (Score:3, Funny)

    by smurphette ( 712080 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:50AM (#7093422) Homepage
    a use for One Click(tm) technology here.

  • User error (Score:3, Troll)

    by antirename ( 556799 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:51AM (#7093430)
    As I recall, some of the overseas ballots (mostly from military personnel, who tend to vote republican) were "misplaced" in the 2000 election in Florida. This was in a county with Democrats running the election. Now, were the election managers incompetent, or was it a conspiracy? I'd guess incompetent, but who knows. Now, if people can't figure out how to COUNT, what makes anyone think that they will be able to run an election electronically without screwing something up?
    • You forgot to mention the 6000 retired Jewish people that voted for Buchanan. God knows that retired Jewish people tend to vote for racist candidates who have an acknowledged distaste for Jews.

  • actually an improvement (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pangian ( 703684 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:52AM (#7093447)
    While I'm usually skeptical of Internet voting, I'm actually in favor of it in the limited case of American personnel overseas, because it is better than the current system. Presently, most absentee votes don't even get counted, unless the margin of victory is less than number of absentee ballots. While this is technically accurate and efficient, it kinda sucks to be one of those people who's vote is never even considered.

    On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake (with electronic voting machines, which is different from Internet voting) and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.
    • On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake (with electronic voting machines, which is different from Internet voting) and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.

      hah! wow, yeah, i'll be over here holding my breath for that one. right up until my lungs collapse.

      until the government decides to care and force these systems to be open, they will not be. christ, maryland even got an independent review telling them how much of a piece of shit the Diebold sy

    • uhm (Score:3, Insightful)

      by waspleg ( 316038 )
      you already are one; lets not forget how many presidents we have that WERE NOT ELECTED BY THE POPULAR VOTE this is probably one of hte main reasons we have such low voter turn out; becuase no one feels like their vote matters the gov't does wahtever the fuck it wants to do anyway; even the Nazi's had kangaroo courts we dont' even have those we just deport people outside the country for tortu err questioning... we live in neither a democracy nor a republic; this is an oligarchy (yes it could be spelled oilga
  • VeriSign CEO Stratton Sclavos voted in as next President, earning 100% of the absentee votes. More at 11....

  • So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:05AM (#7093546) Homepage
    Now're going to become further dependant on Verisign? I understand this project has been in development well before Verisigns latest screw ups, but at this point, it would be rather foolhardy to become tied to Verisign and any software they make; they've proven they choose profiteering over everything else. So why put this sort of responsibility in their hands when history proves that they may abuse it?
  • "VeriSign and Secure Internet Voting" makes as much sense as "Military Intelligence"...

  • Here is an excerpt from an email notification you will get after using the Verisign absentee system in 2004: "Valued Voter, At VeriSign we care deeply about freedom, democracy, and your right to privacy. Due to this fact, we are informing you of a change to our privacy policy. Line 428 which formerly read:

    "Verisign will in no circumstances share your personal or voting information with 3rd parties."

    now reads:

    "In some cases, Verisign may share personal and voting information on customers with Verisign

  • With their new CanidateFinder service... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mackman ( 19286 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:10AM (#7093592)
    If you don't touch in the exact center of the canidate's button, your vote is automatically redirected to the highest paying advertiser.

    I guess it doesn't really matter though. Now your vote is just as unreliable as the canidates.
  • VeriSign has announced that votes cast for a candidate whose name isn't on the ballot will result in a redirect [theregister.co.uk] to VeriSign's new "Candidate Finder" service.

    :)
  • There's lots of the usual (and appropriate) concerns about the technological security of internet voting systems, but I wonder if there's been much thought about the general effects of making absentee voting easier and thus more common.

    My concern is that a lot of votes might be coerced when people fill out a ballot (internet or otherwise) in private, where it is not guarenteed to be secret who you vote for. The more of these votes there are, the more the system is undermined.

    Thoughts?

  • I want to see no part of this. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:16AM (#7093654) Journal
    Verisign does not deserve to be a "trust company". This sitefinder issue is just the latest in a series of unethical moves by verisign, dating back at least the "godaddy domain expiration letter" scam.

    The sooner we slay this beast, the better.... With that said, I recently found out about a heck of a deal "Everyone's Internet" is running: "$25 SSL certificates" [rackshack.net]. It's obvious that as a reseller for GeoTrust and as a webspace provider for small biz, they know that a ton of Mom & Pop shops that would jump at one of these in a second, even if profits from online sales were small, because a "secure order" page is great for their image.

    On the other side, I've been using GoDaddy for years.

    Down with Verisign.... We don't need you anymore.

  • Only in limited cases... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pangian ( 703684 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:16AM (#7093657)
    Notice that the article only talks about using Internet voting as an alternative to absentee voting for citizens abroad and only in U.S. government agencies where secure Internet-enables voting stations can be set up. This is good [slashdot.org].

    Internet voting on a large scale will never take place due to logistical [for lack of a better word] rather than technical reasons. Electoral law requires that your vote be made in a manner that is free from influence (intimidation or vote buying). This is controlled by ensuring that voting goes on in select locations where campaigning is not permitted. Even campaign posters within sight of a voting station must be taken down.

    With Internet voting, essentially anyplace could be a voting station. I could set up a little voting party for my friends and let them vote on my computer. Don't mind that there is paraphernalia all around for my candidate, or that I'm looking over your shoulder. After the party, laptop and cell in hand, I could help all the little old ladies in my neighborhood vote too.

    [Your sig here]

  • Why do we need electronic voting ? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Goody ( 23843 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:17AM (#7093668) Journal

    ...courts in Florida appoint our Presidents, don't they ?

  • free -project.org (Score:4, Informative)

    by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:18AM (#7093677) Homepage
    When complaining about this it's worth remembering that there has been an open source internet voting project under the gnu auspices for some time. It's website is over here [free-project.org]

    Even better, if Verisign running your elections worries you, why not see if you can help the project. With a secure, trusted and freely available alternative, Verisign will find it more difficult to convince audit committees that their software is the best option.

  • I just don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) * on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:21AM (#7093721) Homepage Journal
    How do people anywhere trust Verisign?

    This company has a proven track record of bad security, unethical behaviour, and well.. I just don't get it, they are the main "TTP" of the web, and yet aren't worth anyone's trust really, then a Domain controller that abused it's power as such, and now they are going to run elections for Americans...

    */me shakes head in total astonishment*

    Well... G'luck to ya guys. Here's hoping for once they'll maintain their ethics. (Or assign the project to Dilbert (for those who've seen that episode of Dilbert TV. ;-) ))

  • Something is needed to get people to vote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tobybuk ( 633332 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:27AM (#7093775)
    In the UK I think the average voter turnout for the general elections is hovering around the 35% mark and falling.

    This is a huge problem for a democracy IMHO. Considering we've fought 2 world wars for the right to determine who governs us, it's pathetic that a majority of people cannot be bothered to get off their arses and vote.

    However, I have a confession. I'm one of the majority and ashamed of it. I always intend to vote, but when the time comes I always seem to have something important to do instead. If we had an easy electronic voting system then I for one would always cast my vote.

    OTOH Do we really want to encourage EVERYONE to cast a vote? If there was no effort involved (like actually having to travel to vote) then would we be encouraging people with no real political views to vote 'just because they can' Maybe then the result of the election would be decided by the lazy jobless who had nothing better to do than vote?

    • Oh there are plenty of systems which would get more people to vote, but you got to remember the current Gov got into power using the current system. So why would they want a new system?

      For example: current voting systems only allow a "Yes" vote. By voting you say "Yes" to a candidate.

      My suggestion is: if you are able to say "No" then perhaps more people would vote. A No vote = -1. A Yes vote = +1.

      Then you could have candidates winning the election but with a net _negative_ score.

      I like to see such a can

  • Outsourcing Security and Voting (Score:5, Informative)

    by globalar ( 669767 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:27AM (#7093776) Homepage
    This is purely bad principle. This is outsourcing voting. Elections should be handled as much as possible by regular people. Companies should provide paper, pencils, and maybe some refreshments.

    Now I RTFA and I understand this is for military absentee ballots. But this will set precedence. Who will get the job next year? Don't you think the standards applied here will eventually be used for absentee ballots for State Department personnel? And then eventually the general public?

    If the government is not capable on its own of running a fully electronic election, then they should not be doing it. Period. Forget the cost of alternative systems or even the impossibility. If the DOD cannot handle this internally (they should, they handle billions of dollars of secrets) then I think it is a step to far to outsource it.

    "The sanctity of the vote can't be compromised nor can the integrity of the system be compromised"

    Doesn't that line make you feel worried. At least they could say,"we have the best security and experience." But no, "the integrity of the system [can't] be compromised."

    • "The sanctity of the vote can't be compromised nor can the integrity of the system be compromised"

      Doesn't that line make you feel worried. At least they could say,"we have the best security and experience." But no, "the integrity of the system [can't] be compromised."

      Maybe I've had my tinfoil hat off for too long...but I actually construed this as the goal they were working towards, i.e. "We want to make sure that the sanctity of the vote can't be compromised". IMHO, that's a worthy goal to shoot for,

  • The nontechnological concern... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djeaux ( 620938 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:32AM (#7093826) Homepage Journal
    While I can certainly see the "logic" for providing an "easier" way for voters overseas to cast absentee ballots, this extends a concern that I've long had about the voting process...

    By making it brainlessly easy for someone to vote, are we not making it so the voter does not have to plan to vote. And if a person doesn't plan to vote, how informed is their choice going to be?

    Many states have already implemented "motor voter" systems where folks don't even have to explicitly register to vote -- it's just attached to their drivers license registration. Literacy tests & poll taxes -- once of which helps ensure that the voter can read the ballot & the other further forces voters to plan to vote -- were thrown out long ago as infringements on the civil rights of unschooled procrastinators.

    I believe whole-heartedly that the political establishment of the United States does not want voters to be informed or to pre-plan the act of voting. The reasons for this ought to be self-evident to those of us who are capable of reading a ballot or planning our activities more than 10 minutes into the future.

    Turning briefly to "secure" online voting (so this comment stays "on topic"), maybe the Verisign system couldn't be decrypted but it would be very possible for a determined attacker to simply mangle the packets so the votes wouldn't count.

  • How long before people are faking whatever "trusted" voting credentials there are, and creating all sorts of political havoc?

  • I'm voting by mail (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @10:06AM (#7094121)
    I live abroad and frankly, I'm just not quite prepared to trust my vote to the internet. I'll be sending my vote by mail and would encourage other expats to do the same.

    I certainly don't trust Verisign. I think the first few elections using this technology should be limited to say, a few thousand votes so as not to have a significant impact on the results (of course, given what happened in Florida, a few thousand votes might have a significant impact). Maybe it would be even better to run the electronic voting at the same time, requiring mail-in ballots and compare the results and not count the electronic voting until it's proven itself. Mail-in ballots aren't anonymous votes, so it should be easy enough to compare.

    Even then, I don't know that that would work. I'd eventually like to see secure internet voting, but I'm just not sure the implementations are there yet.

  • And if you screw up... (Score:3, Funny)

    by JRHelgeson ( 576325 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @10:21AM (#7094277) Homepage Journal
    And I'm sure if you accidently select the wrong candidate, or mistakenly select multiple candidates; rather than get an error message, Verisign will redirect your vote to a candidate of their choice at candidatefinder.verisign.com.
  • can you imagine...

    "We didn't find: Democrat"
    Perhaps you meant Republican.
  • And if you should misspell the name of your preferred candidate you will be sent to Votefinder which will offer suggestions. Preferred placement available: contact Verisign sales for pricing.
  • So when you dont hit the key correctly it'll do a wildcard vote.

    Looks like bush will be in office another term
  • And if you accidentally vote for a candidate who does not exist, or if you spell his/her name incorrectly, Verisign will assume you want their candidate in office.

    I'm sure that by 2008, the CEO of Verisign will take a four-year sabbatical to hold office as the President of the United States. This administration will, among other things, abolish ICANN, IETF, IANA, etc. and simply hand all Internet authority over to Verisign.
  • We didn't find: dmocratic party

    There is no political party at this address.

    Did you mean?

    We did find these similar political parties.

    The Republican Party

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm not a god, I was misquoted." -- Lister, Red Dwarf

Close