A Tale of Election Intrigue Wins Bruce Schneier's 8th Movie-Plot Contest 57
On April 1, Bruce Schneier announced his eighth Movie-Plot Threat Contest; this time around, he asked for a story that showed the evils of encryption, and found a winner in a story that describes an untraceably encrypted U.S. election in the year 2020 -- the first American election to allow on-line voting -- which results in victory for an unexpected third-party candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 'Brewster's Millions', Richard Pryor runs for office to waste a lot of money and has his election motto be, 'Vote for none of the above', but he throws the election because the major plot point is that he needs to be penniless to inherit his fortune and the salary of office would blow it
Then there was 'Dave' where an actor is a stand in for a President who dies, then finally fakes his own death to get eh right person into office.
There still seems to be something out there that is closer to what you are m
Re: (Score:2)
Politician is finished due to $I_don't_remember, and decides to put a contract on his
own head. So now that he doesn't give a damn anymore, he is honest towards everybody
for the rest of the campaign (and his life), which unexpectedly proves to be hugely popular.
It doesn't end well.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they have to invent something silly like that as they cannot tell the truth.
As example:
The current electronic voting systems are basically really bad in security. A lot of it being the lack of encryption and checks making alterations of the data too easy.
A good voting system would include elements like encryption with a verifying element that is encrypted with a private key that only the voter has. Basically when you vote you would get a vote number and you would use your private key to encrypt your
Re: More like a bad design for voting system (Score:2)
Electronic is a bad design for a voting system, because only a tiny priesthood of nerds can audit it. It's easy to get wrapped up in all the cool cryptographic technology, it's undeniably fun, but something as important as deciding the figurehead of the free world should be open to inspection. And a counting room composed ofa few square millimetres of impure silicon is not. Use a pencil, and hand count ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
Hand counting seems have it's own problems including:
It seem mostly to be a lottery if the vote is close. As in every situation where there are recounts it seems that every recount gives a different result.
All the fun with what votes to disqualify.
You still need to verify the chain where the information from the hand counting is done to where the information is centrally collected and the actual central location processes.
An individual voter will have no way of verifying that their vote was counted
Re: (Score:2)
Every vote should be backed up by a paper ballot.
Every voter who makes that vote should be able to prove they are a legitimate voter for those votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I didn't understand you correctly, or you should read this page on why we have secret ballots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I can prove the ballot is mine, then so can someone looking over my shoulder while I do it. Especially if he's pointing a gun at me.
What kind of a fantasy do you live in? (Score:2)
If I can prove the ballot is mine, then so can someone looking over my shoulder while I do it. Especially if he's pointing a gun at me.
...where people with guns force people to democratically vote-in the candidate supported by the people with guns?
People with guns don't need threatening or votes.
They have the guns and are willing to use them as a tool of political influence. The simplest way is not threatening but shooting the dissenters.
After all... you only have to do it once.
And that's if people are stupid enough to try to argue the legitimacy of results with a bullet.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be down to the snappily-named 'if you actually do shoot lots of people the international community tend to slightly notice a bit and tut-tut a little. But if you just beat them up and kill a select few (like the opposition leader's family in a "road accident" they barely notice at all' effect.
Re: (Score:2)
If I can prove the ballot is mine, then so can someone looking over my shoulder while I do it. Especially if he's pointing a gun at me.
The same can be done with secret ballots at the time the ballot is filled out, which is why polling booths are set up so nobody ought to be able to see what you enter. What you want, really, is a way to do a zero-knowledge proof that the ballot is yours--and possibly which will only give access to something that can in turn be used to do a zero-knowledge proof that its contents are correct. Is it really necessary to know more than if your ballot was tampered with, if it ensures that even somebody looking o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok trying to explain again:
I bring with me: My key and my "computer". The computer can be any device with a voting software, where the client end is open specification so the computer can be a cell phone, table, laptop, SDC based thing or whatever. The idea being that there will be many implementations and anyone who cares enough can code their own.
The officials verify who I am and direct me to the voting booth
I connect my computer via some standard cable to the voting machine.
The voting machine sends me a
Re: (Score:2)
Thus anyone can count the public votes and you can check your own vote by checking the public vote based on the number you have stored and then comparing the gibberish and checksum to your gibberish and checksum and if need be unencrypt your hidden vote and compare.
And the person who threatened to harm you or your family or fire you from you job unless you voted the way they wanted, or who offered to pay you after the election if you voted the way they wanted, can do the same by requesting that you provide them that secret information or allow them to look over your shoulder as you check your vote.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Part of these systems has to be that you cannot prove to another person how you voted, whle still allowing you to prove to yourself that your vote was correctly counted. There are schemes for that but they mostly require the voter to be intellectually able to trust mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But given that if someone today threatens to harm your family in a believable way unless you bring a photo of the filled in ballot.. given how hard it is to stop something like bringing in a cell phone with you.
How many people would then have the internal fortitude to fake it?
So yes, there is a degree of difference but not as much as you indicate.
Re: (Score:2)
It was an excellent design - it achieved its intended purpose. They could have put a little more effort into the plausible deniability.
That's The Ticket (Score:3)
Why no, Agent... Dontneedtoknow, is it? I have this document titled "Audacious plan to overthrow the evil plutocracy" on my computer because I'm writing it for a contest held by a security researcher, not because I'm a terrorist who has the knowhow to do all the illegal things outlined in this step-by-step document.
*gets blackbagged and dragged to Gitmo*
Re: (Score:1)
How cute. You think you are going to land in the plane. Your body will be stuffed in an ammo case and dropped out of a C-130 somewhere over the South Pacific. After they use the wrench method of data extraction...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
a terrorist was elected president, nor even the first time by a voting problem.
The only difference between George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama is their skin colour. In every other way these persons are carbon copies of the same traitor. Bush's ignorance was due to puppet masters Carl Rove and Richard Cheney. Obama, a constitutional scholar, treats the US Constitution with more disdain and contempt than his immediate predecessor. When will the People rise up and take back their Government?
Re: (Score:2)
When will the People rise up and take back their Government?
Sorry, the people are too concerned with more important things. Things like whether or not Kim Kardashian's ass was Photoshoped or if the dress is blue or gold.
Impossible (Score:2)
>"which results in victory for an unexpected third-party candidate.
What a silly fantasy plot to even think of something so impossible with our unfair voting system. Now, if the plot ALSO says we finally switched to some form of instant runoff voting, then it might be possible to have a third-party win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not weak encryption, but that's my read as well - the system got hacked by some unspecified means, and the system was "designed" in such a way that there was no to do an audit to filter out bogus ballots.
There is a fascinating tradeoff between having an anonymous ballot and the ability to do an audit and/or recount.
It's not a good movie plot/subplot (Score:2)
The scenario actually isn't a very good movie plot. If it was about some goofy mixup electing an incompetent to office as part of a comedy rather than a drama, then the absurdity would be believed. As it stands trying to be a dramatic work, it falls into the same trap a lot of geeks have in imagining their day in court: technicalities do not trump the human element. The premise is that an obviously guy subverts the first online election without gaining genuine popular support and overcoming the establish
Re: (Score:2)
The scenario actually isn't a very good movie plot. If it was about some goofy mixup electing an incompetent to office as part of a comedy rather than a drama, then the absurdity would be believed. As it stands trying to be a dramatic work, it falls into the same trap a lot of geeks have in imagining their day in court: technicalities do not trump the human element. The premise is that an obviously guy subverts the first online election without gaining genuine popular support and overcoming the established power structure and the nation would somehow let that stand.
It's not believable because such a result would be nullified so fast, even if no one has a precedent for doing so. I know the whole point is to be over the top, but there is also the goal of being plausible enough to work in a drama.
Actually I think this one and the child pornography one are the two worst of the five. Note none of them I think would be the main plot of a film, but would make decent subplots to drive the story.
Actually, it could also make the good basis for the story. For example, the lack of a precedent probably would still result in the sociopolitical and legal angles of being stuck with what is a (hopefully verifiable) corrupt election, as odds are good that some countries would protest the nullification anyway and then you hit the question of "Why would anybody be this obvious?" Is it somebody wanting to make a point about how encryption isn't magic, or just really incompetent rigging of the election? And
M. Night Shyamalan (Score:1)
I think they should get M. Night Shyamalan to direct it. Granted, he hasn't done a good movie in some time, but he can have a truly interesting twist at the end.
In the end, the encryption will be so good that no one will be able to tamper with the ballots and that's why the independent wins. It'll be discovered that people have been voting for non-major party candidates for decades. They've just been too scared to admit it, and it ends up the two major parties have been rigging the elections against the
my plot (Score:2)
So, how did you all like mine [1]? The goal was to show the danger of their double standard: they get ironclad security; we get backdoors. They argue that anonymity, encryption, and security can be the end of the country. I argue that, if true, then it's also a confession on their part. ;)
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/... [schneier.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I figured you took the time to write it and had the courage to post it here so somebody has an obligation to read it. I also figured I was the one bored person here who would be interested in supporting you. So, I read it. I can honestly say that it was fairly well written (some punctuation issues and some sketchy dialogue but your point remained the same and it was easy enough to understand) and that the plot was actually better than some of the others on that page. I was no longer bored and I appreciate y
Re: my plot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Someone had to read it because of your willingness to write it, post it here, and be open to criticism. You did, after all, ask what we thought - not something I would always recommend here on /. but it has been okay for you so far. Anyhow, I figured I would read your mindless drivel. I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was neither mindless or drivel. I would have said it was "okay" or something and concentrated on mentioning the good parts, if there were any. Fortunately I did not have to leave a va
Bogus plot -- didn't the 2000 election teach us? (Score:3)
I don't like the winning plot at all; it ignores reality and the Constitution.
Forget about encryption or electronic voting -- didn't the 2000 election teach us anything when Al Gore got more of the votes from the American people across the country but George W. Bush took the White House? Does this plot presume we had a constitutional amendment to do away with the undemocratic Electoral College?
The US Constitution clearly says that the president is elected by the Electoral College. There are only 535 members of the electoral college. We could call them via phone calls in a couple of hours to see how they voted.
But don't let me get in the way of a good fairy tale... :-)
Re: (Score:1)
The question is not, who did the electoral college vote for.
The question is, who did the states send to the electoral college.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We might not have the electoral college by 2020:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting concept.
But it does not do away with the undemocratic Electoral College, it just massages the system to force the Electoral College electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote.
As such, it's likely an improvement, but to me the fact that this strategy is being used highlights the broken nature of our political system and the fact that it is simply too difficult to amend the Constitution so such end-around moves have to be done to reform/change things.