[kwlug-disc] Say No To Electronic Voting ...

[Mikalai Birukou]

> Here is an article by a cybersecurity expert saying distributed (i.e. 
> non-centralized
> counting) paper ballots with oversight is more secure than any digital 
> solution.
>
> https://it.slashdot.org/story/20/08/17/2049231/safest-voting-method-is-using-paper-leading-cyber-expert-says
>
> Again: computerized = centralized, and centralized = far easier to 
> corrupt by intimidation,
> coercion or bribery by less than a handful of people. Computerized = 
> requires specialists
> to understand, not the lay person.

Actually, computerized != centralized

this is why technologists start to look for an online solutions, as 
distributed needs online, which not centralized.

As long as known area around voting is framed in words, quote, "The only 
way we know how to do it well and safely is by using paper.", we must 
look for and discuss possible solutions, but we shouldn't rush into 
implementing. By definition we can't know the unknown. And this allows 
academics to work on issue, and allows unscrupulous actors to sell 
unsafe voting to our municipalities.

In this thread we have already articulated a better view/narrative:

a) online/electronic =(must be)=> end to end verifiable

b) end to end verification helps coercion on the ends.

This is a much stronger argument for consumption by politicians.

Clean view of issue also stops technologists from going down the bitten 
path.


> Mikalai, in the end you are seeking a technological problem to what is 
> basically a societal
> and political issue (dictatorship, totalitarianism, iron fist rule). 
> It does not work any better
> than using technology to get your kids to do their room (although 
> Calvin and Hobbes disagree).

Rhetorically this is a good argument, when tech has no influence on how 
society works. Let's see :)

- paper tech

- printing press

- can't pay for parking without phone in some places of the globe

Is this a good enough rhetorical suggestion that tech may have some 
influence on how society operates?

A little scheme that I'll talk about, in comparison with Estonian one 
(that is probably stronger than municipal solutions around here), brings 
into the process more actors, voters and observers. It is a true 
end-to-end verifiable voting system. It's the best online voting! Tada! 
I said it :) . But, following our clean view of the issues, this online 
voting tech can be applied where there is no coercion.

I'll try my best to graphically represent pressures in the process, and 
comparison between the best online tech and physical paper system.

There are several points for pressure, and we'll talk about those, 
following actual events in Belarus, i.e. with recent history 
observations (not an experiment, more like astrophysics observation :) ).