Comments by "Peter" (@peter65zzfdfh) on "Cleo Abram" channel.

  1. It’s impossible to do securely and anonymously. Estonia does it insecurely.
    20
  2.  @___ko___ false. Signing via card still needs a device to do it, that can simply get between the card and the end system. Human systems are secured by virtue of requiring both presence and human effort, and importantly that security can be improved just by adding more humans. It’s easy to understand and verify even by people not that bright who think personal certificates fix the client security problem.
    15
  3. It’s utterly impossible to have an online vote that is secret and secure. Your online vote could be changed on your own computer before you make it, and without a way to check it was cast as you intended you would never know to check the paper record. If you always check the paper record you’ve just invented an expensive pencil.
    8
  4. Sounds like they invented an expensive pencil. The only way to be sure your device wasn’t compromised and your vote miscast is to do it as a paper ballot.
    3
  5. The most passionate ones that turn out are often the least informed, they’re in their bubbles, and easily misled.
    3
  6. None of those things require anonymity. The first election with online voting is the end of the point in voting at all.
    2
  7.  @olatunjiolakunle6908 people who vote are recorded and eligibility is determined before the vote is counted, if necessary (eg if they’re not already on the roll which has itself been pre-verified), there’s something like 1-2 votes every election where people later determined to be ineligible attempted to vote. The penalties are huge and even the attempts are basically non existent.
    2
  8. The easiest compromise is at the client. You could put your countries top 10 security experts into securing the counting system and spend months auditing that, but you can’t do that on every voter’s device.
    2
  9. Missing: - voting is compulsory. - voting is on a Saturday - voting is open for weeks in advance - voting can be done at another voting place if traveling (it’s a big country) It’s how in Australia any fraud would be easily detectable. But vote counting takes a lot longer than 4 hours, it can take weeks if it’s very close.
    1
  10.  @FrancSchiphorst you can detect the destruction of paper ballots and if necessary hold the election again. An alteration of a secret ballot by a compromised client device is impossible to detect much less prove.
    1
  11. ⁠ @4rk this is un-true, you just don’t understand how nation states compromise devices. The security of the system isn’t the hard thing, it’s securing every single client, in a world where nations can plant explosives in pagers, planting malware in operating systems is trivial. Not only that, the ease of sowing distrust in electronic systems is itself a fatal flaw, voting doesn’t just have to be secure, it has to appear secure, to everyone. We’ve already seen violence when people don’t believe the results. Simple paper ballots are understood even by idiots that think online voting can be secure.
    1
  12. Voting is a responsibility like jury duty. Everyone who wants to live in a democracy needs to do it.
    1
  13. So impossible? Even mail in ballots requires physical effort. Electronic voting can be rigged from out of the country with no risk to the rigger. While they do catch people (the 1-2 every election) that attempt to do fraud via mail in ballot.
    1
  14. The problem with digital voting is that any incident of fraud would be undetectable in an anonymous system. So that proves nothing.
    1
  15.  @Waterfront975 the solution to electronic voting being either insecure or not anonymous is…. Paper ballots? So, it’s an expensive waste of time?
    1
  16. It’s difficult to do that from another country. And yes, postal voting is less secure than in person, but at least you will likely know if your vote was destroyed and be able to re-cast it, as the outer layer of postal votes are not anonymous. Here postal votes go through the same mail as everything else. And you can always give them over in person at a post office.
    1
  17. Except if they were rigged you’d never know without counting the paper ballots as well, as such. It’s an expensive pencil,
    1
  18. Fraud is absolutely rife in commerce. It’s not in voting (yet).
    1
  19. ⁠ @kamischarougen4580 it’s logically impossible, to be both secure and anonymous. It’s quite possible to break any security if the political will is there. And with anonymous voting it’s impossible to detect it’s been broken. It’s not a technology problem, it’s a reality problem.
    1
  20.  @4rk and none are guaranteed secure. If you can get your device infected with a virus it will just change your vote before you make it. If it’s anonymous you have no way of being able to tell. If you’re voting for a local government where the biggest decision they make is garbage collections, then sure. But in state and national elections there will be entirely nations interested in stealing elections. And importantly elections don’t just need to be secure, they need to be perceived to be secure. Already in the US too much technology is used for everyone to believe it secure, it needs to be even simpler, so even an idiot understands it.
    1
  21. ⁠ @jarivuorinen3878 this is false. Once uncoupled your vote can be changed, and you have no way of knowing. It can be changed on your device that’s been compromised and you will never know, no matter what security is applied at the server end. No enterprise uses both anonymous and secure systems. All systems are compromised continuously, the non-anonymous ones can be often reversed, the anonymous ones often cannot. And compromise would be impossible to prove or disprove.
    1
  22.  @conusx blockchain is not anonymous, frequently compromised (at the client). It’s proof digital voting cannot be secure and anonymous.
    1
  23. The US needs identity verification to prove eligibility to vote just to get on the voting roll, if you’re not on it, then you need ID. What’s a joke is people thinking that no ID means no identity verification. They catch 1-2 people every election attempting to vote while not eligible, it’s just not the issue you want it to be.
    1
  24.  @unvergebeneid bingo, not only does the election have to be secure, it has to appear secure. The US can’t even make offline, auditable electronic systems ‘appear’ secure to some people, despite all evidence showing they are. Any electronic system is too much, much less one that relies on individual voters having secure devices.
    1