Seems blockchain could be used for a discreet “paper trail” ballot.
And if everyone could vote securely from their smart device then imagine all the instantaneous polling that could be done by government agencies, to better understand issues and potential resolutions.
Also, the census could be done far more accurately and cheaply. You’d still need volunteers for those without smart devices, but it would be simple to deduce addresses that haven’t provided info.
The possibilities are nearly endless to achieve more efficient and effective government and accountability. It would turn politics from a popularity contest to a meritocracy.
A small part of my job was writing and updating a "digital certificate policy" for my government, which includes a section on identity-proofing, and the document was approximately 100 pages in length. Voting with a personal device (which I believe would have to use digital certificates, and therefore require certificate policies) is theoretically possible but opens up multiple cans of legal, procedural, and financial worms. And neither the article nor the comments have addressed the biggest problems. I don't think most people are even aware of what the issues even are.
I won't make a list of the problems, which would take tens of pages, but I'll tell you this. If it was easy, why doesn't Apple already do it? E.g., when I buy an iPhone, Apple has NO IDEA who I am (even if I buy it in an Apple store, [rather than Walmart] they didn't even require a credit card until recently, and even then, some credit cards are corporate and not personal.) I don't have to show them any ID to prove my identity. I could be an illegal alien. I could be a foreign diplomat. I could be a shared corporate phone. So exactly how does Apple propose that the government know who the person at the other end is, if Apple doesn't even know themselves? Is Apple going to rely on the identities provided by the telephone company which provides the wireless services? Wouldn't that be an important part of the process since Apple iPhones can be privately sold without informing Apple? And this is just 5% of the problem.
Most countries probably have their federal certificate policies online. Just google your country's own certificate policy and read it. I suspect that in the US only the federal government (no state government) has a certificate policy, and since voting is largely a state responsibility, each state would have to write one before any of this could work. I don't think the federal government has the constitutional authority to set up the certificate policy required for voting in the individual states. But the feds may have authority over voting in D.C., (also Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) so that would be a good place to experiment, since it's such a geographically small zone, which is important when part of the policy involves visually verifying IDs to approve the device's certificate. If you can't get it going in a small jurisdiction first, then you certainly can't get it going nationwide.
The US probably won't be the first country to achieve voting on personal devices. It might be one of the last to get there due to constitutional issues. It's more likely that some dictatorship which already holds everyone's personal information can achieve this first. I can certainly see a country like China, which recently introduced digital currency, attempting this in the near future, since they are heavily invested into tracking their people already. Of course they don't have elections in dictatorships, but I can see China wanting to prove their technological superiority (and at the same time improve on their ability to track citizens.) My bet would be on Singapore getting there first. They have an interest in these sorts of technologies, and they have a good mix of high tech, small geography, and a very dominant single political party to make this happen fast, if they want to.
China doesn’t have technological superiority, not even close. Perhaps you mean thievery superiority.
A small part of my job was writing and updating a "digital certificate policy" for my government, which includes a section on identity-proofing, and the document was approximately 100 pages in length. Voting with a personal device (which I believe would have to use digital certificates, and therefore require certificate policies) is theoretically possible but opens up multiple cans of legal, procedural, and financial worms. And neither the article nor the comments have addressed the biggest problems. I don't think most people are even aware of what the issues even are.
I won't make a list of the problems, which would take tens of pages, but I'll tell you this. If it was easy, why doesn't Apple already do it? E.g., when I buy an iPhone, Apple has NO IDEA who I am (even if I buy it in an Apple store, [rather than Walmart] they didn't even require a credit card until recently, and even then, some credit cards are corporate and not personal.) I don't have to show them any ID to prove my identity. I could be an illegal alien. I could be a foreign diplomat. I could be a shared corporate phone. So exactly how does Apple propose that the government know who the person at the other end is, if Apple doesn't even know themselves? Is Apple going to rely on the identities provided by the telephone company which provides the wireless services? Wouldn't that be an important part of the process since Apple iPhones can be privately sold without informing Apple? And this is just 5% of the problem.
Most countries probably have their federal certificate policies online. Just google your country's own certificate policy and read it. I suspect that in the US only the federal government (no state government) has a certificate policy, and since voting is largely a state responsibility, each state would have to write one before any of this could work. I don't think the federal government has the constitutional authority to set up the certificate policy required for voting in the individual states. But the feds may have authority over voting in D.C., (also Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) so that would be a good place to experiment, since it's such a geographically small zone, which is important when part of the policy involves visually verifying IDs to approve the device's certificate. If you can't get it going in a small jurisdiction first, then you certainly can't get it going nationwide.
The US probably won't be the first country to achieve voting on personal devices. It might be one of the last to get there due to constitutional issues. It's more likely that some dictatorship which already holds everyone's personal information can achieve this first. I can certainly see a country like China, which recently introduced digital currency, attempting this in the near future, since they are heavily invested into tracking their people already. Of course they don't have elections in dictatorships, but I can see China wanting to prove their technological superiority (and at the same time improve on their ability to track citizens.) My bet would be on Singapore getting there first. They have an interest in these sorts of technologies, and they have a good mix of high tech, small geography, and a very dominant single political party to make this happen fast, if they want to.
I believe Apple’s solution could work. The fact that they don’t know who you are is not an issue because your iphone does.
I could tell my iPhone that I'm Joe Biden, and it would believe me. My iPhone assumes that I am whoever I tell it I am. My iPhone has no way to prove whether I am who I say I am, or whether I'm someone else. There is a way to do this, but I'm not here to teach you how. You should read up on those policies that I spoke about. Then you might learn how it's done. Even Apple doesn't know who owns the iPhones that it sells.
Commit or not, the future is closer than any of us think. The entire idea is “thinking outside the box” and as an additional method, it has more merit than any interview.
Estonia is already enabling this. Mind you... they have made their whole government work online over the last decade.
I don't see all this posturing, scaremongering and all the rest of the objections there. Mind you, they are a very young country.
I'm sure that there is a way to make voting by phone secure but the current environment of total distrust in government that seems to prevail in the USA of today means that it is impossible to even move past a proposal that gets shouted down in a flash.
Other countries manage their elections without all these schenagins. The manipulation of voter rolls is a huge problem. We simply don't have that issue here. But there again, we accept that the party that wins the election you know wins the election. But we don't get to vote on Tax Collectors, dog catchers and who washes the windows of city hall. For that, I am thankful.
Problem is iPhone technology, votes could be hacked in the cloud server.
Sounds like the stuff Trump tried to claim and no one found a single measurable thing. It is largely a non issue. The reality is the republicans know that if the country is largely in favor of more things in the democratic camp then theirs and that is why they gerrymander districts into oblivion and are trying to pass a bunch of laws to inhibit minorities to vote based on non existent fraud.
How about the USA starts with the basics first, like removing voter suppression/gerrymandering, voter registration, making sure EVERYONE that is allowed to vote actually CAN vote, allowing people that are not allowed to vote right now for stupid reasons, to vote. You know, like a first-world country.
The Ohio official is correct. Votes need audit trails.
In banking the rule is: trust nobody and verify everything.
Without an audit trail (meaning a paper copy) that audit trail simply does not exist. That was the problem in Pennsylvania for a decade: it had voting machines that could easily be hacked but, by design, had no way to produce an audit trail! Whatever tally came out of that machine is what got used because there was simply no way to verify it -- By Design!
Voting via iPhone would produce a similar problem.
While Apple's systems are as secure as possible, every computer system can be hacked. For things like banking and voting systems one needs to expect that and institute policies and procedures to guard against it, detect it when it happens and correct any problems from it.
Another feature of having that audit trail is it enables one of the top safeguards in the banking system: random, unannounced audits. (Or course those audits would be controlled by an impartial body -- not politicians).
Problem is iPhone technology, votes could be hacked in the cloud server.
Problem is, DMV or IRS technology, personal information could be hacked in the cloud server.
But yet, here we are.
I'm not saying that there's a good iPhone-based solution today. But to dismiss it because of "hacked in the cloud server" is preposterous, considering how much of our lives are on a "cloud server" right now.
I disagree -- strongly.
Of course much of our private information is at risk on cloud servers.
But to equate that to votes is a false equivalency. The sanctity and security of the vote is the heart and foundation of our democracy. Votes need to be treated the same way that banks treat cash where fraud is not feared, it is expected and anticipated and guarded against in every way possible -- and part of that is an independent audit trail -- usually paper.
We know Russia did everything they could to attack and change the results of our last three elections. We also know that they have their malware embedded in many of our most critical systems. To think that they (or others) would not use their considerable abilities to not only steal data but change votes is naive.
Well, the progressives are already okay with the idea of not having to prove your identity at the polling place. I mean they want to boycott Georgia for requiring it. And then there’s the absentee ballot, the mailed/emailed ballot, all of which can be falsified pretty easily. So I should be able to show up at a polling place, tell them who I am without proof of identity, and vote, right? So whats the problem with iPhone voting?
The iPhone is one of the most secure ID vaults you can own. You have to prove your identity several times over just to own and use one. then getting in and out of that phone requires biometrics--finger scanners or Face-ID...both of which have been proven to be quite secure.
While it does not exist yet, vote by phone is coming. After all, the entire conservative banking system lets people bank by phone all over the globe, over phones that are far less secure than an iPhone.
I don't disagree with your opinion regarding voter fraud. It's basically a scare tactic use to foment doubt and make it easier for voter suppressive legislation. That being said, your assertions (specifically bold portion) regarding the iPhone are not true at all. An iPhone can be purchased from an MVNO or other 3rd party vendor with no ID requirement whatsoever. Both my wife and I can enter our kids iPhones with no issue. We both have fingerprints registered on their phones. I mention that anecdote because you seem to be implying the "personal security" measures in the iPhone would somehow be a deterrent against voter fraud. A phone being registered to a person is not a guarantee that person is actually using the phone. My kids phones are registered to me. I don't use their phones.
The analogy about banking isn't really an effective argument. It relies on the personal security measures as it's basis. Those measures don't ensure voter secrecy and don't ensure who's actually voting. Most important is voter secrecy. If it's known who you vote for and how you vote on issues, that data could be abused.
I am also sure Cook meant vote on a phone when he said "vote on an iPhone". Pretty sure he was using iPhone generically like when people say Kleenex or Q-Tip. The idea of voting on a single brand of phone is sort of absurd and would never even get off the ground realistically.
LaRose, Ohio's chief election officer, said he "aggressively" opposes that idea. "Not on my watch. Not in Ohio," he toldFOX Business.
Don’t ignore this clarification. He just doesn’t want people voting in Ohio, on his watch. Phone should be OK. And actually, while we’re on the subject, why not vote with our watches?
Wrt technology, Apple would not be the problem. The federal/state technological infrastructures will be. Most/all of the industrial world except perhaps India is way way way ahead of the USofA.
Further, there's reason to anticipate serious confusion amongst certain political movements:
How will they proceed in transforming their strategies and tactics from showing off assault rifles outside voting premises to discourage voters, to stand behind a potential iPhone voter (e.g a wife who beg to differ) with a .38 pointing at the iPhone voters head telling the unfortunate who to vote for?
They would have to articulate themselves cleverly knowing that if they shoot, they will not get the vote. That might be overly complicated..
Well, the progressives are already okay with the idea of not having to prove your identity at the polling place. I mean they want to boycott Georgia for requiring it. And then there’s the absentee ballot, the mailed/emailed ballot, all of which can be falsified pretty easily. So I should be able to show up at a polling place, tell them who I am without proof of identity, and vote, right? So whats the problem with iPhone voting?
I have voted many times in my life and did not have to provide proof of who I was. Then again I am white. Are we surprised that a Republican from Ohio is opposed to an idea that makes voting easier? I am not saying voting on an electronic device is free of challenges and issues. Just not sure why Frank LaRose needed to make a public statement about something that is a very remote possibility.
The problem with votes being tracked to individuals is that puts a target on their backs for their political choices, and greatly affects how people will vote if there’s even the thought it can be personally tracked to them.
Considering what has been going on, it takes willful ignorance to not see that being a major problem. If you think it’s not a problem, try “The other foot” approach: what do you think would happen if your most feared enemies had certain knowledge you voted against their wishes outcomes?
A HUGE problem with involving computers in this is a matter of trust far beyond being able to track down if their vote has been correctly counted, but also, who else can see it, not to mention: if you can’t see what others voted and which others voted and can’t confirm with the actual people in question that they voted, who is to say it wasn’t changed, or completely fabricated?
Speaking as one in the field for my career for decades, the more concentrated the control over systems involved, the more code there is (or any black box) the less viable it is to trust anything by the general public, because it literally isn’t apparent by inspection that it’s all valid and verifiable, and that someone in control of implementation or ownership of the devices used for voting hasn’t tampered with them.
It only requires one person changing code deployed to key machines to change an election. At least by old paper methods alone, it requires a lot more humans to physically change things, and it’s harder to get that many involved and organized, coordinated to do that.
Making voting too easy to do also makes it too vulnerable to manipulation and too hard to trust. Not all things should be automated at all, electronic computers or otherwise.
To your first point, I don’t see the concern for tracking votes to individuals. I would guess that the algorithms of FB, Google, Twitter, and even Amazon can predict how you are going to vote with probably 99% accuracy. Also, isn’t this the issue with targeted political ads and misinformation that we are currently fighting because these advertising companies can predict behaviour incredibly well?
To your points of being unable of trust and being vulnerable to manipulation. Isn’t this what blockchain addresses. Cryptocurrencies pride themselves on their ability to guarantee trust and prevent manipulation. Why could this not also be the case for votes? This is coming from a view point that money is more powerful than votes so if money can be made secure, why couldn’t votes be made secure as well. Point to note: I am very limited in my understanding of cryptocurrency and blockchain so any corrections or additions to my thinking are welcome.
Didn't several Republican members of Congress vote virtually on the COVID relief bill why they were at CPAC? Seems like another case of "do as I say, not as I do" which unfortunately has become the norm from them.
I love this part: "[Ohio guy] said that a certain degree of technological competence is required." I'm pretty sure that everything Apple does (and does well) requires "a certain degree of technological competence." Tim Cook isn't some kid in his garage speculating about FTL travel or teleportation. This is absolutely a solvable problem, and it could easily happen in our lifetimes. As everyone has said, the hard parts are the twin requirements of irrefutability and anonymity.
Wait, you're asking what's more sensitive info? Tax info which we voluntarily give to the government every single year or our specific voting record which could be used by the party in power and the party trying to get in power, in horrific ways to manipulate the populace. That would be a national nightmare. Gonna go out on a limb and say it's how we vote that carries a higher level of sensitivity. What we make per year is easy for anyone to find out, and of no consequence really.
I'm not sure the word voluntary means what you think it does. And you overstate the value in knowing exactly how someone voted. Based on publicly available data, "people" can predict with quite how confidence how most of us voted. It's not the government you'd have to worry about (in this case), it would be third parties who would love to be able to verify how one voted. (e.g., "I'll give you $10 if you vote for ____ on line 4 of the ballot--after verification, of course.) That's the nightmare scenario.
Comments
And if everyone could vote securely from their smart device then imagine all the instantaneous polling that could be done by government agencies, to better understand issues and potential resolutions.
Also, the census could be done far more accurately and cheaply. You’d still need volunteers for those without smart devices, but it would be simple to deduce addresses that haven’t provided info.
The possibilities are nearly endless to achieve more efficient and effective government and accountability. It would turn politics from a popularity contest to a meritocracy.
The analogy about banking isn't really an effective argument. It relies on the personal security measures as it's basis. Those measures don't ensure voter secrecy and don't ensure who's actually voting. Most important is voter secrecy. If it's known who you vote for and how you vote on issues, that data could be abused.
I am also sure Cook meant vote on a phone when he said "vote on an iPhone". Pretty sure he was using iPhone generically like when people say Kleenex or Q-Tip. The idea of voting on a single brand of phone is sort of absurd and would never even get off the ground realistically.
Further, there's reason to anticipate serious confusion amongst certain political movements:
How will they proceed in transforming their strategies and tactics from showing off assault rifles outside voting premises to discourage voters, to stand behind a potential iPhone voter (e.g a wife who beg to differ) with a .38 pointing at the iPhone voters head telling the unfortunate who to vote for?
They would have to articulate themselves cleverly knowing that if they shoot, they will not get the vote. That might be overly complicated..
To your points of being unable of trust and being vulnerable to manipulation. Isn’t this what blockchain addresses. Cryptocurrencies pride themselves on their ability to guarantee trust and prevent manipulation. Why could this not also be the case for votes? This is coming from a view point that money is more powerful than votes so if money can be made secure, why couldn’t votes be made secure as well. Point to note: I am very limited in my understanding of cryptocurrency and blockchain so any corrections or additions to my thinking are welcome.