Contrary to popular belief, it’s not my job to personally refute every ill-advised voting idea, even if a famous CEO utters it. The reasons election experts warn against mobile voting are well documented. See the NASEM report for a thorough discussion.https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25120/securing-the-vote-protecting-american-democracy …
-
-
I read it and stand by what I said above. I think the strongest argument against it is that the observed impact on voting behaviour has not been conclusive so far.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @taviso @mattblaze and
Mail in voting is pretty damn good and has known failure modes. It's also easier for constituents to understand and trust. I'd be open to digital voting, but let's get to a known-good baseline first and compare against THAT. Heck, let's stop actively suppressing voters, first.
1 reply 0 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @jeffmcjunkin @mattblaze and
Tavis Ormandy Retweeted Florian Egloff
Sure, my intuition was that there would be a big positive effect on turnout and it shouldn't be dismissed because of sci-fi exploit fears. Turns out, there is good evidence turnout isn't affected, so there is a good reason to dismiss it.https://twitter.com/egflo/status/1379890058673725440 …
Tavis Ormandy added,
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @taviso @jeffmcjunkin and
How do you protect against a user loading a malicious app (call it "Official MAGA Voter Guide") that on election day behaves convincingly like the official voting app but doesn't actually cast a ballot? That's not a sci-fi exploit. Security of user devices is hard.
2 replies 2 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @jeffmcjunkin and
As I said above, the potential scale of disruption is no worse than with mail-in ballots. How do you protect against a robocall that convincingly spreads misinformation about voting? The scale of disruption would be similar, so that's not a good argument to dismiss it.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @taviso @jeffmcjunkin and
Except that you still have that problem, but also now this new one. Plus all the other new ones you and I haven't considered (I just made this attack up on the spot). You're strictly increasing the amount of vulnerability, as well as the avenues for casting doubt on the outcome.
3 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @jeffmcjunkin and
Not so, there are attacks against mail-in ballots and the postal service that would no longer work. Even so a modest increase in attack surface to make voting more accessible and reduce disenfranchisement would be a good trade... (Yes, evidence suggests it doesn't).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @taviso @jeffmcjunkin and
You want only people who own smartphones to be able to cast absentee ballots by eliminating mail-in voting? Let me refer you to election law.
3 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @jeffmcjunkin and
That doesn't really sound like a good faith argument. I think you're saying "unless we turn of mail-in ballots, then we have more vulnerabilities", but that's not true - malicious disruptions to the postal service would still allow other forms of voting.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Lot of "consider a spherical voter of radius R" energy here
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard @mattblaze and
I don't know, Matt said "You're strictly increasing the amount of vulnerability", that seems worth addressing. There are attacks that are no longer possible, so it's not true... right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That statement pre-supposes that there's *also* mail-in voting as a fallback option, which does mean both digital and mail-in voting attack surface is available.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.