Once machines are involved there is the temptation to replace the people, that is a mistake. Machines should be seen as an optimisation that happens in parallel. Then there is the problem of when the machines and people come to a different conclusion.
-
-
Replying to @MichaelWardrop @colmmacc
An independent recount by another machine & new set of people takes time, money, and is expensive politically. Therefore it makes sense to be as transparent about making the machines as possible, and use the best security techniques at our disposal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop @colmmacc
Auditable supply chain, open hardware & software, formal verification, comprehensive test suites, reproducible builds, code signing, hardware root of trust, secure & measured boot, remote attestation, runtime tamper detection...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop @colmmacc
All these & more should be used to minimise the risk introduced by the machines. Or people should be more patient, & govt should hire more people, pay them well, & train them better in how to run, count, tally, & audit elections.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop
With finite resources, we should focus only on the latter, because we know it works. Efforts on securing machines are wasted IMO and create a false sense of security. Elections have probably already been hacked, and we can't know for sure. Sad and nuts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colmmacc
Unfortunately the siren song of technology is strong & many governments around the world already use various electronic voting machines, are looking to introduce them, or increase their usage. I agree that there needs to be campaigns against this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop @colmmacc
Most politicians are insufficiently informed / complicit. All commercial voting machines that I'm aware of have fundamental security flaws &/ gaps. Vendors are only interested in providing the bare minimum that sells.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop @colmmacc
Non-profit orgs like
@voting_works & others by providing specifications & open reference implementations of best practices, may help by showing: - the costs of doing things properly - how far the commercial offerings fall short - the gap between principles & practice1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop @colmmacc
How did you successfully remove insecure e-voting from Irish elections?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelWardrop
Years of lobbying and campaigning led to the government establishing a commission to investigate it. That commission found bugs and problems in the proposed implementation, which embarrassed the government of the day, and it was first delayed, and then abandoned.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
in the US things are more diffuse, because elections are administered locally, but I find it perplexing that there have been no public action lawsuits on behalf of voters who are being disenfranchised. Electronic voting is a mockery of the constitutional right to vote.
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.