HOW DO WE MAKE ONLINE VOTING MORE SECURE

>>136152870
MUH RUSSIANS

>>136152870
>WE CAN EVERYTHING ONLINE SECURELY
Only in your head is it genuinely secure

File: thinking.jpg (15KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x500px

>>136152870
Why do we need online voting anyway? If you can't find any interest to take a walk to your nearest voting building when voting for your own country's future, maybe you shouldn't vote at all.

>>136152870
Why do we need anything electronic about voting at all? Is it really that fucking hard to get out once every two years to vote? Is it that fucking hard to print a ballot and fill in the blanks?

If it is, you probably should not have the right.

>>136152870
>Disconnected. You have been votekicked from the election.

File: 29788dd22da30965ebf0a25a730976db.jpg (11KB, 236x207px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x207px

>>136153713
I'm really hungover so this might be a retarded question

What's stopping someone from making 10,000 copies of the ballot and mailing them all in?

lol what do you mean, website code is regularly churned out by incompetent Pajeets who leave glaring vulnerabilities everywhere

>>136152870
>WE CAN EVERYTHING ONLINE SECURELY

except no, we can't. doing anything online is incredibly risky and only happens because people are willing to accept a certain level of risk when they're buying cat food or whatever people buy on amazonbay.com

are you willing to risk the future of your country because you're too chicken-shit to walk into a church and talk to some grandma-age volunteer for 20 seconds?

>>136154832
this

>hiring an American webdev
>paying $2000/week when Abu will do it for $200/week
not even once

>millennials are so lazy they can't even lift their asses to go to vote once in a few years

>>136152870
Blockchain only secure way. Ethereum platform could create individual tokens and mail out 2/3 multisig private keys to citizens. Unfortunately, it will be years before public understands why it's secure and/or trusts it.

>>136155410
>Blockchain only secure way. Ethereum platform could create individual tokens and mail out 2/3 multisig private keys to citizens.
Interesting idea. But there's one big problem: How do you know the right person is voting?

A hacker could steal other people's keys via malware/phishing. Or a man-in-the-middle attack could alter your vote without you noticing. Or people could outright sell their keys for money.

You could combine some form of electronic ID with the vote. But now you can't guarantee a secret ballot anymore.

>>136154995
Yes

>>136153474
because they want dindus and illegals voting with no ID verification

>>136154570
When you mail them in, the form has your voter registration info on it. If they find duplicates, that's voter fraud.

>>136156921

Cool, then I've got nothing to worry about. If you're too much of a coward to go vote, what are the chances you'll ever do anything that affects my life? The answer is zero.

Tip: You're not supposed to surrender before you even fight.

>>136155150

>hire 5 pajeets for $200 a week
>pajeets are so fucking incompetent you have to hire the American one anyway just to fix what the shitskins built

>>136152870

but who is this cutie?

>>136152870
>securely
Sure thing buddy.

>>136157327
better to hire the american for 2-3 weeks to fix the pajeet code than hire the american for 5 months to build it

>>136152870
The very nature of voting is the problem.

Think about pen and paper ballot. You give your ID. (Unless you're American, in which case ID is racist), and then you get a ballot. (Unless you're American because then.. well read on.)

We know you're not forging the ballot, so you're only going to cast one vote. How do we know? We know because we can see you take the one ballot out and writing something on it (but not what), and we can see you dropping one und only vun ballot into ze box.

Later, all the ballots are counted and this can be livestreamed with massive HD cameras and everyone can tell that nothing iffy is going on. The votes are tallied up, and then the results are reported in.

EVERYTHING here is secure, it's open to scrutiny, easy to understand, and well, it works.

With computers, how exactly do you suppose it is supposed to work?

You would have to identify yourself digitally using a one-time token. I guess we could mail UUIDv4 tokens or some shit to people?

Then they would use this token to send a vote. But the token must *not* be traceable to the vote. That means that for every vote we have recorded, there can be no evidence it was cast by a voter. Oh, that's just fucking GREAT, isn't it?

Then there's the fact that ballot boxes can't change the contents of the ballots inside them. They can't create new ones or delete old ones. Computers can. So you have to prove that the computer software doesn't do this.

And then there's the issue of user friendliness. EVERYONE above absolute-abonigger-tier intelligence understands "SEE GUY YOU LIKE. MAKE X-MARK ON BOX NEXT TO HIM". Dogs could do that.

But on computers people still fuck up even the most amazing things.

Computer voting is absolutely retarded, and I work as a consultant doing IT stuff for the government. The old system works almost perfectly. All it needs is some more cameras watching the people counting the votes in case people allege fraud. HDD space is cheap these days after all.

>>136156818
Agree with this. Secure ID would be needed in conjunction with voting tokens. Otherwise people could just steal other people's mail and vote using it.

>>136152870
Impossible. You obviously have 0 knowledge of the internet. Paper or nothing.

>>136153079
>Implying the mind reading technology hasn't advanced since 1990.
It's 2017 mate. They can already tell if you're thinking about the bitches tits or her face.

>>136152870
Don't even try. It'll never be secure enough.

In Britain, everything is done on paper and every step of the process is done under the eyes of a dozen people from every relevant party. If anyone tries to cheat, you pick up the ceremonial sword of office and run them through with it. Problem solved.

>>136157937
We had that technology in the year -2000.

File: voter id.jpg (103KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 736x736px

>>136156961

Every other nation on the planet requires valid ID before being allowed to vote. But not the United States of 'Murica. Nope! You guys simply trust people based on face value.

Want to vote twice? Sure! No problem. Just travel across state lines. Want to vote without even having a Green Card? No problem!

You guys need to sort this shit out. Even Poo In Loo has this figured out by now.

>>136158140
Yes but now they can prove it.

Soros voting machines and Diebold Inc. still couldn't stop the Trumptrain. Voting fraud has still not been addressed since the election and you have to wonder what the reasons for that are.

File: 1501535842190.jpg (61KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x800px

>>136157740
Simple. Use eID cards to log in to some portal. The portal allows you to cast a single vote. It only tracks whether or not you have already voted. When you vote, a single number in a database is incremented (depending on who you voted for) and your "has voted" flag is set to true.

Secure, no record is kept of who voted for who, everyone gets to vote only once, and no fraud is possible unless you steal a bunch of ID cards or go physically vote after digitally voting.

t. PhD in database design, structure and development.

>>136158339
In the UK you only have to provide name and address before voting. Then people wonder why London always struggles to give legitimate votes.

File: 1501688653997.gif (972KB, 246x231px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 246x231px

>>136158534

Right, and it's not like anyone would ever trick a system like that with SQL-injections or whatever else, right?

Better yet, on the back-end of the system simply set the incremental value to 1.2 for the party you want to win (if it's pretty close) and 1.0 for the one you want to lose. Then simply round off the numbers.

The person who votes will be none the wiser, as the vote count naturally increases during the election in any case. It's not like you can be certain that only X amount of people voted, even with a flag on their SSN.

There's a reason why we still have physical vote booths. It's much more difficult to count the votes wrong if there are multiple sources instead of a centralized one.

>>136158597
I feel for you, Nigel. I really do.

>>136158534
addressing these issues is the key to stopping communism from taking hold. The fact that the voting process is not standardized this way only shows that it really is a one party system, chosen by the elites. Until we crack down on this there is no hope, I just don't know what can be done. We need to start working on this now, Trump has not yet addressed this but need to. Everyone knows the democrats could barely win California if the votes were legit,

>>136152870
Reminder to never accept online voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

>>136158973
Don't worry too much. The muslims congregate in cities and have a 0.6 fertility rate in the third generation. A century after we stop importing them they will almost all be gone. We don't take 'refugees' either.
Labour isn't popular enough to get into government without a pseudo-conservative reformer.

It's France and Germany that our prayers need to be with.

>>136158534
That's a very academic approach.
However, two months later, someone asks you to prove that all these votes cast are indeed cast they way you claim they are cast.

How do you do this? You cannot. You also assume that the US has digital signatures implemented on a uniform federal level.

Also, how do we prove that the code that's running is the exact same as the code that you're building?

Remember Thompson's paper?
https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html
This one?

It's just not possible to do this securely using computers. It is possible to do this securely using grandmas. Grandmas are cheap. Computer programmers are not.

File: 1495739242156.jpg (126KB, 604x516px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 604x516px

>>136158973
>SQL-injections
If the government can't make a system that's scriptkiddie-proof, how come banks can? Integral values can't be incremented by non-natural values. You sound like someone who doesn't know a lot about how website back-ends work.

>>136153474
Millenials too lazy to vote otherwise

>>136159851
The difference is, Banks don't want anyone to be tampering with their online banking sites. Governments want votes to be hacked, but only by the "right people".

>>136152870
It's literally impossible since everything has backdoors, especially the mainstream programs. The common citizen is using Windows 10 with Internet Explorer/Chrome. Microsoft and Google can do whatever they want, and will. It's not an issue of "hackers" getting ahold of people's information online in this situation, it's the companies themselves fixing things, and guess which party they'll lean towards?

>>136159851
>If the government can't make a system that's scriptkiddie-proof, how come banks can?

Because banks are monetarily incentivized to do so whereas the average government employee doesn't give a fuck what happens.

>>136160279
Shit, doesn't some hardware have backdoors? I think Intels stuff does.

>>136159851
SQL injections was just an example of a possible vulnerability.

Consider that the database has to run on a computer. How do you PROVE that it hasn't been tampered with in any way? Remember that Hillary's Honest Voting Corporation owns the server, and has it in their Secure Closet.

There's just no way to establish the chain of trust necessary. It's hard for people to even understand the proofs. And even if you could make the system 100% secure, it would still be more expensive than paper ballots. And no more secure.

>>136160649
The paper I posted here >>136159793 shows that you can't even be sure that the compilers doesn't have backdoors.

>>136153474
I want to reduce democracy, as should all of you. Democracy = tyranny of dumb, poor, ineffectual people. And it's worse every year as the demographics shift further towards this orwellian socialist favela hellhole.

File: 1499787475011.jpg (28KB, 362x467px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 362x467px

That's just it - we don't.

Vote in person, or not at all.

>>136161208
it gives voting power to those people but they aren't the ones truly benefiting from it-- they're just dumb pawns in the hands of the media elites

somehow every time you try to crack down on dumb people voting it never actually makes things better, it just makes it so that normal (but kind of dumb) people have no voice compared to weird and creepy (but smart) nerds

>>136152870
No online voting! No early voting. No absentee voting (save for deployed military). None of it. You get your ass up off the fucking couch, go to your polling place, which you can probably walk to, you take a ballot and a pen and vote. Fuck. If you can't be bothered to physically go one place on a specified day each year, you don't deserve to vote and you don't deserve freedom at all. Fuck you.

>>136161940
Like when? When white males who own land voted, there was little or no debt, no bullshit. Then poor men could vote, then nigger men, then women, and then tens of millions of shitskins. Anything incrementally towards white male landowners = less government.

>>136152870
Nothing online is secure. Ecommerce only works because the vast majority of us don't have enough stuff to make us targets.

Voting is a huge fucking target.

Hacking guaranteed.

>>136161940
Need to add

All western countries with 90% voter turnout are communist hellholes. If voting were compulsory and done online, every millenial would vote and we would be a Bernie/Trudeau/Brussels country within two terms, guaran-fuckin-teed.

>>136152870
Better question: How do we exploit this to put white nationalists into office?