West Virginia Poised To Allow Smartphone Voting For Disabled Voters (arstechnica.com) 47
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: West Virginia's legislature last week passed legislation allowing disabled voters to cast votes by smartphone, sending the bill to the desk of Governor Jim Justice. Justice is expected to sign the legislation, according to NBC. It's a decision that alarms many computer security experts, who say that the Internet and smartphones are too vulnerable to hackers.
The legislation would require every county in the state to offer smartphone voting. It doesn't specify any particular voting method, but the state has recently been experimenting with software called Voatz that tries to use a blockchain to help secure elections. West Virginia performed a small-scale pilot project with Voatz in the 2018 election, allowing about 150 overseas voters to vote using the technology. A fundamental problem with online voting, experts say, is that modern computing devices have a huge "attack surface." Even if the voting app itself is completely secure, there might still be vulnerabilities in the user's operating system, network, or the servers used to register users and collect votes. And to swing an election, a hacker doesn't need to change anyone's votes -- just preventing some of a candidate's voters from voting can be sufficient to swing a close election. But West Virginia officials have pressed forward, arguing that it's too difficult for some disabled voters to get to a physical polling place to cast votes. Washington is also considering smartphone voting. The King Conservation District, a district of 1.2 million voters encompassing Greater Seattle, may have the option to cast votes online using a smartphone.
The legislation would require every county in the state to offer smartphone voting. It doesn't specify any particular voting method, but the state has recently been experimenting with software called Voatz that tries to use a blockchain to help secure elections. West Virginia performed a small-scale pilot project with Voatz in the 2018 election, allowing about 150 overseas voters to vote using the technology. A fundamental problem with online voting, experts say, is that modern computing devices have a huge "attack surface." Even if the voting app itself is completely secure, there might still be vulnerabilities in the user's operating system, network, or the servers used to register users and collect votes. And to swing an election, a hacker doesn't need to change anyone's votes -- just preventing some of a candidate's voters from voting can be sufficient to swing a close election. But West Virginia officials have pressed forward, arguing that it's too difficult for some disabled voters to get to a physical polling place to cast votes. Washington is also considering smartphone voting. The King Conservation District, a district of 1.2 million voters encompassing Greater Seattle, may have the option to cast votes online using a smartphone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure members of both parties cheat in roughly the same proportion. Independents, now there's the real slimebags ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
No, instead of having Putin hack the precinct reporting, China can hack the app voting.
People who interact will a poll worker will just be given the wrong app.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You have a choice. Either accept some small amount of fraud is inevitable or prevent a large number of eligible people from voting.
The latter also tends to favour the republicans because it's almost always democrat voters who end up disenfranchised.
Take your pick.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, you're right. But one frustrating thing about our politicians, our voting systems, and the people who oversee elections and voting in our country is that most of them are amateurs who don't understand issues like how to ensure that technology is trustworthy, secure, and dependable. We've been staggering along for *years* with un-auditable electronic-only voting machines despite the fact that competent people have been telling us that we need electronic machines that produce physical paper ballots th
Re: (Score:2)
We've been staggering along for *years* with un-auditable electronic-only voting machines despite the fact that competent people have been telling us that we need electronic machines that produce physical paper ballots that can be verified by voters and counted by officials.
And the machines have been hacked by these people as proof of their concerns. It's almost Internet of Things easy.
The problem of course, is who's funding the machines. As well, it's always interesting to see who howls the loudest when the machines are criticised.
And we're supposed to trust some rando state government bureaucrats from West Virginia to get smartphone voting right?
I've always thought that what is needed is some cynical, technical assholes that measure their worth by their success in impl
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds great. This, now, in the aftermath of the Iowa Democrats' caucus app blowing up in their faces during the few short hours on the one day of the year that it actually needed to work. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Who has time for load testing? /s
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds great. This, now, in the aftermath of the Iowa Democrats' caucus app blowing up in their faces during the few short hours on the one day of the year that it actually needed to work. Who are these people who developed this app? Radical incompetents, apparently.
I don't know about radical, but in this matter, incompetent. An application needs to be pretty nuclear hardened. Plus we live in a world where people freak out over the horrrid inconvenience of dual authentication - bloody hell, they want it with complete anonymity.
So right away, it's dead in the water. Conflicting demands.
First it would need to be encrypted end to end of course.
It would have to be non-anonymous, with the voter verifying their vote. There would have to be secret parts, and triple au
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mean radical as in political radical. I meant "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough". As in they were far-reachingly, thoroughly incompetent.
But, yeah, I have a hard time envisioning how this is supposed to work any more simply than what you've described. I'm sure if you got enough smart people in a room, they could come up with a better process, but the people in the room in West Virginia are not those people.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it was people from Hillary Clinton's campaign, you know the guys who thought putting a server in the bathroom was a good idea.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Secure the elections and require verifiable ID to vote.
Ban all electronic voting.
You wouldn't want FoReIgN iNtErFeReNcE to meddle in the elections, would you?
Disenfranchised? If you're not actively bitching about the fact that you need an ID to buy a gun or drink some booze or board a plane or drive on the road or enter the country etc., you can't really bitch about needing an ID to vote.
People who care about voting can get their damned shit sorted like the rest of the world. We already give people time off to vote. Worst case? Someone files a provisional ballot and gets their shit together in that allotted time, and their vote is ultimately counted.
Re: (Score:2)
"We" who? How do I get this time off to vote?
If you're not actively bitching about the fact that you need an ID to buy a gun or drink some booze or board a plane or drive on the road or enter the country etc., you can't really bitch about needing an ID to vote.
I can and I will. Voting is supposed to be open to EVERY CITIZEN, regardless of whether they shoot things or drink alcohol or drive a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Voter ID in no way denies any citizen the ability to vote. It does, however, make sure that only citizens are voting, and only voting once.
Re: (Score:2)
It sure does unless the ID is free for voting purposes. It also does if the person can't get to the location where IDs are.
Which is solving a problem that doesn't exist. In-person voter fraud isn't where the fraud is occurring. It is occurring in absentee ballots and in the electronic systems that are tabulating votes. And again, the requirements for proving "citizenship
Re: So... (Score:2)
tends to favour the republicans because it's almost always democrat voters who end up disenfranchised
Bullshit. Red States Gerrymander to favor the GoP, Blue States Gerrymander to favor the DNC, and "swing" States flip their Gerrymandering around every few years. In all States, the Poor, Uneducated, and Elderly are disenfranchised at an equal rate regardless of Party Affiliation.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as there are fewer Democrat votes as the result of any process change, I'm for it. After all, that's the only reasoning anyone ever seems to use about these issues. No one is actually talking about whether Voter ID make sense, they only every argue from "more voters my side" or "less voters my side", and fraud just keeps increasing.
But, hey, with smartphone voting we can cut out the middle man and go directly to just making up a number of votes. Technology, always making things more efficient. N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially more detectable though.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the act would struggle against the law that requires voting to be anonymous, obviously the connected smart phone during the vote, means it is no longer anonymous as required by law. You identify yourself to enter a voting booth but you do not identify yourself when actually voting. Second of course they are required to identify you, when you vote and not your phone, inherently anyone who can get a hold of your phone can vote for you. This enables corrupt entities to buy votes, come to our office and vote the way we want you to vote and they will watch and get paid. Postal ballots also suffer a similar problem, really in truth, for disabled people, they government should provide transport to a place to vote or provide one at the locale.
Phone voting is extremely dangerous for the electorate and puts them under extreme threat of coerced voting, someone else can watch them vote to make sure they vote the way they are told to vote. To be an anonymous vote it must be witnessed as an anonymous vote, appointed electoral officers ensure the voter enters the booth alone, makes their vote and then drops that ballot into the ballot box with what ever markings the voter choose.
Phone voting should be banned for all those reason and most importantly of all, the threat of coercion of the electorate to force them to vote the way some corrupt authoritarian tells them to. Clearly they know this, hence claiming we are doing it for the disabled, a lie, they are doing it to facilitate corruption and nothing else ( specifically employers being able to watch employees vote at the workplace because seppo scummy cunts vote on work days to try to deny as many workers the vote as possible and could you imagine phone voting at the workplace, you vote right in front of you boss, how the fuck you gonna vote except for the person they tell you to).
Re: (Score:1)
That's OK
Look at Iowa - the DNC can't count DerGroppenFurer will win.
Disingenous argument, blaming disabled voters (Score:5, Insightful)
But West Virginia officials have pressed forward, arguing that it's too difficult for some disabled voters to get to a physical polling place to cast votes.
Umm...because absentee ballots aren't a thing? This argument is pure BS.
Re:Disingenuous argument, blaming disabled voters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TFW you screw up the spelling in your subject...
Indeed, and they're very anal about spelling, and schooling, and science in West Virginia.
Mentally disabled? (Score:1)
Does that include mentally disabled? Actually, I thought the use of the term "disabled" went out like 10 years ago. The headline strikes me as being offensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Does that include mentally disabled?
I'm afraid not. You and I and the coal miners who think their jobs are coming back would still have to show up to vote in person.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. All those classes in coal mining were for nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you personally offended, or is the problem that you worry that others might be offended?
The article [wikipedia.org], "List of disability-related terms with negative connotations" propounds that "There is a great deal of disagreement as to what should be considered offensive. Views vary with geography and culture, over time, and among individuals. Many terms that some people view as offensive are not viewed as offensive by others, and even where some people are offended by certain terms, others may be offended by the re
Re: (Score:1)
I'm personally offended. I also worry it might offend others. I'm pretty sure the proper term is "differently abled", not "disabled". We might need to cancel this website. #cancelculture
Re: (Score:2)
George Carlin had a few things to say [youtube.com] about "soft language".
"Differently abled" is not a "proper term"; it's gobbledegook designed to allow people to hide from the truth. Frankly, as a mildly disabled person myself, I find it offensive --I don't need or want padding installed on the sharp corners of language to make me feel better about myself. Fortunately, I don't have an inherent right to not be offended, and neither do you.
Excellent! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, half the people who vote every year in WVa are dead - after all, if the state knew they were dead, the disability checks would stop coming, and that's WVa's economic engine!
Great idea! (Score:3)
I, as a non-US citizen but someone with a deep security background, am very interested in US politics and always wanted to have a say who gets elected there!
Most disabled people per capita in the US (Score:3)
It's going to happen, might as well figure out how (Score:2)
Young people will not queue in lines to vote when they can do their groceries or find a date in a mobile app. As for security, an average person would be more upset if hackers steal their dick/boob pic than their vote. So we anyway need very strong security and legal protection for digital data for people to live their daily lives in peace.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not going to happen in any liberal society, for the same reason why voting happens in controlled environment where voter is not allowed to have any trace of their vote.
Vote buying and voter coercion. Both require for the buyer/coercer to have access to the voter at the moment of the vote. Voting booths prevent it.
Smartphones do not.
Illiberal societies on the other hand will most certainly incorporate this feature ASAP, as it makes pressuring voters to vote in a certain way significantly easier.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this the biggest problem? It takes only one whistleblower to send a vote buyer/coercer to a long prison term, maybe by recording them on the same smartphone. On the other hand, voting access and intentional suppression is a huge real life problem that is infeasible to resolve through law enforcement. County can't be expected to spend unlimited funds for physical polling places in sparse rural areas. E-voting insures everyone has access and there is no way to intimidate people into not voting. Liberal
Re: (Score:2)
>It takes only one whistleblower to send a vote buyer/coercer to a long prison term
Oh? So we also surrender presumption of innocence and just send people to prison based on just an accusation?
As for "recording people on phones", have you ever seen how Chinese handle that for things like getting driving licence? It's hilarious. Cheating the digital systems is one of the easiest things in the world for motivated people. On industrial level no less, there are literally organisations in China specifically de
Comment removed (Score:3)
Please then allow vote changing... (Score:2)
...because if someone's going to buy my vote, I can change it afterwards. This nullifies that tactic.
Obviously one should not be able to change one's vote after voting close.
Secret Ballot (Score:2)
The biggest problem with online voting (& voting by mail etc) is that it's not a secret ballot.
Let's say someone is paying you to vote for Party X or is threatening you to vote for Party X, if you vote at the booth, he will never know who you actually voted for.
OTOH, if you vote online (or by mail), he can stand over your shoulder & make sure who you voted for.
Secret ballot (Score:2)
Suddenly (Score:3)
Justice? (Score:2)
Terrible idea... (Score:2)
Online and mobile voting is a terrible idea, because it's vastly less secure than in-person voting.
When all ballots are cast in person in polling stations, there are poll workers and other voters present, so anyone acting suspicious can be seen and stopped, so the number of attackers is limited by physical location and the duration of the attack is limited by observers. As a result, there are vanishingly few cases of in-person voting fraud, just some misunderstandings, such as the woman arrested because she