Scientists question electronic voting

[Ed Gerck]

David Howe wrote:

> at Thursday, March 06, 2003 5:02 PM, Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com> was seen
> to say:
> > On the other hand, photographing a paper receipt behind a glass, which
> > receipt is printed after your vote choices are final, is not readily
> > deniable because that receipt is printed only after you confirm your
> > choices.
> as has been pointed out repeatedly - either you have some way to "bin"
> the receipt and start over, or it is worthless (and merely confirms you
> made a bad vote without giving you any opportunity to correct it)
> That given, you could vote once for each party, take your photograph,
> void the vote (and receipt) for each one, and then vote the way you
> originally intended to :)

No, as I commented before, voiding the vote in that proposal after the paper
receipt is printed is a serious matter -- it means that either the machine made
an error in recording the e-vote or (as it is oftentimes neglected) the machine
made an error in printing the vote. The voter's final choice and legally binding
confirmation is made before the printing. And that is where the problems
reside (the problems that we were trying to solve in the first place), in that
printed ballot. Plus the problem of the voter being able to photograph
that final receipt and present it as direct proof of voting, as the voter
leaves the poll place (with no chance for image processing) or by
an immediate link by cell phone (ditto).

Cheers,
Ed Gerck


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com