[Cryptography] "we need to protect [our dox] by at least encrypting them"

Bill Frantz frantz at pwpconsult.com
Fri Nov 11 00:31:52 EST 2016

On 11/10/16 at 8:42 PM, mitch at niftyegg.com (Tom Mitchell) wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz at pwpconsult.com> wrote:
>>[Reordered as there are two topics.]
>>> As for voting systems, where I live we have paper ballots that are
>>> optically scanned.
>>We use a similar system to the one Arnold uses here in Santa Clara County,
>>California. Assuming a small percentage of the precincts are randomly
>>selected for audit after the votes have been counted, it should be quite
>>There is an organization working to make sure our voting systems can be
>>audited, <https://www.verifiedvoting.org/>. People interested in this
>>area should know about them.
>On the risk side most audit systems and electronic voting systems risk loss
>of privacy.
>Loss of privacy is troubling in in this big data world.  Ponder the
>retribution some
>might have on both sides of this most recent election...  Family, work,
>and more...
>Cost is a big driver for some of these systems.. immediacy is another.

I think that risk is fairly low. Unless the ballots are dusted 
for fingerprints, I don't see a way to connect the ballot paper 
with the voter. But, with the ballot paper, an audit can show 
that the electronic scanning read and recorded the ballot correctly.

What am I missing?

Cheers - Bill

Bill Frantz        |Security, like correctness, is| Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      |not an add-on feature. - Attr-| 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com |ibuted to Andrew Tanenbaum    | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032

More information about the cryptography mailing list