News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Darpa wants help cracking the election security problem. Parent comment

Re:Darpa wants help cracking the election security problem by jakeogh on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @05:25AM (#20623612)
Nope. You never can audit most of it. Especially the hardware and firmware at vote time.

And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:), it's still a (really) bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Darpa wants help cracking the election security problem by darawk on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @05:35AM (#20623670)
> And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:)

If individuals can audit their own votes, the hardware cannot lie.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Darpa wants help cracking the election security problem by jakeogh on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @05:38AM (#20623694)
You then have a trivially broken voting system.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Darpa wants help cracking the election security problem by darawk on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @01:54PM (#20627670)
I know why you think that is so. But I have already explained elsewhere in this thread why you're wrong. So why don't you look into it a little for yourself.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Darpa wants help cracking the election security problem by jakeogh on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @02:49AM (#20632475)
Nothing you wrote negates the requirement of incoercibility. In all instances, the check can lie to you OR the vote system is broken.

Electronic (aka proxy) voting is a requirement on the checklist to skip physical presense.

[ Parent | on HN ]