News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus. Parent comment

Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus by Lukineus on Monday April 18, 2022 @10:52PM (#31079345)
The issue is verification - how do you verify the elctronic count was accurate? And if you're going to manually count it to verify the electronic count, then why have the electronic count in the first place?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus by uoaei on Monday April 18, 2022 @11:13PM (#31079443)
A small, statistically representative sample of the paper ballots are counted by hand and compared against the electronic count. If discrepancy arises, a more thorough audit is performed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus by bogomipz on Tuesday April 19, 2022 @12:23AM (#31079743)
Interesting, makes sense. Is this actually the recommended resolution process by the vendors as well or is this something that needs to be approved and adopted by each voting precinct?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus by germinalphrase on Monday April 18, 2022 @11:09PM (#31079426)
Because the results can be statistically verified with sampling rather than a full manual recount?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus by Cthulhu_ on Tuesday April 19, 2022 @05:32AM (#31081141)
Spot checks are good enough in such a case; if you manually count 1% of the votes and the margin of error is negligible, the electronic count is sound. If there's too many errors / differences, stop using the electronic counting and just count by hand.

I mean it's not exactly rocket science.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus by PeterisP on Monday April 18, 2022 @11:56PM (#31079629)
Do a manual count for a random sample plus all tight races and in case of any suspicions or challenges.
[ Parent | on HN ]