E-Voting Isn't Perfect, But It Takes Less Work to Corrupt Big Elections
from the O(1) dept
Thad Hall, a political scientist at Caltech, complains that e-voting critics rarely make apples-to-apples comparisons between electronic and paper voting systems. They contend that if traditional paper voting systems were subjected to the same kind of close scrutiny that e-voting endures, security experts would find flaws—ballot tampering, ballot box stuffing, and so forth—at least as serious as the problems commonly identified in touch-screen voting machines. Rice computer scientist Dan Wallach responds by pointing to a new paper he's written proposing an elegant way to think about the security of voting systems. Computer scientists use "big-O" notation to describe the complexity of algorithms. He suggests a similar terminology to describe the effort required to compromise voting systems as a function of the size of the election. A security flaw that can be compromised with an effort proportional to the number of voters N is said to be a O(N) flaw. A flaw that can be exploited with an effort proportional to the number of polling places is an O(P) flaw. A flaw that can be exploited with a constant amount of effort, regardless of the number of voters, is an O(1) flaw.
The last kind of attack is the most dangerous because it's feasible for a small number of people—perhaps even a single individual—to do a lot of damage. The reason paper-based elections tend to be better than touch-screen elections isn't that the former don't have flaws. The difference is that attacks against paper-based voting systems are far more likely to be O(N) or O(P)—that is, you have to tamper with a lot of ballots or corrupt a lot of poll workers. In contrast, because they contain re-programmable computers at their hearts, touch-screen voting systems are far more susceptible to O(1) attacks such as a custom-developed virus or a corrupt employee at the e-voting vendor. Because they allow a single individual to do extensive damage, they're much more dangerous than other kinds of attacks, even if carrying them out takes relatively more skill or effort than other attacks with O(P) or O(N) cost. The reason to prefer paper-based voting to touch-screen voting isn't that paper voting is flawless, but that the attacks against them are labor-intensive enough that it's difficult to carry out large-scale attacks without getting caught.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: corruption, damages, dan wallach, e-voting, mistakes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Or just plain incompetence on the vendor's part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overkill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Already in use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memorandum from the Chicago political machine (1960)
How to steal an election
Vote early and vote often
Our election get-out-the-vote effort was pioneered by Mayor Richard Daley in 1960 when he stole the election from Richard Nixon.
1. Cemetery Voters: Read the obituaries every day. One must keep track of everyone who dies, so that they can be registered in the appropriate cemetery precinct. We have voters in the Mt. Olive Cemetery who have been voting for 100 years. Relatives will often assist as keeping the dead voter on the rolls also keeps the Social Security checks coming in. If you know of someone who used to live in Chicago and who died, they are still eligible to vote.
2. Homeless Voters: Register the homeless at the Cook County Courthouse instead of General Delivery. All they have to do is hang out at the courthouse one day a year to claim residency. Then round them up and give them free cigarettes to vote. We used to give them bottles of wine, but they couldn't remember to vote our way.
3. Nursing Home Voters: Early (or absentee) voting has greatly expanded our capabilities of increasing the turnout. Take bags full of early ballots to nursing homes, and get everyone in the home to vote...especially the Alzheimer's cases.
4. College Students: College kids like to screw the system, and they'll vote more than once just for the sheer pleasure of it, especially kids at Catholic universities.
5. Voters Who Have Moved: Voters who have moved often can vote in the precinct where they used to live, and then in their new precinct. They will not be on the rolls in the new precinct, so they'll vote a "Provisional Ballot." Not to worry. When the ballot is questioned after the election, we will have our political hacks permit the votes to be counted.
6. Voters Passing Through O'Hare: Many votes can be obtained by soliciting voter registration at our airports. They are legally residents of Chicago, at least for a few minutes.
7. Motor Voters: Take license plate numbers of out-of-state cars passing through on the freeways, run them through DMV to get their addresses, and automatically register them in Chicago. Then vote them. They won't know, since they actually live in Wyoming.
8. Illegal Aliens: Some of our most reliable voters are the thousands of illegal aliens we have in the city. In exchange for not telling INS where they live or work, one can get a solid block of votes.
9. Newborns: Our children are more and more precocious, so we register them at birth. Maternity wards are some of our best precincts.
10. Recount The Votes: In the unlikely event our candidates don't win the first count, then demand a recount. Fill the recount room with loyal supporters, and tow away the cars belonging to the enemy. If you can't win a recount, then you are not a Chicago Democrat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Diebold/Premiers 'Accidental' O(1) flaw...
Sounds to me like they were basically forced to go public after Ohio election officials managed to get enough data to out them. Bear in mind that this is the same company which has persistently refused to hand over code, assist investigations etc even when presented with court orders in some cases
Seems the conspiracy theorists were right about votes going missing after all... kinda makes me wonder if they were right about some of the other voting irregularities?
eVoting - giving you the leaders you deserve since 2000
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bring back Ye-Olde mechanicial voting booth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It would only be a flaw if it was dropping votes that were *not* intended to be dropped - in otherwords.
But what if they get paid to drop votes? After all, it's more profit - in the best interest of their stockholders (politicians) of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And yes, they need to - they keep pushing it and they'll bring back the "Ye-Olde Revolution"
hehe
Sorry NWO types, you'll just have to work hard to fix the elections, when I vote this year, I will outright REFUSE to vote on a Diebold machine, even if I gotta' make a scene about it ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Purchased Election Solutions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1) Loss of ballot in the mail. Either way. There have been several times when I simply haven't gotten a ballot, but my wife has at the same address. No idea if it got back to them.
2) Homeless have a right to vote as well. Don't have an Oregon address? Sorry. You don't get a vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]