Re: Vote verification --- a futile exercise?
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:33, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 01:58:36PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > (Whether
> > it's practically possible is another matter; it's been a while since
> > I've real _Applied Cryptography_.)
>
> i've never read it. perhaps i should put that on my to-read list.
It's one of the classics of programming wisdom. I believe all
programmers should read it, if only to absorb a little of Bruce
Schneier's intellectual vigor.
> so how can we facilitate 5, while keeping 8 true?
I'd have to look it up to be sure, and my copy is at home. The goal is
to prove fact A to person B in such a way that the proof can't be
replayed to person C. There actually is a cryptographic protocol that
can pull this off.
> in a paper puch ballot, at least in my voting district, you get a little
> receipt with a number, that number matches the number on the ballot
> itself. the only way to prove how i voted is to match my little recepit
> with the paper ballot locked away somewhere (yes, for those interested,
> i ensured i had no hanging or swinging chads ;). of course, i could not
> prove to my own satisfaction that my vote was actually counted :(
With a paper system, there's no ironclad way to verify these things;
that's why we have election monitors, locked ballot boxes, and
disputes. Digital voting solves some of those problems, but opens up
others. If cryptographers can ever solve those new problems, digital
voting will rock.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: