[I'm letting this through because of all the work people have done on
cryptographic voting protocols. As a person who's actually served as a
poll watcher and who understands how voting fraud is conducted and
prevented in the current system, I must say that "Internet Voting"
terrifies me. People involved in these efforts appear to be wholly
ignorant of what the nature of the risks involved are and how the
current system prevents them. However, that is probably better
explained in another message. --Perry]

Clearly, these guys never heard of David Chaum.

OTOH, the alien remark, given Chaum's fans, is quite appropriate. ;-).

Cheers,
RAH

--- begin forwarded text


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:58:30 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IP: Study Warns of Risks in Internet Voting
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Source:  New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/cyber/articles/14vote.html

August 14, 1999

Study Warns of Risks in Internet Voting

By REBECCA FAIRLEY RANEY

With the warning that "the polling place is about to be abducted by
aliens," an election watchdog group this week released a study
cautioning policy-makers against blindly backing Internet voting
without carefully assessing the potential for fraud.

The 30-page study by the Voting Integrity
Project, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that tracks
voter fraud cases, is one of the first signs of the
backlash that will inevitably greet the increasingly
popular concept of Internet-based voting. It was
presented to the American Legislative Exchange
Council, a state legislators' group, which was
assembled in Atlanta.

Deborah Phillips, president of the group,
predicted a fever among state legislators to
embrace the attractive voting technology in
coming years.

"All it would take would be for one of those states to decide to do this, and
there will be a rush," she said.

The Voting Integrity Project was formed in 1996 in response to the
National Voter Rights Act, which allowed voters to mail in voter
registration forms. The group trains poll-watchers and has filed lawsuits in
Oregon, Texas and Tennessee challenging mail-in voting programs and
questioning the legality of voting before Election Day.

Phillips's chief concern about voters casting ballots away from the polls is
that outsiders have more opportunity to coerce votes without being
observed.

"As VIP advocates," she wrote in her report, "the role of the citizen poll
watcher is essential to voting integrity. But now, the polling place is about
to be 'abducted by aliens.' Comic images aside, truly independent oversight
of elections becomes problematic at best when elections move into
cyberspace."

The study presented other troubling scenarios for Internet voting systems.

One of the biggest problems with Internet usage -- system crashes caused
by overload -- could be the greatest enemy of large-scale elections online,
the report said.

"What would be voter response if there is delay or difficulty accessing their
Internet election site?" Phillips wrote in the report. "Would they try again?
Once? Twice? If unsuccessful would they then venture to their local
polling place?"

Other issues raised by the report centered on the problems of system
security and user privacy.

She cited a recent hacking of the Web site for the United States Senate,
which diverted visitors to a parody site. With such diversion tactics, the
report said, "the frightening thing is that voters would not necessarily be
aware their votes were not being legitimately cast. Once diverted to such a
counterfeit site, their voting transaction could be captured and used to log
votes for the thieves' candidates of choice on the real election site, quite
possibly without detection."

  Another concern was the potential use
  of Internet user information collected
  online to manipulate elections. "For
  example," the report said, "if all
  Internet users in a particular voting
  jurisdiction who had frequented
  anti-tax Web sites could be
  electronically prevented from having
  their votes counted in an election on a
  new tax referendum, or diverted to a
bogus election site, which would not count their votes, it could
illegitimately
allow that referendum to pass."

Phillips, former chairwoman of the Republican Party of Arlington County,
Va., drew on a variety of experts to help with the report: Lorrie Faith
Cranor, a research scientist with AT&T Labs; John Seibel, president of
TrueBallot Inc., which makes election systems for unions and associations,
and Hans Von Spakovsky, an election commissioner in Fulton County, Ga.

Cranor, who has studied both the technical and policy considerations of
Internet voting for AT&T Labs, described a breathless atmosphere among
policy-makers.

"There's a sense of state pride, that 'we could be the first to do this,'"
Cranor said in a phone interview on Friday. "I think states should not do
this just because it would bring glory to their state. Doing it for glory
or just
for the sake of doing it is not really what they should be doing."

A few state legislatures have begun to address Internet voting. Bills to
initiate studies of the concept were introduced this year in the Minnesota
and Washington legislatures. In March, California's Secretary of State, Bill
Jones, convened a task force to study the issue and make
recommendations to the Legislature later this year. Florida election officials
had planned to test online voting systems this fall, but the project was
delayed indefinitely because of voter fraud in that state.

On the Federal level, the Pentagon is sponsoring a pilot program through
the Federal Voting Assistance Program to allow overseas residents of five
states -- Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and Utah -- both military
and civilian, to vote via the Internet in 2000.

So far in debates of Internet voting, proponents have been the most visible.

Jim Adler, president of Votehere.net, a company that makes Internet
voting systems, stressed that the technology is ready to detect and deter
hacker attacks.

"We don't agree entirely with the report," he said. "But bringing up the
issue with security is important. We believe the bar has to be held high.
We believe the problems are solvable."

Some of those who have been haggling with the issue of Internet voting
welcome the new voice in the debate. Kim Alexander, a member of the
California Internet Voting Task Force, praised the Voting Integrity Project
for raising new issues.

Alexander, who has long been involved in California politics as president of
the nonprofit California Voter Association, started out on the state task
force favoring Internet voting but after discussion, has come to oppose it.
The task force is expected to release its own report on the issue later this
year.

Alexander said she was concerned about the potential for employers to
coerce employees who vote online in the workplace.

"If you think about Internet voting for five minutes, you think, 'Why not?' "
she said. "If you think about it for a couple of hours, you can think of a lot
of reasons why not."

  Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company


**********************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the message:
      (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
**********************************************
<www.telepath.com/believer>
**********************************************

--- end forwarded text


-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Reply via email to