In more Securing Democracy at #enigma2021, @ChrFolini talking about "THE ADVENTUROUS TALE OF ONLINE VOTING IN

Switzerland is a direct democracy where citizens get to vote at least 4x/year, with a lot of mail-in voting. We have a long history of online voting.

Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT SWEDEN.

[I get the picture that @ChrFolini has had to explain the difference several times.]
Process around mail-in ballots.

[tl;dr it's very complicated and wasn't threat-modeled until recently]
But the in-person ballots are complicated, too!
Most security folks don't think that we can't make a secure online voting system.

@ChrFolini says this is because of encryption
[Note: this is not the main reason that a lot of people cite -- we're more worried about things like malware but it's complicated]
There are reasons to want online voting:
* Citizens living abroad
* Visually impaired and quadriplegic voters need to have assistants that they trust
* Many invalid ballots (even <10%!)
* Physical voting has security problems, too
Like the states of the US, there are cantons in Switzerland, federalized system. The cantons have almost complete control over the elections *except* that the federal system has exclusive control over the security of online voting.
Several cantons have been experimenting, with Geneva being the first, followed by a group of eight cantons.
In 2017 the federal chancellor calls for 2/3 of the cantons to offer internet voting for national elections in 2019. There were not many CS people represented and they declared internet voting "solved".

That was a wakeup for people on internet voting.
Geneva pulled funding after political quarrels... which paved the way for SwissPost.

In 2019 they posted the source code before the election. It didn't take long for several fundamental security flaws to be found.

[ I can't type this fast and find everyone's names sorry]
In the wake of that failure everyone figured out that internet voting was not, in fact, solved. At all.

So they brought in a bunch of experts.
What happens if you get together a bunch of experts? A scientific report!
[If someone has a link, please reply with it]

@ChrFolini was brought in to moderate the workshops... then the pandemic hit. Lots of debate on cryptography, software development, etc.
After all that debate and new work, there is a new report [anyone have a link? @ChrFolini?] in line with the recommendations of the scientists. But we'll need to keep tweaking as tech changes.
Key recommendations:
* Strict hierarchy of recommendations, starting with a verifier model which can be reasoned about, then moving to pseudocode then code. Use formal models.
* Diversity of hard- and soft-ware to resist attacks. It's more expensive, but there are security benefits.

[Boy howdy this is going to be controversial one, depending on how this is set up -- checks of different versions against each other?]
* Maximum level of transparency, especially in development

* Voting security beyond internet voting
Summary:
* Switzerland is a useful testbed for online voting
* Iterative process with strict supervision on federal level
* Expert dialogue with recommendations in 2020
@ChrFolini sees online voting as something which may or may not be securable but it's a political question whether it's introduced... so we'd better work on it.

[paraphrased]
Giving my hands a break, so end of talk as the questions are coming thick and fast (not at all shocking!)

More from Lea Kissner

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW