They will likely revamp the process. The problem is, once the ballot is counted, the vote is separated from the voter, so there’s no link to who the person was and who they voted for.
It’s a process meant for privacy. That someone was able to accurately forge signatures enough to pass verification (which is handled by trained humans) is a bit on the “this was creepy/planned” side, which is likely how the outlier event happened.
America isn’t there yet, but cryptographic hashes anonymizing but connecting a vote to a voter, so the vote could be anonymously recalled for an attack like this would likely be the best privacy-preserving process.
Millennials, zoomers and even gen alpha likely won’t be much different. There’s a difference between understanding how to use technology and understanding the intricacies of technology, understanding how to regulate or use different functions of it. The majority of boomers know how to use a modern phone. They don’t know how to properly take care of the phone nor do they understand how it functions, but they know how to use it. A lot of younger people aren’t much different.
That’s true, but where boomers are pig headed about it because they don’t want to have admit younger people know more than them, I think millennials and zoomers would be much more willing to accept expert advice
Idk about that majority of boomers know how to use a modern phone. Make calls, text, play candy crush, and go on Facebook, sure but that’s hardly knowing how to use it beyond surface level.
Can identify one way, from voter to vote. If a voter for some valid reason has to re-vote, the hash-id could be used to only count the person’s vote with the last timestamp.
What would you hash, though? The name? The SSN? These are all know plaintexts…
If you want to de-anonymise a vote with any of these you just make a rainbow table of all voters.
Do you add salt? But now salt becomes a secret… how does the secret is picked? Someone centrally? Back to rainbow table. Everyone picks one? Then the voters has to write the hash… at that point there is no benefit with an unique id that is not really anonymous
They will likely revamp the process. The problem is, once the ballot is counted, the vote is separated from the voter, so there’s no link to who the person was and who they voted for.
It’s a process meant for privacy. That someone was able to accurately forge signatures enough to pass verification (which is handled by trained humans) is a bit on the “this was creepy/planned” side, which is likely how the outlier event happened.
America isn’t there yet, but cryptographic hashes anonymizing but connecting a vote to a voter, so the vote could be anonymously recalled for an attack like this would likely be the best privacy-preserving process.
99% of Congress is too old to understand a word you just said… Someday it’ll all be zoomers, and then maybe tech will start to help us
Maybe.
Millennials, zoomers and even gen alpha likely won’t be much different. There’s a difference between understanding how to use technology and understanding the intricacies of technology, understanding how to regulate or use different functions of it. The majority of boomers know how to use a modern phone. They don’t know how to properly take care of the phone nor do they understand how it functions, but they know how to use it. A lot of younger people aren’t much different.
That’s true, but where boomers are pig headed about it because they don’t want to have admit younger people know more than them, I think millennials and zoomers would be much more willing to accept expert advice
Idk about that majority of boomers know how to use a modern phone. Make calls, text, play candy crush, and go on Facebook, sure but that’s hardly knowing how to use it beyond surface level.
Wait, how exactly could a crypto hash connect a vote to a voter and still be anonymous…
Can identify one way, from voter to vote. If a voter for some valid reason has to re-vote, the hash-id could be used to only count the person’s vote with the last timestamp.
What would you hash, though? The name? The SSN? These are all know plaintexts…
If you want to de-anonymise a vote with any of these you just make a rainbow table of all voters.
Do you add salt? But now salt becomes a secret… how does the secret is picked? Someone centrally? Back to rainbow table. Everyone picks one? Then the voters has to write the hash… at that point there is no benefit with an unique id that is not really anonymous