On E-Vote Integrity in the Case of Malicious Voter Computers

Norway has started to implement e-voting (over the Internet, and by using voters\u27 own computers) within the next few years. The vulnerability of voter\u27s computers was identified as a serious threat to e-voting. In this paper, we study the vote integrity of e-voting when the voter computers cannot be trusted. First, we make a number of assumptions about the available infrastructure. In particular, we assume the existence of two out-of-band channels that do not depend on the voter computers. The first channel is used to transmit integrity check codes to the voters prior the election, and the second channel is used to transmit a check code, that corresponds to her vote, back to a voter just after his or her e-vote vast cast. For this we also introduce a new cryptographic protocol. We present the new protocol with enough details to facilitate an implementation, and also present the timings of an actual implementation

Post-Election Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections

With the intention of assisting legislators, election officials and the public to make sense of recent literature on post-election audits and convert it into realistic audit practices, the Brennan Center and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law (University of California Berkeley) convened a blue ribbon panel (the "Audit Panel") of statisticians, voting experts, computer scientists and several of the nation's leading election officials. Following a review of the literature and extensive consultation with the Audit Panel, the Brennan Center and the Samuelson Clinic make several practical recommendations for improving post-election audits, regardless of the audit method that a jurisdiction ultimately decides to adopt

State of Alaska Election Security Project Phase 2 Report

A laska’s election system is among the most secure in the country, and it has a number of safeguards other states are now adopting. But the technology Alaska uses to record and count votes could be improved— and the state’s huge size, limited road system, and scattered communities also create special challenges for insuring the integrity of the vote. In this second phase of an ongoing study of Alaska’s election security, we recommend ways of strengthening the system—not only the technology but also the election procedures. The lieutenant governor and the Division of Elections asked the University of Alaska Anchorage to do this evaluation, which began in September 2007.Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell. State of Alaska Division of Elections.List of Appendices / Glossary / Study Team / Acknowledgments / Introduction / Summary of Recommendations / Part 1 Defense in Depth / Part 2 Fortification of Systems / Part 3 Confidence in Outcomes / Conclusions / Proposed Statement of Work for Phase 3: Implementation / Reference

E-Voting Solution for Romanian Parliament

Every year hundreds of millions of people vote in a variety of settings in many countries around the world. People vote in public elections to choose government leaders and also in private elections to determine the course of action for groups that people are organized in such as non-governmental organizations, unions, associations and corporations (shareholders). Voting is a widely spread, rather democratic, way of making decisions. More and more governments and private organizations realize that the use of new technologies such as the Internet can have beneficial impacts on elections - i.e. higher voter turnout and lower costs of conducting elections. The rules governing elections tend to be highly specialized to meet the specific needs of each type of organization. Most elections, however, require integrity, privacy and authentication.e-voting, elections, democracy, ngo, unions, government

Enhanced secure interface for a portable e-voting terminal

This paper presents an enhanced interface for an e-voting client application that partially runs inside a small, portable terminal with reduced interaction capabilities. The interface was enhanced by cooperating with the hosting computer where the terminal is connected to: the hosting computer shows a detailed image of the filled ballot. The displayed image does not convey any personal information, namely the voter's choices, to the hosting computer; voter's choices are solely presented at the terminal. Furthermore, the image contains visual authentication elements that can be validated by the voter using information presented at the terminal. This way, hosting computers are not able to gather voters' choices or to deceive voters, by presenting tampered ballots, without being noticed