Internet Voting Resources and Reports

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Military and Overseas Voters – Ready for the General Election! September 2014 Brad King Co-Director, Indiana Election Division 2014 Election Administrators.
Advertisements

Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (“MOVE” Act) Part #2: Creating Absent Voter Ballots That Will Be Sent By Or Fax Bureau of Elections.
Good or Bad?.  One of the closest contests in US history  Florida was the pivotal state  Neither Democrat Al Gore nor Republican George W. Bush had.
Presentation on the Electronically Managed Polling Station. Ministry of the Interior. Spain. 7th European Conference of Electoral Management Bodies “EVERY.
IEEE P1622 Meeting, Oct 2011 IEEE P1622 Meeting October 24-25, 2011 Overview of IEEE P1622 Draft Standard for Electronic Distribution of Blank Ballots.
DECEMBER 2010 ELECTIONS DIRECTORS CONFERENCE A Guide to Post-Election Surveys.
Observation of e-enabled elections Jonathan Stonestreet Council of Europe Workshop Oslo, March 2010.
Internet Voting. What is Internet Voting? Internet voting is: an election process whereby people can cast their votes over the Internet, most likely through.
1 The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote.
United States Election Assistance Commission Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual & UOCAVA Pilot Program Testing and Certification Manual & UOCAVA.
Voting System Qualification How it happens and why.
Informatics Online Voting Opportunities and Risks STOA Workshop at the European Parliament Brussels, 17 March 2011 Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Grimm IT Risk Management.
TGDC Meeting, December 2011 Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of Standards and Technology Update on UOCAVA Risk Assessment by.
Internet Voting: Weighing the Pros and Cons By: Forest Marie “The Case for Internet Voting” By: Joe Mohen and Julia Glidden “Gauging the Risks of Internet.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 UOCAVA Pilot Projects for the 2012 Federal Election Report from the UOCAVA Working Group Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of.
TGDC Meeting, July 2011 Overview of July TGDC Meeting Belinda L. Collins, Ph.D. Senior Advisor, Voting Standards, ITL
United States Election Assistance Commission EAC UOCAVA Documents: Status &Update EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee Meeting (TGDC)
Demystifying the Independent Test Authority (ITA)
TGDC Meeting, July 2011 UOCAVA Roadmap Update Nelson Hastings, Ph.D. Technical Project Leader for Voting Standards, ITL
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE) Donald Palmer, Director, Division of Elections, Florida Department of State.
Electronic Voting Support Wizard 2010 voting assistance wizards.
Internet Security for Small & Medium Business Week 6
ELECTIONS Upcoming Trends. ELECTIONS ADMINSTRATORS Duties o Protect the security and integrity of the elections o Redistricting o Secure polling locations.
Making every vote count. United States Election Assistance Commission HAVA 101 TGDC Meeting December 9-10, 2009.
12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting NIST Research on UOCAVA Voting Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of Standards and Technology
Maryland‘s Experience with the MOVE Act Linda H. Lamone State Administrator Maryland State Board of Elections.
UOCAVA Report Overview and Status July 2008 Andrew Regenscheid Computer Security Division National Institute of Standards and Technology.
1 Election Operations Assessment Summary Election Assistance Commission.
Improving U.S. Voting Systems Security Breakout Session Improving U.S. Voting Systems Andrew Regenscheid National Institute.
Federal Voting Assistance Program Voting Initiatives and MOVE Act Joint Election Officials Liaison Committee January 7 th, 2010.
SEMINAR TOPIC ON GLOBAL WIRELESS E-VOTING
UOCAVA Voting in Four States A Study of Election Administration.
ETHICAL ISSUES SURROUND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS Unit 3.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Accessibility and Usability Considerations for UOCAVA Remote Electronic Voting Systems Sharon Laskowski, PhD National Institute.
Page 1 June 2009 Internet Voting Panel - CFP Conference – OVF Presentation May 15, 2008 OVF Solutions Tour and Demonstration Daemmon Hughes, Technology.
Electronic Security Initiative 2005 Security Assessment & Security Services 23 August 2005.
TGDC Meeting, July 2010 Security Considerations for Remote Electronic UOCAVA Voting Andrew Regenscheid National Institute of Standards and Technology
How and what to observe in e-enabled elections Presentation by Mats Lindberg, Election Adviser, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
TGDC Meeting, July 2010 Report of the UOCAVA Working Group John Wack National Institute of Standards and Technology DRAFT.
NIST Voting Program Page 1 NIST Voting Program Lynne Rosenthal National Institute of Standards and Technology
Virginia State Military Electronic Absentee Voting.
UOCAVA What we know What works Dr. Donald S. Inbody Texas State University.
Reporting Abstract Requirements and Procedures. New Reporting Requirement Official Abstract of Votes New form to be completed and submitted to the Secretary.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Review of UOCAVA Roadmap Nelson Hastings National Institute of Standards and Technology
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Path Forward for FY11 UOCAVA Activities Nelson Hastings National Institute of Standards and Technology
Computer and Network Security Brendan Duncombe Bahein Maung.
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Report from Workshop on UOCAVA Remote Voting Systems Nelson Hastings National Institute of Standards and Technology
TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Accessibility and Usability Considerations for UOCAVA Remote Electronic Voting Systems Sharon Laskowski, PhD National Institute.
LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY FOR TRANSPARENT AND CREDIBILE ELECTIONS.
Secure, verifiable online voting 29 th June 2016.
First Nations Elections Act & Regulations Mistawasis Nehiyawak First Nation August 2016.
Anytime, Anywhere Anyone (AAA) Internet Voting in India
Ballots for the Presidential Election
National Institute of Standards and Technology
UNIT.III/ Political Participation
E-voting …and why it’s good..
Con Electronic Voting Preston Pope, Zach White, Ankit Shrivastava, Max Alexander.
2017 Canvass Observer Training
Electronic voting – safe or not?
UOCAVA Electronic Blank Ballot Delivery Use Case
Conducting Council Elections
Improving Reliability of Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems
{ BLOCKCHAIN Technology. BSEtecBSEtec is a digital solution provider company which offers the best service with the implement of the latest technologies.
NAVY TRANSITION PROGRAM
Voting Assistance & Legal Assistance for Transitioning Service Members
Element 49 Page 217.
Dawn Williams, State Director of Elections January 21, 2018
Slide Deck 7B: Electoral Participation Research
Colorado Department of State
EDI Systems What They Are and Why They Matter
Presentation transcript:

Internet Voting Resources and Reports Susan Greenhalgh EVN Conference March 2016

Perceptions can be deceiving “DOD endorses online voting for the military.” DOD does not endorse online voting. DoD “does not advocate for the electronic transmission of any voted ballot, whether it be by fax, email or via the Internet.” –Pentagon spokesman Lt. Commander Nathan Christensen. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics- government/election/article24783181.html

Perception - Research “DOD endorses online voting for the military.” The DoD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) wrote in a 2013 report to Congress postal mail return of a voted ballot “remains the most responsible method of ballot return…” https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/ FVAP/Reports/evsw_report.pdf

Perception - Research “Use of military Common Access Cards (CAC) can resolve security and voter authentication issues of online ballot return.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation /2015/08/06/russia-reportedly-hacks- pentagon-email-system/31228625/

Perception - Research “Ballots sent by email are not as vulnerable to attackers as a ‘full Internet voting system.”’ NIST report 7551 “A Threat Analysis of UOCAVA Voting Systems” “Email are significantly easier to intercept and modify in transit than other forms of communication.” http://www.nist.gov/itl/ vote/uocava.cfm

Perception - Research “Estonia has developed a secure and trusted Internet voting system.” Team of international researchers assessed the security and found exploitable vulnerabilities that could permit state attacker to manipulate the election undetected. https://estoniaevoting.or g/

Perception - Research “Estonia has developed a secure and trusted Internet voting system.” . https://et- ee.facebook.com/ausadvalimised

Perception - Research “Encryption can secure an online voting system.” The Norwegian online voting system suffered a major encryption error and tens of thousands of ballots sent in the clear before it was discovered and corrected. Norway abandoned online voting. http://www.bbc.com/news /technology-28055678

Perception - Research “Encryption can secure an online voting system.” In the NSW online election last year, researchers found they could defeat the encryption by intercepting a third party script that was introduced into every voter’s browser.  They could then intercept and change every vote before sending it.  Over 66,000 votes were cast before the vulnerability was patched. https://freedom-to- tinker.com/blog/teaguehalderman/ ivote-vulnerability/

Perception - Research “Online voting systems have been tested for security.” Internet voting systems in the US are not subject to security testing like other voting systems.  However, the city of Toronto conducted an independent security analysis of three IV systems and found that no system provided adequate protection against the risks inherent in internet voting. https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/Canada- 2014-01543-security-report.pdf

Perception - Research “Online voting systems meet accessibility standards.” Toronto also evaluated the accessibility of three major online voting system vendors and found none satisfied the WCAG 2.0. https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/Canada- 2014-01543-accessibility-report.pdf

Perception - Research “Online voting will lower cost and increase voter turnout.” The British Columbian legislature commissioned a report on Internet voting that found that evidence shows that the presumed benefit of lower cost and increased participation were not realized. https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/CA-BC-2014- recommendations-final-report.pdf

Perception - Research “[X] is supporting (or opposing) Internet voting because online voting will benefit voters on the [left][right].” The Heritage Foundation and Brennan Center, organizations perceived to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum, both released reports opposing online voting. https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election- integrity-pro-voter-agenda#Introduction http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/t he-dangers-of-internet-voting

Perception - Research The security challenges of online voting can be solved with blockchain (bitcoin) technology.” Researchers have published a paper debunking the theory that blockchain will secure online elections.

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/internet-voting-resource-document/