Category: Security

Estonian ID card vulnerability and upcoming election

On September 5, 2017 the Estonian Information Systems Authority – Riigi Infosüsteemi Ametit (RIA) reported that researchers have found a vulnerability in the Estonian digital ID card:

Possible Security Vulnerability Detected in the Estonian ID-card Chip

This is a serious issue in general, as the card is at the heart of citizen digital interactions with the government, but has particular implications for Internet voting, as the ID card is key to the functioning of the voting system, enabling amongst other features the unique Estonian ability to vote multiple times with only the last vote counting (including choosing to vote in person on election day, cancelling all previous Internet votes).

There are local government council elections coming up soon, with online voting starting in a month, running from 5 October 2017 to 11 October 2017 (online voting is only available for advance polls, not on election day).

Estonia Local Gov Council Elections 2017

above from Municipal council election 2017

According to the Is the ID-card safe? FAQ, the National Electoral Committee (Vabariigi Valimiskomisjon) will decide whether to proceed with online voting.

UPDATE 2017-09-06: In its September 6, 2017 meeting, the National Electoral Committee decided to proceed with online voting in the October elections.  Reported by err.ee – Electoral committee: Online voting in October elections still on / Valimiskomisjon: e-hääletamine toimub.  ENDUPDATE

The analysis of the ID-card vulnerability, by “[a]n international group of cryptography scientists from recognized universities” will be “published in the coming autumn at an international scientific conference” according to the ID-card safety FAQ.

UPDATE 2017-09-06: There’s more detail about the specific vulnerability, which is appears to be a computationally-intensive, technically-challenging way to determine the private key from the security chip, in Postimees article Hackers could have made digital clones / Häkkerid võinuks luua eestlastest digikloonid.  ENDUPDATE

Links in English

Links in Estonian

Additional Context

Original story via Bruce Schneier – Security Flaw in Estonian National ID Card

As Estonia is the only country in the world with national Internet voting, I have written about it many times:

June 16, 2017  evaluation of Predicting the Future – online voting – Estonia
July 8, 2016 Estonian Internet voting and turnout myths
March 8, 2011 Estonian vote-counting system fails
November 11, 2004 e-voting in Estonia

For a perspective on security concerns with the Estonian system that predate the ID card issue, it is also important to read the materials on the website Independent Report on E-voting in Estonia as well as

evaluation of Predicting the Future – online voting

I want to give credit to Andrew Weinreich for the first two of his three Predicting the Future online voting podcasts.

Episode 7 (Online Voting episode 1): Can online voting defeat the broken Electoral College?

Episode 8 (Online Voting episode 2): Hacking elections, DDoS attacks, and online voting around the world

What I liked is that he gives people time and space to talk, in particular in episode 8 there is lots of time given to Dan Wallach, enabling Dr. Wallach to clearly articulate his positions around online voting.  As well, David Dill has an opportunity to provide his position.

(Both Dr. Wallach and Dr. Dill are on my list of Internet voting computer security experts.)

You can listen to this podcast and learn a lot about the computer science perspective, which isn’t often the case.  (In a similar vein of presenting computer science expertise well, consider Reveal’s podcast Internet voting is a bad idea.)

You know there’s a “but” coming, right…

Expert Assessment of Risk

Where things run into problems in the Predicting the Future podcast, particularly in episode 8 about hacking elections, are in the weighing of risk and in the summation of the computer science expertise.

I have seen similar disconnects in discussions about municipal online voting.  Basically what happens is the computer scientist says there are risks, and the counter-argument that is presented is that there are also benefits, but this misunderstands scientific communication.

What the computer scientists are saying is not that there are risks (everything has risks) but that it is not possible with current technology to adequately mitigate those risks.   Basically this is a problem of estimative language, and it’s why national security agencies have entire systems to describe what they mean when they say something.

Here’s an an example of estimative language from the Canadian Communications Security Establishment (Annex A of Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process).

CSE Annex A Estimative Language

You can see similar language in Annex B of US Intelligence report ICA 2017-01D.

What computer scientists are saying is that compromise of online voting is Very Likely, and that there is no way to mitigate the risk below Very Likely.

There is simply no benefit that outweighs an 80% or more possibility that your election results can be hacked.  And that would be even if Internet voting were implemented with all possible best practices, but the evidence is it almost certainly wouldn’t be.  There have been examples time and again of election technology security falling somewhere between lax and incompetent.

Sometimes I cite this language from the Utah iVote Advisory Committee Final Report (April 2015):

Given that sufficiently secure Internet voting systems do not yet exist, they would need to be built.
Of course, some systems, like a stone bridge to the moon, are impossible to build. Others, like a stone bridge to Hawaii, are so exorbitantly expensive as to remain a fool’s errand.

which is to say, there are some things that are either currently not possible or beyond the realm of affordability.  This is based on expert assessments.  You may not want to believe the assessments, but that doesn’t make them untrue.  Sometimes truth is inconvenient.

We are talking about adding a lot of additional security risks, unnecessarily

Security threats not found in current Canadian federal paper election system
(above from Table 1: Security threats to elections not found with in-person, hand-counted paper voting in Canadian online voting report, citing Dr. Essex)

Political System Issues and Turnout

Fundamentally, the goal of the podcast is to explore turnout.  But only from a technology lens.  Which is, basically, solutionism.  Technology is not always a solution, and it’s definitely not always the best solution.

I am ill-placed to comment on turnout in the United States, but there are two lenses one could apply.  One is process design.  For this I look to The epic journey of American voters.

Fix the process burdens described in the Center for Civic Design’s report, and a big part of voting will have improved.

Just as one example, in many countries, the state actively tries to ensure that voters are registered.  For Canadian federal elections, they used to literally go door to door to ensure people were registered, in a process called enumeration.  Now, checking a single box on your Canadian federal tax return ensures you’re registered to vote.

The second lens is what I would call voting constraints.  The US elections are not an unconstrained system in which the only thing preventing voting is convenience.  There are two significant constraints imposed that could be addressed through a combination of technological and political measures: one is the (to non-Americans) absurd level of gerrymandering of districts (enabled to a large part by what one could consider misuse of technology in order to microtarget the district designs) and the other is the deliberate attempts to suppress turnout through various measures (an evolution of the Jim Crow era, in which there were constraints like voting literacy tests).

If you want to talk cost/benefit, then fixing the process, removing gerrymandering and eliminating voter suppression would be (in my non-American opinion) far more impactful than online voting.  Make sure you’re solving the important problems, not just the technologically interesting ones.

So there are real problems, and real solutions.

Now let’s come to turnout.  Turnout is very complex.  It depends on lots of factors including the issues, the candidates, and the political culture.  It can vary from election to election in the same location.  Trying to compare across countries that have very different cultures and issues is a bit of a mess.  And trying to compare across vastly different sizes of elections is also a mess.  The evidence is that offering online voting just causes people to shift voting channels, it doesn’t bring in new voters.  I have blogged about this many times before, e.g. online voting doesn’t increase turnout.

I do want to mention three countries specifically however:

  1. Canada
  2. Estonia
  3. Switzerland

Canada

There is only online voting in municipal elections in Ontario and Nova Scotia.  Voting in Ontario was extensively studied and the result is a maximum effect of 3% increase in voter turnout.

Goodman, Nicole and Stokes, Leah C, Reducing the Cost of Voting: An Empirical Evaluation of Internet Voting’s Effect on Turnout (October 6, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2849167

As you will recall, I earlier assessed risks to online voting as “Very Likely” (80% or greater potential for compromise).

So if you want to do an apples to oranges comparison, you’re basically looking at 3% turnout increase in exchange for adding massive risks to the integrity of your voting system (in the shift from paper ballots to online voting).

Estonia

Let’s be blunt: Estonia is a small country.  The total population is about 1.3 million.

The idea that we can trivially generalise from Estonia to Canada (30 times the population) or the US (300 times the population) is at best dubious.

In any case, Estonia provides all of its turnout numbers.  This gets presented in different ways according to the biases of the presenter.  I can, for example, use the numbers to say that after 8 years, less than a third of Estonians use online voting.  I can also say that Estonia’s turnout, with the magical boost of online voting was… only up 2.3% over 8 years and was lower than Canada’s completely paper-based turnout in 2015.

Statistics about Internet Voting in Estonia

Plus which, let’s be concrete about what less than a third means in real numbers of voters in Estonia.  It means approximately 176,000 votes cast online.

Do we seriously think countries are so interchangeable and voting cultures so universal that we can generalise from about 176,000 online votes in Estonia to about 128,000,000 votes in the last US Presidential election?  This is not about scaling up, this is a mouse and an elephant.  They’re not comparable.

And that’s setting aside the fact that the Estonian e-voting is not secure and that it relies on a every citizen having a national digital ID, which is spectacularly unlikely to ever be the case in the US.

As the only country with national online voting, I understand why Estonia comes up again and again, but let’s be realistic about the fact we’re talking about a system that 70% of the country’s voters don’t use, and that only represents 176,000 votes cast anyway.

Switzerland

Switzerland has voting in some municipalities in some cantons (not national or even state-level voting by any stretch).  Switzerland also has no culture of voting privacy (traditionally voting was done by show of hands, and in fact in many municipalities this is still the norm) and it has much more frequent votes on more things.  We are again talking about a small number of votes cast online (less than 300,000).  And we’re talking again about less than 25% of voters choosing to vote online.  And, as always, it doesn’t increase turnout anyway.  And in Switzerland one of the systems had to be removed because it was determined to be insecure.

How many ivoters in Switzerland

For more on Switzerland:

Country Examples Summary

Mostly we have small examples.  Without exception, the increases in turnout are between miniscule and nonexistent.  These are based on long-term, serious, analytical academic studies.  The evidence is in.  Online voting does not increase turnout.

Conclusion

I give lots of credit to Andrew Weinreich for doing really diligent and comprehensive research and for letting his guests clearly express their opinions.

Where I disagree is in the reframing following the computer science speakers, where Weinreich says (starting at 23:29 into the Hacking elections episode)

“Leading computer science academics are deeply sceptical of Internet voting and are actively campaigning against its utilisation, not because theoretically they don’t think it’s a solvable problem, but because they don’t think it’s worth solving.”

This misrepresents the computer science position (which is incidentally a consensus position of the 96,000+ member Association of Computing Machinery).  The computer science position is that based on known risks and known results (including the cases I have presented above), the risk is too high and the benefits are minimal at this time.  And that the properties of paper ballots cannot be replicated online.  This is an expertise and evidence-based conclusion.

The computer science position is that this is an interesting problem, and one worth continuing to research.  And indeed there is active research on online voting in many different computer science departments and organisations around the world, in part because it is such an interesting and difficult problem.  But we are nowhere near having a solution, so in the same way we aren’t trying to solve electricity problems by promising a Mr. Fusion in every house tomorrow, we shouldn’t creating the expectation that online voting will be workable any time soon.

And keep in mind the computer science conclusions about security were drawn long before the recent incidents of nation-state cyberattacks, which take the risk to an entirely new level.  You can mitigate against an amateur attack, and even against a moderately professional attack.  You cannot mitigate against a nation-state funded expert attack.  If the NSA wants to get into your system, they will.  That’s the level of threat we now know we face.

And that’s just the risks on the technical side, that doesn’t even touch on the possibility of coercion or online guided voting.  Vote online says Mark Zuckerberg.  How far from that to “Facebook has voted for you based on your preferences”?  (And to Weinreich’s credit again he explores some of the possible disruptions that online voting would cause for campaigns and advertising.)

Online voting doesn’t solve any of the very real problems of voter turnout.  In fact it’s so low down the list of potential solutions that when the City of Calgary wrote a 2017 report on increasing turnout (PFC2017-0259 Election Outreach) online voting was rejected deep down in an Appendix (Section 2.1 Internet voting in Attachment 3, to be precise).

I admire when people want to improve their democracy, want to increase turnout, want to improve the experience of voting.  But online voting is not the solution.  Solve the real problems instead.  They are big, and they are hard, and they are mostly political.

CSE releases report Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process

On June 16, 2017 at 10:30am, the Canadian Communications Security Establishment (CSE) released its report

Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process

Analysis to follow.

Previously:
June 15, 2017  cyber threats to Canada’s democratic process – news conference
February 1, 2017  defend Canadian electoral process from cyber threats – Minister of Democratic Institutions Mandate

June 16, 2017 – cyber threats to Canada’s democratic process – news conference

Media Advisory from the Government of Canada – Democratic Institutions

News Conference by Minister Gould on cyber threat assessment

Jump to additional background information I have provided.

Media representatives are advised that the Minister of Democratic Institutions, the Honourable Karina Gould, and the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment, Ms. Greta Bossenmaier, will be holding a news conference to discuss an assessment of cyber threats to Canada’s democratic process.

Senior officials from the Communications Security Establishment will provide an embargoed technical briefing immediately before the press conference. The technical briefing will not be for attribution.

Technical Briefing
Date: 
June 16, 2017
Time: 9:30 AM
Location: 
National Press Theatre
150 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario

Journalists who wish to participate via teleconference should contact the Minister of Democratic Institutions’ Press Secretary at the number below.

All information will be embargoed until 10:30 AM on June 16, 2017.The technical briefing will not be for attribution. No cameras will be permitted.

Press Conference
Date: 
June 16, 2017
Time: 10:30 AM
Location: 
National Press Theatre
150 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario

For more information (media only), please contact:
Byrne Furlong
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions
613-943-1833

END MEDIA ADVISORY

Here is some additional information and context from me.

Election Cybersecurity

USA

In ICA 2017-01D Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (PDF), the US intelligence community describes an influence campaign “strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts”.

The description is introduced with the term of art “We assess”, indicating an analytical assessment.  The US intelligence community asserts “high confidence” in the judgments related to the influence campaign.  High confidence is a term of art about confidence in sources that is defined in Annex B on Estimative Language: “High confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality information from multiple sources.”

For the technical background on the assessment, see Joint Analysis Report (JAR) JAR-16-20296A GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity (PDF)

The Netherlands, France, Germany, the UK and Australia

I am not an expert in nation-state cyber threats, so I cannot independently assess this material.

Hacking of Canadian Government is Real

Hacking of governments is a real threat.  The Canadian federal government has been successfully hacked multiple times.

above links from my blog post Canadian government departments have been hacked before

Online Voting

Canada has no online voting at the federal or provincial level, and in fact online voting has been rejected by multiple Canadian studies.

There is however online voting at the municipal level in Nova Scotia and Ontario.  With 97 municipalities using online voting in the 2014 election and potentially over 200 municipalities using online voting in the 2018 election, this is one of the largest uses of online voting in the world.  This includes some municipalities where online voting is the only option (all paper ballots have been eliminated).  There are no (none, zero) standards for provincial online voting security.  There is no guidance for decisionmaking and risk-assessment related to online voting.  Without exception, the online voting is contracted out to third-party, for-profit vendors.  The computer code and systems designs used by the vendors is confidential, and there have been no public security tests and no public examinations of the computer code used.

Online voting provably does not substantially increase turnout.  The most comprehensive study, conducted on the Ontario use of online voting, shows a maximum effect of 3% increase.

For more information see Wikipedia – Electronic Voting in Canada.  (Disclaimer: I am a substantial contributor to that Wikipedia page.)

Estonia

If you want to cite the example of Estonia (the only country in the world with national online voting), you might want to mention:

Computer Security Experts

If you want to interview computer security experts about online voting, here is a list of over a dozen with contact information, including Canadians.

Twitter

  • I tweet regularly about election security and online voting: @papervote

Detailed briefing

If you have made it all the way down here, you may also be interested in my 16-page briefing about online voting, written for the New Brunswick consultation on the topic.

Government of Canada statement on online voting and cybersecurity

May 30, 2017

Electoral Reform
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

Discussion introduced by Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC).

Madam Speaker, I move that the third report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform presented on Thursday, December 1, 2016, be concurred in.

Above from Open Parliament https://openparliament.ca/debates/2017/5/30/nathan-cullen-1/

Later in the discussion, response (excerpt) by Andy Fillmore, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions

Another committee recommendation, number 4, advises against allowing online voting at this time. Again, we agree, and while Canadians who participated in mydemocracy.ca agreed that online voting would improve voter turnout, their support was contingent on the need for solid assurance that such a system would not be vulnerable to manipulation by hackers. Similar concerns were heard from the experts before the special committee.

I want to touch briefly on the Minister of Democratic Institutions‘ mandate to protect our electoral system from cyber-attacks. Working with her colleagues, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of National Defence, the minister has asked the Communications Security Establishment to analyze proactively the risks to our electoral system and to release a public report. Further, we will ask the CSE officer for advice for political parties on cybersecurity best practices.

Above from Open Parliament https://openparliament.ca/debates/2017/5/30/andy-fillmore-2/

I do need to mention that, despite the survey-question-driven assertion that “online voting would improve voter turnout”, the evidence is that online voting does not increase turnout.

Previously:
December 1, 2016  ERRE Electoral Reform Committee Recommends Against Online Voting
October 2, 2016  ERRE Presentation – Internet Voting: Making Elections Hackable – Dr. Barbara Simons

Comments about Guelph Internet voting

A letter submitted for the April 24, 2017 Guelph Council meeting, agenda item COW – CS – 2017.04 2018 Municipal Election: Methods of Voting.

COMMENT

Dear Mayor and Councillors:

The Internet threat environment has changed since 2013 when Guelph did its initial analysis of online voting.  Since then, Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and the federal government have all released reports on online voting, and all have recommended against it at the provincial or national level.  Threats have gotten worse while security technology has not advanced at the same pace, to the extent that the Economist magazine just did a cover story proclaiming “Why computers will never be safe”.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21720279-incentives-software-firms-take-security-seriously-are-too-weak-how-manage

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21720268-consequences-pile-up-things-are-starting-improve-computer-security

Of course, decisionmaking is always about balancing risks versus benefits.  I can tell you that when computer security experts examine online voting, they basically universally find that the risks are too high.  See for example Scientific American from February 2016

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pogue-the-challenges-of-digital-voting/

If you do choose to continue with online voting, I urge you in the spirit of open government to conduct an open, public test of the full online voting system well in advance of the election, with permission for anyone around the world to remotely examine the system in detail for security vulnerabilities and to publicly report their findings.  There is no security in obscurity.

In staff report CHR – 2013 – 30 “2014 Municipal Election:  Methods of Voting”, principles for a municipal election are outlined.  Here is my evaluation of online voting against three of those principles:

  • the secrecy and confidentiality of the voting process is paramount;

Use of a third-party vendor for online voting compromises voting secrecy and confidentiality.  Even if the voting systems were developed and hosted in-house, the information necessary to cast a vote (the voter identification) is extremely difficult to completely separate inside the computer from the vote cast.  Additionally, unsupervised remote voting opens the potential for anyone to view a vote that is being cast (and indeed to coerce the vote, or to pay someone for their voting credentials).

  • the integrity of the process shall be maintained throughout the election;
  • there is to be certainty that the results of the election reflect the votes cast;

The chain-of-custody for an Internet ballot extends from the personal computing device, across the Internet, and through to the voting servers.  There are potential threats to the integrity of the process at every stage, from compromised (“hacked”) home computers, through to denial-of-service attacks and potential vote alteration or addition of votes (“ballot stuffing”) at the server end.  Or the computer code could simply have errors in it (all computer programs have errors).  There is no way to observe the entire process; it is a black box.  Therefore there can be no real certainty that the results of the election reflect the votes cast.

Additional information supporting the above statements is available in an appendix to this email.

Thank you,

Richard Akerman

Appendix

Changes since 2013 report

The primary report is the July 16, 2013 “An Analysis of Alternative Voting Methods“.  http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/AnalysisOfAlternativeVotingMethods.pdf

Both Elections Canada and Elections Ontario have been actively exploring the prospect of implementing an online voting channel for a number of years and have since allocated resources to undertake a detailed investigation and feasibility review of doing so.

As of 2017, neither Elections Canada nor Elections Ontario has implemented online voting, nor are they actively exploring the possibility.

A consultation by the Canadian Parliamentary Special Committee on Electoral Reform recommended against online voting[1], and the Canadian government accepted the recommendation.[2]  On March 2, 2017 Elections Canada released an RFP which included the statement “Elections Canada has no plans to introduce electronic casting or counting of votes. Polling places will continue using paper ballots, marked and counted by hand.”[3]

Ontario’s Alternative Voting Technologies Report, released June 2013, recommends against online voting and there is no online voting in provincial elections in Ontario.[4]

[1] December 2016 – Strengthening Democracy in Canada : Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform – http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8655791&File=291#87 – “Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that online voting not be implemented at this time.”

[2] April 2017 – Government Response to Report Strengthening Democracy in Canada : Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform – http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8853290 – “The Government accepts this recommendation.  We will not implement online voting at this time.”

[3] March 2017 – Elections Canada RFP – https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2017/03/02/967d72343b6234a0571287c709b7ae1f/ecrs-rfp-16-0167_-_anpp_-_ec-vsm-pppe_-_bilingual.pdf – “Elections Canada has no plans to introduce electronic casting or counting of votes. Polling places will continue using paper ballots, marked and counted by hand.”

[4] June 2013 – Alternative Voting Technologies Report – Ontario Chief Electoral Officer’s Submission to the Legislative Assembly (PDF) – http://www.elections.on.ca/content/dam/NGW/sitecontent/2014/reports/Alternative%20Voting%20Technologies%20Report%20%282012%29.pdf – “At this point, we do not have a viable method of network voting that meets our criteria and protects the integrity of the electoral process.”

Additional Context

In fact, there is no provincial online voting anywhere in Canada, and there is only municipal online voting in Nova Scotia and Ontario.  Reports from Nova Scotia [5], New Brunswick [6] and British Columbia [7] have all recommended against provincial online voting.  Quebec has had a moratorium on provincial online voting since investigating problems with its electronic voting machines in 2005.[8]

[5] Elections Nova Scotia: Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013 (PDF) – https://electionsnovascotia.ca/sites/default/files/ENS%20AR%20Web%202012_13.pdf – specifically pp. 14-16 Appendix I: Internet and Telephone Voting in Nova Scotia.

[6] March 2017 – A pathway to an inclusive democracy (PDF) – http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/eco-bce/Consultations/PDF/PathwayToAnInclusiveDemocracy.pdf – specifically pp. 20-21 E-voting

[7] February 2014 – Independent Panel on Internet Voting: Recommendations Report to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (PDF) – http://www.internetvotingpanel.ca/docs/recommendations-report.pdf

[8] October 2006 – Electronic voting – Le Directeur général des élections du Québec (DGEQ)http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/english/municipal/media/electronic-voting.php

There is a consensus statement from US computer scientists advising against Internet voting.[9]

[9] http://usacm.acm.org/evoting/category.cfm?cat=30&E-Voting – “At the present, paper-based systems provide the best available technology….”

END COMMENT

Here are additional documents I tracked down as part of writing the above comment:

2014 Election Cycle

July 16, 2013 — An Analysis of Alternative Voting Methods (PDF) — by Blair Labelle, City Clerk

July 16, 2013 — Staff Report CHR – 2013 – 30 — 2014 Municipal Election:  Methods of Voting (PDF) — Prepared and Recommended by Blair Labelle, City Clerk

June 2, 2014 (Amended September 15, 2014) — Procedures for Voting and Vote  Counting Equipment for the 2014  Municipal Election (PDF)

2018 Election Cycle

September 6, 2016 — Staff Report CS-2016-73 –Municipal  Election  Modernization,  Service  Expansion  and  Ranked  Ballot  Election (PDF; pp. 255-289) – Prepared by Jennifer Slater, Approved by Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk

April 3, 2017 — 2018 Municipal Election Voting Methods  (PDF; pp. 99-109) – by Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk and Returning Officer

April 3, 2017 — Staff Report CS  -2017.51 — 2018  Municipal Election: Methods of Voting (PDF, pp. 110-115) — Prepared by Tina Agnello, Deputy City Clerk; Approved by Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk

Other Reports Cited by Guelph

June 23, 2005 — Risk Analysis of Traditional, Internet, and other Types of Voting  Alternatives for Town of Markham — by Harry M. Kim

Internet voting filter bubbles

From a Canadian perspective, there are basically three groups that examine Internet voting:

  • social scientists that examine people’s attitudes, feelings and behaviours associated with Internet voting
  • staff at municipalities that have chosen Internet voting and see it as just another digital service to offer, and the vendors they procure Internet voting from
  • computer scientists that examine Internet voting from the perspective of requirements and threat risk assessment

These three communities basically don’t interact.  The social scientists cite one another.  The municipal staff and vendors reference other municipalities and vendor analysis.  The computer scientists cite one another.  This gives three basically different filtered world views.

  • The social science perspective indicates some level of popularity of Internet voting either conceptually or in practice, and associated levels of satisfaction.  It also documents the expectations of turnout (high) and the reality of turnout (no change).  Additionally and unfortunately it sometimes reports on perceptions of security, which are meaningless.  It doesn’t matter how safe you feel jumping off a cliff, the same thing will still happen at the bottom when you encounter reality.
  • At best, municipalities approach Internet voting from a digital services perspective, and do the standard things one does for a transactional service, including security buzzwords like firewalls and encryption, obtaining vendor assurances, and contracting confidential security assessments.  One of their primary sources of technical information is the vendors themselves.  Two issues are that Internet voting is not a standard transactional service, and that vendors have literally millions of dollars in sales at stake.
  • Computer scientists look at the requirements for voting systems, e.g. the Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting.  When they evaluate real Internet voting systems against those requirements, they always find that current systems cannot meet the requirements.  In order to provide the best security assessment of the real systems, they seek the ability to conduct truly independent and public security assessments of the technology being used (this is almost always denied).  They also assess the full spectrum of potential risks against a system.  That includes technical risks and non-technical risks.  An often overlooked risk is the risk of coercion when voting no longer takes place in private in a supervised location (the polling place).  They also examine techniques used by very sophisticated attackers, as well as very basic but successful techniques (e.g. phishing) and the risk of insider attacks.  For a service where there is no way for the end user to verify their intended result (due to the combination of secret ballot and coercion avoidance), the inevitable conclusion is that there are no adequate risk mitigation measures.

So the answer you get about Internet voting depends on which community you ask.  If you ask social scientists, it’s popular.  If you ask municipalities that have implemented it, they assure you that everything is going fine.  If you ask computer scientists, they will tell you that it is not a regular transactional digital service, and that using Internet voting introduces catastrophic risk.

You can get a pretty easy indication of which community is talking by looking for language clues.  If the discussion is around popularity, it’s probably a social science analysis.  If the discussion is around firewalls and encryption and security assurances, it’s probably municipalities.  If the discussion is around risks, it’s probably computer scientists.

It may seem odd that computer scientists would speak in less technical language, but that’s because specific technical measures are much less important than a system-wide requirements and threat analysis, particularly in an environment including home computing devices and non-technical online service users.

The result of having these different communities means that basically only consultations that include the computer science community recommend against voting using computers, which may be an unexpected outcome.  But it is the outcome of any serious consultation, including e.g. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Australia.

The Ontario municipal association AMCTO is holding a 2017 event for municipal clerks, featuring a session about the security of Internet voting.  The presenters will be

  • a clerk from a municipality that has approved Internet voting
  • an Internet voting vendor representative
  • a second Internet voting vendor representative

I leave it to you to conclude which filter bubble will be in operation.