Did you watch the video? Because he pretty much covered all that. Electronic voting will never, ever be viable for one simple reason: there is no added cost to scaling an attack on an election.
Which part of “not with the current hardware” didn’t you understand? How did those hackers gain access?! WiFi and Bluetooth, as well as some enterprise system shellacked on top of it.
I respect Tom Scott, but that kind of absolutism isn’t anything else than a dismissal. But yes, don’t trust these IT companies. They are trash, their licenses are trash and their code is trash.
If that’s the basis he’s going off, he is right, but that doesn’t dismiss the point I was trying to make - which completely escaped you.
If that’s the basis he’s going off, he is right, but that doesn’t dismiss the point I was trying to make - which completely escaped you.
No, it hasn’t. The point is that computer systems, for all practical purposes, are infinitely complex and, therefore, cheaply scalable attacks are also infinite. No matter how open source the hardware or software, no matter hardened against attacks, no matter how many checksums you have … when the stakes are as high as they are with an election and attacks are cheaply scalable, there will always be someone, somewhere with the will and means to come up with a way to exploit it.
But just for shits and giggles, what would your ideal, super-secure digital election look like?
Did you watch the video? Because he pretty much covered all that. Electronic voting will never, ever be viable for one simple reason: there is no added cost to scaling an attack on an election.
Which part of “not with the current hardware” didn’t you understand? How did those hackers gain access?! WiFi and Bluetooth, as well as some enterprise system shellacked on top of it.
I respect Tom Scott, but that kind of absolutism isn’t anything else than a dismissal. But yes, don’t trust these IT companies. They are trash, their licenses are trash and their code is trash.
If that’s the basis he’s going off, he is right, but that doesn’t dismiss the point I was trying to make - which completely escaped you.
No, it hasn’t. The point is that computer systems, for all practical purposes, are infinitely complex and, therefore, cheaply scalable attacks are also infinite. No matter how open source the hardware or software, no matter hardened against attacks, no matter how many checksums you have … when the stakes are as high as they are with an election and attacks are cheaply scalable, there will always be someone, somewhere with the will and means to come up with a way to exploit it.
But just for shits and giggles, what would your ideal, super-secure digital election look like?