←back to thread

64 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sugarpimpdorsey ◴[] No.45904367[source]
Can we use this for voter ID?
replies(2): >>45904543 #>>45906484 #
SV_BubbleTime ◴[] No.45904543[source]
You have to show ID to vote in my country, I thought that was the normal thing.
replies(3): >>45904580 #>>45904621 #>>45905783 #
baggy_trough ◴[] No.45904621[source]
In the United States, leftists fight as hard as they can for an insecure and unverified voting process.
replies(3): >>45904933 #>>45904956 #>>45905528 #
drdaeman ◴[] No.45904933{3}[source]
No party in the US seem to fight for a secure (end-to-end auditable) voting process. I've yet to hear any politician talk about anything like that, a process where no voter has to trust the system and can be still confident (assuming they understand the underlying math) their vote was counted and counted correctly.

It is true that every scheme out there (that I've read about) has some flaws. But I'd rather have NSA spending their budgets and talent working on this kind of stuff, than spying on citizens or whatever they do.

The current discourse is all about identification during registration vs when voting. Which is meaningful but feels like avoiding the actual issue, as it is still not really secure either way.

replies(1): >>45905358 #
kayodelycaon ◴[] No.45905358{4}[source]
The reason is nobody trusts a single party to implement that honestly.

Last time I checked, Party X only cared about Party Y’s voters who are voting illegally. They’re perfectly fine with their voters doing it.

Technology is a tool against corruption not a cure for it.

replies(2): >>45906355 #>>45906515 #
1. drdaeman ◴[] No.45906355{5}[source]
Sure, but that's the point of an end-to-end auditable system so you don't have to trust whoever implements it. The whole idea is that no crooks can make math work any differently than it does.