Security flaws in Buenos Aires’ Unique Electronic Ballot

Citizens welcomed the introduction and use of technology. The results were tabulated, processed and reported far more quickly than if the polls had been counted up in a manual fashion. However, not all was well. It was revealed by computer programmer Joaquin Sorianello that the Vot.ar electronic voting system provided by MSA and used in the Buenos Aires election had as security flaw. According to the site boing boing, “The Vot.ar system's cryptographic certificates are easy to extract, creating an easy route to manufacturing fake voting totals or simply overwhelming the service”.

Despite being “only” a programmer with no ill will and no intention to hack into the election system for fraudulent purposes, Joaquin Sorianello was raided by the local Argentine police. All of his computer equipment and storage devices were confiscated in the raid after he alerted MSA of the fatal flaw. The revelation that the SSL certificates were being held on an unsecured server did not come to light until 10 days after the election had concluded.

"If I wanted to hack or do something harmful, Sorianello told La Nacion, “I would not have told the company.”

This latest episode in Argentina clearly illustrates a powerful lesson for the implementation of electronic voting technology in a modern democracy. Security cannot be sacrificed in the name of convenience. It is important for the electoral commissions of the world to work only with trusted vendors with strong track records for security, transparency, and privacy.

Technology played a very prominent role in last year's general election in Brazil and the government there strove to provide the highest level of security possible with its e-voting efforts. Similarly, Russian officials were able to stave off attacks on its e-voting system. While it is impossible to protect against all attacks from all directions, due diligence must be conducted to reveal and solve any security flaws in the e-voting infrastructure well ahead of a general election. Having a strong audit system in place for before, during and after an election is a good start.

It may be true that a more complex system can be more difficult to manage and it may prove to be detrimental to providing greater universal access for citizens wishing to exercise their democratic right. However, if the system is not adequately secure, accurate and reliable, no level of convenience will matter.

Highlights of EVOTE2012

Source: EVOTE2012 Facebook Page

The fifth International Conference on Electronic Voting (EVOTE2012) was one of the most anticipated events in the year for the world of electoral technology. The conference, held in Bregenz, Austria from July 11th to the 14th, was deemed a complete success by participants and organizers alike. Hundreds of researchers, developers, government representatives and business people from all around the world gathered at Castle Hofen to share experiences and breakthrough discoveries in e-voting.

This year’s theme for the convention was “Challenges for Electronic Voting – Transparency, Trust and Voter Education”. In this respect, speakers presented various cases of best practices in auditing, testing and verifying elections held through voting machines. Some new technological developments for e-voting were also proposed during the conference.

One of the features that distinguish this prestigious event among the academic community is that in order to be a speaker it’s necessary to enter a paper to apply for a spot. After submitting it, the organizers’ committee evaluates them and approves participation with a conference

Among the many activities and forums held during EVOTE2012, on July 13th there was a workshop about the “Venezuelan Electoral Technology”, in which participants were able to get to know more about the multiple benefits that this platform offers to voters in terms of auditability, accuracy and transparency. Developed by the multinational Smartmatic, and deployed more than 10 times in different electoral events in the country, for the first time the electronic voting solution will include during the upcoming National Election to be held on October 7th, a brand new biometric identification system to perform voter authentication and guarantee the principle one voter - one vote. 

Another interesting conference was offered by Carlos Vegas who talked about “The New Belgian E-voting System”, developed for the upcoming elections of Flanders and Brussels-Capital Regions to be held on October. According to the several academic speakers and experts who exposed about this case, the new system was based on a proposal presented in a comparative study on e-voting requested by the administration to a consortium of Belgian universities. Among the various advantages offered by the system –besides the fact that it was designed and conceived by Belgium academics- is the incorporation of a printed vote receipt that allows the voter to confirm its selection.

Mark Phillips gave another interesting talk: “Testing Democracy: How Independent Testing of E-Voting Systems Safeguards Electoral Integrity”, in which he explained the importance of independent certification for automated voting systems using as an example the successful automated elections of Philippines in 2010. Mark Phillips is President and Chief Executive Officer of SLI Global Solutions.

EVOTE2012 probably the most important event in the year for those involved in the development, implementation, and analysis of electronic voting. The fact that such a great convention has been assembled around electoral technology is a testimony of how much has been achieved in this area, and how promising the future looks for these technology solutions.

Comparative Analysis of Different Voting Systems

In our previous post (Basic criteria for choosing voting technology) we covered the five basic principles to consider when choosing a voting system. We will now analyze Manual Voting (MV), Optical Scanners (OS), and Direct-Recording Electronic Voting Machines (DRE), according to the first two principles described before: Accessibility and Security.

Accessibility 

The strongest supporters of MV (manual voting and manual counting) proclaim accessibility as one of its most alluring advantages. For the average voter, manual voting is simple and intuitive. It is actually a familiar system that most of us have used in the past to either elect a high school student council member, a graduation song, a advisory board member, etc. 

In theory, OS (manual voting but automated tallying) are also fairly easy to use. The voter marks his/her selection to later feed the ballot into the machine. However, when the election requires different ballots for many posts to be elected, this simplicity fades away. Furthermore, reading errors often reach a problematic 5-15% on Election Day. In this sense, experience demonstrates that OS can be frustrating for the voter, and also for operators and electoral authorities, as they will be held responsible for a considerable number of null votes. 

With the new technological developments, such as touch screens and voice sensitive devices, voting with a DRE system (electronic voting and automated tallying) has evolved to become user friendly. Modern voting machines simplify interaction by providing voters with feedback messages, visual or auditory help, and a confirmation of their choice in any preferred language. It is important to mention that this is the only voting method that allows correcting a wrongly marked selection. 

In recent years, an urge to grant access to a hassle-free voting experience to individuals with special needs has prompted electoral authorities to set new guidelines for voting systems. For instance, the federal law Help America Vote Act (HAVA), established in 2002 new conditions to give citizens with disabilities, including the blind and visually impaired, equal opportunities to participate in elections. 

Electoral authorities have had a difficult time trying to cope with these new standards while complying with universal mandates such as secrecy. For example, assisting an impaired individual can compromise the secrecy of the vote and independence of the voter. MV and OS systems offer little options to improve the voting experience of these citizens. Through the use of touch screens, friendly interfaces, visual and auditory assistance, DRE machines developers have taken ease of use to a whole new level. Their more customizable interface has allowed them to gain an edge over the other technologies in this regard. 

Security 

Many of the traditional problems faced in manual elections revolve around security issues. The high levels of human intervention necessary in sensitive areas, such as tallying and transmission of results, and the always latent incentive to alter results, are the root of unintended and malicious errors. Pre marking ballots, or ballot stuffing (the illegal act of one person submitting more ballots than allowed) are some of the usual problems encountered with manual voting. 

In terms of Security, Optical Scanners have had an advantage over MV as they diminish human interaction by substituting human counting and the transmission of results. However, the process of transmitting results is usually made through methods that do not guarantee 100% the safety of the data. Moreover, the typical irregularities often found with paper ballots are present with this technology. 

DRE voting system providers have in Security one of the most compelling selling attributes. By minimizing human interaction with electoral material, increasing levels of auditability, and recording, processing and transmitting the information through safe protocols, a well designed DRE machine impedes any alteration of the voter’s intent. 

An advanced DRE system provides a paper trail for each vote casted, thus creating a double record (physical and electronic) which enhances the transparency of the process. Some advanced Optical Scanners also offer this redundancy of records.

Basic criteria for choosing voting technology

Throughout the history of elections, a plethora of technologies have been used to register the will of voters. Pencil and paper, lever machines, punch cards, optical scanners, touch screen voting machines, internet voting, are some of the alternatives electoral authorities have at their disposal to identify the people's chosen representatives and to tally their expressed preferences.

With all these options in hand, and the single most important act of democracy at stake, the process of selecting the appropriate alternative to implement becomes crucial.

Electoral authorities need to consider the following five basic principles in order to make a wise and well-informed decision:

1. Accessibility: The voting process should enfranchise all eligible voters and be operated and maintained without the assistance of any specialist. It must be easy to use, and allow people with special needs or disabilities exercise their right to vote.

A voting system must also comply with the accessibility requirements of authorities and operators. The whole voting procedure should be designed as to allow any citizen, once given a minimal training, to operate it and to guide voters.

2. Security: A reliable voting system cannot allow any vote tampering. The different features comprising it should constitute a bulletproof architecture guaranteeing that the voter’s choice remains unchanged. It has to be resistant to malicious or unintentional errors.

Also, a secure system must guarantee total secrecy. A secret ballot is essential to ensure voter autonomy and also avoid vote buying. 

3. Transparency: A voting technology will be transparent as long as it is understandable, verifiable, and accountable to the electorate. Its openness to audits, before, during and after the election will greatly enhance the perceived transparency of the system. 

If citizens are to abide by election outcomes and the laws created by an elected government, they must believe that the voting system reflects their preferences. 

4. Accuracy: Every vote must be counted equally. That is a universal mandate of any modern constitution. An accurate technology should truthfully capture, record and count the voter’s intent.

5. Cost-efficiency: The financial aspect of the different voting technologies must be carefully reviewed as their nature is quite dissimilar. A thorough cost analysis should include not only the initial investment, but also, other associated expenses such as: labor, transportation, guarding, and storage. In order to grasp an all-encompassing view of the economic implications of using each technology, the analysis must include several elections cycles.

The principles mentioned above constitute the basic criteria to start the challenging process of choosing the most appropriate technology for the cornerstone of any modern democracy, elections.