[ad_1]
While the world waits to find out what the Mueller report contains, culmination of the investigation of the Justice Ministry's special lawyer, Robert Mueller, on Russia's interference in the In the US presidential election of 2016, it seems appropriate to develop last week's column on the security of electronic voting systems. .
I recently spoke to Nimit Sawhney, CEO and co-founder of Voatz, the blockchain-based mobile voting software provider, whose technology was tested in West Virginia during the mid-term general election. from last year. Sawhney had the idea of the project with his brother when the two men participated in a hackathon at the Austin SXSW festival in 2014. Since then, Sawhney has officially created a Boston-based company to develop the product.
Voatz's technology is making its way. Sawhney's 14-man team recently defeated Deno, Colorado, the second base of its voting system. The city tests the application during its May 7 municipal elections. Early voting begins today.
I asked Sawhney why he had decided to incorporate a blockchain into his system. He says that it is so that IT administrators inside and outside his company can not manipulate or delete records at will. Voatz uses what is called authorized ledgers, which means that only authorized parties can exploit them. In this case, the voting database is spread across 32 computer nodes running Linux Foundation Hyperledger Fabric and Hyperledger Sawtooth software on machines hosted by Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. Voatz manages the nodes alongside some non-profit organizations acting as independent auditors, a small cadre of executives that Voatz hopes to expand over time to other key stakeholders – political parties, media, etc.
While Sawhney is excited about the potential of public block chains, like Ethereum, to be part of the election infrastructure, his potential clients are more suspicious. "Election officials told us early on that they were very uncomfortable with nodes in potentially hostile parts of the world," Sawhney told me.
Sawhney thinks that blockchains can permeate the electoral process of greater transparency. Technology "gives citizens the opportunity to verify an election," he said, noting that the ballots submitted by Voatz return digital dependents that allow voters to verify their intentions. "You have a sense of trust that is based on irrefutable mathematics rather than the fact that someone tells you: these are the results and you have to believe them," says Sawhney.
Electronic voting systems are however not bullet-proof. Threats resulting from vulnerabilities, hackers, and physical stress raise serious security issues. Conversely, these systems have obvious advantages. They are much more accessible than paper ballots, at least for smartphone owners. And they promise to free citizens with disabilities, traveling abroad or serving in the military.
Despite the benefits, many security professionals feel that it's impossible to overlook the risks. Sawhney understands the objections of critics. "No system is 100% safe," he concedes. But, to that, he adds an addendum: "This also applies to paper-based systems."
"We realize there are many opposing forces, people who hate and disapprove of what we do," says Sawhney. But, he continues, "we believe that it is really important and that we must make sure that progress is made".
All technologies are double-edged weapons. The trick is to dull the blade when falling into the hands of the opponent.
Moreover, if Estonia can do that, the United States may be able to do it too.
Robert Hackett
@rhhackett
Welcome to the Saturday edition of the technical sheet, Fortune & # 39;Daily technical newsletter. Fortune The journalist Robert Hackett here. You can join Robert Hackett via Twitter, Cryptocat, Jabber (see OTR fingerprint on my about.me), email encrypted with PGP (see the public key on my Keybase.io), Wickr, Signal, or whatever you prefer (safely). Comments welcome.
[ad_2]
Source link
