1 / 60

Wombat Voting

Wombat Voting. Alon Rosen IDC Herzliya July 20, 2012. Project Participants. Amnon Ta Shma (TAU) Douglas Wikstrom (KTH) Ben Riva (TAU) Niko Farhi (TAU) Morgan Llewellyn (IMT Lucca) Jonathan Ben-Nun

kyle-lara
Télécharger la présentation

Wombat Voting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wombat Voting Alon Rosen IDC Herzliya July 20, 2012

  2. Project Participants Amnon Ta Shma (TAU) Douglas Wikstrom (KTH) Ben Riva (TAU) NikoFarhi (TAU) Morgan Llewellyn (IMT Lucca) Jonathan Ben-Nun IDC Students: TomerGabbai, Doron Sharon, ShiranKleiderman, IdoBergerfroind, AsafGamliel, Daniel Rapaport, OmriBaumer, AsafInger, EitanGrundland

  3. Electronic voting in Israel

  4. The Israeli System

  5. 4 Years ago… Well, introducing computers will help us for sure * Meir Shitrit, Israel’s former Minister of Interior

  6. Not what we hoped for... The design process was problematic: • No public scrutiny • No open design • And, the resulting system was not satisfactory: • No paper trail • No transparency • …

  7. Why is this so challenging?

  8. Secrecy vs. Verifiability Voting system convince Carl the coercer Alice

  9. Desired Properties Aliceverifiesher vote. Everyoneverifiestallying. Alicecannot be coerced by Carl.

  10. 1892 - Australian Ballot

  11. Paper vs. Electronic • Paper elections • Local attacks • Lacks transparency • Electronic elections today • Global attacks • Undetectable • Unrecoverable • No transparency • Ideally • No local/global attacks • Full transparency

  12. What is Transparency? Anyone can verify that: • their vote is cast as intended • the votes were counted as cast

  13. The Wombat Voting System

  14. Main Features • Simple design. • Voter privacy. • End-to-end verifiability. • No need to trust the designers!

  15. Objectives • Easy to use. • Versatile. • Paper backup.

  16. Public Ballots Alice: Sweet Bridget: Sweet Carol: Salty Tally Sweet….2 Salty…...1 Alice

  17. Encrypted Public Ballots Alice: Sweet Bridget: Sweet Carol: Salty Everyone verifies the tally Tally Sweet….2 Salty…...1 Alice verifies her vote Alice

  18. System components • Dual ballot • Voting machine • Polling station committee • Public bulletin board • Mixnet Vote

  19. The Ballot א א

  20. Voting Booth • Vote selection • Ballot printing • Hardware • Touch screen • Printer

  21. Polling Station • Voter identification • Vote casting • Hardware • A desktop computer • 2D barcode scanner

  22. Website (Hebrew)

  23. Website (English)

  24. Elections set-up

  25. Voting

  26. Simple and Familiar

  27. Tallying • Encrypted votes are mixed by the mixnet. • Mixed decrypted votes and proofs of correctness are published in the Bulletin board. • Paper votes may be tallied according to policy.

  28. Auditing • Auditing the machine (“cast as intended”): • Audit by users using Android application. • Random audit by designated auditors. • Auditing the bulletin board. • Android application. • Validation of mixnet proofs of correctness: • Built-in verifier. • 2 Independent verifiers.

  29. Verification (manual)

  30. Verification (phone)

  31. Behind the scenes Auditing the booth: cast-or-audit

  32. Behind the scenes Auditing the booth: cast-or-audit Auditing the tally: Verifiable Mixnet

  33. Elections with Wombat • IDC Student council elections: May 17-19 2011 • Meretz party chairman: February 7, 2012 • IDC Student council elections: May 21-23 2012

  34. IDC 2011 Elections • Non-profit college with ~6000 students. • 28 different races. • Students eligible to vote on multiple races. • 2097 students voted.

  35. Some Statistics • Voting took 1-2 minutes: • 30 Seconds for voter identification • 30 Seconds for scanning the ballot • 579 voters verified ballot at bulletin board • Students encouraged to verify with a coveted prize • (2 x faculty parking spots).

  36. Questionnaire • 403 students answered an on-line survey. • 78 answered a random exit survey. • Students encouraged to answer by offering prize. • High levels of voter satisfaction and confidence. • The processes of folding ballots and validating votes should be improved.

  37. Questionnaire • “How satisfied are you with your voting experience?” • “The Voting Process Was Clear and Simple”

  38. Meretz Party Leader • Party leader elected by party council consisting of 950 representatives. • Highly diverse set of voters: • Age (many over 50), gender, education, ethnicity… • 830 (88%) voted. • 23 voters verifiedtheir vote.

  39. IDC 2012 Elections • 2120 Students voted. • Only 16 students checked their votes.

  40. Difficulties & Lessons • Technical difficulties: • Electricity power loss. • Printer hanging. • Difficulties in folding the ballot. • Mitigated by volunteers instructing voters before entering the voting booth.

  41. Pictures

  42. Pictures

  43. Pictures

  44. Pictures

  45. Pictures

  46. Pictures

  47. Pictures

  48. Pictures

  49. Pictures

More Related