That Voatz had the audacity to paint researchers as malicious when they were using hardcoded encryption keys from a stack overflow answer to "protect" ballot receipts says everything you need to know about e-voting vendors.
Closed source e-voting has no future.
Closed source e-voting has no future.
This report is wild.
Amazing
Oh come on.
A nice summary.
If everything that happened in Switzerland and Australia last here wasn't enough to convince you that we need openly developed, openly source, publicly funded e-voting infrastructure, here is another argument for the pile
If everything that happened in Switzerland and Australia last here wasn't enough to convince you that we need openly developed, openly source, publicly funded e-voting infrastructure, here is another argument for the pile
E-voting vendors all share the same tactics. Lie, Deny, Sugarcoat & Gaslight and yet they continue to fail upwards.
Every journalist and researcher and member of the public should remember this the next time e-voting is proposed in a democracy near you.
Every journalist and researcher and member of the public should remember this the next time e-voting is proposed in a democracy near you.
I say this as someone on record as thinking that e-voting has a future, and indeed must have a future in a truly free, democratic society.
But the bar must be set incredibly high, and the process must be almost impossibly open, because of vendors like Voatz and Scytl.
But the bar must be set incredibly high, and the process must be almost impossibly open, because of vendors like Voatz and Scytl.
