Paper Audit Trails and Voters’ Privacy Concerns

  • Jurlind Budurushi
  • Simon Stockhardt
  • Marcel Woide
  • Melanie Volkamer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8533)

Abstract

Advances in information technology have simplified many processes in our lives. However, in many cases trust issues arise when new technology is introduced, and voting is one prominent example. To increase voters’ trust, current e-voting systems provide paper audit trails (PATs) which enable automatic tally and/or manual audit of the election result. PATs may contain only the encrypted vote or the plaintext vote in human-readable and/or machine-readable format. Previous studies report voter privacy concerns with PATs containing additional information (e.g. QR-Codes) other than the human-readable plaintext vote. However, omitting such PATs negatively influences security and/or efficiency. Hence, to address these concerns we applied the coping and threat appraisal principles of the protection motivation theory in the communication process. We evaluated them in separate surveys focused on the EasyVote system [15]. Results show that the coping appraisal is more promising than the threat appraisal approach. While our findings provide novel directions on addressing privacy concerns in the e-voting context, corresponding limitations need to be considered for future user studies.

Keywords

electronic voting paper audit trails privacy user study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, C., Agarwal, R.: Practicing safe computing: a multimedia empirical examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Q. 34, 613–643 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Nun, J., Fahri, N., Llewellyn, M., Riva, B., Rosen, A., Ta-Shma, A., Wikström, D.: A New Implementation of a Dual (Paper and Cryptographic) Voting System. In: Kripp, M., Volkamer, M., Rüddiger, G. (eds.) EVOTE 2012. LNI, vol. 205, pp. 315–329. GI (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budurushi, J., Volkamer, M.: Implementing and evaluating a software-independent voting system for polling station elections. Journal of Information Security and Applications (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2014.03.001
  4. 4.
    Board of Elections City of New York: Ballot Marking Device, http://www.votethenewwayny.com/en/using-the-new-voting-system.
  5. 5.
    Chaum, D.: Secret-Ballot Receipts: True Voter-Verifiable Elections. In: Schneider, F. (ed.) IEEE S&P 2004, vol. 2, pp. 38–47. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaum, D., Ryan, P.Y.A., Schneider, S.: A Practical Voter-Verifiable Election Scheme. In: De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Syverson, P.F., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3679, pp. 118–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Floyd, D., Prentice-Dunn, S., Rogers, D.: A Meta-Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory. JASP 30, 407–429 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnston, A.C., Warkentin, M.: Fear Appeals and Information Security Behaviors: An Empirical Study. MIS Q. 34, 548–566 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, Y., Larsen, K.R.: Threat or Coping Appraisal: Determinants of SMB Executives’ Decision to Adopt Anti-Malware Software. EJIS 18, 177–187 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Llewellyn, M., Schneider, S., Xia, Z., Culnane, C., Heather, J., Ryan, P.Y., Srinivasan, S.: Testing Voters’ Understanding of a Security Mechanism Used in Verifiable Voting. JETS 1, 53–61 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryan, P.Y., Bismark, D., Heather, J., Schneider, S., Xia, Z.: Prêt à Voter: a Voter-Verifiable Voting System. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (Special Issue on Electronic Voting) 4(4), 662–673 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers, R.: A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 9, 93–114 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rivest, R., Wack, J.: On the notion of “software independence” in voting systems. Technical report, Information Techonolgy Laboratroy, National Institute of Standards and Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vegas, C.: The New Belgian Evoting System. In: Kripp, M., Volkamer, M., Rüddiger, G. (eds.) EVOTE 2012. LNI, vol. 205, pp. 199–211. GI (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Volkamer, M., Budurushi, J., Demirel, D.: Vote Casting Device with VV-SV-PAT for Elections with Complicated Ballot Papers. In: Grimm, R., Schneider, S., Volkamer, M., Weldemariam, K. (eds.) REVOTE 2011, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurlind Budurushi
    • 1
  • Simon Stockhardt
    • 1
  • Marcel Woide
    • 1
  • Melanie Volkamer
    • 1
  1. 1.CASEDTU DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations