Advertisement

Verifiability Experiences in Government Online Voting Systems

  • Jordi Puiggalí
  • Jordi Cucurull
  • Sandra Guasch
  • Robert Krimmer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10615)

Abstract

Since the introduction of verifiability in the online government elections of Norway in 2011, different governments have followed similar steps and have implemented these properties in their voting systems. However, not all the systems have adopted the same levels of verifiability nor the same range of cryptographic mechanisms. For instance, Estonia (2013) and New South Wales (Australia, 2015) started by adopting individual verifiability to their systems. Switzerland updated its regulation in 2014 to include individual and universal verifiability in order to by-pass the previous limitation of voting online up to 30% of the electorate. Geneva and Swiss Post voting systems are adapting their systems to this regulation and currently provide individual verifiability (and universal in the case of Swiss Post). In this exploratory paper, we study the different approaches followed by the election organizers that offer online voting, their current status and derived future tendencies.

Keywords

Electronic voting protocols Election verifiability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The contributions of R. Krimmer to this article are partially supported by Estonian Research Council Project PUT1361 and Tallinn University of Technology Project B42.

Disclaimer. The authors of the paper affiliated to Scytl Secure Online Voting have been involved in some of the electronic voting systems described.

References

  1. 1.
    E-voting system chvote 1.0. source code offline administration application. https://github.com/republique-et-canton-de-geneve/chvote-1-0
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Estonia voting system source code repository. https://github.com/vvk-ehk
  4. 4.
    Guidelines on the implementation of the provisions of Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)5 on standards for e-voting. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680726c0b
  5. 5.
    Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)5[1] of the Committee of Ministers to member States on standards for e-voting. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680726f6f
  6. 6.
    Recommendation Rec(2004)11 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 30 September 2004 and explanatory memorandum. http://publiweb104.coe.int/t/dgap/goodgovernance/Activities/GGIS/E-voting/Key_Documents/Default_en.asp
  7. 7.
    Election Observation Handbook: Sixth Edition. OSCE/ODIHR, Warsaw (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Final Report of the Election Assessment to Norway. OSCE/ODIHR, Warsaw (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Final Report of the Election Assessment Mission to Estonia. OSCE/ODIHR, Warsaw (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Handbook for the Observation of New Voting Technologies. OSCE/ODIHR, Warsaw (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Final Report of the Election Assessment Mission to Switzerland. OSCE/ODIHR, Warsaw (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adida, B.: Helios: web-based open-audit voting. In: van Oorschot, P.C. (ed.) USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 335–348. USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrat, J., Bolo, E., Bravo, A., Krimmer, R., Neumann, S., Parreño, A.A., Schürmann, C., Volkamer, M., Wolf, P.: Certification of ICTs in Elections. International IDEA, Stockholm (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellare, M.: Practice-oriented provable-security. In: Damgård, I.B. (ed.) EEF School 1998. LNCS, vol. 1561, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48969-X_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bibiloni, P., Escala, A., Morillo, P.: Vote validatability in mix-net-based eVoting. In: Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E., Wikström, D. (eds.) VOTELID 2015. LNCS, vol. 9269, pp. 92–109. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brightwell, I., Cucurull, J., Galindo, D., Guasch, S.: An overview of the iVote 2015 voting system (2015). https://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/about_us/plans_and_reports/ivote_reports
  17. 17.
    Burton, C., Culnane, C., Schneider, S.: Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting in Practice: the use of vVote in the Victorian State Election. CoRR abs/1504.07098 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.07098
  18. 18.
    The Swiss Federal Chancellery: Federal chancellery ordinance on electronic voting (2013). http://www.bk.admin.ch/themen/pore/evoting/07979
  19. 19.
    Clouser, M., Krimmer, R., Nore, H., Schürmann, C., Wolf, P.: The Use of Open Source Technology in Election Administration. International IDEA, Stockholm (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cramer, R., Gennaro, R., Schoenmakers, B.: A secure and optimally efficient multi-authority election scheme. In: Fumy, W. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1233, pp. 103–118. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). doi: 10.1007/3-540-69053-0_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Damgård, I.: On sigma-protocols. http://www.cs.au.dk/ivan/Sigma.pdf
  22. 22.
    Galindo, D., Guasch, S., Puiggalí, J.: 2015 Neuchâtel’s cast-as-intended verification mechanism. In: Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E., Wikström, D. (eds.) VOTELID 2015. LNCS, vol. 9269, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gharadaghy, R., Volkamer, M.: Verifiability in electronic voting - explanations for non security experts. In: Krimmer and Grimm [32], pp. 151–162Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gjøsteen, K.: Analysis of an internet voting protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2010/380 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E., Dubuis, E.: Cast-as-intended verification in electronic elections based on oblivious transfer. In: Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M., Barrat, J., Benaloh, J., Goodman, N., Ryan, P.Y.A., Teague, V. (eds.) E-Vote-ID 2016. LNCS, vol. 10141, pp. 73–91. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52240-1_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heiberg, S., Martens, T., Vinkel, P., Willemson, J.: Improving the verifiability of the estonian internet voting scheme. In: Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M., Barrat, J., Benaloh, J., Goodman, N., Ryan, P.Y.A., Teague, V. (eds.) E-Vote-ID 2016. LNCS, vol. 10141, pp. 92–107. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52240-1_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heiberg, S., Parsovs, A., Willemson, J.: Log analysis of Estonian internet voting 2013–2014. In: Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E., Wikström, D. (eds.) VOTELID 2015. LNCS, vol. 9269, pp. 19–34. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heiberg, S., Willemson, J.: Verifiable internet voting in Estonia. In: 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting: Verifying the Vote (EVOTE 2014), Lochau/Bregenz, 29–31 October 2014. pp. 1–8 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EVOTE.2014.7001135
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    KRD: Internet voting pilot to be discontinued - KRD press release (2014). https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/Internet-voting-pilot-to-be-discontinued/id764300/
  32. 32.
    Krimmer, R., Grimm, R. (eds.): Electronic Voting 2010 (EVOTE 2010), 4th International Conference, Co-organized by Council of Europe, Gesellschaft für Informatik and E-voting.CC, 21st–24th July 2010, in Castle Hofen, Bregenz, Austria. LNI, vol. 167. GI (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krimmer, R., Triessnig, S., Volkamer, M.: The development of remote E-voting around the world: a review of roads and directions. In: Alkassar, A., Volkamer, M. (eds.) Vote-ID 2007. LNCS, vol. 4896, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77493-8_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kripp, M.J., Volkamer, M., Grimm, R. (eds.): 5th International Conference on Electronic Voting 2012, (EVOTE 2012), Co-organized by the Council of Europe, Gesellschaft für Informatik and E-voting.CC, 11–14 July 2012, Castle Hofen, Bregenz, Austria, LNI, vol. 205. GI (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lenarcic, J.: Opening Address on 16 September 2010 at the OSCE Chairmanship Expert Seminar on the Present State and Prospects of Application of Electronic Voting in the OSCE Participating States, Vienna (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mercury, R.: A better ballot box? IEEE Spectr. 39, 46–50 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Puigalli, J., Guasch, S.: Cast-as-intended verification in Norway. In: Kripp et al. [34], pp. 49–63Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Puiggalí, J., Guasch, S.: Universally verifiable efficient re-encryption mixnet. In: Krimmer and Grimm [32], pp. 241–254. http://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Proceedings167/article5682.html
  39. 39.
    Saltman, R.G.: Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying. Technical report, NIST (1975)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stenerud, I.S.G., Bull, C.: When reality comes knocking norwegian experiences with verifiable electronic voting. In: Kripp et al. [34], pp. 21–33, http://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Proceedings205/article6754.html
  41. 41.
    Swiss Post: Individual Verifiability, Swiss Post Online Voting Protocol Explained. https://www.post.ch/-/media/post/evoting/dokumente/swiss-post-online-voting-protocol-explained.pdf?la=en&vs=3
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Wikström, D.: A sender verifiable mix-net and a new proof of a shuffle. In: Roy, B. (ed.) ASIACRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3788, pp. 273–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11593447_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods. Sage Publications, London (2003). https://books.google.es/books?id=BWea_9ZGQMwC

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Puiggalí
    • 1
  • Jordi Cucurull
    • 1
  • Sandra Guasch
    • 1
  • Robert Krimmer
    • 2
  1. 1.Research and Security DepartmentScytl Secure Electronic VotingBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Ragnar Nurkse Department for Innovation and GovernanceTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations