Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practical Governmental Voting with Unconditional Integrity and Privacy

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 10323))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Throughout the years, many cryptographically verifiable voting systems have been proposed with a whole spectrum of features and security assumptions. Where the voter casts an in-person (and possibly paper) ballot and leaves, as is common in a governmental election, the majority of the proposals fall in the category of providing unconditional integrity and computational privacy. A minority of papers have looked at the inverse scenario: everlasting privacy with computational integrity. However as far as we know, no paper has succeeded in providing both unconditional integrity and privacy in this setting—it has only been explored in boardroom voting schemes where voters participate in the tallying process. Our paper aims for a two-level contribution: first, we present a concrete system with these security properties (one that works as a backend for common ballot styles like Scantegrity II or Prêt à Voter); and second, we provide some insight into how different combinations of security assumptions are interdependent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note we do not refer to assistive technology (AT) that helps voters with disabilities cast a vote—for this reason, we dislike the term barehanded. Rather we mean devices that are trusted to perform a computation for the voter, not navigate an interface.

  2. 2.

    Future work might explore the possibility of giving each shareholder a matrix that interpolates to the correct permutation matrix under the sequential composition of any k-out-of-n interpolations.

References

  1. Adida, B.: Helios: web-based open-audit voting. In: USENIX Security (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, S., Benaloh, J., Byrne, M.D., Debeauvoir, D., Eakin, B., Kortum, P., McBurnett, N., Pereira, O., Stark, P.B., Wallach, D.S., Fisher, G., Montoya, J., Parker, M., Winn, M.: Star-vote: a secure, transparent, auditable, and reliable voting system. JETS 1, 8 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benaloh, J.: Simple verifiable elections. In: EVT (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, J.D., Fisher, M.J.: A robust and verifiable cryptographically secure election scheme. In: SFCS (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Broadbent, A., Tapp, A.: Information-theoretically secure voting without an honest majority. In: WOTE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burton, C., Culnane, C., Schneider, S.: Verifiable electronic voting in practice: the use of vvote in the victorian state election. In: IEEE Security and Privacy (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carback, R.T., Chaum, D., Clark, J., Conway, J., Essex, A., Hernson, P.S., Mayberry, T., Popoveniuc, S., Rivest, R.L., Shen, E., Sherman, A.T., Vora, P.L.: Scantegrity II election at Takoma Park. In: USENIX Security Symposium (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaum, D.: Elections with unconditionally-secret ballots and disruption equivalent to breaking RSA. In: Barstow, D., et al. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1988. LNCS, vol. 330, pp. 177–182. Springer, Heidelberg (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45961-8_15

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chaum, D.: Secret-ballot receipts: true voter-verifiable elections. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2(1), 38–47 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaum, D., Carback, R., Clark, J., Essex, A., Popoveniuc, S., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A., Shen, E., Sherman, A.T.: Scantegrity II: end-to-end verifiability for optical scan election systems using invisible ink confirmation codes. In: EVT (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chaum, D., Essex, A., Carback, R., Clark, J., Popoveniuc, S., Sherman, A.T., Vora, P.: scantegrity: end-to-end voter verifiable optical-scan voting. IEEE Secur. Priv. 6(3), 40–46 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chaum, D., Ryan, P.Y.A., Schneider, S.: A practical voter-verifiable election scheme. In: di Vimercati, S.C., Syverson, P., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3679, pp. 118–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11555827_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Chevallier-Mames, B., Fouque, P.-A., Pointcheval, D., Stern, J., Traoré, J.: On some incompatible properties of voting schemes. In: Chaum, D., Jakobsson, M., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y.A., Benaloh, J., Kutylowski, M., Adida, B. (eds.) Towards Trustworthy Elections. LNCS, vol. 6000, pp. 191–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12980-3_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Clark, J., Hengartner, U.: On the use of financial data as a random beacon. In: EVT/WOTE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cramer, R., Franklin, M., Schoenmakers, B., Yung, M.: Multi-authority secret-ballot elections with linear work. In: Maurer, U. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68339-9_7

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69053-0_9

    Google Scholar 

  17. Demirel, D., van de Graaf, J., dos Santos Araujo, R.S.: Improving Helios with everlasting privacy towards the public. In: EVT/WOTE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Essex, A., Clark, J., Hengartner, U., Adams, C.: Eperio: mitigating technical complexity in cryptographic election verification. In: EVT/WOTE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gallegos-Garcia, G., Iovino, V., Rial, A., Ronne, P.B., Ryan, P.Y.A.: (Universal) unconditional verifiability in e-voting without trusted parties. Technical report, IACR Eprint Report 2016/975 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garay, J., Givens, C., Ostrovsky, R., Raykov, P.: Broadcast (and round) efficient verifiable secret sharing. In: ICITS (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Goldwasser, S., Kalaj, Y.: On the (in)security of the Fiat-Shamir paradigm. In: FOCS (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hao, F., Zieliński, P.: A 2-round anonymous veto protocol. In: Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Malcolm, J.A., Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 2006. LNCS, vol. 5087, pp. 202–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04904-0_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Henry, K., Stinson, D.R., Sui, J.: The effectiveness of receipt-based attacks on threeballot. IEEE TIFS 4(4), 699–707 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hosp, B., Vora, P.L.: An information-theoretic model of voting systems. Math. Comput. Model. 48, 1628–1645 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Kiayias, A., Yung, M.: Self-tallying elections and perfect ballot secrecy. In: Naccache, D., Paillier, P. (eds.) PKC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2274, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45664-3_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Kiayias, A., Zacharias, T., Zhang, B.: End-to-end verifiable elections in the standard model. Technical report 2015/346, IACR Eprint Report (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Locher, P., Haenni, R.: Verifiable internet elections with everlasting privacy and minimal trust. In: Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E., Wikström, D. (eds.) VOTELID 2015. LNCS, vol. 9269, pp. 74–91. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Locher, P., Haenni, R., Koenig, R.E.: Coercion-resistant internet voting with everlasting privacy. In: Clark, J., Meiklejohn, S., Ryan, P.Y.A., Wallach, D., Brenner, M., Rohloff, K. (eds.) FC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9604, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Malkhi, D., Margo, O., Pavlov, E.: E-voting without ‘Cryptography’. In: Blaze, M. (ed.) FC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2357, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36504-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Mannan, M., Kim, B.H., Ganjali, A., Lie, D.: Unicorn: two-factor attestation for data security. In: CCS (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moran, T., Naor, M.: Receipt-free universally-verifiable voting with everlasting privacy. In: CRYPTO (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moran, T., Naor, M.: Split-ballot voting: everlasting privacy with distributed trust. In: CCS (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Neff, C.A.: A verifiable secret shuffle and its application to e-voting. In: CCS (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Popoveniuc, S., Hosp, B.: An introduction to punchscan. In: WOTE (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rabin, T., Ben-Or, M.: Verifiable secret sharing and multiparty protocols with honest majority. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1989, New York, NY, USA, pp. 73–85. ACM (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Riva, B., Ta-Shma, A.: Bare-handed electronic voting with pre-processing. In: Proceedings of the USENIX Workshop on Accurate Electronic Voting Technology, EVT 2007, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 15–15. USENIX Association (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rivest, R.L., Smith, W.D.: Three voting protocols: threeballot, VAV, and twin. In: EVT (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schoenmakers, B.: A simple publicly verifiable secret sharing scheme and its application to electronic voting. In: Wiener, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 1999. LNCS, vol. 1666, pp. 148–164. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48405-1_10

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schoenmakers, B.: Fully auditable electronic secret-ballot elections. Xootic Mag. 8, 5 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stadler, M.: Publicly verifiable secret sharing. In: Maurer, U. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 190–199. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68339-9_17

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zagórski, F., Carback, R.T., Chaum, D., Clark, J., Essex, A., Vora, P.L.: Remotegrity: design and use of an end-to-end verifiable remote voting system. In: Jacobson, M., Locasto, M., Mohassel, P., Safavi-Naini, R. (eds.) ACNS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7954, pp. 441–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38980-1_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Claude Crépeau for helpful insights. We thank the anonymous reviewers who pointed out relevant work, suggested interesting ideas, and showed us where our paper needed more clarity. The second author acknowledges funding for this work from NSERC and FQRNT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

    Nan Yang & Jeremy Clark

Authors
  1. Nan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Clark .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    Michael Brenner

  2. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA

    Kurt Rohloff

  3. New York University, New York, New York, USA

    Joseph Bonneau

  4. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA

    Andrew Miller

  5. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Peter Y.A. Ryan

  6. University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Vanessa Teague

  7. University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom

    Andrea Bracciali

  8. University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Massimiliano Sala

  9. University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Federico Pintore

  10. Agari Inc., San Mateo, California, USA

    Markus Jakobsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 International Financial Cryptography Association

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yang, N., Clark, J. (2017). Practical Governmental Voting with Unconditional Integrity and Privacy. In: Brenner, M., et al. Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10323. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70277-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70278-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation