The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.03 - May/June (2008 vol.6)
pp: 40-46
Aleks Essex , University of Ottawa
Richard Carback , University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Jeremy Clark , University of Waterloo
Stefan Popoveniuc , George Washington University
Alan Sherman , University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Poorvi Vora , George Washington University
ABSTRACT
Scantegrity is a security enhancement for optical scan voting systems. It's part of an emerging class of "end-to-end" independent election verification systems that permit each voter to verify that his or her ballot was correctly recorded and counted. On the Scantegrity ballot, each candidate position is paired with a random letter. Election officials confirm receipt of the ballot by posting the letter that is adjacent to the marked position. Scantegrity is the first voting system to offer strong independent verification without changing the way voters mark optical scan ballots, and it complies with legislative proposals requiring "unencrypted" paper audit records.
INDEX TERMS
e-voting, electronic voting, optical scan ballots, election procedures, David Chaum, security
CITATION
David Chaum, Aleks Essex, Richard Carback, Jeremy Clark, Stefan Popoveniuc, Alan Sherman, Poorvi Vora, "Scantegrity: End-to-End Voter-Verifiable Optical- Scan Voting", IEEE Security & Privacy, vol.6, no. 3, pp. 40-46, May/June 2008, doi:10.1109/MSP.2008.70
REFERENCES
1. S. Garera and A.D. Rubin, "An Independent Audit Framework for Software Dependent Voting Systems," Proc. 14th ACM Conf. Computer and Comm. Security (CCS 07), ACM Press, 2007, pp. 256–265.
2. A.J. Feldman, J.A. Halderman, and E.W. Felten, "Security Analysis of the Diebold Accuvote-ts Voting Machine," Proc. Usenix Accurate Electronic Voting Technology on Usenix/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop (EVT 07), Usenix Assoc., 2007, p. 2.
3. US Election Assistance Commission, "2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG)," Dec. 2005; www.eac.gov/voting%20systems/voting-system-certification 2005-vvsg.
4. A. Essex et al., "The Punchscan Voting System: VoComp Competition Submission," Proc. 1st Univ. Voting Systems Competition (VoComp), 2007; http://punchscan.org/vocompPunchscanVocompSubmission.pdf .
5. D. Chaum, P.Y. Ryan, and S.A. Schneider, "A Practical, Voterverifiable, Election Scheme," tech. report series CS-TR-880, School of Computer Science, Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2004.
6. Election Data Services, "2006 Voting Equipment Study," Oct. 2006; www.edssurvey.comindex.php?content=ves06n .
7. C.A. Neff, "Practical High Certainty Intent Verification for Encrypted Votes,"14 Oct. 2004; www.votehere.comdocuments.php.
8. C.A. Neff, "Verifiable Mixing (Shuffling) of ElGamal Pairs,"21 Apr. 2004; www.votehere.com/vhti/documentationegshuf-2.0.3638.pdf .
9. D. Chaum, "Secret-Ballot Receipts: True Voter-Verifiable Elections," IEEE Security &Privacy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2004, pp. 38–47.
10. J. Benaloh, "Ballot Casting Assurance via Voter-Initiated Poll Station Auditing," Proc. 2007 Usenix/ACCUrATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop (EVT 07), Usenix Assoc., 2007, p. 14.
11. J.A. Aslam, R.A. Popa, and R.L. Rivest, "On Estimating the Size and Confidence of a Statistical Audit," Proc. Usenix/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology on Usenix/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop (EVT 07), Usenix Assoc., 2007, p. 8.
12. D. Chaum, "Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms," Comm. ACM, vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 1981, pp. 84–90.
13. A. Kent, "Unconditionally Secure Bit Commitment," Physical rev. Letters, vol. 83, no. 7, Aug. 1999, pp. 1447–1450.
14. D. Chaum, R. Carback, J. Clark, A. Essex, S. Popoveniuc, R. Rivest, P. Ryan, E. Shen, A. Sherman, "Scantegrity II: End-to-End Verifiability for Optical Scan Election Systems Using Invisible Ink Confirmation Codes," submitted.
15. A.J. Devegili, "Farnel: Uma Proposta de Protocolo Criptográco para Votação Digital," Curso de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil, 2001.
16. S. Popoveniuc and J. Stanton, "Buying Random Votes Is as Hard as Buying No-votes," Cryptology ePrint Archive, report 2008/059, 2008; http://eprint.iacr.org/2008059.pdf.
14 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool