iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.

Link to original content: https://doi.org/10.1145/3459604

Investigating Usability and User Experience of Individually Verifiable Internet Voting Schemes | ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

research-article

Investigating Usability and User Experience of Individually Verifiable Internet Voting Schemes

Authors:

Marie-Laure Zollinger,

Peter Y. A. Ryan,

Kai KunzeAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Volume 28, Issue 5

Article No.: 30, Pages 1 - 36

https://doi.org/10.1145/3459604

Published: 03 September 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Internet voting can afford more inclusive and inexpensive elections. The flip side is that the integrity of the election can be compromised by adversarial attacks and malfunctioning voting infrastructure. Individual verifiability aims to protect against such risks by letting voters verify that their votes are correctly registered in the electronic ballot box. Therefore, voters need to carry out additional tasks making human factors crucial for security. In this article, we establish a categorization of individually verifiable Internet voting schemes based on voter interactions. For each category in our proposed categorization, we evaluate a voting scheme in a user study with a total of 100 participants. In our study, we assessed usability, user experience, trust, and further qualitative data to gain deeper insights into voting schemes. Based on our results, we conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to inform the choices and design of individually verifiable Internet voting schemes.

References

[1]

Claudia Z. Acemyan, Philip Kortum, Michael D. Byrne, and Dan S. Wallach. 2014. Usability of voter verifiable, end-to-end voting systems: Baseline data for Helios, Prêt à Voter, and Scantegrity II. The USENIX Journal of Election Technology and Systems 2, 3 (2014), 26–56.

[2]

B. Adida. 2006. Advances in Cryptographic Voting Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, UMI Order Number: AAI 0810143.

[3]

Ben Adida. 2008. Helios: Web-based open-audit voting. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium, Vol. 17. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, 335–348.

[4]

Ben Adida, Olivier De Marneffe, Olivier Pereira, and Jean-Jacques Quisquater. 2009. Electing a University President using open-audit voting: Analysis of real-world use of Helios. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, 1–15.

[5]

Jordi Puiggalí Allepuz and Sandra Guasch Castelló. 2011. Internet voting system with cast as intended verification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 36–52.

[6]

Jordi Puiggalí Allepuz and Sandra Guasch Castelló. 2012. Cast-as-Intended verification in Norway. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Electronic Voting. Lecture Notes in Informatics, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 49–63.

[7]

Arne Ansper, Sven Heiberg, Helger Lipmaa, Tom André Øverland, and Filip Van Laenen. 2009. Security and trust for the Norwegian E-voting pilot project E-valg 2011. In Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Secure IT Systems. Springer, Cham, 207–222.

[8]

Davide Balzarotti, Greg Banks, Marco Cova, Viktoria Felmetsger, Richard Kemmerer, William Robertson, Fredrik Valeur, and Giovanni Vigna. 2008. Are your votes really counted? Testing the security of real-world electronic voting systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, New York, NY, 237–248.

[9]

D. Balzarotti, G. Banks, M. Cova, V. Felmetsger, R. Kemmerer, W. Robertson, F. Valeur, and G. Vigna. 2010. An experience in testing the security of real-world electronic voting systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36, 4 (July 2010), 453–473.

Digital Library

[10]

Josh Benaloh. 2006. Simple verifiable elections. In Proceedings of the Electronic Voting Technology Workshop. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA.

[11]

Josh Benaloh. 2007. Ballot casting assurance via voter-initiated poll station auditing. In Proceedings of the USENIX Electronic Voting Technology Workshop, p.14.

Digital Library

[12]

Josh Benaloh, Peter Y. A. Ryan, and Vanessa Teague. 2013. Verifiable postal voting. In Proceedings of the Cambridge International Workshop on Security Protocols. Springer, 54–65.

[13]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.

[14]

Achim Brelle and Tomasz Truderung. 2017. Cast-as-intended mechanism with return codes based on PETs. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham, 264–279.

Digital Library

[15]

Ian Brightwell, Jordi Cucurull, David Galindo, and Sandra Guasch. 2015. An overview of the iVote 2015 voting system. New South Wales Electoral Commission, Australia, Scytl Secure Electronic Voting, Spain (2015).

[16]

John Brooke. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry 189, 194 (1996), 4–7.

[17]

Jurlind Budurushi, Melanie Volkamer, Oksana Kulyk, and Stephan Neumann. 2017. Nothing comes for free: How much usability can you sacrifice for security?IEEE Security & Privacy Special Issue on Electronic Voting 15, 3(2017), 24–29.

[18]

Sergiu Bursuc, Gurchetan S. Grewal, and Mark D. Ryan. 2011. Trivitas: Voters directly verifying votes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 190–207.

[19]

Pyrros Chaidos, Véronique Cortier, Georg Fuchsbauer, and David Galindo. 2016. BeleniosRF: A non-interactive receipt-free electronic voting scheme. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York, NY, 1614–1625.

Digital Library

[20]

David Chaum. 2001. Surevote: Technical overview. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Trustworthy Elections.

[21]

Nikos Chondros, Bingsheng Zhang, Thomas Zacharias, Panos Diamantopoulos, Stathis Maneas, Christos Patsonakis, Alex Delis, Aggelos Kiayias, and Mema Roussopoulos. 2016. D-DEMOS: A distributed, end-to-end verifiable, internet voting system. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 711–720.

[22]

Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 1 (1960), 37–46.

[23]

Véronique Cortier, Alicia Filipiak, and Joseph Lallemand. 2019. BeleniosVS: Secrecy and verifiability against a corrupted voting device. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 367–381.

[24]

Véronique Cortier, Georg Fuchsbauer, and David Galindo. 2015. BeleniosRF: A strongly receipt-free electronic voting scheme. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015 (2015), 629.

[25]

Véronique Cortier, David Galindo, Ralf Küsters, Johannes Mueller, and Tomasz Truderung. 2016. SoK: Verifiability notions for e-voting protocols. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 779–798.

[26]

Chris Culnane and Vanessa Teague. 2016. Strategies for voter-initiated election audits. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security. Springer, Cham, 235–247.

Digital Library

[27]

Emiliano De Cristofaro, Honglu Du, Julien Freudiger, and Greg Norcie. 2014. A comparative usability study of two-factor authentication. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Usable Security. Internet Society, Reston, VA, 10.

[28]

Sergej Dechand, Dominik Schürmann, Karoline Busse, Yasemin Acar, Sascha Fahl, and Matthew Smith. 2016. An empirical study of textual key-fingerprint representations. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 193–208.

[29]

Verena Distler, Marie-Laure Zollinger, Carine Lallemand, Peter B. Roenne, Peter Y. A. Ryan, and Vincent Koenig. 2019. Security-Visible, Yet Unseen? In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[30]

Alex Escala, Sandra Guasch, Javier Herranz, and Paz Morillo. 2016. Universal cast-as-intended verifiability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 233–250.

[31]

Estonian National Electoral Committee. 2010. E-Voting System General Overview. Retrieved March 28, 2019 from http://www.vvk.ee/public/dok/General_Description_E-Voting_2010.pdf.

[32]

Estonian National Electoral Committee. 2015. Statistics about Internet Voting in Estonia. Retrieved November 28, 2019 from https://www.valimised.ee/en/archive/statistics-about-internet-voting-estonia.

[33]

Uwe Flick. 2018. An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited.

[34]

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 2015. ICTs in Elections Database. Retrieved October 12, 2019 from https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/icts-elections.

[35]

Kristin Skeide Fuglerud and Till Halbach Røssvoll. 2012. An evaluation of web-based voting usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society 11, 4 (2012), 359–373.

Digital Library

[36]

D. Galindo, S. Guasch, and J. Puiggalí. 2015. 2015 Neuchâtel’s cast-as-intended verification mechanism. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 3–18.

[37]

Dawid Gaweł, Maciej Kosarzecki, Poorvi L. Vora, Hua Wu, and Filip Zagórski. 2016. Apollo–end-to-end verifiable internet voting with recovery from vote manipulation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham, 125–143.

[38]

Ed Gerck, C. Andrew Neff, Ronald L. Rivest, Aviel D. Rubin, and Moti Yung. 2001. The business of electronic voting. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography. Springer, Cham, 243–268.

[39]

Kristian Gjøsteen. 2011. The Norwegian Internet Voting Protocol. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 1–18.

[40]

Laurent Grégoire. 2012. Comment mon ordinateur a vote à ma place (2012). Retrieved from https://www.lesinrocks.com/actu/comment-mon-ordinateur-vote-ma-place-344254-29-05-2012/.

[41]

G. S. Grewal, M. D. Ryan, L. Chen, and M. R. Clarkson. 2015. Du-Vote: Remote electronic voting with untrusted computers. In Proceedings of the 28th Computer Security Foundations Symposium. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 155–169.

[42]

Sandra Guasch and Paz Morillo. 2016. How to challenge and cast your e-vote. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 130–145.

[43]

Stuart Haber, Josh Benaloh, and Shai Halevi. 2010. The Helios E-Voting Demo for the IACR. International Association for Cryptologic Research, Lyon.

[44]

Rolf Haenni, Reto E. Koenig, and Eric Dubuis. 2016. Cast-as-intended verification in electronic elections based on oblivious transfer. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham, 73–91.

[45]

J. Alex Halderman and Vanessa Teague. 2015. The New South Wales iVote system: Security failures and verification flaws in a live online election. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 35–53.

Digital Library

[46]

Sven Heiberg and Jan Willemson. 2014. Verifiable Internet voting in Estonia. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting, Verifying the Vote. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1–8.

[47]

Jörg Helbach and Jörg Schwenk. 2007. Secure Internet voting with code sheets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 166–177.

[48]

AV-Test The Independent IT-Security Institute. 2020. Malware. Retrieved May 31, 2020 from https://www.av-test.org/en/statistics/malware/.

[49]

International Organization for Standardization. 1998. ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of Human System Interaction Part 11: Guidance on Usability. ISO

[50]

International Organization for Standardization. 2010. ISO 9241-210: Ergonomics of Human System Interaction - Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems.ISO

[51]

Vincenzo Iovino, Alfredo Rial, Peter B. Rønne, and Peter Y. A. Ryan. 2017. Using Selene to verify your vote in JCJ. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 385–403.

[52]

Fatih Karayumak, Maina M. Olembo, Michaela Kauer, and Melanie Volkamer. 2011. Usability analysis of Helios - An open source verifiable remote electronic voting system. In Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic Voting Technology/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA.

[53]

Shahram Khazaei and Douglas Wikström. 2017. Return code schemes for electronic voting systems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham, 198–209.

Digital Library

[54]

Aggelos Kiayias, Thomas Zacharias, and Bingsheng Zhang. 2015. End-to-end verifiable elections in the standard model. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, Cham, 468–498.

[55]

A. Kiayias, T. Zacharias, and B. Zhang. 2017. An efficient E2E verifiable E-voting system without setup assumptions. IEEE Security Privacy 15, 3 (2017), 14–23.

Digital Library

[56]

Peter Kieseberg, Manuel Leithner, Martin Mulazzani, Lindsay Munroe, Sebastian Schrittwieser, Mayank Sinha, and Edgar Weippl. 2010. QR code security. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia. ACM, New York, NY, 430–435.

Digital Library

[57]

Radhesh Krishnan Konoth, Victor van der Veen, and Herbert Bos. 2016. How anywhere computing just killed your phone-based two-factor authentication. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 405–421.

[58]

Steve Kremer and Peter B. Rønne. 2016. To du or not to du: A security analysis of du-vote. In Proceedings of the IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 473–486.

[59]

Robert Krimmer, David Duenas-Cid, Iuliia Krivonosova, Priit Vinkel, and Arne Koitmae. 2018. How much does an e-vote cost? Cost comparison per vote in multichannel elections in Estonia. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham, 117–131.

[60]

Kat Krol, Eleni Philippou, Emiliano De Cristofaro, and M. Angela Sasse. 2015. “They brought in the horrible key ring thing!” Analysing the usability of two-factor authentication in UK online banking. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Usable Security. Internet Society, Reston, VA.

[61]

Ivo Kubjas, Tiit Pikma, and Jan Willemson. 2017. Estonian voting verification mechanism revisited again. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham, 306–317.

Digital Library

[62]

Oksana Kulyk, Jan Henzel, Karen Renaud, and Melanie Volkamer. 2019. Comparing “challenge-based” and “code-Based” internet voting verification implementations. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Cham, 519–538.

[63]

Ralf Küsters, Julian Liedtke, Johannes Mueller, Daniel Rausch, and Andreas Vogt. 2020. Ordinos: A verifiable tally-hiding e-voting system. In Proceedings of the IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 216–235.

[64]

Ralf Küsters, Johannes Müller, Enrico Scapin, and Tomasz Truderung. 2016. sElect: A lightweight verifiable remote voting system. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundations Symposium. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 341–354.

[65]

Bettina Laugwitz, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp. 2008. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group. Springer, Cham, 63–76.

Digital Library

[66]

Karola Marky, Oksana Kulyk, Karen Renaud, and Melanie Volkamer. 2018. What did I really vote for? On the usability of verifiable e-voting schemes. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[67]

Karola Marky, Oksana Kulyk, and Melanie Volkamer. 2018. Comparative usability evaluation of cast-as-intended verification approaches in internet voting. In Proceedings of the Jahrestagung des Fachbereichs Sicherheit – Schutz und Zuverlässigkeit der Gesellschaft für Informatik. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 197–208.

[68]

Karola Marky, Verena Zimmermann, Markus Funk, Jörg Daubert, Kira Bleck, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2020. Improving the usability and UX of the swiss internet voting interface. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1–13. DOI;

[69]

Karola Marky, Marie-Laure Zollinger, Markus Funk, Peter Ryan, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2019. How to assess the usability metrics of e-voting schemes. In Proceedings of Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 257–271.

[70]

Víctor Mateu and Magda Valls. 2017. Cast as intended verifiability for mixed array ballots. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective. Springer, Cham, 206–218.

Digital Library

[71]

Yomna Nasser, Chidinma Okoye, Jeremy Clark, and Peter Y.A. Ryan. 2018. Blockchains and Voting: Somewhere Between Hype and a Panacea. Retrieved from http://users.encs.concordia.ca/ clark/papers/draft_voting.pdf.

[72]

S. Neumann, M. M. Olembo, K. Renaud, and M. Volkamer. 2014. Helios Verification: To alleviate, or to nominate: Is that the question, or shall we have both? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective. Springer, Cham, 246–260.

[73]

NSW Electoral Commission. 2019. iVote Online and Telephone Voting. Retrieved November 18, 2019 from https://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/Voters/Other-voting-options/iVote-online-and-telephone-voting.

[74]

Maina M. Olembo, Steffen Bartsch, and Melanie Volkamer. 2013. Mental models of verifiability in voting. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Voting and Identity. Springer, Cham, 142–155.

Digital Library

[75]

POLYAS GmbH. 2019. Overview of Polyas Costumers. Retrieved September 30, 2019 from POLYAS Kunden Übersicht.

[76]

Programme Office eGovernment Switzerland. 2019. Electronic Voting. Retrieved November 18, 2019 from https://www.egovernment.ch/en/umsetzung/schwerpunktplan/vote-electronique/.

[77]

Peter Y. A. Ryan, David Bismark, James Heather, Steve Schneider, and Zhe Xia. 2009. Prêt à voter: A voter-verifiable voting system. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 4, 4 (2009), 662–673.

Digital Library

[78]

Peter Y. A. Ryan, Peter B. Rønne, and Vincenzo Iovino. 2016. Selene: Voting with transparent verifiability and coercion-mitigation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 176–192.

[79]

Peter Y. A. Ryan and Vanessa Teague. 2009. Pretty good democracy. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Security Protocols. Springer, Cham, 111–130.

[80]

Kazue Sako and Joe Kilian. 1995. Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, Cham, 393–403.

[81]

Ted Selker, Elizabeth Rosenzweig, and Anna Pandolfo. 2006. A methodology for testing voting systems. Journal of Usability Studies 2, 1 (Nov. 2006), 7–21. Retrieved from

[82]

Drew Springall, Travis Finkenauer, Zakir Durumeric, Jason Kitcat, Harri Hursti, Margaret MacAlpine, and J. Alex Halderman. 2014. Security analysis of the estonian internet voting system. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York, NY, 703–715.

[83]

Joshua Tan, Lujo Bauer, Joseph Bonneau, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Jeremy Thomas, and Blase Ur. 2017. Can unicorns help users compare crypto key fingerprints? In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 3787–3798.

Digital Library

[84]

Georgios Tsoukalas, Kostas Papadimitriou, Panos Louridas, and Panayiotis Tsanakas. 2013. From Helios to Zeus. In Proceedings of the Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA.

[85]

Jan Vom Brocke, Alexander Simons, Bjoern Niehaves, Kai Riemer, Ralf Plattfaut, and Anne Cleven. 2009. Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Vol. 9. 2206–2217.

[86]

Willem A. Wagenaar. 1972. Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of literature. Psychological Bulletin 77, 1 (1972), 65–72.

[87]

Janna-Lynn Weber and Urs Hengartner. 2009. Usability Study of the Open Audit Voting System Helios. Retrieved December 22, 2017 from http://www.jannaweber.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/858Helios.pdf.

[88]

Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly 26, 2 (2002), xiii–xxiii.

Digital Library

[89]

Scott Wolchok, Eric Wustrow, Dawn Isabel, and J. Alex Halderman. 2012. Attacking the Washington, DC internet voting system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, Cham, 114–128.

[90]

Hua Wu, Poorvi L. Vora, and Filip Zagórski. 2019. PrivApollo–secret ballot E2E-V internet voting. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Advances in Secure Electronic Voting. Springer, Cham.

[91]

Filip Zagórski, Richard T. Carback, David Chaum, Jeremy Clark, Aleksander Essex, and Poorvi L. Vora. 2013. Remotegrity: Design and use of an end-to-end verifiable remote voting system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security. Springer, Cham, 441–457.

[92]

Anfu Zhou, Guangyuan Su, Shilin Zhu, and HuaDong Ma. 2019. Invisible QR code hijacking using smart LED. In Proceedings of the ACM Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3, 3, Article 126 (Sept. 2019), 23 pages.

Digital Library

[93]

Marie-Laure Zollinger, Verena Distler, Peter B. Roenne, Peter Y. A. Ryan, Carine Lallemand, and Vincent Koenig. 2019. User experience design for e-voting: How mental models align with security mechanisms. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting. TalTech, 187–202.

Cited By

Martínek TMalý M(2024)Evaluation of the I-Voting System for Remote Primary Elections of the Czech Pirate PartyActa Informatica Pragensia10.18267/j.aip.24913:3(395-417)Online publication date: 22-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.249
Marky KGerber NKrumb HKhamis MMühlhäuser M(2024)Investigating Voter Perceptions of Printed Physical Audit Trails for Online Voting2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)10.1109/SP54263.2024.00136(3458-3477)Online publication date: 19-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SP54263.2024.00136
Farzaliyev VPärn CSaarse HWillemson J(2024)Lattice-Based Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Action: Applications to Electronic VotingJournal of Cryptology10.1007/s00145-024-09530-538:1Online publication date: 26-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-024-09530-5
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Investigating Usability and User Experience of Individually Verifiable Internet Voting Schemes
1. Security and privacy
  1. Human and societal aspects of security and privacy
    1. Usability in security and privacy

Recommendations

Improving the Usability and UX of the Swiss Internet Voting Interface
CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Up to 20% of residential votes and up to 70% of absentee votes in Switzerland are cast online. The Swiss system aims to provide individual verifiability by different verification codes. The voters have to carry out verification on their own, making the ...
What Did I Really Vote For? On the Usability of Verifiable E-Voting Schemes
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

E-voting has been embraced by a number of countries, delivering benefits in terms of efficiency and accessibility. End-to-end verifiable e-voting schemes facilitate verification of the integrity of individual votes during the election process. In ...
Coercion-resistant proxy voting

An Internet voting scheme with proxy voting functionality is proposed.The proposed scheme is built as an extension to a well-known Civitas scheme, and provides end-to-end verifiability and coercion resistance.A comparison with other proxy voting schemes ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction Volume 28, Issue 5

October 2021

308 pages

ISSN:1073-0516

EISSN:1557-7325

DOI:10.1145/3481685

Editor:
Kristina Höök
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 September 2021

Accepted: 01 March 2021

Revised: 01 January 2021

Received: 01 June 2020

Published in TOCHI Volume 28, Issue 5

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Funding Sources

Horst Görtz Foundation
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)
JST CREST
BMBF
Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts
National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
494
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)155
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14

Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Martínek TMalý M(2024)Evaluation of the I-Voting System for Remote Primary Elections of the Czech Pirate PartyActa Informatica Pragensia10.18267/j.aip.24913:3(395-417)Online publication date: 22-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.249
Marky KGerber NKrumb HKhamis MMühlhäuser M(2024)Investigating Voter Perceptions of Printed Physical Audit Trails for Online Voting2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)10.1109/SP54263.2024.00136(3458-3477)Online publication date: 19-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SP54263.2024.00136
Farzaliyev VPärn CSaarse HWillemson J(2024)Lattice-Based Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Action: Applications to Electronic VotingJournal of Cryptology10.1007/s00145-024-09530-538:1Online publication date: 26-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-024-09530-5
Sauer MAlpers SBecker C(2023)Comparison of methods for analyzing the correlation of user experience and information securityProceedings of the 2023 5th International Conference on Software Engineering and Development10.1145/3637792.3637794(8-16)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637792.3637794
Dube SVenkata Siva Sandeep MChallagundla HNikhilesh Chand P(2023)Deep Learning & Computer Vision Integrated Smart Voting System2023 International Conference on Distributed Computing and Electrical Circuits and Electronics (ICDCECE)10.1109/ICDCECE57866.2023.10151439(1-6)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCECE57866.2023.10151439
Agbesi SBudurushi JDalela AKulyk O(2023)Investigating Transparency Dimensions for Internet VotingElectronic Voting10.1007/978-3-031-43756-4_1(1-17)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-43756-4_1
Zollinger MEstaji ERyan PMarky K(2021)“Just for the Sake of Transparency”: Exploring Voter Mental Models of VerifiabilityElectronic Voting10.1007/978-3-030-86942-7_11(155-170)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-86942-7_11

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents