Full Report
No matter how many times we say it, the idea comes back again and again. Hopefully, this letter will hold back the tide for at least a while longer. Executive summary: Scientists have understood for many years that internet voting is insecure and that there is no known or foreseeable technology that can make it secure. Still, vendors of internet voting keep claiming that, somehow, their new system is different, or the insecurity doesn’t matter. Bradley Tusk and his Mobile Voting Foundation keep touting internet voting to journalists and election administrators; this whole effort is misleading and dangerous...
Analysis Summary
# Main Topic
The inherent and persistent insecurity of internet voting systems, despite expert consensus and continued promotion by interested parties.
## Key Points
- Scientific consensus confirms that internet voting is insecure, with no known or foreseeable technology capable of making it secure.
- Vendors and proponents continue to market new internet voting systems, often downplaying or dismissing known security risks.
- Efforts by organizations like Bradley Tusk and his Mobile Voting Foundation are characterized as misleading and dangerous advocacy for insecure technology.
- The core concern is the risk posed to the integrity of public elections by using unsecured internet voting platforms.
## Threat Actors
- **Internet Voting Vendors:** Entities actively promoting and deploying internet voting systems despite known security flaws.
- **Advocacy Groups/Influencers:** Named specifically is Bradley Tusk and his Mobile Voting Foundation, actively touting internet voting to journalists and election administrators.
## TTPs
- **Misinformation/Influence Campaign:** The promotion of internet voting technologies to journalists and election administrators, suggesting the insecurity "doesn't matter" or that new systems are somehow different.
- **Security Minimization:** Downplaying or outright dismissing the established scientific understanding of internet voting vulnerabilities.
## Affected Systems
- Internet Voting Systems (General): Any technology proposed or implemented for conducting public elections over the internet.
- Specific new systems (Implied): Claimed by vendors to be somehow exempt from known security flaws.
## Mitigations
- **Skepticism and Education:** Reaffirming and communicating the consensus among scientists that internet voting cannot be made secure.
- **Policy Rejection:** Resisting the adoption and promotion of internet voting for public elections.
- **Reference Material:** Utilizing documented expert warnings (e.g., the referenced letter from Princeton CITP) to counter misleading claims.
## Conclusion
The threat lies not in a specific hack, but in the sustained political and commercial pressure to deploy fundamentally insecure internet voting technology for critical democratic processes. Authorities and administrators must rely on the established consensus that secure internet voting is not currently feasible and reject misleading assurances from vendors and advocates.
---
# Morning News Roll-up {current_date}
## Overview
The primary focus of recent intelligence centers on the enduring security risks associated with internet voting platforms and the continued deceptive promotion of these systems by interested parties.
## Top Stories
### Internet Voting Insecurity Consensus
- Summary: Scientific experts maintain that internet voting is fundamentally insecure, arguing no foreseeable technology can fully resolve these risks, contrasting sharply with vendor claims.
- Source: Internet Voting is Too Insecure for Use in Elections - Schneier on Security (Implied Link Context)
### Misleading Advocacy for Mobile Voting
- Summary: Bradley Tusk’s Mobile Voting Foundation is actively campaigning to journalists and election officials, promoting internet voting despite expert warnings about its dangers.
- Source: Internet Voting is Too Insecure for Use in Elections - Schneier on Security (Implied Link Context)
### Expert Letter Against Internet Voting Adoption
- Summary: A letter signed by multiple security scientists serves as a formal attempt to counter the ongoing narrative supporting internet voting deployment.
- Source: Internet Voting is Too Insecure for Use in Elections - Schneier on Security (Implied Link Context)