Caveat coercitor: Coercion-evidence in electronic voting

40Citations
Citations of this article
104Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The balance between coercion-resistance, election verifiability and usability remains unresolved in remote electronic voting despite significant research over the last few years. We propose a change of perspective, replacing the requirement of coercion-resistance with a new requirement of coercion- evidence: there should be public evidence of the amount of coercion that has taken place during a particular execution of the voting system. We provide a formal definition of coercion-evidence that has two parts. Firstly, there should be a coercion-evidence test that can be performed against the bulletin board to accurately determine the degree of coercion that has taken place in any given run. Secondly, we require coercer independence, that is the ability of the voter to follow the protocol without being detected by the coercer. To show how coercion-evidence can be achieved, we propose a new remote voting scheme, Caveat Coercitor, and we prove that it satisfies coercion-evidence. Moreover, Caveat Coercitor makes weaker trust assumptions than other remote voting systems, such as JCJ/Civitas and Helios, and has better usability properties. © 2013 IEEE.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Grewal, G. S., Ryan, M. D., Bursuc, S., & Ryan, P. Y. A. (2013). Caveat coercitor: Coercion-evidence in electronic voting. In Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 367–381). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2013.32

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free