Introducing Precautionary Behavior by Temporal Diversion of Voter - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Sep 16, 2023 27 likes •221 views

Introducing Precautionary Behavior by Temporal Diversion of Voter Attention from Casting to Verifying their Vote Workshop on Usable Security 2/23/2014 Usable Security Lab Jurlind Budurushi, Marcel Woide and Melanie Volkamer Crypto Lab Current

SLIDE 1

Usable Security Lab Crypto Lab

Introducing Precautionary Behavior by Temporal Diversion of Voter Attention from Casting to Verifying their Vote

Workshop on Usable Security 2/23/2014 Jurlind Budurushi, Marcel Woide and Melanie Volkamer

SLIDE 2

Current e-voting systems

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 2

Automatic Manually Paper Audit Trails (PATs)

SLIDE 3

§ Election frauds can be detected with PATs => Assumption: Voters verify § But, voters are not likely to verify PAT according to previous user studies => Challenge: Motivate voters to verify PAT

Security in theory and practice

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 3

SLIDE 4

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 4

Goal: Develope an adequate stimulus

SLIDE 5

Focus: Manually depositing PAT

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 5

SLIDE 6

Design restrictions

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 6

PATs as protection against malicious voting systems „Thank you for voting!“

SLIDE 7

Stimulus: Failed example 1

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 7

SLIDE 8

Stimulus: Failed example 2

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 8

SLIDE 9

Stimulus

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 9

Pre-printed instructions Position and timing

SLIDE 10

Pre-printed instructions

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 10

SLIDE 11

Preliminaries for user study

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 11

§ Hide goal of the study to not bias participants § Manipulate PAT to identify actual verification behavior § No legally binding elections because of manipulation § No election simulation to not violate vote secrecy § No election with voting agenda because PAT should have personal relevance

SLIDE 12

Cover story

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 12

§ Communicated study goal:

§ Memory test § Identify information that people can better remember

§ Candidate selection ~ Answer questions on PC § Auditing ~ Verify printed answers on the PAT § Depositing ~ Handover PAT to the experimenter

SLIDE 13

Type of „PAT“ manipulation

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 13

§ Not easy to find => Question 7 § As easy to notice, as changing candidate‘s name => 1845 printed as birthday (1910, 1911, 1912)

SLIDE 14

§ Reading guidelines

§ Control group: Pre-printed instructions § Study group: no instructions

§ Verifying printout (paper audit trail)

§ Control group confronted with blank printout § Study group confronted with the stimulus

Group differences

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 14

SLIDE 15

Participants

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 15

§ Recruiting: E-Mail and personal contact § Sample

§ 65 participants (34F, 31M), between 19-59 years old § 40 students, 25 employees (academics, civil servants, freelancers, administrative technical staff members, caretakers, and event managers)

§ Compensation: CPs for psych. students, rest 20€ Amazon voucher

SLIDE 16

Results

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 16

Variable Control group Study group χ2-Test MW-Test

Detected 5 out of 26 (19%) 30 out of 39 (77%)

Diff. highly

significant

Awareness

(Likert scale)

Significant

difference Compensation 8 psych. students 13 psych. students No significant difference within group and between both groups

False positive

(self-reports) 21 out of 26 9 out of 39

SLIDE 17

Conclusion

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 17

The developed stimulus is a promising solution towards motivating voters to verify PATs THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

SLIDE 18

Backup - Slides

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 18

SLIDE 19

References

| Jurlind Budurushi | USEC’14 | 2/23/2014 19

§ [Cohen, 2005] S. B. Cohen, “Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines”, master thesis, MIT, Media Lab, 2005. § [Herrnson et al., 2005] P. S. Herrnson, R. G. Niemi, M. J. Hanmer, P. L. Francia, B. B. Bederson, F. Conrad, and M. Traugott, “The promise and pitfalls of electronic voting: results from a usability field test”, 2005. § [Selker et al., 2006] T. Selker and A. Pandolfo, “A methodology for testing voting systems”, Journal of Usability Studies, vol. 2,

no. 1, pp. 7–21, 2006.

§ [van Hoff et al., 2007] J. J. van Hoff, J. F. Gosselt, and M. D. T. de Jong, “The reliability and usability of the Needap voting machine: A pilot study”, 2007 University of Twente