2010
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-12980-3_13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anonymity in Voting Revisited

Abstract: Abstract. According to international law, anonymity of the voter is a fundamental precondition for democratic elections. In electronic voting, several aspects of voter anonymity have been identified. In this paper, we re-examine anonymity with respect to voting, and generalise existing notions of anonymity in e-voting. First, we identify and categorise the types of attack that can be a threat to anonymity of the voter, including different types of vote buying and coercion. This analysis leads to a categorisati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(20 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many scholars treat anonymity as a simple and self-explanatory concept. For example, Jonker and Pieters (2010) state: “Intuitively, anonymity means that it is impossible to determine who sent which message to whom” (216). Secondly, and more importantly, anonymity is often equated with privacy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many scholars treat anonymity as a simple and self-explanatory concept. For example, Jonker and Pieters (2010) state: “Intuitively, anonymity means that it is impossible to determine who sent which message to whom” (216). Secondly, and more importantly, anonymity is often equated with privacy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Delaune, Kremer, and Ryan (2009), vote-privacy, receiptfreeness and coercion-resistance are formalized in the applied pi calculus by means of observational equivalence. In Jonker and Pieters (2006), a formal definition of receipt-freeness in epistemic logic by means of observational equivalence is given. Both approaches are process-oriented and thus, not suitable for a CC evaluation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%