group protection and retirement plan services. As of June 30, 2023, the company had $299 billion in end-of-period account balances, net of reinsurance. Headquartered in Radnor, Pa., Lincoln Financial Group is the marketing name for Lincoln National ...

Lincoln National Corporation’s Board of Directors Declares Series D Preferred Stock Dividend

Lincoln National Corp. (NYSE: LNC) has experienced a rise in its stock price by 1.59 compared to its previous closing price of 21.43. However, the company has seen a fall of -0.68% in its stock price over the last five trading days. Zacks Investment ...

Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) Shares Soar Above 1-Year High

On November 1, Lincoln National is reporting earnings from the most recent quarter. Analysts are expecting earnings per share of $1.77. Go here to follow Lincoln National stock price in real-time on Markets Insider. On November 1, Lincoln National will be ...

What Wall Street expects from Lincoln National's earnings

CloseCurlyDoubleQuote; Madon has more than 30 years of financial services experience ... Lincoln Financial Group is the marketing name for Lincoln National Corporation (NYSE:LNC) and its affiliates. The company had $299.2 billion in end-of-period account ...

Lincoln Financial Group Names Tina Madon as Senior Vice President, Head of Investor Relations

Begin your TipRanks Premium journey today. PNC Financial (PNC) Company Description: PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is a diversified financial services company. Its Retail Banking division ...

PNC Financial Services: Buy Rating Justified by Effective Expense Control and Promising Outlook

The National Weather Service presented the Lincoln Ranger District with an honored institution award Wednesday to celebrate 75 years of weather observations. The award ceremony took place at the ...

National Weather Service celebrates Lincoln Ranger District, unveils new sign at Rogers Pass

by brothers David and Tom Gardner, The Motley Fool is a multimedia financial-services company dedicated to building the world's greatest investment community. Reaching millions of people each ...

2 Top Financial Services Stocks to Buy in October

Financial services companies form the backbone of markets ... due to its dominant position. The company acts as a clearinghouse for all trades on its exchanges and earns clearing fees in return ...

The financial services specialist got hit with a one-two ... He also pointed out that the company is particularly susceptible to heavier credit losses and a sharp cut in late fees because a ...

Why Bread Financial Stock Went Stale This Week

Get the most recent info and news about Lincoln National on HackerNoon, where 10k+ technologists publish stories for 4M+ monthly readers.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States. It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. The Annuities segment offers variable, fixed, and indexed variable annuities. The Retirement Plan Services segment provides employers with retirement plan products and services primarily in the defined contribution retirement plan marketplace. This segment offers individual and group variable annuities, group fixed annuities, and mutual fund-based programs; and a range of plan services, including plan recordkeeping, compliance testing, participant education, and trust and custodial services. The Life Insurance segment provides life insurance products, including term insurance, such as single and survivorship versions of universal life insurance; variable universal life insurance; indexed universal life insurance products; and critical illness and long-term care riders. The Group Protection segment offers group non-medical insurance products comprising short and long-term disability, statutory disability and paid family medical leave administration and absence management services, term life, dental, vision and accident, and critical illness benefits and services to the employer marketplace through various forms of employee-paid and employer-paid plans. The company distributes its products through consultants, brokers, planners, agents, financial advisors, third-party administrators, and other intermediaries. Lincoln National Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania.

Lincoln National

When US President Abraham Lincoln stood on the battlefield on November 19, 1863, at the official dedication of the Soldiers National Cemetery (now called the Gettysburg National Cemetery) at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania., he delivered a short speech which expressed his belief that the Civil War was not just a fight to save the Union, but a struggle for freedom and equality for all. His short three-minute speech followed the long-winded orator and politician Edward Everett who allegedly spoke for a surely-dreadful two hours. Lincoln’s address, which appears to have undergone several revisions before his final delivered version, reads as follows: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. The speech was handwritten and supposedly composed on the fly that same day. But what if Lincoln had had access to ChatGPT, the amazing artificial intelligence technology that can put together sentences based on a query? If Lincoln had access to ChatGPT to help him write speeches, it could potentially have made the process of speechwriting more efficient and effective. ChatGPT's ability to understand and respond to natural language input, as well as its extensive knowledge base, could have been used to assist Lincoln in researching and organizing his thoughts. Additionally, ChatGPT's ability to generate text based on a given prompt could have helped Lincoln to craft powerful and persuasive language for his speeches. However, it's worth noting that even with the help of AI, Lincoln's speeches were not only the product of his own intellect, analytical and oratory skills, but also the reflection of historical context, personal experience, and his mastery of rhetoric. By entering the following query into ChatGPT, the program rewrote the Gettysburg Address as if Lincoln himself had not written it, but rather a computer: “rewrite the gettysburg address as if it was written with artificial intelligence.” The program rewrote the speech, transforming it into a slightly more simple version of the original. Here is what ChatGPT produced: "Eighty-seven years ago, our forefathers founded a new nation, grounded in freedom and equality for all. We are currently engaged in a great civil war, testing the strength and endurance of that nation. I stand here on this sacred land to consecrate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who gave their lives for the nation's survival. It is appropriate that we do this. But on a larger scale, we cannot consecrate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot sanctify this land. The brave men, living and dead, who fought here, have consecrated it far beyond our ability to add or subtract. The world will not remember the words spoken here today, but it will never forget the sacrifices made here. It is our duty, the living, to continue the work that these brave men have begun, to honor their sacrifices by dedicating ourselves to the unfinished task that lies ahead. We pledge to renew our devotion to the cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion, and to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain. We vow that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth." Based on this interesting yet disappointing result, it is safe to say that it is a good thing Lincoln did not use AI to write his famed speech. His version is far better, more meaningful, and more memorable. AI today is mostly an assisting tool and not one that can develop thoughts or ideas that do not already exist on the internet. When it comes to writing a speech, use your own thoughts and experiences. As intelligent as they are, computers cannot and will not replicate the human mind. After all, computers are created by the people, for the people.

What if Abraham Lincoln Had Used ChatGPT?

Hi, I’m Aaron Sankin, and I’m a reporter here at The Markup. Over the past year, I’ve focused on investigating and what you (other than shoot dirty looks at your modem, which doesn’t really care about your opinion). why the internet connection at your house is slow can do about it Tucked deep in the , signed by President Joe Biden in 2021, is a short provision giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) broad leeway to fundamentally reshape how America connects to the internet. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Under a section titled “Digital Discrimination,” the legislation tasks the FCC with adopting “rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, taking into account the issues of technical and economic feasibility presented by that objective, including … preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.” The section itself is short—under 400 words—and relatively light on detail, leaving it largely up to the FCC to decide how much power it wants to grab for itself to close the digital divide. Various actors have rushed into that void of legislative ambiguity, forcefully advocating for their own agendas. On one side are advocacy groups and some local governments who hope the FCC will take the opportunity to aggressively hold internet service providers (ISPs) to account for what they see as generations of inequitable broadband infrastructure deployment across the country. Some propose levying fines on ISPs guilty of discrimination or, as the agency did when it approved a merger between Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable in 2016, companies build out high-speed infrastructure in new areas. mandating On the other side are ISPs, the industry groups representing them, and ideologically aligned pro-business think tanks. They want nothing more than for the FCC to merely supplement its historic light-touch regulation of the broadband industry with generous subsidies—that make investing in high-speed internet infrastructure in marginalized communities more beneficial to the companies’ bottom lines. The crux of this fight is over a concept called “disparate impact” and whether the FCC should use it to identify whether an ISP has engaged in discrimination. The idea behind disparate impact is that discrimination isn’t always explicit. So, if an institution’s policies have created a situation where certain protected groups experience markedly worse outcomes than others, this impact matters just as much as any intentionally biased practices. For example: A company’s CEO decides that people should always physically look up to their managers, so only people over 6 feet, 3 inches get promoted to managerial roles. As a result, the management staff is entirely male, since men tend to be taller on average. Did the company engage in gender discrimination? Under a disparate impact standard, yes. But, under a standard where intent prevails, this discrimination is a lot harder to prove, because the rules that resulted in a management team where everyone can dunk said nary a peep about gender. “From my point of view, disparate impact is really just discrimination through the back door,” said John Yinger, a professor of economics and public administration at Syracuse University, who has disparate impact and wrote a about discrimination in mortgage lending. studied book “If you have a system that doesn’t recognize and address disparate impact, you allow people to, either on purpose [or] by accident, engage in a lot of discrimination.” The problem, Yinger noted, is that to assess disparate impact, the first step is determining which allocation of a certain scarce set of resources—be it broadband access or corporate promotions—is fair, and then determine if different groups’ receipt of that resource violates that standard of fairness. Intentions Matter, or Do They? Consider an we published last year showing how a quartet of ISPs consistently gave the worst deals for internet service to households in low-income, less-White, and historically redlined neighborhoods in major cities across the country. investigation When we were reporting that story, we certainly were curious these disparities existed, but that was less important than the fact that we could prove they existed in the first place. why why Last year, when we reached out to CenturyLink, one of the companies we found consistently charging high prices for sluggish service in marginalized areas, spokesperson Mark Molzen insisted at the time that the company was committed to anti-racism. “While we can’t comment on behalf of other providers, we can say we do not enable services based on any consideration of race or ethnicity, and the methodology used for the report on our network is deeply flawed.” Molzen never pointed to any specific inaccuracies in our data collection or analysis. The “flaw” he identified was in an inference the company read into the story about its motives. Our October 2022 investigation showed absolutely zero evidence that CenturyLink had partitioned cities into geographic areas based on race and used that to determine where to deploy high-speed internet infrastructure. And, honestly, it would be pretty wild if it actually had. Nevertheless, we found that CenturyLink offered addresses in the least-White parts of Des Moines, Iowa, slow-speed internet service 19 percentage points more frequently than the Whitest parts of the city—and all for the same price. In Las Vegas, Nev., that gap was 31 percentage points. In Omaha, Neb., 33 percentage points. A comment within a June 2022 FCC with Lumen, CenturyLink’s parent company, mentioned the company’s expectations “to deploy fiber to approximately one million new locations in 2022 and around 1.5 to 2 million new locations in 2023.” digital discrimination proceeding However, there wasn’t any specificity regarding how many of these new fiber deployments would go to low-income or predominantly non-White areas. When it comes to the FCC’s responsibility, the question is whether the FCC will look at the levels of access that different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups have to affordable, blazing-fast internet, find substantial inequality, and then do something about it. Or, as the telecom industry would prefer, will the agency only intervene after finding direct evidence of an ISP making inequitable decisions about where to deploy infrastructure explicitly based on characteristics like race or ethnicity? “ ” In Some Circumstances, It Can Be Profitable The legal theory behind disparate impact goes back to , a 1971 Supreme Court case about how a company required all employees to pass a pair of intelligence tests if they wanted to move into higher-paying roles. Black people were far less likely to pass those tests, which were unrelated to the jobs’ responsibilities. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. The court ruled that these tests—which the company just so happened to implement on the very day the 1964 Civil Rights Act—prohibited race-based employment discrimination, and were illegal due to the effect they had on Black employees’ career advancement. The use of disparate impact to identify discrimination grew in the ensuing decades and was finally into law in 1991. “Because individual motives may be difficult to prove directly, Congress has frequently permitted proof of only discriminatory impact as a means of overcoming discriminatory practices,” reads a U.S. Department of Justice on the subject. codified manual “The Supreme Court has, therefore, recognized that disparate impact liability under various civil rights laws ‘permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.’ ” During the administration of President Donald Trump, who famously settled a in the 1970s over his family’s real estate company’s practice of not renting properties to Black tenants, the Department of Housing and Urban Development dramatically the government’s ability to use disparate impact, but the rules were shortly after President Biden took office. lawsuit weakened reinstated While disparate impact has been used by the government to regulate employment and housing, it hasn’t yet been used to assess the role ISPs are playing in the digital divide. As a result, when the FCC went about implementing the digital discrimination rules mandated by Congress, the agency specifically that the public weigh in on whether the standard should be used and, if so, how. requested The responses the agency received on the issue largely fell into two categories. The telecom industry argued in favor of using as a metric, which holds that discrimination occurs when people are explicitly divided up by a protected category (like race) and then treated worse as a result. Digital inclusion advocacy groups argued that is the only feasible metric. disparate treatment disparate impact “Rational, profit-seeking actors will discriminate because, in some circumstances, it can be profitable to do so. Whether this is intentional or not is beside the point,” argued the National Digital Inclusion Alliance and Common Sense Media, two nonprofit advocacy groups, in one . comment “The point … is that discrimination occurs and will continue to occur unless providers’ incentives are changed.” The groups’ comment urges the FCC to look for disparate impact in a plethora of ISP practices ranging from the prices customers are charged for a service, and under what contract terms, to the actual speeds different areas receive and how companies prioritize network maintenance. “For decades, the disability community has noted that discrimination occurs unintentionally and often results from seemingly neutral policies,” the American Association of People with Disabilities in another comment. concurred “Too often, disabled people experience discrimination not because of malicious intent or explicit exclusion within programs or policies but because the disabled people were simply not considered in the first place.” The Greenlining Institute, a California-based nonprofit that for digital inclusion efforts, insisted in its that applying disparate impact to broadband would be consistent with how it has been used across the government for decades. advocates comment “Adoption of the disparate impact standard in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed for a whole-of-government approach that targeted discrimination in public goods such as education and housing,” Greenlining asserted. “It would be consistent to apply this similar treatment to digital public infrastructure and services such as broadband internet.” The tenor of comments from folks who might theoretically be held accountable if their actions were found to have treated some communities worse than others was, unsurprisingly, markedly different. A primary industry worry is that requiring ISPs to constantly weigh equity concerns may dissuade them from deploying new infrastructure widely in the first place. “Adopting a disparate impact test would cause carriers to choose between prioritizing deployment based on closing the digital divide, as required by Congress, and paralyzing deployment for fear that a regular, common business decision may disproportionately affect a minority community,” asserted the Lincoln Network, a free market think tank, in its . comment Another industry argument is that Congress didn’t really mean for the FCC to use disparate impact to identify “discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.” Verizon, for example, that the phrase “based on” in the legislation specifically means that discrimination has to be a direct result of company decisions made because of protected demographic characteristics of a particular area. asserted For its part, AT&T asserted in its that, even if a disparate impact standard were applied, the broadband industry wouldn’t be found to have delivered less connectivity to historically marginalized areas. comment While there have been localized studies showing inequitable deployment in places like , , , and , the company said that the only way to accurately assess deployment would be to look at a comprehensive, national picture of everywhere every single ISP offers service. Cleveland Dallas Oakland Los Angeles AT&T to an analysis from former FCC chief economist Glenn Woroch that showed that “broadband availability rates for census-based ‘non-white’ households are higher than for white households and that availability rates for households above and below the poverty line are nearly identical.” pointed Woroch’s research relies on data from a broadband availability map produced by the FCC that is supposed to show what service ISPs offer across the country. While a footnote in Woroch’s comment insists his data source doesn’t skew the results, that map has been for inaccuracies, and a 2020 Princeton found that “the FCC’s data disproportionately overstates coverage in rural and minority communities.” widely criticized study The FCC released a last year designed to rectify those issues, but that map has its own set of and is still effectively in its beta testing phase. As a result, obtaining data accurate enough to meet the standards pushed for by AT&T remains a tall order. new map profound accuracy problems The battle over the FCC’s potential use of disparate impact hasn’t been limited to the public comment process. In a recent , The Wall Street Journal’s historically laissez-faire editorial board used the specter of disparate impact to lobby against Public Knowledge’s co-founder Gigi Sohn, whom Biden unsuccessfully nominated to lead the agency, but withdrew following telecom industry opposition. op-ed “Public Knowledge, the outfit that Ms. Sohn co-founded and led from 2001 to 2013, has urged the FCC to interpret its regulatory mandate broadly to micromanage broadband competition and development,” the editorial charged. Now would be the time to mention that The Markup does, in fact, have a pack of dogs in this fight. Our newsroom is based on the idea that if you evaluate the inputs and outputs of a big, complex technical system, you can identify serious problems in how it treats different groups without having to know the precise intentions of the people who developed it. The technology does not yet exist to do a regression controlling for the vagaries of the human heart. In March, Markup reporter and freelance data journalist used data analysis to determine that an algorithm for deciding which patients got life-saving liver transplants people in a handful of states, almost all of which were in the South and Midwest. The day after that story was published, the Department of Health and Human Services major reforms to that very system. Malena Carollo Ben Tanen systematically disadvantaged announced One thing I’m working on—along with my colleague, investigative data reporter —is a step-by-step guide showing everyday people how they can evaluate whether ISPs have left a digital divide in their towns. It should be dropping sometime in the next few weeks. Leon Yin We’re hoping that if people use the guide and find something interesting, they can tell the FCC about it. And, who knows, depending on how this disparate impact proceeding goes, maybe the agency will even do something about it. Sincerely, Aaron Sankin Investigative Reporter The Markup By Aaron Sankin Also published here Photo by on Annie Spratt Unsplash

Disparate Impact: Who's Afraid of It?

অসম প্রভাব: কে এটা ভয় পায়?

Unterschiedliche Auswirkungen: Wer hat Angst davor?

Impacto dispar: ¿quién le teme?

Impacts disparates : qui en a peur ?

असमान प्रभाव: इससे कौन डरता है?

異質な影響: 誰がそれを恐れるでしょうか?

이질적인 영향: 누가 그것을 두려워하는가?

Impacto díspar: quem tem medo disso?

Несопоставимое воздействие: кто этого боится?

Farklı Etki: Kim Korkar?

Tác động khác nhau: Ai sợ nó?

不同的影响：谁害怕它？

BUSINESS LETTERS

ORAL ENGLISH

Note: Some of the information presented here is intentionally oversimplified. Particular details depend on the actual implementation, as there are numerous ways and alternative cryptographic techniques that achieve the same goals. "The biggest challenge of remote e-voting is to achieve high level of security under an uncontrolled environment and insecure platform. E-voting properties and many different classifications that set the minimum requirements are already established. Some of these classifications are just the same properties under different names such as: confidentiality, integrity, privacy, democracy, universality, verifiability, etc.. Regardless, the goal is always to conciliate two apparently mutually exclusive proprieties: verifiability and privacy." The fundamental idea behind online voting is verifiability in the sense that votes are to be encrypted and made public, convincing the voters without a margin of doubt that the whole procedure was conducted regularly. Let’s delve into how this can be achieved, but before reading the rest of the article, we suggest watching Ron Rivest's presentation of this idea[ ] up to 5:07. 1 Then, let’s consider: And now here is the mathmagic... The final tally is thus D( E(v1+v2+v3+v4) ) where D is the decryption function that can be computed by once the poll ends without the need to access v individually: D(E(v1) ), D(E(v2) ) etc., which can only be decrypted by making use of the private keys... anyone Only voters themselves can decrypt individually and actually that their own vote is registered correctly! In conclusion, voters can verify their votes and the final with privacy and accuracy! v check both tally Wow! I can verify that my vote is correct! But how can I be sure that votes cast by others are also legal without using their private keys? Let’s say we attribute the value of 0 to mean a refusal for a given policy proposal that is being polled and 1 to be being in concordance, forming a set of possible answers {0,1}. A verifier, which could be anyone, may want to be sure that all the entries published on the append-only table correspond to a valid element in the set of possible answers and not anything else, such as what would be an entry with value 100. Zero-knowledge proofs allow precisely for this. To understand how, it may help first to understand what ZKPs really are. "In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that a given statement is true while the prover avoids conveying any additional information apart from the fact that the statement is indeed true."[ ] 2 It may seem contradictory, but with ZKPs any voter may prove unequivocally the validity of their vote! Again, a vote is but a representation of an element from amongst a set of possible choices. To understand how ZKPs should be applied to voting, we suggest taking a look at the following articles[ ], [ ] as they address this question in more detail. 3 4 This technique can then be extended to include sets larger than {0,1} while preserving the mathematical properties of both homomorphic encryption and ZKPs, allowing for more complex polls than the simple yes, no / agree, disagree answers. This makes for interesting use cases such as multiple candidate elections, referendums that could have different solution proposals for a single given issue, questionnaires in market research... We have just discussed how anyone can check the final tally, that their vote is the one intended, and how all the other votes were legal! All the while preserving voters’ privacy! The way these algorithms are put together, preserving the proprieties of both homomorphic encryption and ZKP is complex and requires a deep knowledge of cryptography, which can be mathematically proven to be true.[ ] 5 There are other details and cryptographic techniques regarding cybersecure online voting, as with the use of stealth addresses[ ], at least in blockchains that keep all transactions public such as Ethereum. These are used to avoid linking voters and their wallets. But we consider this a technical detail, of concern only to the software developers and not something that all users of online voting should be aware of, unlike homomorphic encryption and ZKPs whose knowledge helps build trust in the system. 6 How are these private keys generated and given to the voter without compromising security? Ultimately, the private keys need to be tied to the true identity of the user in order to prevent double-spending. One approach is to use PKIs provided by trusted authorities such as state issued eID embedded in national identity smart cards... Because surely, the public institutions have thought of their own mechanisms to keep these keys secured, right? In any case this is an issue more related to digital identity itself which we are to analyse in a future article in order to spare the reader of too many details and to keep information better organized. Suffice to say that while digital identity itself is a complex issue on its own right, there are ways to guarantee with relative confidence that each digital persona is unique by empowering multiple trusted entities with the task of attesting to the identity of a person. A quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln and immortalized in a song by Bob Marley accurately describes what we will argue: “You can fool some people some times but you can't fool all the people all the time” What happens if a voter detects fraud or if is coerced physically to vote in a certain way? The first measure to be taken is to provide a channel where people can report these situations so that these occurrences are taken into consideration. If they are marginal, representing 0,01% of the total votes, for example, this would not really be a problematic situation unless we are discussing a very sensitive referendum that requires democratic values to be upheld and where the final tally is close to the equivalent of a 50/50 situation. This can be mitigated by requiring the majority consensus to be higher, such as 55/45 in order for a poll to be considered valid. In the scenario where someone sees that their vote was incorrectly registered, considering that the whole apparatus is supported by blockchain and thus not in control of a particular system administrator providing the service, the more reasonable approach is to assume that the voting machine itself is compromised and not the whole blockchain. The most direct protective measures to be taken then would be for the voter to change the machine and/or OS. This issue is more related to cybersecurity threats, the likes of social engineering and malware. Using open-source hardware and software is recommended, as well as using amnesic OS[ ]. Amnesic software always returns to its initial configured state, so even if voters install malware by unintentionally clicking and running a virus, rebooting the machine rolls back the software to an unaltered configuration, effectively mitigating these occurrences. 7 Another situation that one may want to account for is a situation where the voter is coerced to vote in a certain way, either physically or by blackmail. The only approach to defend against coercion other than living in a decent society is to allow revoting to occur on the same poll. There is research[ ] in this area, although ways to merge this technique with all the others mentioned above remain, to our knowledge, to be implemented. Surely there is a way. In any case, reopening the polling phase is always a possibility. It should be noted also that preventing coercion would also prevent vote selling, for obvious reasons. 8 We do not argue for a complete abandonment of paper voting because, at the very least in presence, paper voting is an excellent opportunity to put identity to the test (real or digital), but nevertheless, we feel strongly in favor of its adoption in politics as a complementary tool able to generate consensus faster while also being a secondary source confirming the results of paper voting. Are we there yet? As computer scientist Jeffrey Dean eloquently put: “The driving force behind modern computer ciphers isn’t security, but efficiency. The question is not can you create a secure cipher. You can. The question is whether you can create one that will work efficiently on huge data sets, or on very limited hardware” The challenge of blockchain tech is precisely its ability to scale as the user base and demand for computation grows. Current implementations of cryptographic algorithms in online voting backed by blockchain estimate the costs to be around $10 per vote as implemented in Ethereum.[ ] Researchers believe that improvements can be made in order to lower this value to under $1 by making use of a faster blockchain as well as tweaking the underlying mathematical algorithms. 14 Throughout history, cryptography has played a major role in changing the course of events. The Caesar cipher, one of the most simple cryptographies, is famous for having been used by the Roman emperor two millennia ago. The Allies’ ability to intercept and decrypt messages encrypted by the Japanese cipher machine Purple and the German Enigma was crucial to providing the key advantage necessary to end WWII. For those who know how to program and are interested in learning more, we suggest reading this research paper.[ ] You can also play with CryptoBallot to get acquainted with this type of software.[ ] 15 16 In conclusion, cybersecure online polling is not only possible but highly needed. Its adoption in the political space has the potential to be one of the most disruptive events in our lifetimes... All you need to do is trust the algorithms running on your computer and the blockchain and if you don't, you can always do the maths with a pen and paper yourself. References: [1] " " by professor Ron Rivest, Numberphile, on YouTube, 2016. Was YOUR vote counted? (feat. homomorphic encryption) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRTvoZ3Rho [2] entry on Wikipedia, Zero-knowledge proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof [3] " by Anders Borch, author's blog, 2019. How to use ZKP to prove set membership without exposing the set or the member" https://blog.cyborch.com/how-to-use-cryptographic-accumulators-to-prove-set-membership-without-exposing-the-set-or-the-member/ [4] " " by Dario Fiore, on ZKProof Standards, 2020. Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Set Membership https://zkproof.org/2020/02/27/zkp-set-membership/ [5] " " by Ivan Damg ̊ard et al., Theory of Cryptography Conference, 2006. Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge from Homomorphic Encryption https://cs.nyu.edu/\~nicolosi/papers/NonIntSi.pdf [6] " " by Jake Frankenfield, Investopedia, 2022. Stealth Address (Cryptocurrency) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stealth-address-cryptocurrency.asp [7] entry on Wikipedia, Tails (operating system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tails_(operating_system) [8] " " by Wouter Lueks et al., Spring Labs, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 2020. VoteAgain: A scalable coercion-resistant voting system https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.11189.pdf [9] , The Heritage Foundation https://www.heritage.org/ [10] " " entry on YouTube, in portuguese, 2022. Ainda mais indícios de fraude nas Legislativas 2022? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8fA9aOuR9k [11] " " entry on YouTube, in portuguese, Angola, 2022. AnaKarina denuncia "FRAUDE ELEITORAL" por parte da CNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLm8ocLgXCU [12] " ", Frequently Asked Questions - Voter Fraud https://www.voteaustralia.org.au/faq_voter_fraud [13] " " report by The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020. Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in health? https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/ [14] " " by Johannes Mols et Emmanouil Vasilomanolakis, Aalborg University, Denmark, 2020. ethVote: Towards secure voting with distributed ledgers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341000573_ethVote_Towards_secure_voting_with_distributed_ledgers [15] " " by NERV, a paper submission to the 14th ICEGOV Conference in 2021, Remote e-voting overview https://ia601401.us.archive.org/33/items/remote-e-voting-overview/Remote e-voting overview.pdf [16] , CryptoBallot https://github.com/cryptoballot/cryptoballot Also appears . here

LINCOLN NATIONAL

lfg.com

10K+ employees

Since 1905

COMPANY RANKING

LINCOLN NATIONAL

EVERGREEN INDEX #7099

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Lincoln National WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

LINCOLN NATIONAL

lfg.com

10K+ employees

Since 1905

COMPANY RANKING

LINCOLN NATIONAL

EVERGREEN INDEX #7099

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT LINCOLN NATIONAL

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Lincoln National WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!