# A Public Infrastructure for a Trusted Wireless World
## 5 A Roadmap for Updating Existing Frameworks to Obtain Trusted Digital Identities
Once authenticated through the ICAM and the BPES e-voting frontend, as shown in Figure 1, the BPES e-voting frontend presents a ballot based on where the authorized user is registered to vote. The ballot displayed will contain the user's city, county, state, and national choices for the current election. The frontend can be presented on a screen in-person at a voting poll or via a website. Other blockchain-based e-voting systems have already been proposed using HTTP and WebSocket [31]. BPES would utilize HTTPS and other defense in-depth per the tenets of ZTA such as those explained within [32]. Incorporated with NFC capabilities, the website can be accessed via a mobile device. Once the user is finished, the filled-out ballot is sent to the e-voting backend, as shown in Figure 1. The vote for one user is contained on one BPES blockchain. It does not contain any identifying information about the voter. It only contains the voter's selection digitally signed by the e-voting frontend. This digital signature allows for the nonrepudiation and traceability of the ballot's origin. The integrity of the ballot is guaranteed through blockchain's security and transparency. The city's BPES would be independent yet connected to the county's BPES, as shown in Figure 2. The city may have any number of poll voting systems that act independently of the county system. However, one primary city system in the county will send a tally to the county system. A county has votes during an election that include their county or cities in addition to any votes necessary at the state level. The results for each county are added to a blockchain on a similar state system working in conjunction with the county's  
Figure 1: BPES integrated with the ICAM system. independent system for the votes the state needs. Basically, the county-centralized system sends the tally of their county's state votes on the blockchain part of the state's system, much like the city did to the county system. The blockchain would look like Figure 3 but would be one county's votes, and that county would not be anonymous. It would include that county's digital ID. It would be an extra security protocol, as that county's public key would sign the blockchain, providing a means of nonrepudiation and integrity for each county. This would allow one to know where the votes came from and if the votes had been tampered with. the higher levels. This allows each system to retain a certain amount of independence while still functioning as a whole for a county, state, or national system. Not only does BPES provide a means for the autonomy of city, state, and federal entities but it also provides a means for trust and verification by city, state, and federal entities as well. The BPES provides the validation of a tamper-proof election through encryption. The state voting system would look much like Figure 2 but would consist of a distributed system made of the central blockchain-based PKI e-voting system from each county within the state. Each county's central system would keep their county's particular votes and send on to the state's central system the state and federal votes. Then, the state's central system would keep that state's particular votes and send on to the federal central system that state's votes. This would work for any nation state, but using the US as an example, all 50 states' BPES central systems would form an additional distributed system at the federal level, systems within systems that function interpedently. This enables the BPES to provide full functionality with all IoT things because ICAM ensures that the same security mechanisms that an employer has on their premises, for example, are utilized when their employees are teleworking. Therefore, utilizing ICAM with BPES guarantees the same level of security that is in place while voting in person is there when voting online regardless of the device used to cast a vote. A cryptographic challenge response protocol based on PKC and PKI has been developed for protecting NFC tags from attacks.