Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b
From: Mark Addinall (addinall_at_addinall.org)
Date: 01/15/05
- Next message: Mark Addinall: "Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b"
- Previous message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b"
- Next in thread: Harry Snape: "Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:21:11 GMT
"David Wagner" <daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:csa7cq$kf$2@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Mark Addinall wrote:
>>"David Wagner" <daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>>> Electronic voting has some
>>> serious problems not found in well-designed systems that use paper.
>>> I'm thinking especially of the problems of large-scale insider fraud,
>>
>>Large scale insider fraud can and does exist in systems without
>>regard to the network linl layer. Be this passing bits of
>>paper from one to another, or an IPSec VPN. "Trust", is
>>assumed at some point in any system.
>
> I frankly don't understand what you are trying to say here.
What do you do at Berkley, clean the windows?
Trust is a part of any system. Am I going to fast for you?
The email you send to USENET is "trusted" not to be
manipulated by your worthy systems administrators.
You "trust" the same people at the bank to not change your
transaction for $100.23 for a big mac pig-out to $1000.23.
You can't remove "trust" from any system, with computerused systems,
the audits can be done at random, with timely speed, and with less cost
than an audit of a paper based system.
Can you go to your polling authority and demand to see
WHO you voted for? Here you can't and I strongly
suspect that in the land of the brain-dead, you can't either.
>
>>I can do a re-count on a database a bloody lot faster than
>>a paper based system, and at less cost.
>
> Fast, cheap -- and meaningless. Such a recount is worthless.
As worthless as a paper re-count. But quicker. And if the data and
collection methods were open source, they would be open to
scrutiny by an interested group of the general public.
> If the data was recorded incorrectly into the database in the first
> place,
That's a big assumption. Please do not project the current state of
software engineering in the USA to other countries. It has been shown
for some time that you blokes really don't know how to do it well.
> re-tallying the database records isn't going to help.
> That kind of method leads only to sham recounts.
And the difference with paper based systems is........?
"Harry Snape" tried to rort the system by stealing government data,
and he got put in prison for it. Not long enough IMHO. But now
his profile is unemployable, hence the numerous sock-puppets.
People like you who moan "it can't be done" are just Luddites.
You ignore the work that has gon into computational security
in the last two decades (ectually, Polybius circa 500 AD had
a few good ideas). I have worked on, and work on data that
is extremely sensitive. Do you think that procedures and
practice are not in place to give an amount of "trust" to that
data?
Still, your country cosists of a population that thinks evolution is bunk,
and you invaded a country at the cost of a billion dollars a month
to find WMD that did not exist. Real smart.
Mark Addinall.
addinall@addinall.org
- Next message: Mark Addinall: "Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b"
- Previous message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b"
- Next in thread: Harry Snape: "Re: Solution for safe internet voting - was Re: Boycott a.c.t-b"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
