 |
|
|
|
Next: Average Joe: Vista adoption is inevitable (Linux ..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 581
|
(Msg. 46) Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>advocacy (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2007-07-17, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill.RemoveThis@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> Close, but not quite. This is better:
>>
>> <http://punchscan.org/>
>>
>
> If that is what I think it is (the website timed out on
It isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 676
|
(Msg. 47) Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group.TakeThisOut@mouse-potato.com>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:53:46 -0000
<139q41qrcp7uh39.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com>:
> On 2007-07-17, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill.TakeThisOut@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>> Close, but not quite. This is better:
>>>
>>> <http://punchscan.org/>
>>>
>>
>> If that is what I think it is (the website timed out on
>
> It isn't.
Well, FWIW, the website is now back up. The general idea
is that the user can take a piece of the ballot home as
a receipt. The intent is, according to the website:
* to verify that they have properly voted,
* to verify that all votes were counted properly.
The actual system is simple to use. A page with circle
cutouts (and explanatory text on who or what the user
is voting for) is superimposed over a page with letters.
When properly aligned, the letters show in the circles;
a marker pen -- magenta is suggested in the website --
is then used over the circles. Since the circles are
actually holes, the letters get marked as well.
The top part is then shredded (having no further use)
and the bottom part scanned into a computer. The bottom
can then be kept by the user as the receipt for later
verification.
The main issue with this system is that the counts can be
doctored (there's still that disconnect, and no system
can do much to change that); however, one can in a
pinch recount or even rescan the voting receipt using
a known-honest or at least a different scanner, if a
recount requiring physical rescan be necessary. Also,
auditing is at least possible; the purple dots are the
ones actually used for the tally, but are sufficiently
scrambled to preclude obvious vote-doctoring. Presumably
this is a printout option.
I'm still not sure if this is better than the old
California punch-awl system but it does have the merit of
extreme simplicity, especially since scanners are not all
that expensive. One other issue is ensuring the ballots
are punched correctly (so that the two sheets line up when
the voter actually casts his ballot).
And of course someone will complain about tree-killing.
But how else does one audit the vote for later? Paper
has the advantage of indefinite storability.
--
#191, ewill3.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 10, 2007
Posts: 166
|
(Msg. 48) Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>advocacy, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Erik Funkenbusch <erik.RemoveThis@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
> I agree, but that doesn't mean they have to be hand marked. Hand
marking
> is where most of the problems are, because humans can easily mess that
up.
We seem to do OK with optical scan machines here in Wisconsin.
You just draw a line between two arrows. The ballot box/scanner
will beep and spit the ballot back out if it is marked
incorrectly, then a volunteer comes over and helps you fill out
a new ballot (the old one is immediately destroyed). The spoiled
ballot rate here is a tiny fraction of a percent, one of the lowest
in the nation.
This system has several advantages:
1. Multiple voting queues can use a single scanning machine.
2. People can still vote even during power or machine failures.
3. Built in audit trail for manual hand counts.
4. Absentee ballots use the same forms and scanners.
5. Better ballot integrity. Each optical scan ballot is
initialed by two poll workers before being handed to a voter.
This does not happen with the 'toilet paper roll' ballot
records created by some DRE systems.
I certainly support a system for handicapped people that
marks the optical scan ballots for them, but we don't need
to transition the entire rest of the population to an
inferior system to handle that.
Cheers,
Thad |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 59
|
(Msg. 49) Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:25 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
To be really serious about constructing a good electronic voting system,
it would be a great idea to peruse the archives of comp.risks which
talks frequently and in good detail of the perils of such a system.
This endeavor should be undertaken long before implementation details,
such as OS selection, are even considered.
Good luck...
--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 50) Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:25 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Kevin the Drummer wrote:
> To be really serious about constructing a good electronic voting system,
> it would be a great idea to peruse the archives of comp.risks which
> talks frequently and in good detail of the perils of such a system.
> This endeavor should be undertaken long before implementation details,
> such as OS selection, are even considered.
>
> Good luck...
>
Linux is probably better than Windoze but special purpose Optical Mark
Reader machines are better than either one by several miles. This is not a
app suitable for general purpose computers. The ignorant continue to try to
teach pigs how to fly during snowstorms. There is a proven technology that
has worked for decades without complaint, OMR. Use it.
--
John Culleton
Able Indexers and Typesetters |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 676
|
(Msg. 51) Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:25 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>advocacy (more info?)
|
|
|
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Culleton
<john.TakeThisOut@wexfordpress.com>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:35:37 -0400
<kLWdnT7z0MWQqAPbnZ2dnUVZ_rW3nZ2d.TakeThisOut@adelphia.com>:
> Kevin the Drummer wrote:
>
>> To be really serious about constructing a good electronic voting system,
>> it would be a great idea to peruse the archives of comp.risks which
>> talks frequently and in good detail of the perils of such a system.
>> This endeavor should be undertaken long before implementation details,
>> such as OS selection, are even considered.
>>
>> Good luck...
>>
> Linux is probably better than Windoze but special purpose Optical Mark
> Reader machines are better than either one by several miles. This is not a
> app suitable for general purpose computers. The ignorant continue to try to
> teach pigs how to fly during snowstorms. There is a proven technology that
> has worked for decades without complaint, OMR. Use it.
>
Depends on how dumb the card reader is. Ideally, the card
reader/tally system would be provably stupid, not knowing
where the Republican entries on the voting ticket are. 
It certainly doesn't have to be all that sophisticated.
As it is, both Linux and Windows don't solve the problem
of vote tallying; they solve problems related to computer
management (and Windows includes presentation issues --
GUI, in other words).
--
#191, ewill3.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 16, 2007
Posts: 16
|
(Msg. 52) Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:03 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>advocacy, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Kevin the Drummer wrote:
> To be really serious about constructing a good electronic voting system,
> it would be a great idea to peruse the archives of comp.risks which
> talks frequently and in good detail of the perils of such a system.
> This endeavor should be undertaken long before implementation details,
> such as OS selection, are even considered.
>
> Good luck...
>
comp.risks is a good source.
Searching Rebecca Mercuri or Peter Neumann will get you some good info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 237
|
(Msg. 53) Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>advocacy (more info?)
|
|
|
Nedd Ludd <1313.DeleteThis@Mockingbird.ln> writes:
> BearItAll wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
> < snip >
>>>
>>> The *ONLY* way to verify is via paper trail,
>>
>>
>> That is probably the least safe of the posible means of vote counting. It
>> tends to be concidered safe for no other reason than it is traditional.
>
> This is an interesting thesis. Let's see how well you can support it.
>
>> First the voting box. You fold your piece of paper in half while you are
>> still in the privacy of the voting booth. Then you walk out and put it into
>> the box. No one is allowed to touch your paper. Would they be able to tell
>> if you have a few pieces of paper folded inside your own? The answer is no,
>> because it has been done.
>
> You are wrong, or it doesn't have to be the way you described.
> Allow me to describe the system used where I vote.
>
> You get one sequentially numbered ballot when you sign in. You take
> the ballot to the booth or other private area and make your
> selections. You don't have an opportunity to get multiple ballots.
> You slide the ballot into a sleeve that is a little shorter than the
> ballot after you fill out the ballot. The sequence number is
> displayed and a volunteer notes the ballot number. The ballot does
> not go into a box but is slid into a scanner. A counter on the
> scanner is incremented when the ballot is successful so I have an
> indication that my vote counted. Also, the ballots are printed on
> very heavy paper; they're almost a light cardboard. Two ballots would
> not fit into the scanner at the same time and even if they could, only
> the ballot facing the sensors is read.
I was going to reply to BearItAll but to be honest after reading a page
and a half of his totally incorrect and self made up waffle I fell asleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 11, 2007
Posts: 341
|
(Msg. 54) Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:54 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Nedd Ludd wrote:
Ok, pig breath (since you seem to like the insulting approach to responses I
respond in kind to make you feel at home, sorry I can't supply you with mud
to wallow in).
> BearItAll wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
> < snip >
>>>
>>> The *ONLY* way to verify is via paper trail,
>>
>>
>> That is probably the least safe of the posible means of vote counting. It
>> tends to be concidered safe for no other reason than it is traditional.
>
> This is an interesting thesis. Let's see how well you can support it.
>
>> First the voting box. You fold your piece of paper in half while you are
>> still in the privacy of the voting booth. Then you walk out and put it
>> into the box. No one is allowed to touch your paper. Would they be able
>> to tell if you have a few pieces of paper folded inside your own? The
>> answer is no, because it has been done.
>
> You are wrong, or it doesn't have to be the way you described.
> Allow me to describe the system used where I vote.
>
> You get one sequentially numbered ballot when you sign in. You take the
> ballot to the booth or other private area and make your selections. You
> don't have an opportunity to get multiple ballots. You slide the ballot
> into a sleeve that is a little shorter than the ballot after you fill
> out the ballot. The sequence number is displayed and a volunteer notes
> the ballot number. The ballot does not go into a box but is slid into a
> scanner. A counter on the scanner is incremented when the ballot is
> successful so I have an indication that my vote counted. Also, the
> ballots are printed on very heavy paper; they're almost a light
> cardboard. Two ballots would not fit into the scanner at the same time
> and even if they could, only the ballot facing the sensors is read.
>
I have never voted in a ballot that was done in the way you describe here,
where do you live the North pole perhaps? In the UK it isn't done the way
that you say.
I have never had a ballot paper that I have marked passed through any kind
of scanner.
> I've just described at least three controls that prevent people from
> voting multiple times: 1) you get one ballot 2) the observer can see
> you slide in one ballot 3) the scanner can only read one ballot at a time.
>
>> Have a look at the counting stage, in just a few hours many millions of
>> pieces of paper are sorted into piles depending where the 'X' is.
>
> This step you've just described tells me that you've never voted or
> you're an idiot.
I always vote.
> Most elections include multiple issues. A ballot can
> include selections for President, Federal Senator, Federal
>
Ah, right, I get it now. Your American and you follow the strange narrow
minded American approach to things, you belive that a thing done in America
must obviously be done in exactly the same way in other developed
countries.
>> How ever carefull they are with the ballot box system there are many
>> stages where cheating can take place. It's true that the inspectors know
>> this so can try their best to stop it.
>
> You've presented a strawman argument. All voting systems come with
> security risks. Processes mitigate the risks and reduce the possibility
> of fraud whereas the tools can only assist.
>
That was my entire point, that how ever carefull the system is there is
always room for fraud. Personally I agree with the poll organisers that the
numbers of frauds generally wouldn't affect the result so could be ignored,
unless the vote is close.
In social clubs the ballot paper idea is often thrown out in favour of a
show of hands when the thing being voted on is impersonal to anyone in the
room. It is a clear instant vote, so my townhall gathering idea is still a
better system I would say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 16, 2007
Posts: 16
|
(Msg. 55) Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:38 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
BearItAll wrote:
> Nedd Ludd wrote:
>
>> BearItAll wrote:
>>
>>> Have a look at the counting stage, in just a few hours many millions of
>>> pieces of paper are sorted into piles depending where the 'X' is.
>>
>> This step you've just described tells me that you've never voted or
>> you're an idiot.
>
> I always vote.
That eliminates one alternative.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 10, 2006
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 56) Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>advocacy, others (more info?)
|
|
|
resonator80 <w.edelstein DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in
news:1184512183.628120.165180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>
> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
>
> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
> Python, etc) is open.
>
> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>
> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> program that could alter the results?
>
> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
> election without its effects being detected by examining the
> application program?
>
> Any other comments are welcom.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Edelstein
> Baltimore, MD
>
Solution to all voting problems: FireFox. Just do internet voting that
would work through a secure tunnel that can be established using a
modified copy of FireFox. It's simple, could work on any computer, and
would be really easy to implement. Instead of a voting card you get a
Credit Card CD. You put it into your computer and it either boots from
it, or starts a modified copy of FireFox with individual SSH key to the
central server. Once you have voted, the key is deleted from the server
so you can no longer vote but there is no way to link you to your vote,
for privacy reasons, and at the same time you get a print out with a
generated key that has your votes encrypted into it along with unique
identification number for identification.
It's simple, and easy, and can be done in any library or school with no
extra useless equipment.
- Bogdan |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 11, 2007
Posts: 485
|
(Msg. 57) Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <Xns997EB340B1630x0054indexcom.DeleteThis@yourdomain.com>,
x0054.DeleteThis@index.com says...
> resonator80 <w.edelstein.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1184512183.628120.165180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
> > must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
> >
> > Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
> > be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
> >
> > Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
> > remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
> > Python, etc) is open.
> >
> > Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
> >
> > 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> > code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> > program that could alter the results?
> >
> > 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
> > election without its effects being detected by examining the
> > application program?
> >
> > Any other comments are welcom.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill Edelstein
> > Baltimore, MD
> >
>
> Solution to all voting problems: FireFox. Just do internet voting that
> would work through a secure tunnel that can be established using a
> modified copy of FireFox. It's simple, could work on any computer, and
> would be really easy to implement. Instead of a voting card you get a
> Credit Card CD. You put it into your computer and it either boots from
> it, or starts a modified copy of FireFox with individual SSH key to the
> central server. Once you have voted, the key is deleted from the server
> so you can no longer vote but there is no way to link you to your vote,
> for privacy reasons, and at the same time you get a print out with a
> generated key that has your votes encrypted into it along with unique
> identification number for identification.
>
> It's simple, and easy, and can be done in any library or school with no
> extra useless equipment.
>
> - Bogdan
Win recently nailed as part of the massive insecurity of voting joke
machines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 14, 2005
Posts: 923
|
(Msg. 58) Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:04 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
x0054 <x0054.DeleteThis@index.com> writes:
>resonator80 <w.edelstein.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1184512183.628120.165180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
>> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
Well, no, not really. That is convenient, but you could always write the
disk or screen accss routines yourself.
>>
>> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
>> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
Which also means that you can strip it down to the bare minimum needed for
the application. Having a 1 GB OS for a <F12>voting machine is not only a
waste but is stupid as it makes the possibility for error much greater.
>>
>> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
>> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
>> Python, etc) is open.
>>
>> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>>
>> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
>> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
>> program that could alter the results?
Sure. You have heard of viruses, etc which do just that?
>>
>> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
>> election without its effects being detected by examining the
>> application program?
>>
>> Any other comments are welcom.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Edelstein
>> Baltimore, MD
>>
>Solution to all voting problems: FireFox. Just do internet voting that
>would work through a secure tunnel that can be established using a
>modified copy of FireFox. It's simple, could work on any computer, and
>would be really easy to implement. Instead of a voting card you get a
And be really really easy to subvert.
>Credit Card CD. You put it into your computer and it either boots from
And someone figures out how that cd card works.
Or they make sure that their candidates voters turn out early and then
launch a DOS attack on the voting system.
>it, or starts a modified copy of FireFox with individual SSH key to the
>central server. Once you have voted, the key is deleted from the server
>so you can no longer vote but there is no way to link you to your vote,
>for privacy reasons, and at the same time you get a print out with a
>generated key that has your votes encrypted into it along with unique
>identification number for identification.
>It's simple, and easy, and can be done in any library or school with no
>extra useless equipment.
No. That is the problem too many people think it is simple and easy.
> - Bogdan |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 191
|
(Msg. 59) Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:55 am
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:09:43 -0000, resonator80 wrote:
> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
[...]
> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
> program that could alter the results?
>
> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
> election without its effects being detected by examining the
> application program?
Look, it's simple (to say, not so easy to implement). Any system can be
tampered with, regardless of whether or not you can inspect the source.
Code can be altered after the inspection takes place, and almost all code
has flaws of some kind or another that could allow a breach.
The only truly viable system is one that produces tamper-proof output.
Then, it doesn't matter if someone compromises the machines, because the
output couldn't be faked. any alteration would immediately be noticable
because the right output would not be generated.
This means having a paper trail that the voter can see says the candidate
they voted for. If you have that, and processes in place to insure the
paper is secure, nobody would bother to tamper with machines since it would
not be possible to gain any benefit from doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 15, 2007
Posts: 122
|
(Msg. 60) Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Linux vs. windows for voting systems? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
x0054 wrote:
> resonator80 <w.edelstein.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1184512183.628120.165180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Computerized voting systems (aka DREs or Direct Recording Electronic)
>> must be based on an operating system, for example, Windows or Linux.
>>
>> Linux has the advantage of being open so that all the source code can
>> be open. Windows source code will not be opened to anyone.
>>
>> Some people have argued that the basic Windows operating system can
>> remain secret as long as the voting application program (i.e. C,
>> Python, etc) is open.
>>
>> Here are some questions about such an arrangement.
>>
>> 1. Could someone tamper with the Windows OS or put in some additional
>> code that would not be found in an inspection of the application
>> program that could alter the results?
>>
>> 2. Could viruses and other malware affect the OS and, ultimately, an
>> election without its effects being detected by examining the
>> application program?
>>
>> Any other comments are welcom.
>>
>> Thanks, Bill Edelstein Baltimore, MD
>>
>
> Solution to all voting problems: FireFox. Just do internet voting that
> would work through a secure tunnel that can be established using a
> modified copy of FireFox. It's simple, could work on any computer, and
> would be really easy to implement. Instead of a voting card you get a
> Credit Card CD. You put it into your computer and it either boots from
> it, or starts a modified copy of FireFox with individual SSH key to the
> central server. Once you have voted, the key is deleted from the server
> so you can no longer vote but there is no way to link you to your vote,
> for privacy reasons, and at the same time you get a print out with a
> generated key that has your votes encrypted into it along with unique
> identification number for identification.
>
> It's simple, and easy, and can be done in any library or school with no
> extra useless equipment.
>
For every difficult complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
elegant, and wrong.
This does not address several factors:
1.) How does the voter assure himself that the Credit Card CD, or whatever
is used, is a valid one and is not a substitute provided by someone,
possibly an employee of the election commission, attempting to commit
election fraud?
2.) How does the voter know that the program at the other end is fraud
proof. It could easily count your vote and put it in the wrong column, but
return you the vote as you made it. All the problems associated with
electronic voting machines in a polling place still exist, and you have
added a few more.
3.) What does the voter do when the bad guy uses his Credit Card ID and so
when the good guy tries to vote, the central machine rejects his vote
because it was already used? How does he prove that someone else hijacked
his vote?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:25:01 up 9 days, 8:09, 2 users, load average: 4.42, 4.30, 4.27 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
