staringclown

How taxing housing diminishes affordability

39 posts in this topic

The same level on incompetence would also be demonstrated on early voting systems, I'm sure.

Has already been. That particular story crops up every few months on slashdot and has done so for years now.

Companies like diebold (atm manufacturer) consistently forget the difference between money and voting. Hell they even screw up the money thing at times :)

A voting system is one of the few things I think cannot be done in any way except open source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember about 10 years ago reading a white paper on how electronic cash would work (so it was anonymous but also verifiable) wouldn't be hard to extend that to electronic voting. Just keep the source and data open in the same way.

The only issue that voting would have which cash doesn't is extra votes. Which would be trivial to solve.

For an electronic electoral system identity would need to be established prior to actually voting (anonymously). Technically it is possible. Open source is a good idea for gaining the trust of the public for the system. Though given the public current levels of distrust of 'experts' any system would be a difficult sell.

Edit: Any system would also need to be usable by non IT savvy users. This is going to inhibit the use of PKI for identity management. I don't know any other methods that could provide the confidentiality, integrity and authentication required for electronic voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For an electronic electoral system identity would need to be established prior to actually voting (anonymously). Technically it is possible. Open source is a good idea for gaining the trust of the public for the system. Though given the public current levels of distrust of 'experts' any system would be a difficult sell.

Edit: Any system would also need to be usable by non IT savvy users. This is going to inhibit the use of PKI for identity management. I don't know any other methods that could provide the confidentiality, integrity and authentication required for electronic voting.

electronic voting lacks the scrutiny of a paper system. currently representatives from parties stand behind officials as they count votes. an electronic system would be subject to manipulation by the current govt. not saying any current governments would be so corrupt, but there is the potential. Joe B okka peterson would have considered it, no, he would have done it for sure. you would still need to run a concurrent paper system for those without Internet.

and won't someone think of the children? all that lost revenue for p&c's running sausage sizzles and old ladies selling cakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...This is going to inhibit the use of PKI for identity management...

I think this is an idea we _really_ have to get rid of.

Even half arsed use of PKI would be fantastic.

Sure some people are going to lose their private keys and let other people get hold of them and all the other cockups that even experienced people make at times. Yes some people are going to insist that it is all too hard. Basically f*ck them and their complaints. The internet was too hard and vcr's were too hard and blah blah blah. Everyone seemed to actually learn how to do it eventually.

Imagine if you just dumped any mail that wasn't encrypted to you. If everyone did that spam would basically stop. Even if the spammers got hold of everyone public keys the computational costs of encrypting would be exorbitant and render the entire business model worthless I reckon.

The whole technocrat support of the idiots saying things are "too hard" is just vested interest bollocks. We techies like when people say things are hard because it bolsters out ego and we are happy to believe that it is hard and we are uber smart to have figured it out.

If people can learn to drive a car relatively safely they can learn to use PKI. If everyone started using it then the interfaces would be worth investing in and we'd end up with decent quality interfaces which were relatively simple to use. Hell I usually forget how PKI actually works, so do most of the nerds I know and then we end up arguing for an hour or two about how it works (yes we could just jump on wikipedia but it is more fun to work it out from first principles in an argument than just read it off wikipedia)

</rant> hehehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

electronic voting lacks the scrutiny of a paper system. currently representatives from parties stand behind officials as they count votes. an electronic system would be subject to manipulation by the current govt. not saying any current governments would be so corrupt, but there is the potential. Joe B okka peterson would have considered it, no, he would have done it for sure. you would still need to run a concurrent paper system for those without Internet.

and won't someone think of the children? all that lost revenue for p&c's running sausage sizzles and old ladies selling cakes.

Electronic voting (implemented reasonably well) would be more open to scrutiny than a paper system. You could check how many people in your electorate voted, in fact I can't see why you wouldn't be able to get a list of names of who voted. You wouldn't be able to see what their vote was but you could always check what yours was recorded as after the fact.

It would make it trivial for someone that cared to verify that the numbers matched up and, if they didn't, a news article saying there were irregularities would have everyone checking their vote was registered correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is PKI a brand of chewing gum?

hehe

PKI is Public Key Infrastructure.

Basically you have a private key and a public key. You give everyone your public key and they use that in conjunction with their keys to talk to you and prove they are who they say they are, it uses prime number theory (really big numbers are easy to make from two primes but it is hard to work out which two primes created it).

So, let's say a politician bought a ute and emailed his friend about it, if he had signed / encrypted it that would be pretty conclusive proof that he had indeed written that email. As opposed to someone with a rudimentary knowledge of email impersonating someone else :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic voting (implemented reasonably well) would be more open to scrutiny than a paper system. You could check how many people in your electorate voted, in fact I can't see why you wouldn't be able to get a list of names of who voted. You wouldn't be able to see what their vote was but you could always check what yours was recorded as after the fact.

It would make it trivial for someone that cared to verify that the numbers matched up and, if they didn't, a news article saying there were irregularities would have everyone checking their vote was registered correctly.

the system needs to be set up for the worst case of fraud. electronic voting could always be changed to make the punter believe everything is ok, when it's not. a paper system has hundreds of eyes and ears watching it.

a voting system should not allow the ability (even if it isn't used) for the current government to see how you voted.

the biggest flaw in the current system is not having to provide any ID (also a strength of democracy) and you could vote in every booth in the area. names crossed off the list are not compared between booths. in the recent qld election i could have voted in 5 booths in 5 different names i know exist in the electorate.

i propose a reality TV style election. where each party has six weeks to renovate a house, while cooking, singing and losing weight. vote by SMS. it would probably achieve a better ruling party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is an idea we _really_ have to get rid of.

Even half arsed use of PKI would be fantastic.

Sure some people are going to lose their private keys and let other people get hold of them and all the other cockups that even experienced people make at times. Yes some people are going to insist that it is all too hard. Basically f*ck them and their complaints. The internet was too hard and vcr's were too hard and blah blah blah. Everyone seemed to actually learn how to do it eventually.

Imagine if you just dumped any mail that wasn't encrypted to you. If everyone did that spam would basically stop. Even if the spammers got hold of everyone public keys the computational costs of encrypting would be exorbitant and render the entire business model worthless I reckon.

The whole technocrat support of the idiots saying things are "too hard" is just vested interest bollocks. We techies like when people say things are hard because it bolsters out ego and we are happy to believe that it is hard and we are uber smart to have figured it out.

If people can learn to drive a car relatively safely they can learn to use PKI. If everyone started using it then the interfaces would be worth investing in and we'd end up with decent quality interfaces which were relatively simple to use. Hell I usually forget how PKI actually works, so do most of the nerds I know and then we end up arguing for an hour or two about how it works (yes we could just jump on wikipedia but it is more fun to work it out from first principles in an argument than just read it off wikipedia)

</rant> hehehehe

I agree however work on the interfaces would definitely be needed. The problems I've had usually involve getting stuff working on unmanaged client machines. Usually infected up the wazoo with every single variety of malware and driven by a brain dead fool.

Let me tell you about the time I had to get a linux user (who unlike most linux users was clueless about IT) using an iceweasel browser up and running with java applet and proprietary client crypto software. (java luckily) She had written a complaint to the minister. The memory still haunts me. -_-

Multiply the problem by 1 million.

Mutual SSL would work better I think. The client side stuff could be farmed off to the O/S vendors. The government would need to run the certificate authority and post offices could be used for the proof of identity certificate issuance. The little old ladies are holding us back on many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a voting system should not allow the ability (even if it isn't used) for the current government to see how you voted.

In the anonymous electronic cash model that was exactly what was proposed. The bar owner would know someone had paid but not who. Both people at the table could see someone had paid but, if they hadn't paid, would know who had (it could have been the sexy lady in the red dress over there).

i propose a reality TV style election. where each party has six weeks to renovate a house, while cooking, singing and losing weight. vote by SMS. it would probably achieve a better ruling party.

I think the american elections are getting close to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the system needs to be set up for the worst case of fraud. electronic voting could always be changed to make the punter believe everything is ok, when it's not. a paper system has hundreds of eyes and ears watching it.

a voting system should not allow the ability (even if it isn't used) for the current government to see how you voted.

the biggest flaw in the current system is not having to provide any ID (also a strength of democracy) and you could vote in every booth in the area. names crossed off the list are not compared between booths. in the recent qld election i could have voted in 5 booths in 5 different names i know exist in the electorate.

i propose a reality TV style election. where each party has six weeks to renovate a house, while cooking, singing and losing weight. vote by SMS. it would probably achieve a better ruling party.

Here is the most recent example of a half arsed security system from the government. The eHealth system. Previous half arsed systems include the ATO AusKey which uses your date of birth and TFN as the proof of identity. (The system does send an email to the real owner of the identity but most non IT savvy users wouldn't realise the implications)

The same clowns were let loose on the eHealth system and have been called on it's security weaknesses.

Australians should not opt-in to e-health records: AusCERT

The perfect murder scenario could be perpetrated by hacking an individual that you wanted rubbed out and upping the dose on a drug they were taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found this conversation very enlightening.

Thanks to all those IT professionals for pointing out some of the pitfalls in such a system.

I had thought that it might have been implemented by now, but I can see some of the underlying problems still to be overcome.

I add another.

A large proportion of our older population are computer and technologically illiterate.

My mother (84) still has an old dial phone. She prefers it even though we bought her a wireless press button one.

I don't what percentage of the population would fall into this category but I would think it would still be significant.

Also I need to clarify for myself.

I think most of you are talking about a digital voting system that we would do in our own home.

What about a system where you still had to go to a booth and be systematically allowed to register your vote under your name.

This would also alleviate double-up voting because once you had voted under your name, the machine would not let you vote again.

At some point in the future an application for smartphones, might be developed.

I can now see some of the difficulties though thanks to your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found this conversation very enlightening.

Thanks to all those IT professionals for pointing out some of the pitfalls in such a system.

I had thought that it might have been implemented by now, but I can see some of the underlying problems still to be overcome.

I add another.

A large proportion of our older population are computer and technologically illiterate.

My mother (84) still has an old dial phone. She prefers it even though we bought her a wireless press button one.

I don't what percentage of the population would fall into this category but I would think it would still be significant.

Also I need to clarify for myself.

I think most of you are talking about a digital voting system that we would do in our own home.

What about a system where you still had to go to a booth and be systematically allowed to register your vote under your name.

This would also alleviate double-up voting because once you had voted under your name, the machine would not let you vote again.

At some point in the future an application for smartphones, might be developed.

I can now see some of the difficulties though thanks to your input.

You're welcome sol. :)

We are talking about an in home system. Having the system in voting booths would be a lot easier as you could control the client machine. (Ensuring that spyware and other malicious software wasn't present) It would eliminate the need for vote counting and help with the problem of non IT savvy folks.

Whatever system is implemented public confidence in the electoral process is paramount. If this is lost then it's bye bye democracy.

My estimation of when the government systems will integrate with mobile technology is 5-10 years depending how much money is in the pot. There's not much at the moment for anything but technology upgrades and unlikely to be any increase any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found this conversation very enlightening.

Thanks to all those IT professionals for pointing out some of the pitfalls in such a system.

I had thought that it might have been implemented by now, but I can see some of the underlying problems still to be overcome.

I add another.

A large proportion of our older population are computer and technologically illiterate.

My mother (84) still has an old dial phone. She prefers it even though we bought her a wireless press button one.

I don't what percentage of the population would fall into this category but I would think it would still be significant.

Also I need to clarify for myself.

I think most of you are talking about a digital voting system that we would do in our own home.

What about a system where you still had to go to a booth and be systematically allowed to register your vote under your name.

This would also alleviate double-up voting because once you had voted under your name, the machine would not let you vote again.

At some point in the future an application for smartphones, might be developed.

I can now see some of the difficulties though thanks to your input.

as kids become exposed to computers and technology at an early age, i think the issue of computer illiteracy will fade away over time.

I think that perhaps now, it's just not viable, but i think that in the future, we should move towards it. Iit would be much more efficient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now