Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Signatures And Citizen's Initiatives?
jamiefaye asks: "The San Jose Mercury News mentions that a digital signature bill has passed Congress by a lopsided margin of 426-4. Many states allow citizens to petition to pass laws through 'Citizens Initiatives' -- a process made difficult by the need to gather thousands of signatures on paper. Having digital signatures could make this much easier. What kind of legal changes can we expect if the somebody could throw up a Web page, attract attention, and pass a law? I would make telemarketers obey an 'opt-out list' for starters." Possibly, but this is one of the better ideas I've hear on the use of digital signatures. Thoughts? Update: 06/27 08:45 by C :Quite a number of you have pointed out that this bill is about Electric signatures and not Digital signatures as the story originally indicated. An electronic "signature" can be something as simple as clicking 'I agree' or pressing '1' on your phone. And now Congress wants such actions to be legally binding (Congress passed this unanimously, it was the House of Representatives that passed it by a vote of 426-4)? You can get more information by reading this analysis of the bill at Cryptome. This is not good. Also, the link to the above SJ Mercury article now seems to be invalid, but you can find more information on this from CNN. Thanks to all the folks who pointed this out, both in this discussion and by sending in submissions.
Those who do not understand democracy are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. Not only is it elitist, it would be totally unsecure, so now people can DOS voting-servers if they don't think their view will win. Maybe this is only just a wedge issue to get us all to accept MS-Wallet as our proof of citizen-ship. Seriously though, I do not want a federal id, a digital id, or a bar-code on my forhead. The internet is free (ish) and should remain that way.
> This is a valid concern, if the digital signatures are used for the
>vote itself. If, however, the signatures were used for a petition
>process in order to get an issue onto a paper ballot, then, assuming
>the issue was passed on the paper ballot, it wouldn't matter how many
>fake digital signatures appeared on the petition.
You guys are ducking the issue. If the Digital Signatures used for a petition were declared fraudulent/tainted by a court and the petition itself thrown out on this basis, any vote based as a result of that petition would most likely also be ruled invalid by the court and the whole process ordered to be held over again.
>Again, for those who do have the network access, how hard would it be
>to get multiple varying digital signatures? Is it as easy as getting
>multiple email accounts?
Watch as a lot of laws that happen to get passed by the use Digital Signatures get thrown out by the courts because of this very issue. In other words, Voting+Digital Signatures=Voting fraud lawsuits....
>it is still the electoral equivalent of a write-in victory; this is
>particularly true in states where the legislature can turn around and
>place measures on the ballot themselves as a way of avoiding
>politically uncomfortable decisions.
>My opinion only, IANAL.
Not so fast. Voting using Digital Signatures most certainly would not be considered the electoral equivalent of a write-in vote simply because a write-in vote stills boils down to "one person,one vote" No matter what the advocates Digital Signatures claim, there's no way of ensuring this via electronic voting.
Get real. This is not about alowing a sufficient number of people to pass a law. Read the question (this time its not even an article on another site, its the text, right here on slashdot which wasn't read), it says that people can petition for the passing of a law. All that says is that a sufficient number of people can force the legislature to vote on a law. In addition to this there is still the courts, which might strike something down as unconstitutional.
- An electronic signature can be a "sound, symbol, or process" - like clicking an "Agree" or "Continue" button
- The electronic signature creates a legally binding contract as long as there is "a statement of the hardware and software requirements" and it is confirmed "in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that the consumer can access information in the electronic form that will be used"
- Vendors are allowed to charge extra fee for tangible or immutable copy of transaction record
- Vendors are allowed to charge "withdrawal of consent" fee for ppl that begin but do not complete an electronic transaction
- Vendors can specify that this electronically-signed contract applies to a whole category of future transactions
- "The legal effectiveness, validity, or enforceability of any contract executed by a consumer shall not be denied solely because of the failure to obtain electronic consent or confirmation of consent by that consumer...."
- The consumer is required to provide accurate information to allow the vendor to contact them electronically
BEWARE!Article 1, Section 1:
Article 5:
No national referendum. However, it doesn't specify how the convention would be done, or the conventions in the states.In the US the Federal government has most of the power, and has since the end of the Civil War/War of Southern Secession/War of Northern Aggression (take your pick). Some imaginative reading of the Constitution (e.g. Commerce Clause) has led to the Federal government usurping even more power from the states, to the point that lawyers for the Federal government are arguing in Federal Appeals court that the Federal Government has the power to regulate anything that has ever been in another stato, or has nay constituent part that has ever been in another state (Do a web search for Emerson and gun).
Sorry, this has turned into a mildly coherent rant, but I find myself getting damn frustrated that all I can do is write a letter to a congresscritter, who really doesn't give a damn about me or my family, but does give a damn about campaign contributions. I like in Texas, which does not have any type of initiative or refferendum. Grrrrrrrr!
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Get yours today!
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
"I say all voting processes should stay on paper. Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures."
You sound like Cokie Roberts.
While on some level, I can agree that this is changes the balance, that's what AMERICA has always been about. Checks and balances will prevail soon enough.
What this can do is use the interhnet to level the playing field between multi-million dollar PAC sponsered initiatives to match John Deer and Jane Doe's grassroot bill.
Besides, anything that may re-invigorate the voting public might not be a bad thing.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Okay, fair points all. I still feel, though, that a) online voting is inevitable and b) it should be possible to do it fairly. What we should be doing, therefore, is making sure that b) is possible before a) comes along.
Basically, we're looking at a tradeoff. At the moment, few people vote; turnouts of 16% aren't unheard of for local elections here in Ireland. If people can vote while they're waiting for their mail to download, they will. A certain amount of trust is needed; I can't speak for the US system, but in Ireland candiates' agents take it on trust that the boxes delivered to the counting centres are the actual and untampered votes. I work as a presiding officer during elections, and I can see how organised, government-based abuse is possible. That'll always be the case.
Did any of that make sense? I guess the nub of my (somewhat rambling) argument is that it'll happen whether we like it or not, so we should make damn sure that it's as secure as possible.
The real problem is that if voting results are purely virtual, they are too easy to be manipulated
A corrupt government will always find a way. In Zimbabwe yesterday, the government refused access to the count to all journalists and candidates' agents.
WRT crackers; the system will have to be at least as secure as the current one, but I reckon it's mostly (if not totally) available; it just has to be implemented.
Who can tell whether a vote's been rigged? Experts. If someone is interested in monitoring elections, they can learn the technology, or work with someone who knows it. Does the current system of checks discriminate against people who can't read?
I completely agree with you here- I find that my 80+ hour workweek precludes my ability to take half the day off to participate in any sort of political activity, much less go through the effort to start a grass roots campaign. I'd like to see some technologically intelligent groups start up so we have someone other than the AARP, the unemployed and the welfare cases campaigning for the future legistation of our country.
EOM
All governmental uses aside, this will be great for businesses. The lack of legally binding signatures has been a stick in the side of "e-business" for a long time. The ablility to legally sign a document (preferably using some sort of crypto of course) over the internet would enable all sorts of industries to offer all sorts of new services. Banking, securities investments, insurance, etc. will all benefit from this immensely. Think about it.
EOM
hell i'll get on board that one...
EOM
you really think the US is an intact and functional system, still? you've led a sheltered life, then.
EOM
no, i'm not trolling- i'm just a realist. I could care less about your disabilities or your perceived need for social equality. it doesn't exist, and i don't see a need for it to exist. read schopenhauer sometime if you think that *i'm* being excessive.
EOM
I don't know about you, but I work for a living and have not had anything given to me by anyone. If you don't have the ability to do something with yourself to the point that you either need government handouts or require society to lower itself just so you don't get lost in the shuffle, then maybe you aren't worth the effort. Elitism isn't always a bad thing.
EOM
It's all too easy for any group (especially if highly focused) to vote for free beer and circuses (rule by mob or popular acclaim). I would at the very least like to see some structure where the people read/understand the issues and the ramifications/impacts before any voting. Sorta add in a datamodel which checks when back-ground web pages (provided by a spectrum of experts) have been read and at least some evidence of semi-intelligent discussion before presenting any voting page. No reflections on all those decent consumers keeping the rest of the world afloat but I shudder to think what people with short attention spans conditioned by marketeers for one-click shopping would do to a petition name drive. There are reasons why countries with transparent policy development processes succeed (in the long-term) better than those with autocratic rule. Part of the trick is to build up community consensus and that process can't be hurried if you want to consider all the interests out there. The tech is here but the social rules of conduct haven't evolved as yet.
LL
Sure, lots of people have computers these days, but not everyone is able to use them to the same level.
The same can be said of the written and/or spoken word. That why "weasel-word" contracts exist, and you can nearly get lynched by suggesting that citizens sign a petition to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
The only difference adding a "digital signature petition" option would be that the technologically enabled would now have similar power to that of the politically enabled. . .
Just my $.02. . .
Yeah, and it is the primary cause of soil erosion.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Imagine if some wacko could put up a web page and petition for some whack ass law that's right in line with his screwy religious beliefs. We already have laws which are linked to church, like buying cars on sunday is illegal in Minnesota, and booze. What else might happen? Maybe PETA would make it illegal to eat meat, or wear leather or fur. The Christian Coalition could pass a whole world of stupid laws, don't even get me started on that. "Hate groups" could pass laws.
I'm sure there's something in place where stupid frivolous laws couldn't be passed like this, but look at all the dumb laws we have now.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
"Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures."
1) Creating a new law is more than just marking and counting paper. Most people don't understand how a law gets created (even in general terms). Nor do they understand WHICH laws SHOULD BE created. Nor do they understand how a law can/should be enforced. Etc. I agree that everyone should be able to be involved, but I don't agree that this shouldn't require any education.
2) Why do you have to understand cryptography in order to digitally sign things? I don't understand electromagnetic theory but I am able to turn my lamp on. A good implementation will be only a little more difficult to use than clicking on the "digitally sign" button.
3) In any case, if the way to get things done involves understanding cryptography, how long do you think it will take people who want things done to learn cryptography?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"This is inherently undemocratic."
No it isn't. Hey look! We can both make unsubstantiated claims!
"Do you really, really think that the man in the street, who is subjected to law enforcement day in and day out, has no reasonable idea of how laws can, are, and should be enforced?"
Yes. Most people have never read a law, attended a public meeting OR been arrested. All they know is what they read in Perry Mason and see on Law & Order. I'm not saying they are stupid--I'm the same way. Are YOU saying that literally anyone could be picked up off the street given no education whatsoever and put into Congress and they would do a good job?
"It matters mightily if the public understands or not a census."
Yes, it DOES matter if "the public" understands the census (and the voting mechanisms). However, is it necessary that the ENTIRE public have that understanding? We wouldn't get anywhere if EVERY SINGLE person needed to understand EVERY SINGLE public procedure.
"How do you know which of the statisticians is right if you're not one?"
I don't. But that's one of the risks I take. The risk is small since I know that if the 2nd statistician isn't being paid by the gov't I can trust him to some extent. And the payoff is big: I don't have to be a statistician AND a cryptographer AND a MBA AND a PhD AND...etc.
"The details of network transmission, cryptography, and database systems take much more to master."
This is just ridiculous. Are you under the impression that ballots are delivered by hand (on horseback) to the President who counts them personally? Ballots (everyone needs to know papermaking) go in a box (everyone needs to know carpentry), which is then shipped securely (everyone needs to know how to build a highway, fix a car and load a gun)...etc.
There are already people whose entire day-to-day job is managing the details of voting procedures. Is it your claim that every citizen needs to be trained for this job in order to vote?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"I recommend you pick up some CDs by Alan Lomaxbefore you ever fire off again with this "normal people can't think for themselves" argument."
/. summary?
*I* recommend you re-read my post before accusing me of something I am innocent of. I didn't say "normal people can't think". I said "most people don't know". There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
"But I wasn't talking about creating laws, but about voting."
Yes, voting about creating laws. Or did you also not read the
"It involves making sure there are no duplicate votes, making sure no votes are lost, and counting the votes."
This is all handled "transparently". Joe Blow has no hand in ensuring non-duplicity, etc.
"When this is done with conventional means, everyone can understand how it works; when it is done electronically, only a technological elite can understand how it works."
What conceivable advantage could I have over Joe Schmoe if I understand the mathematics of a process that neither of us participates in? Example: The census. There are obscure and arcane (to a layman) statistical techniques that get applied to census data to figure out various facts and figures. But all the public sees is the end result, so it doesn't matter if we understand it.
But it brings up a (potentially) interesting point: What if the statisticians are crooked? They can cook the data and only other statisticians can find them out. So in that case, it WOULD help to be a statistician. But notice 2 things:
1) Once the whistle is blown, the entire public benefits (including non-statisticians). So Joe Schmoe doesn't have to understand statistics, he just needs to know that there are statisticians who don't work for the gov't.
2) A correctly designed crypographic protocol is immune from fudging (even from the inside), so we shouldn't have to worry about this case.
In any case, I think you will find that the average layman only THINKS he knows how it works with paper. But start really questioning him ("how are absentee ballots counted", "what is the procedure for handling ties", "given that with a large volume of ballots our count may be off by several votes, how do we determine when we HAVE a tie") and you'll find that he isn't so sure.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
There already IS a law that telemarketers are supposed to have a "don't-call" list.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Does anyone know exactly how many signatures it would take to pass a law into existence? I would assume it would be some percentage of the total population for a given state, but I have no idea what that percentage would be.
Ive often thought the existence of online voting and initiatives would radically change the demographics of the voting population. Potentially, it could mean politicians take younger people seriously for a change.
IANAL but my step-dad is and according to him, telemarketers already are required by law to maintain an opt-out list of people who, when called tell the telemarketer, "we do not accept solicitations." If you do this telemarketers are required not to call you for at least 3 years.
CRRH's petition drive is the first in the world to accept electronic
s sf?/news/oregonian/00/06/lc_61digit23.fram e
signatures on the net. A signer uses their computer and mouse to sign.
CRRH has received local media coverage on this. To see the video, go here:
http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/news_kgwesig.html
To read the local, Portland, Oregon newspaper article, go here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.
On Wednesday, June 21st, CRRH filed a lawsuit in Oregon court against the
Oregon Secretary of State to have them accept electronic signatures
gathered on the Internet. With the US Congress passing the electronic
signature bill last week, and with President Clinton's announced support of
the electronic signature bill, CRRH's OCTA initiative is the first petition
seeking a statewide vote to gather signatures on-line, using the signer's
computer, modem and mouse. If you are a registered Oregon voter, go here to
sign on-line:
http://www.crrh.org/octa/sign.html
CRRH's Oregon Cannabis Tax Act initiative has over the minimum required
number of signatures needed to qualify for a vote in Oregon. OCTA now has
67,207 signatures turned in to our Portland office. We are now working on a
buffer of additional signatures needed to ensure qualification. An initiative here requires 66,786 valid registered Oregon voters' signatures
to qualify for a vote in Oregon. Because some folks sign when they aren't
registered to vote, or they have moved, or sign illegibly, we need to turn
in over 80,000 voters' signatures to the Oregon Secretary of State's office
by July 7th to qualify for a vote this November.
The OCTA petition, upon passage and being upheld in federal court, will
regulate adult and medical cannabis and restore industrial hemp.
www.crrh.org has won Netscape's "What's Cool" award, Project Cool's
"Sighting," the "Cool Site Of The Day" award, been named in the British
Medical Journal's "Web Site of the Week" review and much more. Award links
from: www.crrh.org/credits.html
Great rant. I especially liked the "more intelligent than thou" tone--it should go over very well here. Kids, watch and learn. This is how it's done.
...I don't think even the Slashdot crowd would seriously try to argue against the proposition that the graduating class of Harvard Law School each year represents the cream of the nation's intellect.
...Law is for the lawyers, and the more comlicated it is, the fucken better, because that way, only highly paid specialists will be able to practice it.
Man, you've got me laughing hard now with that "cream of the intellect" bit. Careful, though--if you go too far over the top you'll lose your audience.
Ah, nice recovery. A little morsel of pseudowisdom to round out the dish. A bit of ingenious programming after your barrage. Bravo.
Name me one court that would possibly find "more beer" unconstitutional.
But in all fairness, point taken. Still, I can dream can't I?
It's turtles all the way down.
My biggest and only complaint with online voting is, how do you know that the votes being sent are not coerced? I remember hearing a friends father tell his Mother that if she voted for so-and-so he would beat her stupid. So my question is how do you ensure the same anonymity that is given with the current paper system? Until we can do this I do not think we should move to this system for voting/signing petitions/etc. I do not have the same concern for using a digital signature for a business transaction. It looks to me that there a just as many ways to forge a digital signature as there ways to forge an ink one. -- Now returning to my regularly scheduled lurking ...
__ Fast - Cheap - Good Pick any two
IANAA (I Am Not An American). Is it really so that when the required number of signatures is collected, the law comes to be passed?
Here in Switzerland initiatives are commonplace; national initiatives require 100000 signatures (out of a population of 7000000); local ones less. However, the initiative is still always followed by a vote by the whole populace where it can - and often is - struck down by the people.
Good thing too, otherwise the law would be full of crap laws that some minority put together.
So what's it like in the US?
Any technology which is distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.
Being of Portugese extraction myself, you will understand how much sympathy I have with your plight as a Spaniard -- fuck all.
Calling a Chicano a Spaniard is like calling you Brazilian because your are of "Portugese extraction"...
Or indeed, so that the big bad fucken Portugese bull cna come out and trample the pissy little Spanish motherfucker's dick into a necktie.
It is obvious you don't like the Spanish, but what did my Chicano brother ever do to you that you talk to his so disrepectfully???
Law is for the lawyers, and the more comlicated it is, the fucken better, because that way, only highly paid specialists will be able to practice it.
If this post shows us your skills at rhetoric, I don't think your opponents have much to worry about. Of course you probably have some Gringo lawyer watching over you to make sure you don't screw up any of the cases you handle!!!
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
In case you hadn't noticed, poor people are poor because they're stupid, in large part.
:->
That is a pretty elitist thing to say.
Of course, there are also group of 'community organizers' making sure they have groups of sheeple/protesters they can steer around.
There IS a group or there ARE groups. Not being able to speak English correctly makes you sound pretty stupid. Therefore, by your logic you must be poor.
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
What you say may be correct, but as I read the bill (and I did read it) it just says that signatures shall not be challenged soley on the basis of their electronic form.
There is room in this law for genuine digital signatures. I would say a very fair description of a digital signature is a "process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record". Straight from Sec. 106.
Whether rule by majority or by elected representative, power resides with the people, regardless of democracy or republic. And its a strong bill of rights that prevents our freedoms from being voted away. Ours just isn't strong enough.
In any case, I couldn't read the article (broken link!) so I don't know what's involved, but I'm curious as to what safeguards the bill specifies against abuse of digital signatures? How does one verify that signatures are legit?
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
After the President signs this bill as law, will he be able sign other laws online, without a pen? =)
http://www.talknerdy.org
I work for a local elections department, who are the people that actually check the signatures under the present system. Before electronic signatures would be valid for signing petitions or any other vote related process all local and state agencies would have to be able to verify those signatures. Given the somewhat transitory nature of current security mechanisms I see little chance of there being any way to sign petitions electronically for several years.
i.e. under current proposals for electronic voting you would have an electronic id assigned to you for a particular election. If they were to allow electronic signing of petitions you would have to first get a valid id from your local or state agency verifying your eligibility, this ID for securty purposes being only usable for a specific petition, and then "cash" that ID in on the signature site.
All of this of course dependent on state laws enabling it, state bureaucracy validating methods, and state and local agencies moving forward with technology. A process that will take years at least. However once it happens it will make some of our jobs easier.
I am sure it will increase the number of measures on the ballot, and by the time this all happens we may be able to vote on the internet as well, truly making for a digital democracy.
Your concern is that an election carried out by digital signature would be vulnerable to fraudulent voting and that the laws passed would be thrown out due to this fraud.
This is a valid concern, if the digital signatures are used for the vote itself. If, however, the signatures were used for a petition process in order to get an issue onto a paper ballot, then, assuming the issue was passed on the paper ballot, it wouldn't matter how many fake digital signatures appeared on the petition. As the prior poster pointed out, by that time it would be equivalent to a write-in vote.
Of course, I think you're also making the mistake that in-person voting is perfectly secure from scams. While identifying someone in person is much more accurate than it used to be (there have been instances of more people voting in a given district than actually live there...>100% voter turnout) it's still not completely foolproof. Digital signatures will become more accurate, but neither they nor paper ballots will ever be completely infallible.
They will simply raise the number of signatures required to get an initiative on the ballot. Over the years I have seen this happen with the paper process. As activists got more organized in gathering signatures the AG's office simply threw more obstacles in their way. When a petition comes through the door they do not like there will be a new requirement of the signatures that will disallow most of them. "Didn't you know about this new requirement? I guess that is because we didn't tell anyone until just now. Gee, that is too bad. You will have to start over and maybe next year it can be on the ballot."
> Why not have a digital signiture based off of your social security number?
Because not everyone has one, my friend.
The united states has only been around for 200 years. That isn't exactly standing the test of time. Call me again and tell me how its standing after a another 800 or so years and I'd consider that acceptable.
While it isn't politically correct to declare it the US -is- an elitist system where you practically buy your way into office. Masses are gullible and easily swayed into whatever mold someone wants them in.
As it stands today you might as well cut a good 50% of the US out of the voting process. Less than that go vote anyways. They've disenfrancised themselves either through ignorance, stupidity or simply not caring. Why waste time worrying about them?
The ability to be enfrancised should be avaliable to anyone but it doesn't have to be handed on a silver platter. I fully believe that the governmental process should go fully electronic. Voting and all. If people want a say they hook up with computers, go to a public library etc. If they don't want to deal with a computer then they choose to be disenfrancised. They can change that status any time they feel like it.
But OTOH this can also be used to fool the gullible and insecure into supporting legislation that, through the intricacies of legalise, says one thing whilst meaning another. And unless you're a trained lawyer how are you going to be able to separate the real from the fake?
no different than paper
The reason you keep hearing it is b/c they were pretty smart people. The Constitution is a well thought out document, things were not placed in there just for the hell of it. The heart of the matter never changes; the fact that people have certain rights which cannot be infrindged(sp?) upon. We have lots of rights not spelled out, but the bill of rights lists 10 of the most important restrictions on the gov't. I hate when people say 'oh that part is obsolete.' Like your average joe has any clue what he is talking about. The Framers where highly intelligent people; they invented the light bulb, telephone and other things. They also understood that there needs to be a buffer between what the people want (who are often rash, impacient, want 'the quick fix', and don't put any thought into the consequences of such fixes) and what actually gets done. So before you continue bashing them, please remember that they are the reason that this has become the greatest country there is. No, its not perfect, but imperfect beings cannot create perfection. And while its not perfect, it has done, and is doing, a pretty damn good job.
But doesn't it seem at least unbalanced for "wired" Americans to get voting booths in their own homes while the "piblic" must walk/bus/train to the piblic library, wait in line, and hope the damn thing works when they get there - that is, if they are computer-literate in the first place.
I don't know where all you people live, but out here in rural America net access is far from easy for the average citizen. I teach free classes at my community college and I am all for spreading computer literacy as far and wide as possible - but as an option for theose who want it, not because the lack of that knowledge will even further disempower them than they already are.
Maybe there's no right to easy access to petitions, but it seems elitist, undemocratic and wrong to me for it to be easy for one group and hard for another.
How would you feel if it wasn't your social class that would be getting the easy access? Say for example that you had to know carpentry, or pottery, or something else as far removed from computers (and as irrelevant to the exercise of political power) in order to sign a petition?
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it. --Chinese Proverb
No matter how you hold votes, you're always going to have people who don't want to, or can't take the time to adequately review laws. I know I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm a hypocrite, and can't keep up with all the pending laws out there, and still make enough money to feed me and my family. That's why I depend on the ACLU/EFF to reduce lots of legalese to quick and dirty summaries.
What this measure does is simply legitimise digital signatures for everything from medical records, to credit card applications.
What concerns me however, and I haven't researched this yet, is the mechanism involved. Is there an approved list of crypto schemes that is updated periodically by a public standards body, or is Verisign the only key authority allowed? The potential for abuse, and or all the bad things we expected from the Clinton/Gore key escrow schemes is high.
Rant over I guess. I'm happy to see this day, mind you. Just concerned now about the implementation.
Slashdot-on!
-Chris Kaminski
I don't. If you don't take a few hours out of your MONTH to exercise your voice, you don't deserve to be represented. I know I can spare a couple hours for voting from my job. I work 40-80 hours a week, and I make my own schedule. I just have to be at work sometime when Europe and Japan are. That gives me plenty of time to do my job, and vote.
I hear the excuse time and time again about jobs not being flexible enough to allow people to get to the polls. I tell you something: I've never seen it in practice. At least not in the computer industry.
I'm old enough to have voted for one president, but didn't, mainly because I knew Clinton would win, but mostly because I was LAZY! Yes, you got it, those of us who work the hardest, who commute 60 miles every fricking day, are too lazy to drive 5 minutes down to the local high school, spend 10-30 minutes in line, and push a few buttons (Or fill in a few dots, I don't know, I've never voted).
I'm not making that mistake again. I definitely don't want another 8 years of the 'Bush Administration'. Yowza!
Last I checked, anyway, the polls are open until midnight for presidential/congression elections. Not quite the middle of my workday.
You mentioned that there's a large number of signatures needed for these citizens initiatives, but did you ever think of how that number is come up with? I'm not a law maker, but I believe that the number of signatures needed is based on the number of people a petition will reach. If you start getting the petition to more people, then you should need more signatures.
There have also been good points made about this swinging the balance towards the technical people who are going to be able to find the petitions, and more towards the people rich enough to own computers and spend their time on line finding petitions.
Addlepated - punk & metal
The US political system was originally created with a couple of basic principles:
1) Power concentrated in the hands of one governmental body is a Bad Thing(TM).
2) The average citizen may not have the brains or the education to handle power responsibly. They may try to vote themselves Bread and Circuses out of nothing.
IMHO, 1) has proven true -- the spread of power between the three branches of government is a good thing, and has put a stop to some of the more ridiculous initiatives from any one of the branches. The tension between branches has contributed to maintaining the general political stance of the USA over the long term in a fairly middle-of-the-road position.
Again IMHO, 2) is very often true. The average American citizen is *still* not terribly well-educated -- though the state of education has improved enormously from the days when the main topic was "How To Plant Green Things and Make Them Grow" and little things like history, mathematics, philosophy, literature et al. were the province of the idle rich.
Basic education may be wide-spread and available to most (I understand this is a generalization, and may not apply to everyone; the state of education in the USA is not really my main point), but that does not mean that such education is adequate and sufficient to prevent people from misunderstanding all the ramifications of a given piece of legislature. Inasmuch as IANAL, the above goes for myself as well. Understanding comes with research, study, and thought, and too often neither I nor the vast majority make the time for this level of understanding -- I have other things to worry about, and that's why I (attempt to) elect decent, competent people to work on legislation for me.
My basic point is that while the ability to initiate a public referendum over the Internet sounds like a potentially wonderful thing, I believe that proper checks and balances need to be put in place to prevent the potential abuses of the application of digital signatures to legislation.
We shouldn't be able to bypass legislators and lawyers. They are there for a reason -- the system doesn't work as well without them. Yes, I am certainly aware of the abuses that arise from our current system, but that's because of a corruption of the logical model, if you will.
I think that we should be able to initiate a popular referendum using digital signatures, but there needs to be a system in place where the proposed legislature is reviewed extensively before it becomes law. This is a no-brainer point, but sometimes stating the obvious is not a bad thing...
---Phoukka
Wow... just think of the possibilities. I, for one, am all about using this for a marijuana legalization campaign in an arena where the mainstream media isn't in control.
Sorry to be cynical, but politicians have nothing to gain from a well-educated populace. Education and public discussion of political issues are important to democracy no matter what technology the voting process uses. We should not expect politicians to take them more seriously just because the voting technology changes. Politicians will not try to improve education or levels of political awareness any time soon, because it is educated people who make their lives difficult by demanding that they do their jobs, and firing them if they don't. Couch potatoes make fewer demands and are less likely to throw their representatives out if they make a mistake.
Just think about who will benefit if people think less about the issues before voting, while politicians are able to claim a stronger democratic mandate because voting levels shoot up. Increasing turnout at elections is not necessarily a good thing; uninformed voting benefits only the politicians.
I (for at least a year) could sign M$ agreements that are, in what they see, contracts that are binding. I cant wait to see their faces when they look at my birth certificate :).
The US form of government is not one of rule-by-the-people, but rather, rule by the people's elected representatives. Democracy is fraught with problems -- simply put, you can't expect every citizen (especially the "average" citizens) to understand all the issues behind proposed legislation. Imagine the laws you would see passed if technology enabled all Americans to simply click laws into existence on even a 2/3 vote. Banning all pornography? (Save the children!) done. Banning books that use any of a list of 50 bad words? (Save the children!) done. (And so disappears "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for the use of the N* word -- and you thought it was bad when individual school boards banned it)
And that's only creative content. _Dread_ what would happen to all sorts of other things. Wholesale discrimination against any minority group, so on. Education, hurrah. Online people's voting for legislation? Ow.
In the short term, though, I believe you have a point. If all that's needed to pass a law is for everyone on an electronic mailing list to click on a link, we're far more likely to see free beer for 31337 d00dz become mandatory.
;)
This petitions just put the the bill on the ballet. So, yes this COULD be put on the ballet, the citizens would vote on it, and no free beer. There are also many legal bodies that check the legality of each bill. Free beer for the elite would never make it to the ballet, it's not specific enough, and problably discrimative in some way
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
He was talking about being active. More active then voting. Things like talking to the school board, and supporting local politcal special interest groups. Voluntering money/time to a local politician that you feel is different from the rest....etc...etc...
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
somebody could throw up a Web page, attract attention, and pass a law?
You can get all the sigs you want, but the people still have to vote on it. Getting the petitions only means that the bill will be placed on the ballet. When we collected petitions the common response is "well, I don't know much about it..." Our response: "Well, this will just put it on the ballet, you have from now until Nov. to decide if you want it to pass or not. It's just giving the people the right to decide on this issue when they come to the polls"
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
Hmmm.. yes.. it does appear to validate clickwraps.. wonder if it can then also be used against spammers.. let me enforce the "You owe me $10 per message of unsolicited commercial email" banner I'm about to put on my SMTP port - Of course it wont apply there, its not going to display the banner to any human unless they are manually forging email with a telnet to port 25, but it was a nice thought and perhaps the only really good thing that might have come from this misguided law.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
I couldn't get to the article, it appeared that it was removed or some such thing, but was this bill only passed by the House, or has it already passed the Senate and gone on to the President? If it is the former, there still is time for those of you who don't agree with this bill (myself included, for reasons pretty much elaborated by posters before me) to contact your Senators and/or their assistants. I'm sure going to write (snail mail, even) mine and request that further committee study be performed before a vote is even considered or debated.
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
The real problem is that if voting results are purely virtual, they are too easy to be manipulated ( by external crackers, but also by a corrupt government ). And only people with very deep knowledge in the involved technology would be able to tell the difference [ if ever ].
Ciao
----
FB
Cool. Everybody vote for my bill to make IT industry workers exempt from income tax.
Or better yet, because a lot of us are libertarians (both left and right) or anarchists (both left and right), we could just try to push through disbanding the government altogether (or at least severly limiting its power and control).
It's worse than that... there is no small elite formed of people who are capable of convincing people that they should be in power...
For example, those who don't care for Bush or Gore, who did nothing to help either of them and remain unconvinced that either is even minimally competent or worthy of support, have the wonderful choice of either voting for one of these, or not voting for either. Neither of these upper-class-white men, obviously, is capable of convincing people that they should be in power -- they just fit their respective party machines well enough that those who actually do control these things set them up as their newest puppets.
It seems the original article is somewhat misleading, and actual digital signatures were not enabled by the legislation under discussion. But assume that someday, each registered voter is allowed one corresponding digital signature --since registration is the control over multiple votes, why not simply link a particular digital signature to the existing record? (This does away with the problem of multiple signatures used for various purposes being employed by a voter to vote more than once, without reducing the number of signatures anyone can legally retain.)
Online discussions of proposed legislation or petitions could avoid the equivalent of electronic ballot stuffing by making sure that contributors seeking to post a comment either use one of a list (a bare list, with no identifying fields attached) of official voter signatures, or use the equivalent of /.'s "Anonymous Coward" signature. IMHO, the latter is a great and innovative technique for facilitating online exchanges! We need more of these, and more will develop as we forge our way together as an online society.
Moderators: his comment deserves funny (or rather "hilarious"). No flame but Linux Reliability (alter ego of Linuxstart.com) is (temporarily?) laying flat on its belly.
For once it is not Multiple Sclerosis' fault.
A post from Jack from the old continent.
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
I'll admit that it is a nice theory that I would like to believe, but it is blatantly false. Otherwise why would we have two mediocre presidential candidtes who have spent their entire lives riding on their fathers' coattails?
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Each state has it's own rules about what is acceptable media for petitioning,
and this is not affected in the least by the proposed federal law.
For instance, in my state of Oregon, digital signatures are already considered invalid media.
In fact, there is a current ballot proposal being presently gathered, in which many of the signatures
have been rejected because they were written on the wrong type of paper stock.
Conversely, even before now, there is nothing that prevented a state from accepting digital signatures
for initiatives, other than the fact that none of them did.
The federal digital media signatures is largely intended for the purpose of interstate contract law.
It has no jurisdiction over state politics.
I have a Ph.D. in Engineering, an MBA, a MS in Math and I don't pretend to really understand what happens under the hood of my car. This digital signature stuff is important -- and for that reason I am reading everything I can about it. People should learn that crypto today is a far cry from the Enigma days. Read up on Diffie/Hellman and R,S and A.
Today's crypto is heavy duty stuff. The greatest weaknesses of digital signatures will not be from the hard crypto itself, but from shoddy protocols and weak implementations.
The link is broken, and 15 minutes searching at www.house.gov turned up nothing. Hello?
Bill Gates is a communist -- he's just more equal than the rest of us.
ex. I buy a stock with a pgp or what ever signed electronic doc.
That stock dives.
My broker calls, I say "Oh my private key and passphrase got stolen because my system was compromised"
Time for a visit to court.
I haven't read the legislation for digital signatures and I don't know what sort of system they are proposing. I don't think that it was a good idea for this law to be passed especial by people who know little about technology. Ok I looked at the bill now and it seems that each agency that uses signatures will have to come decide what they want to use independently. That's quite nice. I guess also today's system doesn't work all that well either, there's nothing stopping me from filling out 1040's for random people in the phone book.
www-eshoo.house.gov,office of bill's proposer
bill text
Whatever, hope it works out.
...for more annoying chain mail...
Sure the implications of allowing a larger voice from a community are there, when considering the amount of ppl using the internet, but what about all the trolls, (l)users, and other moronic types....
I hope I'm wrong
It can only be a good thing if it expands the deomcratic process. The only real problem I can see is validation. It's hard enough to validate written signitures/addresses but with e-mail it is going to so much harder and people would find it a lot easier to create accounts and abuse the process. Maybe a time for the other digital signitures to come into play?
Working for the (other) man
didnt this happen in some hi-tec area? somewhere in california? and it screwed itself up when the roads fell apart?
i`m in the uk but i heard about this a year or so ago...was it true?
Not only will it limit the voting field it will allow for corruption. Digital signatures are not fool proof against a purchased vote. The democratic process has long been corrupted by special interest groups and their lobbyist. It is hard to get our congressmen to vote for what is right over what is profitable. With online voting and digital petitions the opportunity for corruption is easier. It would be absolutely fabulous if there was a way to vote on every issue thereby eliminating the need for congressmen and their infantile greedy needs; however, I dont see it happening.
I totally agree you man, and I understand why you :). Hopefully this Digital Signature
moved to London. There is no way decent people can
live in US with all that crime and prejudice. For
example, I think Utah is to US what US is to rest
of the world. Congratulations to our new 'legal
alien'
thingie will never happen in US, contrary to
other countries, especially Europe where things
are significantly different. It's so much better
to live in country where freedom actually means
freedom, not conspiracy and misleading.
It is unlikely that digital signatures will turn every policy decision into a plebiscite. However, digital signatures could have an impact on initiatives that require gathering signatures from registered voters, such as ballot initiatives and re-calls elections for elected officials. The long term effects of this on our democratic institutions remain to be seen. Frankly, it is impracticable for a mechanism such as this to be put in place to allow everyone to vote on virtually every initiative facing our country using the current practices. Digital signatures would be more effective for involving citizens in the actions of local governments, ie state, county, city, than in involving them in the actions before the US Congress. Most of the important laws that govern us should be handled by local governments any way. Maybe this will be a catalalyst for serious change in how our country creates laws. A change so profound that will render the unimaginitive, incompentent and incredibily short-sighted politicians who are elected year-after-year, obsolete. Or, maybe digital signatures will enable these politicians to gain greater control over us and use the Internet as a means for managing and regulating the minuta of our daily lives, ala Lawrence Lessig. Of course, if this is the end result, it will be in our 'best' interests.
Come on now, we all saw the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just A Bill" on TV!
Its kinda scary to think that in just a few days, some entity could construct a website that was fully capable of attracting enuff attention and thereby garranteeing enuff signatures to stop slashdot from posting any material not strickly technical and totaly devoid of opinion.
Unfortunately it takes a long time for the government to decide what to do, but thankfully it takes a long time for the government to decide what to do.
On a practical note, your link yeilds no such story, this site expects you to pay for the service.
Try cnet instead.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Well, I'm personally not homosexual, and I don't want to either own guns or burn the US flag, so I don't give a fuck.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Yes, petitioning by electronic signature favors the technologically elite. However, that is rapidly changing, and the technology will rapidly be available to almost everybody -- freeware/shareware petition/signature-gathering software will be disseminated. It will likely be incorporated into web browsers. In a few years, web browsers will be available to everybody with a job or a nearby public library.
By contrast, the paper method you recommend is, in any sizable jurisdiction, available only to the wealthy and to movements which already have broad support. It is either expensive or time-consuming, or both, to collect paper signatures. It takes a lot of volunteer labor or a lot of money to hire professional signature collectors.
I don't think this will have a very big effect on initiatives (at least in the short term) other than it will be easier for groups who don't have lots of money to get initiatives on the ballot. I welcome the law that allows technology to level the playing field. As it stands right now, only well-funded groups who hire signature gatherers get their ideas on the ballots.
Keep in mind that initiatives don't pass laws, they just allow the people to vote on new ideas for laws. This allows the common man to effect change, when the elected representative is not doing his duty to his constituents. It is much closer to true democracy than the representative democracy currently practiced in the US.
I envision a future where everyone votes on new laws, and all the representatives do is introduce new ideas for bills. With this development and the advent of internet voting, I think we are getting closer to my ideal.
Enigma
Enigma
Cool. Everybody vote for my bill to make IT industry workers exempt from income tax.
I believe that the Constitution allows for a national referendum, provided that three-fourths of the population votes for such a referendum.
In essence, though, I agree with you; the issue seems never to have come up in United States history, and I don't think that an actual process (by which I mean logistics, allowing for the establishment of the referendum, et cetera) exists.
www.alarmist.org
The digital signature initiative will not replace traditional poll voting and other methods of creating citizen referendums; it is intended as a supplementary measure.
As it happens, I agree with you with regards to your point on technological elitism. But that isn't the real reason to worry about this. The real reason is that we in the United States are finding that this wonderful medium of communication (the Internet) is becoming increasingly monitored and invaded by government influence. While ARPANET and the original connections that would later become the Internet were the result of government funding, the work was done mainly by educational types. Students.
How does one verify a digital signature? There are lots of ways, to be sure, but I think that for so important a part of the political process, the United States government will want something a little more solid--tying each signature to an IP address, for instance (IPv6 will make it possible for everyone on the planet to have a unique IP. We know what happens when people are assigned a unique number: it is used for ID). As a result, the government has a brand new way to keep track of its citizens, all in the guise of giving them more power.
Let's think about this one a bit before we accept it.
www.alarmist.org
A few weeks back, there was a story at News.com about a ballot initiative in Washington State that is doing online petitions. You still have to print them out and sign on the dotted line, but even those had controversy surrounding them.
The major benefit of online ballot initiative drives is that it makes the process easier and cheaper. The downside is that it makes the process easier and cheaper. It will open the initiative process up to real grassroots organizations who don't necessarily have a few hundred grand to spend. But for the people that are already spending millions on such initiatives, why not do three or four of them since it's so cheap now.
.. or you can allow both, so those that prefer to sit on their ass at home, can do so while those who don't have a clue can still vote the old fashion way.
Hey!
Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures.
Why don't we make digital signatures optional? here's my example election model:
Option 1: Vote online using your secure digital signature.
Option 2: Going out to vote.
To ensure security and transparency of the voting system, the software should be... wait for it... open source! Crypto experts can then check it over, and if there are any faults, point them out.
Just because I have an idea, and I feel like sharing it, here's how I'd run digital signatures:
1) You go to the voting website and siggn in with your secure digital certificate
2) You get sent a small file containing, say, 128k of random data. This has been digitally signed by the vote administrators. If you vote for party 1, you crop off and return the top 64k of data signed with your certificate. If you vote for party 2, you crop off and return the bottom 64k of the data signed with your digital certificate.
Well, I'd do something similar to that, but then, I'm obsessed with applications involving signing and/or encrypting random data.
Just my $0.02
Michael Tandy
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Excellent point. Fortunately, the adoption of individual input into the political process would be slow and deliberate, giving at least some opportunity to note the effects. As mentioned in the original post, this starts with grass-roots stuff; petitions. One step at a time. If it doesn't work, hopefully it won't get too far and smash in the skulls of too many oil drill guys.
Agreed; for the near term, direct constituent input would likely be used for local government input (city, state) more than a nationwide voting device to replace the Senate and House like I glibly stated in my original post.
I *do* think that overall, as long as the exploits can be avoided, this is a Good Thing.
Even though the vast majority of the public doesn't know what a digital signature is, or how encryption works, doesn't mean that they can't participate in the kind of political process described in this article. Many people have concerns about how secure this system will be, and I'm one of them. I think voting online is a dual-edged sword that will cause a lot of problems, but also has the potential to solve a lot of problems. If you trust our government to count our paper votes, you should trust them to count our digital ones as honestly, barring technological road hazards and 'hackers' (for this purpose read: someone abusing the technological loopholes that may exist to cause the results to be invalid). I see this as a tiny baby step towards a future with an actual democracy. Imagine 10-15 years down the road (when your TV and your computer are the same device) sitting on your couch, listening to some mp6's and channel surfing your 1,000,000 channels of iCable. Your TV/Computer pops a little running notice on the bottom of your screen that says "Don't forget to vote tonight on the welfare law." You say to yourself, "Oh yeah; I looked up some information on that and I am *way* against it." So you go to the "voting channel" and look through the list of pending bills/etc until you find the right one. You bring it up and click "I am against this law". It asks you to confirm or read more about the law, and then when you confirm, asks you to input your key, since you haven't "logged in" and identified yourself yet. It says "Thank you for voting; results will be available after 23:59 PST." and then exits to a screen saying: "Welfare Bill 23923A - Results not in yet." You click the bookmark button on your remote so that when the results change you'll be notified by a little scrolly bar on the bottom of your TV until you visit the site. Once the exploits and bugs have been worked out and broadband connectivity is in 99% of homes, I see this as a great way to speed up the democratic process. Who needs a House or Senate then?
Never underestimte the power of stupid people in large groups.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
Now the politicos will have to deliver what they promise in their campaigns. E-governance is one of the greatest "side-effects" of the internet (not the shopping cart and the banner ad, as many think). Think of the version of democracy that was practiced in smaller villages, where the leader had a direct connection to his/her subjects and issues were settled with immediacy and humanness. This could mean that the common man (yes, you and me and other / dotters) could well develop lobbying powers that are unimaginable today. But does this mean instead of "earn 10,000/month" and "lose 50 lbs in 10 weeks" we will receive "sign the anti-abortion bill" spam in our mail-boxes? On a darker note, does this mean that the individual's fears and concerns will be replaced by "what's good for the majority is good for everyone"?
In San Francisco, where I live, you need 10 percent of registered voters to get a charter amendment on the ballot - this is very difficult to do by hand, but could be done much more quickly if online tools were used. Dirty tricks like "do not sign" campaigns, in which opponents picket petition circulators (it happened to us) would be rendered impotent, and the value of paid signature gatherers might be reduced in favor of a good, well-designed electronic pitch and media campaign.
I will leave it up to the reader to determine if ultimately the outcome would be good or bad. Peter Schrag, an eloquent critic of the initiative process in California, notes in Paradise Lost (not the Milton classic, of course) that initiatives such as Proposition 13 and 198 have done serious damage to California's public schools, and that others have had significant unintended consequences as well. Then again, the legislatures pass bad laws all the time (e.g. UCITA), and it's very hard to upset entrenched interests without citizen initiatives, so they have very real benefits as well. My organization certainly felt last year that the San Francisco establishment would do nothing about the terrible bus system unless the public acted - so we did, and we seem to have had some effect.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
It is true that couch potatoes make fewer demands. But couch potatoes also don't walk into City Hall with great ideas. It's the well-informed, active voter who knows what he's talking about who can make the most real, positive change, particularly in the local scene, but nationally as well.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
No, a certain number of signatures collected simply puts the initiative on the ballot, for the electorate to vote "yes" or "no." Only when 50%+1 of the electorate votes "yes" (or 66.67% in the case of certain tax increases in California and some other states) does the initiative pass.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
'Discrimination' is another one of those words, like 'prejudice' which has gotten a bad rap. In Radio technology, an FM receiver has a 'discriminator' circuit. It's function is to separate the signal from the carrier wave. In gourmet cooking, having 'discriminating taste' means someone has the ability to tell good food from mediocre food. If my doctor can't discriminate between ordinary benign moles and possibly malignant 'melanoma' moles I'll switch to a new doctory, thank-you-very-much.
In the social realm, I discriminate any time I see a dubious looking creep walking down the sidewalk in my direction and I make sure my wallet is secure.
So yes, there's such a thing as discrimination, and by god there always will be.
As to your little anecdote about 'digging yourself out of a hole,' it just sounds plain insincere the way you put it, like you're a college-educated liberal who doesn't have a clue what poverty is about. Why do you imply only poor people have to work right out of high school? Does everybody else just sail into prosperity?
Anyhow, this is drifting far off topic. But don't just regurgitate liberal bullshit your social studies teacher taught you.
Oh, and economies are NOT all human inventions. Sure, plenty of theoreticians like Karl Marx have invent economic theories (many divorced entirely from reality), but nobody ever said 'hey, let's be Capitalists' and then proceeded to print leaflets. If you don't understand this it's a waste of time arguing with you. By the way, have YOU ever read any Political Economy? Most Americans have never heard of such a thing.
That's a great idea!
Let's expand it, though, and just abolish the Income Tax.
I don't know that I would call secured hardware that any Tom, Dick, & Harry can't kludge together a driver for should be called 'crippled.'
Yeah, I know. You threw together a CPU using a bunch of old TTL, and if you can't use the latest USB Speakers to play music on it, NOBODY should be allowed to.
There will always be a 'digital' divide.
In case you hadn't noticed, poor people are poor because they're stupid, in large part. Minorities are minorities because there aren't very many of them.
And, of course, Politicians are rich and corrupt because they're good at segmenting people up into groups they can manipulate.
That won't ever change. Some would even say that it's to the degree that Hyphenated-Americans throw off the notion that they should have a separate identity that they become successful. There are plenty of successful 'minority' people in our society. Unfortunately, there's also a natural filtering process that leaves the dregs living in poverty.
Of course, there are also group of 'community organizers' making sure they have groups of sheeple/protesters they can steer around.
It is not that bad to be willing to reduce burocracy by allowing people to just have to identify themselves using one ASCII string.
I however wonder how the distribution will be as there will be a need to be sure that no "man-in-the-middle" could just "hi-jack" people's identities for malicious uses...
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
- We discuss about a way to give anybody a way to securely exchange information in an electronic way.
- These exchanges include the vote.
- The best systems are the ones using a private/public key system.
- These systems are well known to allow one to identify himself as well as encrypting his data.
- Voting should be anonymous
How can we guarantee that people will still be able to vote anonymously if they use such a system ?Of course, we could also deal with the validity of vote if done in a manneer as comfortable as answering Slashdot's polls...
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I collect signatures. I'm happy.
Those petitions are used to get an issue onto the actual ballot, they are not a vote in and of themselves. This just means that more items could show up on your ballot.
I think you underestimate the intellectual powers of normal people, and their capacity to coordinate their action to achieve very complex goals. I recommend you pick up some CDs by Alan Lomax before you ever fire off again with this "normal people can't think for themselves" argument. The Italian recordings are particularly recommended, and above all, The Trallaleri of Genoa.
Anyway, of course creating a law is more than marking paper. But I wasn't talking about creating laws, but about voting. Thus point 1 is irrelevant.
2) Why do you have to understand cryptography in order to digitally sign things? I don't understand electromagnetic theory but I am able to turn my lamp on. A good implementation will be only a little more difficult to use than clicking on the "digitally sign" button.
Again, irrelevant. Of course, everyone can understand the concept of "press button (a) to vote for bad candidate #1, bress (b) to vote for bad candidate #2". But this is not what I was talking abuot!
Voting involves a lot more than just people marking papers. It involves making sure there are no duplicate votes, making sure no votes are lost, and counting the votes. When this is done with conventional means, everyone can understand how it works; when it is done electronically, only a technological elite can understand how it works. Thus this elite gains undue power over the process.
I don't think I have to bother with point 3. Do you really want to live in a society where everybody needs to learn how cryptography works in order to be able to trust the voting process? It's a crazy idea.
Are you adequate?
Let's see what you wrote. I freely emphasize key words:
This is inherently undemocratic. What do you mean the woman in the street doesn't understand how laws are created even in general terms? Don't you think that they have a very good idea of what needs to be regulated, and thus the essential starting point for coming to which laws need to be created? Do you really, really think that the man in the street, who is subjected to law enforcement day in and day out, has no reasonable idea of how laws can, are, and should be enforced?
What conceivable advantage could I have over Joe Schmoe if I understand the mathematics of a process that neither of us participates in?
You can spot irregularities. However, the fact that you understand the process allows you to collude with those that, like you, understand. This is the essential point.
There are obscure and arcane (to a layman) statistical techniques that get applied to census data to figure out various facts and figures. But all the public sees is the end result, so it doesn't matter if we understand it.
You bring censi into the picture as if it reinforced your point. However, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, many countries have manipulated censi in order to undercount minorities and deny them representation. It matters mightily if the public understands or not a census.
Once the whistle is blown, the entire public benefits (including non-statisticians). So Joe Schmoe doesn't have to understand statistics, he just needs to know that there are statisticians who don't work for the gov't.
How do you know which of the statisticians is right if you're not one?
A correctly designed crypographic protocol is immune from fudging (even from the inside), so we shouldn't have to worry about this case.
No system is immune to wetware exploits.
In any case, I think you will find that the average layman only THINKS he knows how it works with paper. But start really questioning him ("how are absentee ballots counted", "what is the procedure for handling ties", "given that with a large volume of ballots our count may be off by several votes, how do we determine when we HAVE a tie") and you'll find that he isn't so sure.
But the layperson can master the details of this in a relatively short time. The details of network transmission, cryptography, and database systems take much more to master.
Are you adequate?
Will the next Mozilla parse thru 'legalese'
However, what one lacks from the godlike perspective of viewing a model is an understanding of just how dangerous a full size drilling rig is. A small nine volt motor on the model becomes a 750 volt 800 hp motor on the full size rig; the model's motor can't hurt anyone, the full size motor can easily kill.
This danger occurs simply because of scale: when you go from a model to a full size rig, YOU don't change in size. If a thread lifting a pipe on the model breaks it is no big deal. If the wire rope lifting a thousand pound length of drilling pipe breaks people can die.
When you look at laws, what you are looking at is the written plans and operating specs for a government. When you think about those laws in operation you are applying those operating specifications to your mental model of a government. However, the actual government is a gigantic, powerful, and - simply because of its sheer size - extremely dangerous, machine.
An actual oil drilling rig has a maximum speed at which the drill bit can spin. If we pull an idiotic Tim Taylor Tool Time stunt on the rig , add MORE POWER, and spin the drill pipe faster very bad things can happen. A pipe might sheer due to the increased stress of higher speed operation. Bearings which might work at 300 rpm fly apart at 10,000. The new more powerful motor can fling a broken piece of drill pipe around like a flail smashing the rig and killing lots of people.
In a similar fashion the gigantic, extremely dangerous, machinery of government has a maximum speed at which it can cycle; part of the reason that the US system of Government has lasted as long as it has is that the process of creating legislation is a ponderous one; it is difficult to get new laws into effect. This helps to keep the government from flailing around out of controll.
Remember that the enforcement arm of governments - the police - are utterly uncritical of the laws they enforce; neither the Nazi's nor the Communists ever had to replace the police when they took over a country. This means that the police are just as happy to bash in YOUR skull as the skull of car thief; you look just like any other 'suspect' to them.
Faster - more powerful - more efficient is not always the best thing. When it comes to the legislative process - ponderous is the proper speed - anything faster is a foolhardy experiment to undertake.
Politicians and police will want to create national identity cards with digital IDs. It'll be your master ID, the one that the others are based on. You'll use it to register to vote, to get a passport, to fill out your I-9 form, to check into and out of jail. Maybe it will be called the New Social Security card. Only opponents will call it a national ID card.
Civil libertarians will object, but cops and corporations will extoll the value of giving secure digital IDs to Americans at birth or whenever the corporate/political elite believes it will suit their interests. They'll bash civil libertarians as soft-on-crime whiners.
Even tho they have been pretty succesfull
petitioners in meat-space, there was some talk
on the KY Greens list of doing this kind of thing
to collect signatures for the petitions to put
Ralph Nader on the presedential ballots. It was
a little late in the game this time around, but
maybe next election. So, yes, even tho they will
probably be heavily abused given the non-technical
lein of most people out there, there are some
positive things one can do with dig. sigs.
My worry with internet voting is that even with digital signatures, there's still no guarantee that the person voting isn't being coerced or forced into voting one way or another.
If you step into an anonymous voting booth, on your own, the process is completely secret. You could be telling your friends you are voting one way, and then vote the other. You may have an abusive spouse who tells you to vote one way, and then you can defy them and vote the other.
When it comes to click-to-vote, someone could have a gun to your head.
The same problems apply to postal voting. We need to educate people to see how important voting is so that they are glad to get out and do their bit.
Baz
I mean, when you allow technology like this, which the public does not understand, to become central to the democratic process, you empower a small technological elite who understands the technology and its limitations.
Not meaning any disrespect (since I amd not referring to the previous author, but our community as a whole) but losing control by not understanding technology is no different than losing controil by not understanding history (i.e. how things really work in the long term), politics (how things really work in the short term) or not understanding, or even bothering to read (*gasp*) THE LAW (how things are *supposed to work - and what we are talking about here)
This bill has been discussed here since it was introduced in May, and the 1999 hearing have been on line much longer. The House passed this law two weeks ago and the final version on the law has been online since June 8.
I urge all slashdotters to read this bill (or at least this summary), so we can discuss this intelligently.
Perhaps more importantly, take a look at this list of other currently and recently pending laws on digital security and e- cyber- computer-whatever before Congress. As the people who understand the technology, we need to play an active role in forming these laws and discussion, which means we need to have a clue about the laws under discussion. (Hint: the subject is *never* ipchains or alernative files systems, etc. Those are just incidentals to the law.)
BTW, when reading the linked laws/discussion, please remember even 'dead' legislation is likely to come back. The current bill was formed from the 1999 'Bliley Bill" (HR 1714), and 1999 Senate 761.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
- Minorities (particularly unpopular ones) are easy targets. This is the most common critique, but not the most damning one.
- Every decision is made independently. There is no possibility of compromise, or net gains from trade, because there is no enforcement mechanism. In a legislature, you can get outputs desirable to most people because legislatures can enforce tradeoffs; if A wants X and B wants Y, and they are not mutually exclusive, A can promise to support Y and B can promise to support X, and defection will be punished (because nobody will ever trust the defector again).
The third problem is that it results in spineless legislators who cop-out of making meaningful decisions. Not surprisingly, California leads America in producing this outcome too.My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
/some/ consumer protection) unless there is a clause that requires cryptographic signatures (digital signatures) and implements some form of security to give you a cert with a protected private key.
/s/ GriffJon
^--That's an electronic signature. Like in the real world, any mark with the intention to sign is a signature. Which is fine in the physical world where it's pretty easy to trace back any changes, erasures, cut-and-pastes that might've changed the document signed.
Here in the digital world, it don't work that way. It's trivial to change, and presuming you're not using MSWord, impossible to track back.
Generally, NEver, EVER opt-in to electronic signatures (the law requires a physical/paper-method of opting in. it does have
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
(2) Registration for d.s. in person (motor voter?) (or better yet, at the public library, where all the free internet terminals are
(3) 128-bit SSL isn't scalable? And for those who don't have, (a) libraries and (b) mandatory backup paper method ("no purchase necessary to enter")
(4) see above paper method - and require the "old method" to be used to pass the new one (kinda implicit, but important nonetheless)
(5) Aaaah, the old quid custodes problem (pardon me if my latin is rusty). How to ensure that a disinterested party is keeping the results? OK, try this. Organizations on both sides of the issue receive duplicate copies of the (anonymized) balloting. Each then forwards their results to a Big Six accounting firm (or similar.... the same way a sweepstakes works) who has a third copy, and audits the results (the Big Six firm doesn't know which questions mean what, they just get "Issue #1, the following d.s.'s yea, these other d.s.'s nay" with no idea what Issue #1 is). Representatives from the two sides then publish the audited results.
Is this too complex? too easy? Let's thrash this out, folks.... we may as well get this right the first time; gods help us if we don't.
Oh, and please don't go global on me; the UN has been causing enough trouble lately. Ditto using one's official voting d.s. for anything other than the official process; we have enough abuse of the SSN as it is. P'raps one would encrypt one's d.s. with the political organization's public key, per issue? Sure would keep the ballot secret....
--
w.e.b.
Oh, he thinks too much, he's 'bout half SMART!
-- Brother Dave Gardener
Elections law in most places is extraordinarily complex. In CA, for example, petitions have to be vetted by the Secretary of State (or the county clerk, if it's local) and then circulated for *exactly X days*, and then the signatures *sorted by county* have to be turned in for verification (is this person a registered voter? are there duplicates? are they a member of the party they claim to be a member of?), etc.
The Secretary of State's office is investigating the possibility of online voting (three ballot measures to mandate it failed to qualify), but it's expected to take a while, and there are serious concerns about its safety / fairness.
In the meantime, there are small steps. The petition being circulated by the pissed off people demanding a recall of the Insurance Commissioner can be downloaded from www.peoplesvote.org, but you have to print it out, fill it out, and mail it in. The next step would be to allow digital signatures for petitions --- sorted by county, of course --- which might happen as early as 2002.
Direct online initiatives are harder, and wouldn't happen until significantly after voting online becomes normal --- although, it would be *cheaper*, and so the expense angle might be a good way in.
Democracy is based on that 51%+ of the people are right atleast 51% of the time.
Yet when any joe can make a law (with some support from 3l33t3 haxor dudez with lots of electronic signatures) how long to the following are written into the constitution
We Hold these truths to be self evident
1) No Fat Chicks
2) See Above
3) Cable channel porn must be free
4) See Above plus some
5) More Beer
But seriously, could start some nasty anti-minority laws or a lot of laws that aren't practical if you knew the full story.
But it's by the people, for the people and some good might come out of it. Enjoy.
It's turtles all the way down.
An electronic "signature" can be something as simple as clicking 'I agree' or pressing '1' on your phone. And now Congress wants such actions to be legally binding
The vast majority of agreements you sign do not require your signature to be legally binding. Only a few would be rendered invalid in the absence of a signed writing under the "Statute of Frauds."
Nearly all license agreements are enforeceable -- all that is required is offer, acceptance and consideration. No signature or authentication is required.
Some agreements, however, do require signatures. These are typically contracts concerning real estate, for goods in excess of $500.00, and an obscure, but small percentage of service agreements that are "legally impossible" to perform within a year.
Thus, precious few documents would be affected by this bill. On the other hand, some substantial transactions presently require real-time, real-space signing ceremonies, because the stakes are simply too high to risk permitting hypertechnical "form-based" defenses.
True, the ES law does not require that any particular authentication technology be used to make a signature binding. Neither does the common law require that blue pens, ink, pencil or even a writing be used. Invisible Ink *is* binding, as is a shaved cow, or a mark made in the sand. You can sign "Minnie Mouse," or "X" and all is legally well. So, by the way, are facsimiles, typewritten signatures on paper, hand-stamps and marks made using someone else's blood.
The point is that the law has NEVER tried to inquire into the validity of any particular signing (the legal term, unfortunately is authentication -- which has a special meaning in the context in which we discuss matters) means. The entire idea is that parties should be free to decide whether they are satisified with the means used.
There is substantial authority that would support the legal effectiveness of an e-mail signature -- the point is that one would not rely upon it as the basis for a sale of a $100,000,000 business -- who really wants to be the first to test some new area of law, or provide a defendant a basis to raise some hypertechnical defenses. The law basically saves money.
You get to decide whether to sign it or not, and you get to decide whether to accept another's signature or not. That's the way the law SHOULD be. The government shouldn't dicate what color ink I should use, or whether I should use ink at all.
Its all about eggs in baskets. This permits cheaper commerce to be safer. It probably codifies the common law anyway. It doesn't hurt anything.
Don't worry. Be happy.
It is ironic how slashdotters so often abuse legislators for being unaware of technology, when in fact, it is the slashdotters who do not understand so well the law.
The poster is correct, this bill does not require any particular technology be used to authenticate -- only that whatever mark is fixed or logically associated with the document was made with the intent to sign the document.
If I write an e-mail "I'll buy 1000 widgets, $10 ea. terms 2/10 net 30, love moi," that would be a signed writing.
This is how the law has always been. An x on a sheet of paper marked with a #10, or even the slapping of such a document on a spool is also legally sufficient.
What the poster doesn't seem to appreciate is that the law has never imposed a unique technology for signing. In particular, signature technologies to date have never been reliable sources of authentic evidence of intent to sign. In practice, such evidence is rarely used to resolve disputes anyway -- far more probative are the circumstances under which the alleged signature was made, or an eye-witness.
There are sound reasons for keeping the government out of the business of telling us how to do business. This bill is pro-liberty, granting MORE flexibility to the public and business, not less.
At any rate, here is the most signficant point -- the vast majority of agreements, including the one described above -- DO NOT REQUIRE SIGNATURES AT ALL. Thus, little is changed. These bills are primarily to facilitate the sale of expensive goods, real estate and highly complex service agreements. (Also, I suppose, it would make a difference for exclusive licenses or the assignment of a copyright).
Of COURSE, if it really matters, you should use true digital signatures, biometrics, or better yet, take a hostage to hold in escrow. But it should be YOU AND I, not the Congress who decides what technologies should be used.
I think to really be able to participate in the decision making that gets made in the community it would take much more than a few hours a month. City council meetings, school board meetings, state level legislation you name it. These things have much more impact on out daily lives than national elections. Participation is also very difficult. With three kids and a fulltime job I'm pretty much running from 6AM til 9PM just to keep up. By making information more available and participation more flexible I would be able to spend the time once my kids were asleep. So don't tell me that i don't deserve representation just because I have a life. I say that if the tools are there to make participation easier, then they should be used.
which is great because it allows me to have multiple personalities. I use different signatures and email addresses when I post to rec.arts.anime than I would use to correspond with a potential employer. That newsgroup is just an example, but the point is that there are things I do (which are not illegal) that I prefer to keep private, yet I would still like to be able to uniquely identify myself.
The problem here is that to allow voting electronically, you first have to insure that everyone gets only one vote. The government would no-doubt do that through a law that says "you can only have one sig" and that's something I find disturbing.
Looks like we may get some script kiddie/politician's out of this deal.
I mean really, it doesn't take a genius to
use backdoor programs such as Netbus or
Back Orafice. Hopefully our politicians
will be able to understand these tools to
utilize them properly in ballot stuffing.
If not, I am sure some enterprising young man
could create a nice GPL'd backdoor utility
for Americia's political elite (now known
as @m3r1C9A's p0l1t1c@l l33t). You could
simply call it PTW, or Push To Win.
I for one can't wait to hear my mayor give
a speech in leet speak.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Imagine two initiatives, A and B. Also imagine that digital signatures are valid (ignoring the potential ofmultiple signatures byone person).
'A' is favored by /. users who all know how to use digital signatures.
'B' is favored by people who have never seen a computer.
'A' gets on the next ballot due to the many signatures garnered by digital signatures. /. users didn't actually go out and vote. 'B' wasn't there anyway.
'B' fails to get on the ballot due to lack of organization and ease of gathering signatures.
At the next election, 'A' fails since
Now imagine that digital signatures are NOT valid.
'A' fails to get on the ballot due to lack of organization and ease of gathering signatures.
'B' fails to get on the ballot due to lack of organization and ease of gathering signatures.
At the next election, neither bill appears. Net effect: 0.
How has this unfairly disadvantaged the masses? The 'B' group still cannot get their initiative on the ballot. The digital signatures merely allowed an initiative to get on the ballot that would otherwise not have. People still have to vote for it at the next election. Does this mean that people who use digital signatures might have an easier time of getting initiatives on the ballot? Could be. Does that in any way guarentee it'll pass? Nope.
On the other hand, if you have a large group of Foo-Bar's living close together, their close organization gives them an advantage of getting things on the ballot / passed. Should that be allowed?
The way I see it, the situation hasn't changed since it is no harder for a initiative to get on the ballot for anyone. It has merely become a little easier for some.
>which the public does not understand, to become
>central to the democratic process, you empower a
>small technological elite who understands the
>technology and its limitations.
No one's talking about REPLACING the old dead tree system and saying "in order to vote or sign a petition you MUST use a computer". They are simply adding an alternative for people who would like the convinence of voting at the terminal without running down to the pools.
Choice, as they say, is good.
If they ever take away the meatspace, "dead tree" option, there MIGHT be some concern, but with the increasing pervasiveness of computers, I don't think access is too much of a problem...
... "techno-elite"... "cost of computers"?
I recommend you walk down Market Street sometime. You will see plenty of people dressed in clothes with a value well over that of a computer you could use for internet access...
$200 nike shoes
$80 Fubu jacket
$90-tommy hillfugger jeans
$50 gap shirt
$20 dkny ball-cap
Add in any jewelry...
add in the likelyhood of designer underwear...
I can (and have) built complete systems for less than that. It's just a matter of where you place your priorities. Would you perfer to be a trendite? Or would you perfer a computer to get on the net.
If people choose the "in" fashion styles over educating themselves, I have no sympathy.
>I say all voting processes should stay on paper.
>Everyone can understand marking papers and
>counting them,
And you think this is less suceptible to fraud than digital means? I got news for you. The weak link isn't the computer. It's not the paper. It's the people. Governments have been rigging elections LONG before anyone proposed digital signatures or on-line balloting.
>most can't understand cryptography and
>digital signatures.
Bullshit...
Correction: most *DON'T* understand cryptography and digital signatures.
Anyone *CAN* understand any damn thing they want.
Suppose I wanted to know more about crypto and digital signatures. Well, I could take MUNI to Market and Powell, walk up the street to Borders (thus avoiding the capitalistic *evils* of private autos)...
(also avoiding the "technoelite" amazon.com in this case, because it's SOOOO unreasonable to expect people to know how to doubliclick on that Netscape icon)
... and buy a copy of "Applied Cryptography"; an excellent crypto reference complete with algorythms and source code. And, as another poster pointed out, "Applied Cryptography", contains an excellent proposal for a secure e-voting system that does NOT allow for forged votes, tracing votes to the voter, or tampering after the fact.
People can be unwilling to understand
People can to too lazy to understand
No one can't understand.
Hell, popular fiction these days revolves around crypto! "Cryptomonicon" not only includes the perl algorythm for a nifty scheme, but a simple explanition of that same algorythm based on playing cards!
It's all just a matter of how willing you are to educate and improve yourself. It's a little idea called a meritocracy... you are judged not on nationality, race, gender, religion, etc... but simply on merit; how much you're willing to accomplish.
And you know? If someone is too lazy, stupid, or just plain unwilling to learn and improve themselves, I have a really hard time feeling bad for him when he gets left behind. If judgeing someone by their merit, rathar than stupid crap like race or religion, == eliteism, then count me in.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
My biggest worry with such a measure would be "impulse voting" - if all you had to do to express your opinion was click a button on a web page, would you take your responsibility seriously?
I've frequently bought things online that I didn't really need, partly because it was so easy. I know it's not hard for most of us to walk down to the polling station and check a box, but neither is it difficult to walk down to the shops. Impulse buying is definitely more of a problem on the internet than it is in physical shops, so there is reason to believe impulse voting would become a problem too.
Imagine a world in which voting only took a second of your time: the party with the shortest and most easily digestible message would win, while those who tried to produce reasonable, well-considered arguments would be drowned out. Internet voting threatens to take the culture of the soundbite to its logical extreme, where grabbing someone's attention for a moment is all that politicians are interested in and glib sloganeering is the route to power.
Following in the cherished tradition of naming laws in a manner that completely falsifies their content, I would like to propose that Slashdot create a thread to help author a law called the Digital Copyright Protection Act.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-
Basically...everyone should submit ideas and the ones that get the highest moderation should be put in some kind of legal language by a legal language expert and then submitted to a website for a public vote (via digital signatures). Once enough votes collected, the law and signatures should be forwarded to the various legislative bodies.
Speaking for myself, I would suggest the following:
1) Restore the original copyright term of 14 years given by Congress when copyrights were first introduced. This law would apply retroactively, which means Mickey Mouse and all his other friends would finally become public domain.
2) Explicitely legalize reverse engineering as a necessary tool for promoting competition in the marketplace. Credit must always be given to the original creator (example Bleem must declare their work was reverse engineered from Sony, not an original creation).
3) Implement an abitration system for all copyright-related lawsuits. Industry trade groups like RIAA and MPAA have an unholy advantage (much like the undead) in that they have infinite legal budgets. An abitration panel comprised of respected educators should decide and defend the concept of fair use and declare when it has been violated. It will be run like the small claims court system, one representative of the industry versus the alleged infringer, both sides give their case and a panel of professors, libraries, etc. decide if it is fair use or copyright violation.
4) Courtney Love addendum: No contract may ask an artist to give up the copyright to his or her music and/or lyrics or the ownership of any artist-related domain names. The artist may sell or give away such resources if desired, however this action must be first initiated by the artist or his or her heirs.
Well, my mind has gone numb with the possibilities...anyone else?
Seriously people...Congress in their haste to bless "all things e-business" may have accidentally handed us the greatest tool we have to steal control from the lobbiests and trade groups! I realize that the legal validity has not yet been challenged but I expect the debate to be over what legally constitutes a "valid" signature (i suggest real name + telephone number + PGP signature + e-mail address = one signature).
There is no denying that this is a powerful idea. Let's not sit on our asses and let this pass us by!
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Um...and thats worst than what we have now?
The masses only have the power to change laws in theory. In practice we have a small elite formed of people who are capable of convincing people that they should be in power, who are able to change laws (too bad, as history has shown, those are exactly the people who should never have power...much like the con artist who convinced you to give your credit card number to is the last person who shoul dever have you rcredit card number).
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
So we know that the elections were not free.
Who can tell whether a vote's been rigged? Experts.If someone is interested in monitoring elections, they can learn the technology, or work with someone who knows it.
In my country, the whole voting process is monitored by repesentative of each political party. During voting, they just observe( that cards do not disappear ). After the voting, they read and count the votes. I don't think these people qualify as 'experts', but they are enough to ensure the quality of the process.
With electronic voting, the majority needs to trust into an elite which knows how computers work ( not how to use them, but how they really work ).This raises concerns, not only for legality but also for anonimity : whith computers is just too easy to find out who voted what.
Does the current system of checks discriminate against people who can't read?
Yes. But it is reasonable in most country to expect that most of people can read. It is not (IMO) to expect that most people become programmers or cripto experts.
Ciao
----
FB
What everyone keeps forgetting (or ignoring?) is that so many young people are growing up with this technology in their homes, or their friends' homes. And it is young people, historically, who often want to "change the world" but lack the tools to organize effectively, and young people who are currently so alienated they don't even bother to vote. So I think this is great!!! Younger people can practically take over from the current deadly "two-party" machines.
Not all changes will be good ones, and I agree actual voting (as opposed to circulating petitions or working in "committees" for change) should remain paper-based for now -- but only because of the potential for centralized (hacker/cracker) control and abuse of online elections. Online discussion, petitioning, "assembly," debate, and everything short of voting is good.
Btw, here in NYC I often see technologically illiterate and impoverished persons learning to use the Web at libraries. I don't know how widespread this phenomenon is, but I know that, for example, to fight a corupt landlord, elderly women, African-American women, poor women are using search engines and locating pages of relevant resources, including legal cases and agencies. These are people I know, and I also see others whom I don't know doing similar research online. These are the same people who would never have tried to find that same information from printed sources!
Agreed - you also run the risk of giving the power to change laws to the 'technologically enabled' rather than the masses. Sure, lots of people have computers these days, but not everyone is able to use them to the same level. Ideas like this would be great if well regulated, but shouldn't at this stage be a replacement for more traditional methods - more a complimentary solution.
First of all, there's the question of hijacking. Talk about a nice court defense to exit a contract signed via computer...
Next, there's the at-the-end verification. I'm certain somewhere there's a paper trail left in order to activate the digital signature...
Finally, there's the potential not just for abuse, but for apathy. When it all turns out, what are the odds that all parties (most notably US government) will *ACCEPT* a digital signature for certain things? Utility companies still require physical written proof of a bill dispute, although you can *PAY* them online...
All in all, however, it doesn't sound like a Bad Thing(tm) to be able to use a digital identification. Just one who's time has come but the Ones In Charge aren't quite ready for.
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
Checking with the Library of Congress legislation site, we find a number of bills related to digital signatures. The one referred to in the Cryptome article seems to be S.761, "The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act", which has passed both House and Senate and has been sent to the President for signature or veto. So this is further along than the Slashdot article indicates.
What does this have to do with the article you're replying to? You seem to be equating "tools" with "software". But that's not how the poster you're replying to meant it. In the context, just basic conversation is a tool--a tool for political action. He's saying that petitioning with digital signatures should allow young people, who normally find it harder to get politically active, to have some influence.
Are you saying that's wrong? Do you really think any company will put out a license saying "You may not use this software to organize a political effort that we do not like"? This post just sounds like an attempt to appeal to the average Slashdot reader's latent (or not-so-latent) paranoia. It's good to be wary of large software companies, but this is ridiculous.
I don't know how this got modded up as "Insightful". Should be "-1 Offtopic".
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
This post is both cynical and misinformed.
Bullshit. Do you believe there's no such thing as discrimination? Do you think that it's easy to dig yourself out of a hole your family has been in for generations? Being in poverty is more than just having a used Buick instead of a new Ferrari. For one thing, most poor people have to work as soon as they get out of high school. This doesn't leave much time for college, even if they could scrounge up the money (scholarships & grants only go so far). It's a Catch-22: poor people can't in general afford good educations, and since they're uneducated they can't get well-paying jobs.
Only if you think that a capitalist economy is "natural". All economies are human inventions--there's nothing natural about them. Or do you think money really does grow on trees? ;)
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Now you're playing semantic games. You know what I was talking about. Discrimination against groups of people. Happy now?
I implied no such thing. Of course affluent people have to do some work (although, in my experience, there are a few that just get a free ride. I hate USC.) But poor people are much more likely to have to work right out of high school, and have a lot more hurdles to overcome to get into college.
Just because it built up over time doesn't mean it's not a human invention. It's just not one person's invention (a case might be made for Adam Smith, but his work was really a description and explanation of how things worked at that time). Mercantilism was going strong for a while there, and gave rise to Colonialism. And way back in the day, barter was pretty much all there was.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I have heard of high school students that can get people to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen oxide because it has poisonous chemicals in it as well as flammable ones.
People are pretty click-happy on the net, which is why so many people want idiot protection laws and such, and others are willing to give up their credit card numbers to geocities sites...
So, hrmm, who knows? It could even work to get people to pass laws that are sensible too... Of course, so could the legal system.
Also, is this just to sidestep moves on crypto laws?
Eh...
- Developing a suitable legal framework
- Ensuring authenticity of the signatures
- Providing a scalable, secure infrastructure including provision for those who don't have access to the web
- Selling the concept to technophobes
- And importantly, ensuring the integrity of the results - perhaps more of a challenge in places where corruption is relatively high.
I think this could be done but wouldn't it be great to be part of a bigger picture, where the same voting mechanisms could be used for opinion polls, general elections, perhaps even on a global scale.Prove the concept and expand later.
--Rob.
Being of Portugese extraction myself, you will understand how much sympathy I have with your plight as a Spaniard -- fuck all.
Let me put it this way; lawsuits are decided on the basis, of which side has the best lawyers. Of course they are. What, did you want them to be decided on the basis of who has the worst fucken lawyers? If that were the way, I can see that the legal lions of Wall Street and Boston would be beating a path to Silicon Valley, for constant observation of Slashdot reveals to me that there is no fucken idiot like a fucken Slashbot. With morons like you guys onside, it would be impossible to lose
But sadly, the fucken race does indeed go to the fucken swift, the battle goes to the strong, and indeed, the ass-kicking contest does not go to the one-legged guy. The laws have been written, by lawyers, for the convenience of lawyers, to allow a minimal modicum of structure for the real business of law -- that of sticking your fucken teeth into the other guy's ass, and biting till the blood runs brown. All the technological shit is just for the picadores and bandilleros to clear the field, so that the matador (the litigator, that's to rhyme with alligator putamadre) can come out and do his stuff
Or indeed, so that the big bad fucken Portugese bull cna come out and trample the pissy little Spanish motherfucker's dick into a necktie.
Such inventions as digital signatures are merely part of this process, by which people who would most certainly be chewed up lip to clitoris in a real man's law court, are encouraged not to enter litigation. Digital signatures are no burden to we lawyers; I don't think even the Slashdot crowd would seriously try to argue against the proposition that the graduating class of Harvard Law School each year represents the cream of the nation's intellect. A half-decent lawyer can understand such arcane trivia as "TCP" "Shell Scripts", "Asymmetric cryptography" and "Linux" over a monring cup of coffee, while reviewing case notes and cruelly dumping a bawling girlfriend, if the case demands it (don't argue with me, I've fucken done it.) THese intellectual feats are par for the course, if you wanna hang in the courtroom. Law is for the lawyers, and the more comlicated it is, the fucken better, because that way, only highly paid specialists will be able to practice it.
My point, as should by now be abundantly clear, is this; fuck you all.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
It seems pretty clear to me that Jon Katz was behind this little initiative. Consider: a "columnist" reads Dilbert strips about amassing an army of nerds and intimidating companies, gets a bright idea, slips into our midst, publishes long rambling "Karma Whore" stories, essentially repeating everything we say but diluting the message, and declares himself our king.
The next step, obviously, is to replace the "Slashdot Poll" with the "Slashdot Petition". It's not to hard to get 40,000 Slashdotters to say that they use a telegraph to connect to the internet. How hard could it really be to disguise a Petition as a Poll? For example: I use Linux because A) Jon Katz should be king; B) I am 733T; C) Go to hell.
On a more serious note, though, it's going to a piece of cake for us to put a "Repeal the anti-encryption law" on every ballot in the nation, thus boring 98% of the population.
In conclusion, this idea is stupid, but we very well may end up "laughing all the way to the bank", as it were.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I don't think it's a good idea to leap headlong into futzing our voting system until the technology has really matured (i.e. it is second nature to every citizen). Computer's are only about 5 decades old (and the big boom in mainstream computer usage is only a decade old at most!), put good old fashioned "write your vote on paper" (et al) type systems are based on very much simpler, very much more common, very much more easy to understand/use, and very much older technology.
Also, considering that there is currently a "digital devide" where the poor and minorities are less likely to have access to computers, I think that some could claim (including myself, but not so strenously) that making it easier for the people who do have computers to weild their political power is a type of descrimination.
The Nazis also could have cared less about disabilities and social equality. Slave traders could have cared less about disabilities and social equality. I bring to your attention a trifling document called the Declaration of Independence.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Elitist regimes and dynasties come and go with the winds, but the United States government has stayed intact since its inception. This perceived need for social equality seems to have created a lasting governmental structure.
If that isn't enough, take a look at the Hungarian Declaration of Independence which looks like it was closely based on the U.S. Declaration.
Or perhaps glance at the French Constitution which notes in its first clause: "Frenchmen are equal before the law, whatever may be their titles and rank."
If you are willing to take a look at these, I might be willing to look at Schopenhauer.
You seem to be far more hopeful than I am. I expect nothing but digital hell to rain on mi gente from this.
And unless you're a trained lawyer how are you going to be able to separate the real from the fake?
This is a major trick. One of the major principles behind the legal system is that not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it. The trick behind the legal profession, then, is to write the law so obtusely so as nobody can understand it-- not even them. Why do you think there's all these lawsuits about how laws are to be interpreted? It's a scam.
I don't know whether or not this will turn out for the best in the end - but in order for it to stand a chance it's going to require an educated and aware populace - something the US has a real problem with at the moment. If they can change this, then this could be the best idea in ages, otherwise it looks like it could all go horribly wrong.
It will certainly go wrong, because if this is being pushed by those in power, it is only so they can further increase their power over the voting process. Making something as essential as voting depend on high technology will only make those who create and control the high technology create and control the future means of "democratic" decision making.
Of course, since this is /., and the crowd here belongs mostly to the group that create and control the technology, expect major cheers for this.
Are you adequate?
- Method to administer and
- Desire to administer
is not likely to turn out well.If everyone votes that:
this does not mean that anybody will get put to death tomorrow or ever.The only way that cool new proposal works is if you have the proper combination of police, judiciary, and administrators to actually implement the proposal.
Unfortunately, the "natural" result of this "fine-grained" democracy is that people will vote, assortedly, to:
The first two items are compatible... but then add...
Sure, you can become a "snakeoil salesman," and gain power and money by collecting lobbying monies. But the notion that this is likely to make for good government should be disabused quickly...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I for one think this could be the start of a great equalizer. People working long or odd shift hours can have a voice. No longer will petitioning be limited to the unemployed. I think this has been one of my biggest worries for the future of our country. How can we survive where the hardest working have no access to a voice. No longer will bs legislation pass because the onbly people who voted on it were the ones with the ability to get down to the voting station in the middle of the afternoon on a workday.
Hopefully this will allow the widest possible cross-section of society a far greater chance to participate in the process of law-making - after all, if people actually have a say in what laws may or may not be passed then their interest in the process will be increased, which is something that modern politics needs desparately to stem the rising trend of apathy.
But OTOH this can also be used to fool the gullible and insecure into supporting legislation that, through the intricacies of legalise, says one thing whilst meaning another. And unless you're a trained lawyer how are you going to be able to separate the real from the fake?
I don't know whether or not this will turn out for the best in the end - but in order for it to stand a chance it's going to require an educated and aware populace - something the US has a real problem with at the moment. If they can change this, then this could be the best idea in ages, otherwise it looks like it could all go horribly wrong.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Knowledgeable Internet users might think that the "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" -- passed overwhelmingly by the US Congress last week -- would provide virtual world commerce with the same protections expected in the physical world.
Surprise! No, that would be "digital signatures", never mentioned in the Act. Digital signatures are designed to detect changes in digital content, and computationally irreversible functions ensure that the signature belongs to a particular entity.
Instead, these electronic signatures are a "sound, symbol, or process". By the simple act of pressing a telephone keypad that makes a sound ("press 9 to agree or 7 to hear this menu again"), clicking a hyper-link to enter a web site, or clicking "continue" on a software installer, the consumer consents to be bound to an electronic contract.
The Act imposes the language of UETA (the bastard sibling of the notorious UCITA that has been opposed by the attorney generals of most states) upon the US as a whole.
I mean, when you allow technology like this, which the public does not understand, to become central to the democratic process, you empower a small technological elite who understands the technology and its limitations.
I think you're confusing the medium with the message. Does television favour those who know how infra-red remote controls work? Do airplanes favour those who understand aerodynamics?
What we're seeing now is a nascent attitude to digital signatures; when they become commonplace the signing of documents will be automatic and tech-free; you just click on 'sign this document'. Sure, lengthy passwords will always be a putoff for the lazier of the population - and these'll be easy targets for anyone harvesting sigs for a petition - but the answer there, as it is in reponse to most other problems we face - is education.
In the short term, though, I believe you have a point. If all that's needed to pass a law is for everyone on an electronic mailing list to click on a link, we're far more likely to see free beer for 31337 d00dz become mandatory. This isn't the fault of the technology; rather it's the indolent human nature that refuses to get of its collective arse that's the problem.
Arrgh! I have submitted articles on this topic no less than three times in the past two weeks, and each time they were rejected.
I'll try to fill in the gaps, because I've done a little bit of hunting for mor info about this. In particular, I found that one of the four people that opposed the bill in Congress was Ron Paul, a congressman from the district south of mine here in Texas. Paul is a libertarian conservative Republican (he once ran as the Libertarian candidate for President), and has a very good record on privacy rights. The fact that he voted against it was a warning signal to me.
Further, I strongly recommend reading this article analyzing the bill at Cryptome. (Pointers to other analysis of the bill would be welcome.) The author of this makes it clear that there's a daylight and dark difference between "electronic" signatures and "digital" signatures, the diference being that the latter provides significant protection against fraud and tampering that is completely absent in the former.
This is a terribly important issue, and I tried to sound the alarm two weeks ago because it is quite likely this will become the law of the land in the next few days. It may well be too late to stop it.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I see a lotta optimists and a few wellspoken pessimists out there.
Let this soak in a moment:(most)People are cattle.Like cattle they will follow if merely led.
Observe the gen-x liberal whose politics track exactly what Mtv or the band-du-jour are shoveling
to them.How about those soccer moms?It would be ok
with them if we just did away with that unsanitary
bill of rights,what with guns and freedom of
speech and the press.People use those for baaaaad(pronounced like a sheep would) things.
Theres a flip side to this too,can you see
organizations like NAMBLA or the KKK voting
themselves special rights.Concentration of these freaks in some states may contribute to neccesary
numbers needed to pass a law.
As crooked as our lawmakers are,the upside is I can keep an eye on them and they are answerable.
Anything that is code can be hacked.Do we really
want E-signatures for ANYTHING?Dont gimme some line about crypto and security,thats crap.Todays
fortress is tomorrows kleenex box.
Time to give your legislator a lunk on the head and start the difficult process of repealing this FOLLY.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I say all voting processes should stay on paper. Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures.
Are you adequate?
The Bill "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" is not about "Digital Signatures". Please do not make this mistake.
Instead it is the evil sibling of the notorious UCITA that has been opposed by the attorney generals of most states.
It's primary purpose is to make one-line electronical agreements, legaly binding, when you click the "Agree" button.
Read the whole story on Cryptome.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Yesterday an unknown hacker used a flaw in a popular email software program to trick personal computers throughout the state into digitally signing petitions for 100,000 randomly generated laws.
The legislature has no way to determine which of the signatures were forged, but estimates that up to 95% of them may be bogus. Since there is no way to realistically debate each of the new measures, a proportional 5,000 of the bills will be randomly selected and summarily passed into law.
Although the outcome will not be known until next week, some of the new laws may include giving matching funds to bowls of hot grits running in open primaries, converting elementary school curricula to an all-haiku format, and reorganizing the the Boy Scouts of America into a beowulf cluster.
A spokesman for Microsoft denied the existence of the flaw and said a hotfix would be available sometime after the next election.