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.
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
Not only will it limit the voting field it will allow for corruption. Digital signatures are not fool proof against a purchased vote.
Digital signatures for voting will enable corruption. One of the advantages of polling places is that they allow you to perform the actual act of casting your vote in secrecy. If someone tells you, "Vote for Joe Fraud and I'll pay you $50, you can, if inclined to do so, say, "Ok", go into the voting booth, vote for someone else, drop your ballet into the collection box, leave the polling place, tell that person, "Yes, I voted for Joe", get your money, and be on your way. This is a strong disincentive to try and buy votes.
If voting is something you do at home, that person can say, "Vote for Joe Fraud and I'll give you $50, and, by the way, I have to watch you do it." You no longer have that crucial moment of voting-booth provided secrecy at the moment of voting. Thus, vote buying becomes practical.
For people without access to computers and the internet, this is the equivalent of a poll tax as it hinders a "non-connected" person's access to these online petitions.
I disagree. Remember, a petition is essentially a unidirectional instrument -- if you want the thing to appear on the ballot, you sign. Consequently, the sponsors of such petitions have substantial impetus to make signing accessible to the "non-connected": I would expect to see such petitions accompanied by the traditional, stand-at-the-grocery-store-entrance canvassers with paper equivlaents, and possibly, for the better-funded measures, electronic kiosks.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
In other words, Voting+Digital Signatures=Voting fraud lawsuits....
Careful, don't confuse the process... the signature-based initiatives only get a measure to appear on the ballot -- it still has to be passed in a regular election. I think a court would have a hard time throwing out a law passed by voters in a referendum on the grounds that its appearance on the ballot was fraudulent, since at that point 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.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Most people are stupid and not educated/well thought out enough to be involved in law making. I'm not trolling; even the Framers agreed. Thats why we have an electoral vote instead of a direct vote. Don't belive me? Ask your HS social studies teacher.
That may have been a Hamiltonian sensibility, but the trend constitutionally, since its enaction, has been placing more and more responsibility in the hands of the people. That's why we've had amendments providing for direct election of senators, expanded suffrage, etc. And on a state level, we've had the "Oregon System" adopted by several states -- referenda, recall elections, etc. -- this is just discussing a way of conducting a ballot initiative electronically, not the actual voting. In fact, as I prepare to leave Connecticut and return to Texas, I feel compelled to comment that one of the things I found most politically dissatisfying (there have been several) about Connecticut was its utter and total lack of Oregon System reforms -- which it appears is not atypical of states on the East Coast.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Voting using Digital Signatures...
Oh, believe me, we aren't talking about voting at all: you'd get an entirely different response out of me if we were (I am a HARSH critic of electronic, or even mechanical, voting mechanisms because of the absense of a physical audit trail... I'm pretty picky about such things: my father-in-law is one of the world's leading experts on election fraud, and the unauditability of mechanical voting mechanisms is dinner-table fodder in our household. *smirk*). This is simply talking about the signature-gathering phase of the elections process, whereby most things get onto the ballot; even when, in the pre-public-internet era, I ran for city council (something I don't discuss often, for good reason *grin*), I had to gather forty signatures of registered voters within the city in order to declare myself a candidate....
What I was saying was that if people passed a measure in an election that made it onto the ballot as the result of a fraudulent electronic-signature drive, then realistically, the outcome of that referendum was the logical equivalent of a victory for a write-in candidate: a popular mandate for something that didn't "officially" make it onto the ballot in the first place.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
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.
And as for telemarketers I'd prefer an opt-in list rather than opt out...
~ppppppppö
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.
There's a good summary of the procedure here: Secret Ballot Election on Computer Network.
--
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...
God it terrifies me to think about that. Regular people passing laws? Ugh. I think you caught just about everyone with the 'other moronic types' phrase. Most people are stupid and not educated/well thought out enough to be involved in law making. I'm not trolling; even the Framers agreed. Thats why we have an electoral vote instead of a direct vote. Don't belive me? Ask your HS social studies teacher.
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.
This happens already with identity theft. Unshredded credit card receipts or a found SSN allow people to, as you put it, "hi-jack" somebody else's identity and ruin them financially. It's been in the news off and on for a number of years now. Just because the current system of paper and written signatures is not electronic doesn't preclude identity theft.
But you do raise an interesting point. These digital signatures need to be something that are not reproducible by everyone with a cut and paste buffer. There needs to be some kind of way to ensure that only I can sign a digital document as me.
Truth be told, I am not sure I favor electronic signatures. I have been approached while out and about by people collecting signatures for this or that. The latest one was to place an initiative on November's ballot that would direct the Florida legislature to build high-speed rail between the (five?) most urbanized areas and ports. I didn't sign. Can you imagine all the harebrained initiatives that would come along if all people had to do was click? Right now, only serious people attempt to collect pettition names because of the expense-- both money for the forms and time in collection. Anybody can put up a web page with a "Click here to sign!" button for next to nothing. Ballots would become unmanageable.
Also, there's the idea of the uninformed voter. I abstain from votes where I either don't care or don't have enough information to make a dicision. I know many people vote emotionally, not rationally (nobody here does that, right?). Do I really want a touchy-feely voting process? Of course not! We have enough inmates running this asylum!
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.
Except that this digital signature business will not put government in the hands of the people. According to the 24th Amendment, The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
For people without access to computers and the internet, this is the equivalent of a poll tax as it hinders a "non-connected" person's access to these online petitions. See my earlier post on equality.
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.
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..
Actually, I'd be more worried about people who have no internet access at all. There is still a considerable percentage of the population that has no internet access (hard to believe, but it's true), and there's the danger that movements that exist only "on-line" would disenfranchise these people. You could also include in this category those who are not technically saavy enough to digitally sign a document.
I think electronic petitions are a good idea, but for the future. We're not quite there yet.
---
---
"Go Metallica. Die RIAA." -- Linus Torvalds
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.