Schneier On Self-Enforcing Protocols

Hollow Being writes "In an essay posted to Threatpost, Bruce Schneier makes the argument that self-enforcing protocols are better suited to security and problem-solving. From the article: 'Self-enforcing protocols are safer than other types because participants don't gain an advantage from cheating. Modern voting systems are rife with the potential for cheating, but an open show of hands in a room — one that everyone in the room can count for himself — is self-enforcing. On the other hand, there's no secret ballot, late voters are potentially subjected to coercion, and it doesn't scale well to large elections. But there are mathematical election protocols that have self-enforcing properties, and some cryptographers have suggested their use in elections.'"

Comments

Re:You need trust

[Anonymous Coward]

"In high school I was teached..." ...not a lot-o spell'in?

Re:You need trust

[maxwell demon]

Butt the spelling chequer tails me that theirs know miss take.

Re:You need trust

[cellurl]

We use AARP (essentially) as our Big-middle-party. They do a reasonable job. Kick out the machines and expand the role of these wonderful honorable people. Expand their role throughout voting, not just at the voting-desk, but in transferring the votes and publishing the results. I want to see an old couple announcing the winner to CNN.

Re:Show of hands not self-enforcing

[nedlohs]

Because bringing in additional glow sticks is much harder than sneaking extra ballots into a ballot box.

Re:You need trust

[maxwell demon]

The politicians are representing either big business and the rich or trial lawyers and unions.

The problem is actually the American spelling. Since the American spelling of "cheque" is "check", the politicians simply misunderstand the term "checks and balances" (where "balance" is interpreted as "balance of the bank account", of course).