South Korea Breaks Filibuster Record Fighting New Surveillance Bill (thestack.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

South Korea Breaks Filibuster Record Fighting New Surveillance Bill (thestack.com)

Posted by yaelk on Wednesday March 2, 2016 @08:12AM from the breaking-records dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Lawmakers in South Korea's National Assembly have broken the global collective filibuster record in its determination to defeat a new anti-terrorism bill which they believe threatens personal privacy for the country's citizens. 38 liberal members of the National Assembly spoke for a total of 193 hours in a collective effort which began on February 23rd and ended today, with the passing of the bill by 160 parliament members, with one 'no' and apparent abstention from the filibusters.

75 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-02 08:19 · Score: 3, Informative

An admirable gesture, but the surveillance bill eventually passed near unanimously, 160-1 (every country has a bernie sanders). Also notably, their NSA was caught "packet tapping" on gmail accounts, and has been accused of manipulating the 2012 election. Another reason to not have electronic voting! (there are so many reasons).
1. Re:tldr by Tablizer · 2016-03-02 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  and...accused of manipulating...election...Another reason to not have electronic voting
  Analog voting can be tampered with also. A system of checks and balances is needed regardless of the technology used.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-02 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  at least paper voting has an auditable "paper trail." also it probably would be done by CIA, not NSA in that case since it's not related to signals intelligence.
  Of course in NZ the NSA or similar body interfered in the election as well. A couple days before voting, an anonymous person "leaked" private emails showing the leading candidate had an affair. I wonder who did that?
3. Re:tldr by wardrich86 · 2016-03-02 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This is why Voting needs some sort of ID system to allow you to track your vote. Each year a new hash should be given to each person, which should remain valid until a few weeks after the election. You should be able to log in and see that your vote was correctly registered and counted. I'm pretty sure people will be quick to flock to social media if their hash result doesn't match who they voted for.
4. Re:tldr by Grishnakh · 2016-03-02 08:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's a good idea, but it needs a tweak. Forget the logging in bit, all the data needs to be made completely public. With a hash, this can be done anonymously easily.
  Give everyone a hash when they register to vote. Using voting machines to record the votes and correlate them with the hashes representing each person. Then after the vote, make available for download the entire data dump, showing (in CSV format perhaps) the voter's hash, and his voting choices. Interested voters just need to download the CSV file and search for their hash and verify the votes match what they chose at the voting booth.
  Someone who knows a lot about crypto and math might want to correct me here about how to tweak this so that the government can't (intentionally or inadvertently) keep lists of voters' real IDs and their hashes, since this could be made public and peoples' votes therefore made public. I'm guessing there needs to be another step here.
5. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-02 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  why don't you just do paper ballots? at my precinct we use a scan tron system. voters fill out a scan tron sheet ("fill in the bubbles with No 2 pencil"). Machine counts it locally and prints out a summary tape. Precinct sends summary tape and all scantron sheets to the state. State adds up the summary sheets and that's the total. Not only are the summary sheets auditable by hand, but even the scantrons can be auditted. 100% transparency, 100% paper trail.
  In what way would an electronic voting system be better?
6. Re:tldr by avandesande · 2016-03-02 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Why even have a hash assigned to them? Just give them a receipt when they vote with a hash that doesn't have any personal information on it linking them. Then post results publicly. People can band together and do their own audits.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
7. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Someone who knows a lot about crypto and math might want to correct me here about how to tweak this so that the government can't (intentionally or inadvertently) keep lists of voters' real IDs and their hashes, since this could be made public and peoples' votes therefore made public. I'm guessing there needs to be another step here.
  Any hash with less data information than just posting social security numbers will have collisions. Any hash with as much as or more data than social security numbers will be trackably distinct, even if it takes a little work to match up the relevant records. And before you think that the combined database will not have a record of in which precinct a vote was cast, they will have the exact machine that cast the vote (defensibly, as part of the process to ensure against collisions).
  Knowing when and where, and having another list from each where of who and when, it takes a trivial query to narrow down each vote to a list of candidates that I would estimate as roughly three times the count of voting machines at the precinct. From that list of (based on the voting locations I can remember at the moment) 3 to 12 potential candidates, it only takes a relatively small amount of actual manpower and analysis to identify who voted "wrong" and enact a vicious defamation campaign.
  From the perspective shown by certain politicians (one of whom is running for president to pardon herself), destroying 2 to 11 other nobodies is acceptable collateral damage as long as it was still cheaper than identifying the real target and using carefully directed libel and slander.
8. Re:tldr by vux984 · 2016-03-02 09:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  An admirable gesture, but the surveillance bill eventually passed near unanimously, 160-1
  The South Korean National Assembly has 300 seats, 7 of which are vacant, so 293 votes available I assume.
  It was not "uninamous"; in the sense that it had overwhelming support. It had 54%.
  The article appears to state that the 38 members who filibustered abstained. I am not sure why they didn't vote no?? I know next to nothing about south korean's political system.
  But that's at LEAST 39 against the bill.
  And where were the other hundred votes? Did after the long filibuster they all just left? And the government in power (with 157 seats, just whip the party to sit through until it was passed, along with a few independents? of which there are 6)
  By the time the vote came to pass was it just the yes-block left in the room, and the 38 guys abstaining?
  In any case, framing it as 160-1 is lying with statistics. :)
9. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-02 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  why not just do this with paper ballots like I described above? I don't see any significant benefit to voting technology. Paper already provides 100% transparency and 100% auditing. The only way electronic is a benefit is to get faster counts for election night on CNN, but that's a problem for CNN to worry about, and the voting system shouldn't be designed around that.
  do you see any benefits to electronic voting that I am missing?
10. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-02 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  it's not though. 160 reps voted in favor for it, 1 voted against it. 38 voted to abstain, and 94 ducked out of the room so they wouldn't have to take a position on the bill (this is common, happens in US all the time).
  sounds unanimous to me, or as close as you'll ever get in a democracy.
11. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  ‘94 ducked out of the room’ -- How is this legal? It's their job to take fucking positions on bloody bills, for crying out loud. If I don't want to do what I'm paid for, I can't very well tell my boss I don't feel like it, let alone just leave for a few hours, yet these people whose jobs arguably carry much more responsibility can just leave their post?
12. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  The advantages are the same we often get with computers. Quicker processing, easier access, etc.
  How do thousands of people request access to that paper trail? With the electronic version somebody would very quickly setup "seemyvote.org" or something where I could validate my vote while reading /.
13. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  If your boss payed as little attention to what you do as the average citizen did to what their elected officials do you could and probably would juts screw around most of the time.
14. Re:tldr by ganjadude · 2016-03-02 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  thats not really an important factor when it comes to an election
  
  do we REALLY need to know who won the second the polls close? I know CNN wants us to think so but no...we dont
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
15. Re:tldr by Zak3056 · 2016-03-02 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Give everyone a hash when they register to vote.
  The problem with the above is "vote for $CANDIDATE or I will break your daughter's arm" now has a means for the nefarious party to audit the vote. I'm not a fan of black box voting, but unless and until you can solve the above problem, every "you can verify your own personal vote after the fact" system constitutes an epic fail. If electronic voting cannot be made secure and reliable, we should go back to scantron sheets and punch cards. If you can't make that work (I'm looking at you, Florida) you probably shouldn't be voting, anyway.
  
  --
  What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
16. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  This is why Voting needs some sort of ID system to allow you to track your vote. Each year a new hash should be given to each person, which should remain valid until a few weeks after the election. You should be able to log in and see that your vote was correctly registered and counted. I'm pretty sure people will be quick to flock to social media if their hash result doesn't match who they voted for.
  Wouldn't some folk deliberately vote for the wrong guy and then if they are not happy with the election results: call "cheater" saying their vote went for that wrong guy. How many voters do you need to screw over the election?
17. Re:tldr by Plus1Entropy · 2016-03-02 11:22 · Score: 2
  
  Of course in NZ the NSA or similar body interfered in the election as well. A couple days before voting, an anonymous person "leaked" private emails showing the leading candidate had an affair.
  That's pretty weak as far as "interfering in an election" goes... Operation Ajax on the other hand...
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
18. Re:tldr by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-03-02 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think paper copies of votes would work better. IIRC the main reason stood up for going electronic was because Floridian geriatrics can't figure out how to use a hole punch, and/or stay within the lines. So, take the "best" of both worlds. Vote electronically, but, create a printed copy of the vote. The voting machine shows the paper copy to the voter, behind glass, and waits for their confirmation.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
19. Re:tldr by Plus1Entropy · 2016-03-02 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  do you see any benefits to electronic voting that I am missing?
  A paper trail could be lost, or destroyed. An electronic one too, I suppose, but it's much easier to make copies and ensure integrity throughout the process. It would also be simpler to implement far wider independent verification electronically too.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
20. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  ... keep lists of voters' real IDs ...
  
  They had to be kept to avoid voter fraud but with most countries now requiring ID. to vote, this may be unnecessary. Of course, voters will need some way of carrying their voting hash into the booth, so a voter's ID. card may be required.
21. Re:tldr by Grishnakh · 2016-03-02 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  The paper auditing thing doesn't help me. If I walk into whatever government office has the ballots and demand to see them, are they going to give them to me to do my own audit? What if thousands of individuals do the same thing? And how does that prove that my vote was accurately recorded anyway? The ballot I filed yesterday doesn't have my name, or anything at all identifiable about me, on it, just my selection. The ballots are all anonymous, so you have no way of knowing if the ballot box was stuffed, or if the ballots are faked and the real ballots trashed, etc.
  With something online, anyone can look up their vote and verify it.
22. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  > Give everyone a hash when they register to vote. Using voting machines to record the votes and correlate them with the hashes representing each person. Then after the vote, make available for download the entire data dump, showing (in CSV format perhaps) the voter's hash, and his voting choices. Interested voters just need to download the CSV file and search for their hash and verify the votes match what they chose at the voting booth.
  Congrats, votes are no longer secret. Better hope that your spouse, parent, church, employer, landlord, or anybody does not hold something over you to make sure that you vote the "right" way.
23. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Votes should be public.
24. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  lying with statistics
  You repeat yourself...
25. Re: tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  In Australia they lost the votes and had to redo one of the seats .. a complete revote.
26. Re: tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  No, but way to ignore the rest of the benefits.
  Namely the ability to easily confirm your vote was accurately recorded.
  Instant results are a bonus, not a necessity as you say. But being able to validate an entire election is priceless.
27. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  most likely would have been a staff member of the person involved
  conspiracy nutjob
28. Re:tldr by hjf · 2016-03-02 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  In Argentina we have paper ballots, and then at every "voting table" votes are counted, and a "telegram" with the totals is given to a postman. This is then entered, at the post office, into the vote count system. Results are out a couple of hours later. The telegram is also scanned and put online available to everyone, along with the manually entered data (to check if the data entry person entered the right data).
  As a backup, all ballots are put back into the ballot box, sealed and sent to the "electoral justice" building. These are delivered and guarded by the army.
  The "electronic vote" machine (available only in some jurisdictions) is just a printer that prints your ballot. I dont know if it also prints a totals sheet.
29. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  What a bunch of pussies!!!
  38 of them blather on for 193 hours and only ONE of them votes NO?
  That means there's 37 abstaining pussies... the whole lot of them.
  By not actually VOTING NO this makes their ENTIRE FILIBUSTER completely worthless.
  Sounds like the USA ... talk a lot of crap but lit and do something different (and generally self and government serving).
  FUCK the people all for me and my people.... is what they say in the quiet corners of their mind.
30. Re:tldr by cheater512 · 2016-03-02 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because paper is immutable and can never be forged or replaced?
  A correctly designed electronic system would be able to detect tampering a lot easier than with paper (cryptographic chains).
  Of course the keywords are "correctly designed" and since politicians are the ones authorising the purchase of these machines, they either deliberately or incompetently leave that bit out.
31. Re:tldr by cheater512 · 2016-03-02 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  How would ballot stuffing be prevented with that system?
  The illegitimate ballots would certainly be scanned correctly and be sent to state correctly and an audit would show the numbers match.
32. Re:tldr by mikael · 2016-03-02 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Paper ballots can be fudged. There were some cases in the UK where certain minorities were getting their ballot paper sent by mail to particular addresses. Then the votes were cast all to the same political party. Some places, the votes for one candidate were discarded as being "spoiled", while extra votes for the preferred candidate were added.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
33. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  There is a proposed international standard for electronic voting that would be immensely secure. More secure than paper ballots and the cost per election would be much lower than paper. I read about it here. http://democracycounts.org/ But they are also doing an indiegogo campaign to try and crowd fund their way through the standards process. The campaign is here https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/democracy-counts-defending-the-vote
34. Re: tldr by snowsnoot · 2016-03-02 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well if voting were more efficient, it would enable the public to vote much more ofte , say on individual proposed acts of legislation, aka direct democracy. I think this will be the next evolution of democracies since it seems our governments are largely turning against us in regard to privacy and quality of life protection in favour of corporate interests.
35. Re:tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  I think those voting for Donald Trump have had enough hash already!
36. Re:tldr by Cardcaptor_RLH85 · 2016-03-02 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's how I vote in Michigan. We've used that system since 2003 without any issues. In fact, the first election I voted in after turning 18 in 2003 (some local school board thing) was the first time my county used this system so, I've never actually voted using the old punch card system we used to have.
37. Re: tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Who is Obama ? Different ears, nose eyebrows teeth. Weight changes. Hints from movie stars, comediens - even an ex secret service agent. & a presidential candidate Still no one looks .....
38. Re:tldr by wardrich86 · 2016-03-03 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  We use paper ballots here in Canada... we fill it out, drop it in a box, and that's the last we ever see of it. I can't trust that my Government that's already been busted in voter scandals isn't also fudging votes and keeping it hush-hush. I'd like to see the raw data representation to show that my vote is correct, and that the official stats match the data dumps.
39. Re:tldr by SuiteSisterMary · 2016-03-03 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. At worst, the electronic device should be used to produce a paper ballot, which the voter then physically walks out to a ballot box, hopefully after double-checking that all of their votes were correct, and drops in. The 'ballot-marker 3000' itself should never keep any sort of record.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
40. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised that your voting system is set up this way. In many US states (the law varies by state) everything is fully auditable by anybody. You can even go in there with a calculator and recount everything by hand, if you really wanted to.
41. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  I can tell you my experience as a voting booth volunteer in my home county. The ballots are purchased by the county, and each ballot has a unique sequential ID number. When you arrive at your polling location and check in, they check your name on the voter roll and mark that you recieved a ballot. Then they hand you a ballot from the top of the stack. At the end of the day the polling volunteer submits the number of ballots cast as well as the number of remaining blank ballots. This number should match the number they recieved in the morning. In the auditing process, one could also check the ID numbers to make sure there are no duplicate IDs and that all ID numbers were in the range distributed to that polling location.
  The system works!
42. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  > Because paper is immutable and can never be forged or replaced?
  See my earlier comment about ballot stuffing.
  > Of course the keywords are "correctly designed" and since politicians are the ones authorising the purchase of these machines, they either deliberately or incompetently leave that bit out.
  Electronic ballot machines are designed by people, and people are fallable and make mistakes, cut corners, etc. The machines are sold by the lowest bidder. The companies in this business are the companies that make ATMs, like Diebold. Have you ever seen those pics of ATMs with a blue screen of death? Nuff said.
  Also, its been shown that NSA (and presumably other countries) have subverted industry standard encryption. So it's hard to say if a well designed system is truly secure.
  Then there's the open source issue. If a company makes the product, will the source code be auditable. Who will do the auditing?
  Considering all these factors, why not just use paper, which is much more transparent? Also, paper is much more democratic, because anybody with a calculator can audit it. With comptuers, only a small subset of people have the skills to do the auditing.
43. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Ballot by mail is trickier than ballot in a controlled polling location. But so would be voting by internet.
44. Re: tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  What? You don't even make sense, gimp.
45. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  > If I walk into whatever government office has the ballots and demand to see them, are they going to give them to me to do my own audit? What if thousands of individuals do the same thing?
  Actually yes, you can audit anything through a FOIA request. If thousands of people submit a foia request, then the govt may go to a judge to find a way to aggregate them into a few common requests.
  > The ballots are all anonymous, so you have no way of knowing if the ballot box was stuffed, or if the ballots are faked and the real ballots trashed, etc.
  In terms of forgeries after the fact, you can verify the multiple ballot counts to check for inconsistencies. Each ballot counts the individual ballots and submits results to the county. Each county aggregates the precinct-level counts and send it to the state. These results are announced live as they happen. The state aggregates the county level results. If somebody forges individual ballots after the fact, then they won't match the precinct summary, county summary, state summary, or live announcements.
  In terms of ballot box stuffing, each ballot has a unique sequential serial number, so any stuffed ballots would be immediately apparent.
  the system works!
46. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the electronic system is easier to implement. As a voting precinct, counting the ballots is a super pain in the butt! But I would argue that the audit trail and the transparency of paper ballots trump the convenience of a few govt clerks.
  I'm not so sure about the integrity of the electronic system. If private companies make the system, who audits the code? Even if somebody audits the code, will backdoors be missed? Consider back doors like heartbleed and others that went undetected in open source software. I don't see the integrity here.
  >A paper trail could be lost, or destroyed. An electronic one too, I suppose, but it's much easier to make copies
  This is fair, I didn't consider this. It's possible that a box of ballots could "go missing", and in a precinct that was won by just a couple votes, this would raise eyebrows. This could result in lawsuits, fines, and unless you're hillary clinton who is untouchable, people getting in serious trouble or fired. It's a good idea to be vigilant about this and set clear requirements for how ballots should be handled and stored, for how long, etc.
47. Re:tldr by wardrich86 · 2016-03-03 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  We may have this ability... I didn't realize that was a thing. But you still would not be able to find the piece of paper that you dropped into the box to prove that your vote was counted. Hell, for all you know, the entire batch of pieces of paper you're looking at could have been pre-filled and pre-sealed, and everything you actually wrote on was just sent to the incinerator. That's a pretty extreme and far fetched example, but with there being no way to verify your vote, it's 100% plausible.
48. Re:tldr by tlhIngan · 2016-03-03 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  it's not though. 160 reps voted in favor for it, 1 voted against it. 38 voted to abstain, and 94 ducked out of the room so they wouldn't have to take a position on the bill (this is common, happens in US all the time).
  sounds unanimous to me, or as close as you'll ever get in a democracy.
  Those that ducked out of the room to avoid the vote ARE abstaining. They're just not stating so blatantly.
  The thing with abstaining instead of "no" is that abstaining does two things. First, you avoid having to take a position - perhaps the bill is bad now, but it could be fixed later. Saying no now and killing it may not be the best idea.
  Second, and more importantly, abstaining means you're counted as absent in the vote. In doing so, this could mean the quorum required for a vote is not met. A quorum is when there are considered to be sufficient voters that business can be conducted - for example, should a vote need to be conducted, but only one person shows up, then that person's vote doesn't necessarily count because one person is typically insufficient to have a quorum. It's also why politicians don't try to do "dirty tricks" like wait for when the opposition has a meeting or something to carry out a vote - if they can't get a quorum, the vote can be held, but it's no longer valid.
  So by abstaining, they're really saying "this bill has flaws, but it might be the right thing if we can fix them before enactment".
49. Re: tldr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-03 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think direct democracy is a good idea, it is far too easy to game public opinion.
50. Re:tldr by cheater512 · 2016-03-03 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  And why can't the ballot stuffer get a polling booth extra ballots and use the real ballots?
  Difficult for individuals, not so much for governments.
51. Re:tldr by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-03 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose. There are always checks and balances though. Anybody is welcome at a voting location, so you could stand there all day and count the number of people that came through. Afterwards you could make sure that the number of recorded ballots matches the number of people that voted at that location. This is hard to do at every polling location all the time, but a committed gadfly (or an association of committed gadflies, like the tea party) could do a good spot check.
  Voting by mail is a little tricker, I'm not as familiar with it, but I'm sure there are checks and balances available.
  the system works!
52. Re:tldr by Grishnakh · 2016-03-03 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's the idea with the hash. If you have a better idea, or at least can explain why the idea won't work on a technical level, let's hear it. The idea here is for votes to remain anonymous while allowing people to check that they're correctly recorded; did you not understand that?
  As for your church knowing how you vote, I don't have a problem with that one. You shouldn't be keeping any secrets from your church; if they demand to know something about you, then you should be happily providing them that information. If they want to install cameras in your house to make sure you aren't sinning, then you should be happily agreeing to this. If you don't like those terms, then why are you a member of that church? Unlike having parents, an employer, or a landlord, there's no requirement to have a church membership. If your church abuses you, that's your own dumb fault (like Mormons who give copies of their tax returns to their churches).
53. Re:tldr by Sir+Holo · 2016-03-03 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  why don't you just do paper ballots? at my precinct we use a scan tron system. voters fill out a scan tron sheet ("fill in the bubbles with No 2 pencil"). Machine counts it locally and prints out a summary tape. Precinct sends summary tape and all scantron sheets to the state. State adds up the summary sheets and that's the total. Not only are the summary sheets auditable by hand, but even the scantrons can be auditted. 100% transparency, 100% paper trail.
  In what way would an electronic voting system be better?
  None.
54. Re:tldr by Plus1Entropy · 2016-03-03 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure about the integrity of the electronic system. If private companies make the system, who audits the code? Even if somebody audits the code, will backdoors be missed? Consider back doors like heartbleed and others that went undetected in open source software. I don't see the integrity here.
  The integrity I was referring to was that of the vote itself, all other things being equal. Obviously, this would require that the electronic system is not compromised, otherwise it could simply send the same forged/tampered copies to everyone. You're absolutely right that this is a huge concern, without an obvious solution.
  You could have multiple independent experts or groups verify the software, but as you pointed out, things can be missed. And as with any technocratic system, the experts themselves could become compromised in some way. Even assuming they all act competently and ethically, it raises other concerns as well. Everyone can understand paper ballots and the verification processes therein, but only those with a certain level (and type) of education can understand encryption, hashing, etc. The general public would be somewhat alienated from the process, perhaps even becoming distrustful and disenfranchised. That could potentially affect the election process even more than any actual fraud...
  A very complicated and interesting issue, to be sure.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I suppose that breaks Canada's record by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 08:27 · Score: 0

But only just barely...
A few decades ago Ontario had a 7 day long filibuster to prevent Toronto, Ontario from being amalgamated with surrounding communities.
1. Re:I suppose that breaks Canada's record by avandesande · 2016-03-02 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Be sure not to chew on ice, that is a filling buster and soon you will be visiting the dentist looking form more amalgam.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
Huh? by dargaud · 2016-03-02 08:28 · Score: 2

What's the point of talking 193 hours if you are not even going to vote NO but only abstain ?!?

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
1. Re:Huh? by Gavagai80 · 2016-03-02 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  After 193 hours, they were all asleep.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  A 160-1 ratio makes me think the political parties forbid them from voting no (vote yes and you're not running under that party's banner in the next election cycle).
3. Re:Huh? by fnj · 2016-03-02 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  A 160-1 ratio makes me think the political parties forbid them from voting no (vote yes and you're not running under that party's banner in the next election cycle).
  Well, I guess we found out what these spineless cowardly fakers were made of, eh? In the crunch, only a single one of these 38 losers bothered to vote no. This is just eerily reminiscent of what we are stuck with in the US Senate.
4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Voting NO would not have many any difference as they are in the minority.
  The reason they stopped at 193 hours is because they realized that it wasn't doing them any good for the upcoming election (which tells you how dumb the general Korean public are regarding these matters). Basically, they concluded that having a chance at winning the upcoming election is more important than preventing the bill from passing.
  It's a fucking shame, really.
  This particular Filibuster could have only worked with the backing from the general public, and the mass media did a great job preventing that from happening.
5. Re:Huh? by Art+Challenor · 2016-03-02 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  After 193 hours, they were all asleep.
  I was thinking bathroom break, but maybe asleep.
6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Not all countries are Glorious United States of Americasus.
  The filibuster was the 'NO' vote, however they still value non-confrontational politics. So the one vote was the voice of the opposition as much as the number of hours spent speaking. It is very much a merican point of view to compare final scores, and that's not the case here.
7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  > What's the point of talking 193 hours if you are not even going to vote NO but only abstain ?!?
  I dont know how it works on SK, but their party may have threatened to kick them out if they voted NO. Or it could just be a saving face thing. SK is a collectivist culture, so it would be a big problem to vote against their in-group.
Secret ballot by gumpish · 2016-03-02 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is why Voting needs some sort of ID system to allow you to track your vote. Each year a new hash should be given to each person, which should remain valid until a few weeks after the election. You should be able to log in and see that your vote was correctly registered and counted. I'm pretty sure people will be quick to flock to social media if their hash result doesn't match who they voted for.
But this would break ballot secrecy. If you can prove how you voted then your vote can be bought or coerced.
1. Re:Secret ballot by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  you get a hash for each different politician, and give out the one you were paid/coerced for?
Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 08:53 · Score: 0

Whose buster are we filling?
1. Re:Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  For the country with the 2nd highest average IQ, they sure do some dumb shit in their politics.
No second amendment in Korea. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 09:02 · Score: 0

Only these have remained loyal.
Only these have resisted tyranny.
And so it begins. And so it goes.
1. Re:No second amendment in Korea. by Plus1Entropy · 2016-03-02 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  No second amendment in Korea.
  No Disneyland in (South) Korea either, but what the bloody hell does that have to do with TFA?
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
2. Re:No second amendment in Korea. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  The second amendment is the means by which the people can resist tyranny. A government deciding to just spy on all its citizens is not trending toward greater freedom.
  
  And this should have been blindingly obvious to you.
3. Re:No second amendment in Korea. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  that is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen posted (and it is every time it gets trotted out)
Abstain? by manu0601 · 2016-03-02 14:38 · Score: 1

The filibusters abstained, while another group did not vote.
That makes no sense! People elect them to write the law, if they do not want to do it, they should resign and leave room for real representants.
Oh hell yeth. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-02 16:27 · Score: 0

in its determination to oppose a new anti-terrorism bill which they believe threatens personal privacy for the country’s citizens.
Because everybody in the world would just want to terrorize South Koreans.