Aren't you glad it is public knowledge now how rediculously insecure those machines are? These machines should never have been used and the people you call "hackers" have done what the government should have done BEFORE using them for black-box voting. Are you advocating security though obscurity where the safety of the democratic process depends on a small group of people we trust not to abuse their position? I'd much rather have a verifiable solution.
I say someone in the government is finally doing the right thing here.
My point was that voting is too important to sacrifice security for ease of use.
There are a lot of possible measures to make voting easier without safety drawbacks like making election day a national holiday, allowing voters to choose any polling station, setting up commuter polling stations etc.
The problem with internet voting will be that there is no way to ensure vote confidentiality (votes could be sold, people could be coerced to vote a certain way) and there is no separate record for a security recount.
1: This receipt could be used to buy/coerce your vote. 2: All your banking transactions are reported so you can verify they have not made a mistake, this is not an option for voting because of vote confidentiality. 3: It's great that you trust you bank so much but the voting process needs to be based on verifiability, not blind trust. 4: If you mean that showing up at a polling station is too much hassle for some people, then maybe they don't care enough about the decision making process to be able to make an informed decision.
I would trust election officials to compile the code. If the install media are stored securely after an election possible tampering by officials can always be proved/disproved afterwards. Election software can be simple enough to even be verified manually by a knowledgable official. You don't need flip3d to hold an election.
"We are already struggling with religion creeping into schools, we don't need software religions creeping into schools."
But they are already there. Why do you think that proprietary software is "dirt cheap"? You are getting a discount for training your students to become future followers/customers.
I agree that Google collects too much information but i don't understand the emphasis on Google. All named privacy threats apply equally to competing products and for all Google products there are viable alternatives.
You control the amount of information Google collects about you, if you don't feel comfortable with Google then use another service. If you want to help privacy issues, point out privacy friendly alternatives.
AFAIK they have, so far, stuck to the "do no evil" slogan. Yes, yes, I know, they didn't display links that that wouldn't have made it through China's firewall anyway, but Yahoo was turning over evidence to Chinese authorities and got a lot less exposure over it.
Google doesn't force anyone to use their products, they do not have their products preinstalled on every PC sold, they do not invent proprietary file formats that try to force you to use their products. And it was possible to see cats sitting in windowsills long before the invention of the PC (or even photography)
I you Google (and i know you do) and don't like it, don't whine about it, just have your personal data collected by someone else.
exactly,
Also while admitting he was criticizing the competition he stated "We don't make a dime when we correct typos. We do make money on full-word searches, but those aren't impacted by this"
I think Opendns IS a better service than Dell's, but they're being far too aggressive toward Google here.
1: Most Windows users never consciously chose, they just used whatever the box came with (some of these are even surprised to learn Word is not part of Windows)
2: Microsoft software is very good at allowing beginners to quickly accomplish a simple task, the problem with this is that most of these beginners never learn to properly use their software (including their OS) which leads to security problems, badly designed software and misformatted documents.
3: those poorly authored documents (you know the kind, with text boxes floating all over the place etc.) condemn the recipients of these documents to either use Windows, become a computer geek or miss business opportunities / fail courses. Real document interoperability is Microsofts worst nightmare. (don't take my word for it, just look at the amount of effort they invest in sabotaging ODF)
3: A large part of the Windows users depend on their geek friends/relatives to keep their windows box going / repair their mistakes. This means there is a huge informal support network for this operating system, i expect this network to grow smaller as Microsoft alienates its customers.
4: Microsoft effectively has a monopoly in the OS and office suite department, we have allowed our governments to stand by and watch the free market die.
Agreed, they usually try to screw linux, other OSS and standards every chance they get, but this move is to gain market share in DRM crippled online media. They're trying to compete with adobe and are desperate enough to support even Firefox to get it. (i'm sure they'll screw FF support as soon as market domination is ensured, though) Since most linux users are smart enough to stay away from these crippled formats there won't be enough convertable users to warrant the effort.
Not really. When you use exchange and "live one care" accidents like this are just waiting to happen. Either that or he's decided to change the governments business model from enron's to intel's or microsoft's.
captcha's are not restricted to images of letters. For example: you could ask people to solve a regular text question (this would also fix accessibility issues)
Slashdot Mirror
How could this have been modded "insightful"?
Aren't you glad it is public knowledge now how rediculously insecure those machines are? These machines should never have been used and the people you call "hackers" have done what the government should have done BEFORE using them for black-box voting.
Are you advocating security though obscurity where the safety of the democratic process depends on a small group of people we trust not to abuse their position? I'd much rather have a verifiable solution.
I say someone in the government is finally doing the right thing here.
There's an eXtensible HyperText Markup Language ACRONYM tag for that.
There's also a Firefox extension for looking up definitions.
Surely if people being twits could affect a judge's decision the RIAA would have been shut down years ago.
If the banks want to make sure customers are running a secure configuration they should distribute their own safe live-CD.
My point was that voting is too important to sacrifice security for ease of use. There are a lot of possible measures to make voting easier without safety drawbacks like making election day a national holiday, allowing voters to choose any polling station, setting up commuter polling stations etc. The problem with internet voting will be that there is no way to ensure vote confidentiality (votes could be sold, people could be coerced to vote a certain way) and there is no separate record for a security recount.
1: This receipt could be used to buy/coerce your vote.
2: All your banking transactions are reported so you can verify they have not made a mistake, this is not an option for voting because of vote confidentiality.
3: It's great that you trust you bank so much but the voting process needs to be based on verifiability, not blind trust.
4: If you mean that showing up at a polling station is too much hassle for some people, then maybe they don't care enough about the decision making process to be able to make an informed decision.
The comment you refer to states:
"In randomly selected polling places, the paper receipts get counted manually."
That is not a (requested) recount but a safety measure.
You might be trying to imply voting receipts are a bad idea, but you don't give any arguments why that would be so.
I would trust election officials to compile the code.
If the install media are stored securely after an election possible tampering by officials can always be proved/disproved afterwards.
Election software can be simple enough to even be verified manually by a knowledgable official. You don't need flip3d to hold an election.
"We are already struggling with religion creeping into schools, we don't need software religions creeping into schools."
But they are already there. Why do you think that proprietary software is "dirt cheap"? You are getting a discount for training your students to become future followers/customers.
I agree that Google collects too much information but i don't understand the emphasis on Google. All named privacy threats apply equally to competing products and for all Google products there are viable alternatives.
You control the amount of information Google collects about you, if you don't feel comfortable with Google then use another service. If you want to help privacy issues, point out privacy friendly alternatives.
AFAIK they have, so far, stuck to the "do no evil" slogan. Yes, yes, I know, they didn't display links that that wouldn't have made it through China's firewall anyway, but Yahoo was turning over evidence to Chinese authorities and got a lot less exposure over it.
Google doesn't force anyone to use their products, they do not have their products preinstalled on every PC sold, they do not invent proprietary file formats that try to force you to use their products. And it was possible to see cats sitting in windowsills long before the invention of the PC (or even photography)
I you Google (and i know you do) and don't like it, don't whine about it, just have your personal data collected by someone else.
Couldn't this be solved by normalization? If most devices had such a function the volume race would be over and the quality race could begin.
exactly,
Also while admitting he was criticizing the competition he stated "We don't make a dime when we correct typos. We do make money on full-word searches, but those aren't impacted by this"
I think Opendns IS a better service than Dell's, but they're being far too aggressive toward Google here.
AFAICT Google is just used by Dell on the Dell search page, thats all.
This wouldn't have anything to do with opendns being powered by Yahoo, right?
1: Most Windows users never consciously chose, they just used whatever the box came with (some of these are even surprised to learn Word is not part of Windows) 2: Microsoft software is very good at allowing beginners to quickly accomplish a simple task, the problem with this is that most of these beginners never learn to properly use their software (including their OS) which leads to security problems, badly designed software and misformatted documents. 3: those poorly authored documents (you know the kind, with text boxes floating all over the place etc.) condemn the recipients of these documents to either use Windows, become a computer geek or miss business opportunities / fail courses. Real document interoperability is Microsofts worst nightmare. (don't take my word for it, just look at the amount of effort they invest in sabotaging ODF) 3: A large part of the Windows users depend on their geek friends/relatives to keep their windows box going / repair their mistakes. This means there is a huge informal support network for this operating system, i expect this network to grow smaller as Microsoft alienates its customers. 4: Microsoft effectively has a monopoly in the OS and office suite department, we have allowed our governments to stand by and watch the free market die.
I can see the headlines now: Microsoft violates HaxDoor patents!
Agreed, they usually try to screw linux, other OSS and standards every chance they get, but this move is to gain market share in DRM crippled online media.
They're trying to compete with adobe and are desperate enough to support even Firefox to get it. (i'm sure they'll screw FF support as soon as market domination is ensured, though)
Since most linux users are smart enough to stay away from these crippled formats there won't be enough convertable users to warrant the effort.
Not really. When you use exchange and "live one care" accidents like this are just waiting to happen.
Either that or he's decided to change the governments business model from enron's to intel's or microsoft's.
captcha's are not restricted to images of letters. For example: you could ask people to solve a regular text question (this would also fix accessibility issues)