OK. I stand corrected. As parent (and others) have noted, having a tear-off receipt seems a bad idea for all the coercion reasons noted.
Still, there needs to be something that is EASILY verifiable for the voter, so they can ensure that the paper ballot matches their intended vote. Trying to peek through a 2"x2" cloudy plastic window to see light printing (which is what we have in my precinct in IL) to see that the X is in the right spot just doesn't cut it. And I'm young and have good eyesight. I can't imagine my grandmother trying to do the same.
In my mind, electronic tabulation has its advantages: it can aggregate data quickly is the big one, allowing precincts to report quickly. The trouble is when you can't verify that those results are secure and honest to the voters' intent.
The easy solution would be to have 2 paper print-outs: 1 that the voter tears off (like a receipt) and can examine to verify that they voted the way they intended, and 1 that is automatically ripped off and deposited in the 'lock box' for any audits or recounts that might need to be done. (I'm thinking a system that automatically tears the receipt paper and drops it within the sealed system--no human hand touches it, though you can see it through glass/plastic.)
That way, the ease of transmission and voting exists, there is a verifiable record that the voter can examine, and there is no concern over anonymity, since no order of voting can be extrapolated when the individual votes are separated from the roll. It works on all levels.
I can't get over--What is so hard about this!? Why are voting machine manufacturers having such a hard time getting a simple solution, and why are they so resistant to improvements on their designs?!
I'm surprised at the shock (shock!) among/. readers. Honestly, I would've assumed that more people in this forum would realize by now that no matter what promises are given by XYZ corporation, despite mottos, EULAs, whatever, that their 'private' data and tracked browsing patterns are kept, and therefore subject to examination by authorities.
Look, I don't like it any better than the next guy that the government can decide it needs information on $class_of_people (suspected terrorists, pedophiles, spammers, Chinese government hackers, whatever); but I also know that that is one of the tradeoffs for the convenience of using the web.
And, when it all comes down to it, it is a matter of convenience (and perhaps efficiency), nothing more. There is very little (if anything) I can do online that I cannot do with a pay phone and the yellow pages.
I, for one, am willing to accept the fact that my browsing habits are being tracked by Google, by any other search engine, by my ISP, by social networking sites, by my company, by the government. If I want to do something off-the-radar, I'll pick up a phone or use a proxy.
So the point of all this? If you want real privacy, prepare to inconvenience yourself. You can't have an infinite degree of convenience without sacrificing something, be it security or privacy.
The only big news here is that Google has shown that if they are pressed hard enough and long enough, they will cave to government pressure. I figured it would be the case, even though they've stood up to the US a couple times in the past (though not some other governments). Cue renewed US demands for information in 3...2...1...
Yes, when I post to the forum. I expect nothing less.
When I rate movies to get recommendations, I sure as heck hope that those ratings aren't attached to my name and sold to the highest bidder. I would hope that they are stripped of personally identifying information and/or aggregated so that they can't be tracked to me.
I no longer have any reasonable expectation that Blockbuster is doing this.
Yes, but when I rate movies so I can get recommendations, I don't expect that those ratings will be broadcast to the rest of Blockbuster users. Especially using my real name.
I would hope that something I do within my account would stay *within my account*, or at least stripped of Personally Identifiable Information and/or aggregated before being distributed as public information.
Legal Notices--Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. Blockbuster supports the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and will use reasonable commercial efforts to require employee and business partner compliance with the Act.
Now, that's pretty vague, but if you take it at face value (HAH!), it would imply that they don't have you waive your rights under this law.
However, they do have some pretty crappy privacy when it comes to any comments you post to their website (ratings and such):
From the TOS:
Content submitted to blockbuster.com (including your name) will not be confidential and may be published or disclosed in Blockbuster's sole discretion, without any compensation to you.
By submitting Content, you grant Blockbuster the right to use your submitted name in connection with your Content.
Legal Notices
Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. Blockbuster supports the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and will use reasonable commercial efforts to require employee and business partner compliance with the Act.
Now, that's pretty vague, but if you take it at face value (HAH!), it would imply that they don't have you waive your rights under this law.
However, they do have some pretty crappy privacy when it comes to any comments you post to their website (ratings and such):
From the TOS:
Content submitted to blockbuster.com (including your name) will not be confidential and may be published or disclosed in Blockbuster's sole discretion, without any compensation to you. Blockbuster may, but is not obligated to, respond to any Content.
By submitting Content, you grant Blockbuster the right to use your submitted name in connection with your Content.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, there needs to be something that is EASILY verifiable for the voter, so they can ensure that the paper ballot matches their intended vote. Trying to peek through a 2"x2" cloudy plastic window to see light printing (which is what we have in my precinct in IL) to see that the X is in the right spot just doesn't cut it. And I'm young and have good eyesight. I can't imagine my grandmother trying to do the same.
The easy solution would be to have 2 paper print-outs: 1 that the voter tears off (like a receipt) and can examine to verify that they voted the way they intended, and 1 that is automatically ripped off and deposited in the 'lock box' for any audits or recounts that might need to be done. (I'm thinking a system that automatically tears the receipt paper and drops it within the sealed system--no human hand touches it, though you can see it through glass/plastic.)
That way, the ease of transmission and voting exists, there is a verifiable record that the voter can examine, and there is no concern over anonymity, since no order of voting can be extrapolated when the individual votes are separated from the roll. It works on all levels.
I can't get over--What is so hard about this!? Why are voting machine manufacturers having such a hard time getting a simple solution, and why are they so resistant to improvements on their designs?!
There's a shocker ya.
Of course Gates is going to support M$ and its business model. To do otherwise would be harmful to the company's shareholders, including himself.
Look, I don't like it any better than the next guy that the government can decide it needs information on $class_of_people (suspected terrorists, pedophiles, spammers, Chinese government hackers, whatever); but I also know that that is one of the tradeoffs for the convenience of using the web.
And, when it all comes down to it, it is a matter of convenience (and perhaps efficiency), nothing more. There is very little (if anything) I can do online that I cannot do with a pay phone and the yellow pages.
I, for one, am willing to accept the fact that my browsing habits are being tracked by Google, by any other search engine, by my ISP, by social networking sites, by my company, by the government. If I want to do something off-the-radar, I'll pick up a phone or use a proxy.
So the point of all this? If you want real privacy, prepare to inconvenience yourself. You can't have an infinite degree of convenience without sacrificing something, be it security or privacy.
The only big news here is that Google has shown that if they are pressed hard enough and long enough, they will cave to government pressure. I figured it would be the case, even though they've stood up to the US a couple times in the past (though not some other governments). Cue renewed US demands for information in 3...2...1...
Yes, when I post to the forum. I expect nothing less. When I rate movies to get recommendations, I sure as heck hope that those ratings aren't attached to my name and sold to the highest bidder. I would hope that they are stripped of personally identifying information and/or aggregated so that they can't be tracked to me. I no longer have any reasonable expectation that Blockbuster is doing this.
Yes, but when I rate movies so I can get recommendations, I don't expect that those ratings will be broadcast to the rest of Blockbuster users. Especially using my real name. I would hope that something I do within my account would stay *within my account*, or at least stripped of Personally Identifiable Information and/or aggregated before being distributed as public information.
From the privacy policy
Now, that's pretty vague, but if you take it at face value (HAH!), it would imply that they don't have you waive your rights under this law.However, they do have some pretty crappy privacy when it comes to any comments you post to their website (ratings and such): From the TOS:
I may just be going back to Netflix...Drat. That's supposed to be in response to Animats post. I'll repost there.
From the privacy policy
Now, that's pretty vague, but if you take it at face value (HAH!), it would imply that they don't have you waive your rights under this law.However, they do have some pretty crappy privacy when it comes to any comments you post to their website (ratings and such): From the TOS :