If the software is public, no one can insinuate that the voting system has unfairness built into the code. (Companies that make these machines regularly argue that they need to keep their software secret for security reasons. Don?t believe them. In this instance, secrecy has nothing to do with security.)
How do we know that the software that was publicly audited is what's on the machine? Even if the code is clean, and we watch it being compiled, how do we know that the compiler or the microcode wasn't trojaned?
So, are you saying we shouldn't discuss/speculate on the issue? Why? Because the decision lies in the hands of a court and not in the hands of Joe Slashdot-user?
It's perfectly reasonable to speculate on what a court will or should do when you have all the relevant facts. That's what most lawyers do for a living. It's silly to speculate when all you have is the information given here.
For this to work it has to be implemented on the server. That means that SBC, Roadrunner, MSN, et al, would have to maintain individual whitelists on their servers for every single one of their users and give the user some way to modify them.
He forgot a couple: (*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers (*) Asshats (*) Extreme profitability of spam (*) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (*) Whitelists suck
And worst of all:
It only takes a couple of seconds to mint a 20-bit stamp. Not a big price when you send a few dozen e-mails in a day. But a couple of extra CPU seconds per message is prohibitive to spammers who want to send millions of messages.
Spammers aren't the only ones who send out tens of thousands of messages every day. What about AOL, MSN, Yahoo!, all the other big ISP's, and don't forget every big company in the world. So you either have to get all those users to switch to a MUA that will print stamps, or the SPs will have to upgrade their servers to do it. Or do you plan to white list them all?
How do you know that the software being hashed is actually the software being run when you vote? Are you going to open up the box and inspect each compenent as well? You can't trust someone else's system, and there's no way to make it trustworthy. The priamry golas of evoting are instantaneous tabulation, and the posibility of remote voting. There's probably no way to do it securely other than using the machines to fill out a paper ballot, but that doesn't achieve the goals of evoting.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
According to the article the settlement state that, "Titles had to be on a Billboard chart for at least 26 weeks and had to peak in the top half of the chart." I can't think of many CD's fitting that description that aren't crapola.
And if you actually look at the Microsoft patent, you will see that they reference the IBM work as well as the DoCoMo patent. I suspect that if they thought these patents invalidated their application they would have realized it by now. At the very least, the patent examiner would have looked at the refereced patent and determinined they are suficiently different.
The point is that you can only change the channel (assuming OTA broadcasts) a finite number of times before you run out of channels. Since the licensees are using up a certain amount of my and your scarce resource they need to be accountable to me and you. The FCC is acting as our agent, and if you aren't happy with how they are acting on your behalf, you should tell them so.
You have a tragedy of the commons problem with content as well. The radio spectrum is a scarce public resource and one of the requirements for licensees is that they provide programing in the public interest and they abide by community standards.
Sorry, but you are misinformed. The I in RAID does in fact stand for inexpensive, since when RAID was created the alternative was a Single Large Expensive Disk (SLED). That fact that this alternative is now obsolete and the I has been co-opted to mean independant so that folks like you would get its meaning doesn't change the history. But then again, you probably think that the V in DVD stands for video
Who cares? Your liability if someone steals your CC number is pratically zero. The CC companies have calculated that further increases in security at this point would not decrease their liability enough to be a financial benefit. Remember that information security is just about managing risks. It doesn't make sense to spend more money mitigating a risk than you stand to lose.
While that page may prove[1] that MSN tweaked the pages they sent to Opera browsers it's a long way from proving that MSN committed some actionable tort and that they owe Opera damages.
[1]According to some standard of proof. It's not clear that what the Opera team considers evidence would even be admissible in court.
I know expecting the editors to RTFA is too much to ask, but I'd be nice if the submitters could spare the time. The quote was actually from the FCC's Chief Enginner, not the Chairman:
Ed Thomas, the FCC's chief engineer, said current technology can avoid interference problems. WiFi can sense when a frequency is being used and scan for another available pocket of spectrum. That technology, Thomas said, can be expanded to the television spectrum to avoid interference.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this: the EU is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires it in order to permit visa-free travel to the US.
The EU implementing biometrics because they want visa free travel is very different than doing it because the US is forcing them.
Too bad ignorant fools like you don't believe in democracy and instead cling to idiotic notions that waving a bunch of shotguns around is going to stop a totalitarian government. Afghans and Iraqis had plenty of guns and it didn't help them against government oppression.
I wonder what it was that freed those poor Iraqis and Afghans from those regimes.... Oh yeah, lots of guns.
Dig a little deeper: the UK is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires Europe to do this. Otherwise, Europeans wouldn't be doing this, at least not yet.
Damn. I keep forgetting that we conquered Europe a little while ago. Perhaps you are confusing the US with the EU?
And yes, a totalitarian government is an example of statism. Of course our Constitution prevents that happening in the US. Too bad you whiny neo-coms don't believe in the 2nd Amendment!
Well, in the Bush/Ashcroft 1984 utopia, the biometric identifiers are not only stored on your passport, but also in centralized databases. They aren't only used to tie you to your passport, but they are also used to retrieve possibly matching identities from those centralized databases.
Before launching into your knee jerk anti-Bush tirade did you happen to notice that the story is about the UK? Socialists need to be able to ID the subjects just like all statist governments.
You mean when I walk back into Wal-Mart they'll be able to tell that I bought my jeans there on a previous visit? How do you imagine that this information being "dropped into their hands" will be useful?
My biggest concern is the RFID now embedded in cash. The new US 20$ dollar bills have an RFID chip in them (located in Jackson's eye)
Congratulations! If that was your biggest concern you can now get on to worrying about your second biggest concern. There are no RFID tags in US currency.
Slashdot Mirror
How do we know that the software that was publicly audited is what's on the machine? Even if the code is clean, and we watch it being compiled, how do we know that the compiler or the microcode wasn't trojaned?
It's perfectly reasonable to speculate on what a court will or should do when you have all the relevant facts. That's what most lawyers do for a living. It's silly to speculate when all you have is the information given here.
For this to work it has to be implemented on the server. That means that SBC, Roadrunner, MSN, et al, would have to maintain individual whitelists on their servers for every single one of their users and give the user some way to modify them.
(*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(*) Asshats
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
(*) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(*) Whitelists suck
And worst of all:
Spammers aren't the only ones who send out tens of thousands of messages every day. What about AOL, MSN, Yahoo!, all the other big ISP's, and don't forget every big company in the world. So you either have to get all those users to switch to a MUA that will print stamps, or the SPs will have to upgrade their servers to do it. Or do you plan to white list them all?
How do you know that the software being hashed is actually the software being run when you vote? Are you going to open up the box and inspect each compenent as well? You can't trust someone else's system, and there's no way to make it trustworthy. The priamry golas of evoting are instantaneous tabulation, and the posibility of remote voting. There's probably no way to do it securely other than using the machines to fill out a paper ballot, but that doesn't achieve the goals of evoting.
Kerry voted for the PATRIOT act, so clearly you cannot vote for him either.
According to the article the settlement state that, "Titles had to be on a Billboard chart for at least 26 weeks and had to peak in the top half of the chart." I can't think of many CD's fitting that description that aren't crapola.
And if you actually look at the Microsoft patent, you will see that they reference the IBM work as well as the DoCoMo patent. I suspect that if they thought these patents invalidated their application they would have realized it by now. At the very least, the patent examiner would have looked at the refereced patent and determinined they are suficiently different.
The point is that you can only change the channel (assuming OTA broadcasts) a finite number of times before you run out of channels. Since the licensees are using up a certain amount of my and your scarce resource they need to be accountable to me and you. The FCC is acting as our agent, and if you aren't happy with how they are acting on your behalf, you should tell them so.
You have a tragedy of the commons problem with content as well. The radio spectrum is a scarce public resource and one of the requirements for licensees is that they provide programing in the public interest and they abide by community standards.
Sorry, but you are misinformed. The I in RAID does in fact stand for inexpensive, since when RAID was created the alternative was a Single Large Expensive Disk (SLED). That fact that this alternative is now obsolete and the I has been co-opted to mean independant so that folks like you would get its meaning doesn't change the history. But then again, you probably think that the V in DVD stands for video
Customers not using it == Banks not saving money by deploying it
Who cares? Your liability if someone steals your CC number is pratically zero. The CC companies have calculated that further increases in security at this point would not decrease their liability enough to be a financial benefit. Remember that information security is just about managing risks. It doesn't make sense to spend more money mitigating a risk than you stand to lose.
So you just threaten to kill his children.
While that page may prove[1] that MSN tweaked the pages they sent to Opera browsers it's a long way from proving that MSN committed some actionable tort and that they owe Opera damages.
[1]According to some standard of proof. It's not clear that what the Opera team considers evidence would even be admissible in court.
The smallest interface you can get on these is an OC-48. That's approx. 48 T3's.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this: the EU is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires it in order to permit visa-free travel to the US.
The EU implementing biometrics because they want visa free travel is very different than doing it because the US is forcing them.
Too bad ignorant fools like you don't believe in democracy and instead cling to idiotic notions that waving a bunch of shotguns around is going to stop a totalitarian government. Afghans and Iraqis had plenty of guns and it didn't help them against government oppression.
I wonder what it was that freed those poor Iraqis and Afghans from those regimes.... Oh yeah, lots of guns.
The vulnerability in LEAP was that if your chose a trivial password it was easily guessed. It wasn't a software bug, it was a wetware bug.
Have you actually looked at CSA, or are you just talking out of your ass?
Dig a little deeper: the UK is implementing biometric identifiers now because the US requires Europe to do this. Otherwise, Europeans wouldn't be doing this, at least not yet.
Damn. I keep forgetting that we conquered Europe a little while ago. Perhaps you are confusing the US with the EU?
And yes, a totalitarian government is an example of statism. Of course our Constitution prevents that happening in the US. Too bad you whiny neo-coms don't believe in the 2nd Amendment!
Well, in the Bush/Ashcroft 1984 utopia, the biometric identifiers are not only stored on your passport, but also in centralized databases. They aren't only used to tie you to your passport, but they are also used to retrieve possibly matching identities from those centralized databases.
Before launching into your knee jerk anti-Bush tirade did you happen to notice that the story is about the UK? Socialists need to be able to ID the subjects just like all statist governments.
You mean when I walk back into Wal-Mart they'll be able to tell that I bought my jeans there on a previous visit? How do you imagine that this information being "dropped into their hands" will be useful?
My biggest concern is the RFID now embedded in cash. The new US 20$ dollar bills have an RFID chip in them (located in Jackson's eye)
Congratulations! If that was your biggest concern you can now get on to worrying about your second biggest concern. There are no RFID tags in US currency.