" Your system allows the trivial creation of vast numbers of fake votes using simple random numbers for IDs."
How do you put those fake IDs into the voter database? You can download the vote file. Not upload it.
Want to upload it surreptitiously? The encryption ensures that random numbers can't be inserted. The vote counter has a decryption key that assures that a random number generator did not make up the voter ID. Those asymmetrical RSA encryption algorithms are tricky to fool.
Maybe you didn't see the implied assumption, which was that the current system was not corrupted by having fake names? Given a list of real voters and addresses, it is a trivial procedure to produce encrypted voter IDs that are not "fake". You are discussing a practical problem that insults paper ballots. I understand "dead" voters are also a problem. However those problems are solved for paper ballots will indicate a solution for this system.
"What's more likely to happen is Joe Candidate sends his thugs out to your house demanding your password and username so they can see you voted the right way. Or, as I said, simply create thousands of fake voters for you to waste your time trying to validate."
I actually do not think that violence is a practical suggestion. Those thugs would more likely end up getting shot.
I can see vote buying as a problem. Some people might sell their ID/password for $cash. Well that is also a problem we have now with paper voting. Politicians seem to compete to see who can give away the most taxpayer money for health, town halls etc to purchase votes.
What I would actually like to see a system like this do is manage direct democracy. Like the Swiss and Californians and a few others have. Not just to use every four years or whenever to elect a president or whatever.
Thank you for your criticism. For the obvious reasons.
Thank you for the criticism. I would like to see direct government where citizens can reverse political decisions with a trustworthy online voting system.
So lets think this through.
"It also allows the creation of large numbers of fake votes with random ids. Or one person who is registered ten times in ten different precincts to vote ten times without fear of detection."
Suppose there are 100,000 on the electoral roll for a particular federal district. Those 100,000 names are available, and addresses and citizenship can be confirmed.
So there should be 100,000 encrypted names on the votes computer's read only output. Some will have voted..Some won't. But both can be counted. Anything over (or under) 100,000 names would set alarm bells going. So we can't have fake voters, or "lost" voters.
There should be no random IDs. (A voter has to have either a birth certificate or an immigration/citizenship certificate) And the encryption system should only recognizes one person nationwide (at least I think it does in Oz). If a voter moves, then he would tell his account that he has moved, and the account would move his name on the open roll to the new precinct. His vote choices would then be drawn from the new precinct and his votes will apply to the new precinct.
And if somebody evil did manage to (say) fraudulently change a voter's vote, that voter (whose vote was changed) would know when he looked at the record that somebody had fraudulently changed his vote. Because the person who supposedly cast the vote can check his vote. And a timewise record of his changing vote (ie at time of counting) would be available to verify the vote. Because the voting account, like a bank account, keeps a timewise record of the voter's votes.
Also since each download of the encrypted names and votes is double encrypted with the date, it would prove difficult to track a name because the voter moved precinct.
The secret is to keep lots of data, so any fraudulent changes can be backtracked and the problem rectified.
I think I have covered most of the possibilities. Perhaps we should ask the NSA for a system? Isn't that what they do?
Civilizations follow patterns. China and India have most often been the "invadee". The Greco-Roman-Euro-US and the Persian and the Turkic (and sometimes the Egyptian) cultures have frequently been invaders.
So no, I think the old Persian culture still lurks in Iran, and given the right conditions, this once great nation could again be an aggressor.
I can almost sympathize! The money spent getting all these treaties and legislation enacted would have bought a Porsche in SF or maybe Riviera house, or maybe even an apartment for when they are next in Paris, France.
Buying all those pollies must be costing them a shitload of money. And I am not sure (on a technical level) whether they are blocking it at dns level or tcp/ip level. And even if they get them both, stopping the Onion (Tor) would be a much harder problem.
I suspect that they will develop such negative Karma that customer preferences will go to "liscence free" product.
Going back to point 1. The Germans are, of course, devolved Anglosphere. 2&3 Lets leave it as a grey area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derryn_Hinch#Sexual_Relationship_With_Underage_Girl This radio commenter was jailed for (ultimately) the "hate crime" of publicly identifying a pederast. 4. In some cultures (Aboriginal Australian, even 50 years ago) children under 6 or so ran around in public, naked. Look in National Geographic a few decades ago. Finding something to be "pornographic" is largely cultural. (OTOH Finding something to be sexually arousing is personal and partly cultural.) No violence whatsoever. Free speech is publishing images & words. 5. This is the reverse Jailed for free speech about Muslim beliefs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets
Your criticism of evidence is fair. In defense, I usually note things in passing, and forget details, so cannot substantiate anti-muslim activity jailings.
points 1. Not crime to deny holocaust in Anglosphere. conceded. 2 & 3. Rather a fine legal point there between inciting "hate" and "violence". Not conceded. 4. That is a cultural question. Not conceded. 5. Good lawyers in the US can cite (is it the first?) amendment. But In my country (AU) you better have the capacity to fight. Partly conceded. 6. But what is HS doing closing down wikileaks and copyright websites? And don't people get into trouble at airports? Reckon it's happening but we don't get to hear of it. not conceded.
So fines (that can lead to incarceration) can and does happen without violence in 2, 3, 4, 5 (AU) and 6.
In childrearing, my philosophy was let them do anything they wanted, with the limitation that "only so long as it is not too much trouble to keep a watch that they don't kill themselves" (or someone else).
" Is there no line that can be crossed between holding an opinion and seeking harm to others?" I think the line is the infringement of the other's liberty.
From "The Rights of Man" 1789. Article IV "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."
As for enforcement. I do not think there is such thing as "a right to privacy in public space".
To control violence I would have all public space under continuous (webcam) observation with facial recognition and AI watching for any developing situation.
Your generalizations about Electric v IC engines are inaccurate. For instance the torque capacity of the two most common electric motor types (induction v synchronous) vary more from each other than does either from an otto cycle.
Its beyond my pay grade to design a device that turns the diminishing voltage energy from a capacitor to constant voltage energy (if that is what is needed). But theoretically energy, (watts) not voltage is the issue. So a capacitor is a battery in that both store energy.
OTOH I have thought of a beaut motor that doesnt care what thge voltage is.
Without copyright, lots of copying would occur, but it would actually HELP the artist/creator. The big corporates would vanish.
Think about it. Somebody (maybe Rupert Murdoch) copies a story and puts it on his masthead alongside some advertising. If it was a good article I would look for the writer's website and go there direct. Then he gets the advertising!!
Some artists are already doing this. I read the free online web comics Girl Genius online, smbc, xkcd, Questionable Content. Those guys make a good living from advertising.
Same applies to downloadable music and EVERYTHING ELSE that is copyrightable.
All the people trying to preserve copyright are shills for the big corporates.
"How will the content creators make money? Advertising?"
Depends on the art form. 1. Movies. Ticket prices at theatres. Advertising within the movie. 2. Journalists/cartoonists. Advertising. e.g. XKCD. 3. Painters. They should make enough from the originals.
Just try to do what somebody in power defines as: 1. Deny the holocaust, 2. Incite homophobia. 3. Incite racial hatred. 4. Display child pornography (where in some places e.g. Italy the "child" can mean a 17 years old). 5. Denigrate the Moslem religion. 6. Suggest that Homeland Security has been given too much power.
And in all those cases, truth or consent is NOT a defence!
And you will find yourself in jail, not just banned from posting for a month.
Not in one step. First we halve the time to termination of copyright on all new and existing copyright material. If after a year that wasn't too traumatic, halve it again. And so on.
I'm pretty sure artists will keep producing. Movies will still be made. (there does not seem to be a high correlation between cost and financial success in the movie business. And anyhow, a large part of profits seems to come from theatre showings).
Slashdot Mirror
and superpacs. Mostly superpacs.
" Your system allows the trivial creation of vast numbers of fake votes using simple random numbers for IDs."
How do you put those fake IDs into the voter database? You can download the vote file. Not upload it.
Want to upload it surreptitiously? The encryption ensures that random numbers can't be inserted. The vote counter has a decryption key that assures that a random number generator did not make up the voter ID. Those asymmetrical RSA encryption algorithms are tricky to fool.
Maybe you didn't see the implied assumption, which was that the current system was not corrupted by having fake names? Given a list of real voters and addresses, it is a trivial procedure to produce encrypted voter IDs that are not "fake". You are discussing a practical problem that insults paper ballots. I understand "dead" voters are also a problem. However those problems are solved for paper ballots will indicate a solution for this system.
"What's more likely to happen is Joe Candidate sends his thugs out to your house demanding your password and username so they can see you voted the right way. Or, as I said, simply create thousands of fake voters for you to waste your time trying to validate."
I actually do not think that violence is a practical suggestion. Those thugs would more likely end up getting shot.
I can see vote buying as a problem. Some people might sell their ID/password for $cash. Well that is also a problem we have now with paper voting. Politicians seem to compete to see who can give away the most taxpayer money for health, town halls etc to purchase votes.
What I would actually like to see a system like this do is manage direct democracy. Like the Swiss and Californians and a few others have. Not just to use every four years or whenever to elect a president or whatever.
Thank you for your criticism. For the obvious reasons.
Thank you for the criticism. I would like to see direct government where citizens can reverse political decisions with a trustworthy online voting system.
So lets think this through.
"It also allows the creation of large numbers of fake votes with random ids. Or one person who is registered ten times in ten different precincts to vote ten times without fear of detection."
Suppose there are 100,000 on the electoral roll for a particular federal district. Those 100,000 names are available, and addresses and citizenship can be confirmed.
So there should be 100,000 encrypted names on the votes computer's read only output. Some will have voted. .Some won't. But both can be counted. Anything over (or under) 100,000 names would set alarm bells going. So we can't have fake voters, or "lost" voters.
There should be no random IDs. (A voter has to have either a birth certificate or an immigration/citizenship certificate) And the encryption system should only recognizes one person nationwide (at least I think it does in Oz). If a voter moves, then he would tell his account that he has moved, and the account would move his name on the open roll to the new precinct. His vote choices would then be drawn from the new precinct and his votes will apply to the new precinct.
And if somebody evil did manage to (say) fraudulently change a voter's vote, that voter (whose vote was changed) would know when he looked at the record that somebody had fraudulently changed his vote. Because the person who supposedly cast the vote can check his vote. And a timewise record of his changing vote (ie at time of counting) would be available to verify the vote. Because the voting account, like a bank account, keeps a timewise record of the voter's votes.
Also since each download of the encrypted names and votes is double encrypted with the date, it would prove difficult to track a name because the voter moved precinct.
The secret is to keep lots of data, so any fraudulent changes can be backtracked and the problem rectified.
I think I have covered most of the possibilities. Perhaps we should ask the NSA for a system? Isn't that what they do?
Civilizations follow patterns. China and India have most often been the "invadee". The Greco-Roman-Euro-US and the Persian and the Turkic (and sometimes the Egyptian) cultures have frequently been invaders.
So no, I think the old Persian culture still lurks in Iran, and given the right conditions, this once great nation could again be an aggressor.
I can almost sympathize! The money spent getting all these treaties and legislation enacted would have bought a Porsche in SF or maybe Riviera house, or maybe even an apartment for when they are next in Paris, France.
Buying all those pollies must be costing them a shitload of money. And I am not sure (on a technical level) whether they are blocking it at dns level or tcp/ip level. And even if they get them both, stopping the Onion (Tor) would be a much harder problem.
I suspect that they will develop such negative Karma that customer preferences will go to "liscence free" product.
Um, would you like to buy an ap that blocks that software?
Very cheap Only $1 per month.
(Until Intel offers me more:)
Here is the cite from "The Australian". http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/judge-wants-data-on-wealth-before-he-rules-on-apple/story-e6frgakx-1226389535095
A reviewer judge has called for info on how much investment Apple has in Oz also how many ppl were affected.
The first "petitio principii" is "coito ergo sum" (apologies to Descartes).
The second is "libertatum super omnes".
And "libertatum" as in article 4 of "the rights of man"
http://www.barvennon.com/~liberty/Declaration_of_rights_of_man.html
If somebody's words do you injury, then the right place to seek restitution is before a jury of peers. Not in legislation.
False analogy = true.
"Inciting to harm" should not be a crime. Doing harm is the crime.
It is the difference between assault and battery.
Thank you for that correction.
No copyright = no GPL.
"Inciting to harm" should not be a crime. Doing harm is the crime.
It's like the difference between "assault" and "battery".
With assault, you are not harmed. At the limit, you feel threatened with harm.
With battery, there are bruises.
Thank you. The insult was deserved.
Going back to point 1. The Germans are, of course, devolved Anglosphere.
2&3 Lets leave it as a grey area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derryn_Hinch#Sexual_Relationship_With_Underage_Girl This radio commenter was jailed for (ultimately) the "hate crime" of publicly identifying a pederast.
4. In some cultures (Aboriginal Australian, even 50 years ago) children under 6 or so ran around in public, naked. Look in National Geographic a few decades ago. Finding something to be "pornographic" is largely cultural. (OTOH Finding something to be sexually arousing is personal and partly cultural.) No violence whatsoever. Free speech is publishing images & words.
5. This is the reverse Jailed for free speech about Muslim beliefs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets
Your criticism of evidence is fair. In defense, I usually note things in passing, and forget details, so cannot substantiate anti-muslim activity jailings.
points
1. Not crime to deny holocaust in Anglosphere. conceded.
2 & 3. Rather a fine legal point there between inciting "hate" and "violence". Not conceded.
4. That is a cultural question. Not conceded.
5. Good lawyers in the US can cite (is it the first?) amendment. But In my country (AU) you better have the capacity to fight. Partly conceded.
6. But what is HS doing closing down wikileaks and copyright websites? And don't people get into trouble at airports? Reckon it's happening but we don't get to hear of it. not conceded.
So fines (that can lead to incarceration) can and does happen without violence in 2, 3, 4, 5 (AU) and 6.
I would mod you up to 5.
In childrearing, my philosophy was let them do anything they wanted, with the limitation that "only so long as it is not too much trouble to keep a watch that they don't kill themselves" (or someone else).
" Is there no line that can be crossed between holding an opinion and seeking harm to others?" I think the line is the infringement of the other's liberty.
From "The Rights of Man" 1789. Article IV "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."
As for enforcement. I do not think there is such thing as "a right to privacy in public space".
To control violence I would have all public space under continuous (webcam) observation with facial recognition and AI watching for any developing situation.
Your generalizations about Electric v IC engines are inaccurate. For instance the torque capacity of the two most common electric motor types (induction v synchronous) vary more from each other than does either from an otto cycle.
Both capacitors and batteries store electric energy. One important difference is the power discharge/recharge rate. Another is the energy density (J/Kg). Batteries are about twice as good as capacitors. At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_density_in_energy_storage_and_in_fuel
Its beyond my pay grade to design a device that turns the diminishing voltage energy from a capacitor to constant voltage energy (if that is what is needed). But theoretically energy, (watts) not voltage is the issue. So a capacitor is a battery in that both store energy.
OTOH I have thought of a beaut motor that doesnt care what thge voltage is.
Huh??
Without copyright, lots of copying would occur, but it would actually HELP the artist/creator. The big corporates would vanish.
Think about it. Somebody (maybe Rupert Murdoch) copies a story and puts it on his masthead alongside some advertising. If it was a good article I would look for the writer's website and go there direct. Then he gets the advertising!!
Some artists are already doing this. I read the free online web comics Girl Genius online, smbc, xkcd, Questionable Content. Those guys make a good living from advertising.
Same applies to downloadable music and EVERYTHING ELSE that is copyrightable.
All the people trying to preserve copyright are shills for the big corporates.
I suspect the big publishers would be out of business.
"How will the content creators make money? Advertising?"
Depends on the art form.
1. Movies. Ticket prices at theatres. Advertising within the movie.
2. Journalists/cartoonists. Advertising. e.g. XKCD.
3. Painters. They should make enough from the originals.
etc.
Just try to do what somebody in power defines as:
1. Deny the holocaust,
2. Incite homophobia.
3. Incite racial hatred.
4. Display child pornography (where in some places e.g. Italy the "child" can mean a 17 years old).
5. Denigrate the Moslem religion.
6. Suggest that Homeland Security has been given too much power.
And in all those cases, truth or consent is NOT a defence!
And you will find yourself in jail, not just banned from posting for a month.
That is inhuman. So a gift of $100 actually costs me $100 instead of $50 odd dollars?
Not in one step. First we halve the time to termination of copyright on all new and existing copyright material. If after a year that wasn't too traumatic, halve it again. And so on.
I'm pretty sure artists will keep producing. Movies will still be made. (there does not seem to be a high correlation between cost and financial success in the movie business. And anyhow, a large part of profits seems to come from theatre showings).