There is a potential difference between not-promotion, and censoring. There is definitely an expressed desire among some to censor, ban, block objectionable content like videos promoting pizzagate and other nonsense. I think that is insane.
But refusing to promote some content, that is a potentially different story, depending on how it is done.
The reason why they don't have an audio jack on the new iPad Pros is because it would intrude on the space taken up by the screen because there are almost no bezels—they've decided that aesthetic of small bezels is more important than the headphone jack.
No: in fact, it would be easier to place it on the new iPad Pro, because of the flat edges. There is more than enough room in the device for an audio jack. It has absolutely nothing to do with space.
But yes, it absolutely does have to do with the fact that Bluetooth headphones are becoming ubiquitous.
You’re probably right. Yes, it means you cannot do a “hard reset” and plug it into a computer to fix it, etc. But almost all people never do that anyway. The rest of my family only ever plugs their phones in for charging or headphones. Any emergencies, take it into Apple for servicing, I guess.
That's really not how it works. We’ve seen it before, when iPhones went from the “Dock connector” to Lightning. When Macs went to Firewire, and then to Thunderbolt. They will not have two ports.
And I never said USB-C will “get better.” My point is that it will be a better business decision later. When? Well, since the premise I offered is that people have Lightning already, and not USB-C and since it is well-understood that more people are getting more USB-C devices every year then clearly, over time, the cost for individuals to go to a USB-C phone will decrease over time, since they are more likely to have other USB-C devices over time.
I have a USB-C-to-Lightning cable. No adapter required.
In fact, I have more of those cables, than I have USB-C-to-USB-C cables. I have a bunch of USB-A-to-USB-C, but one USB-C-to-USB-C (not including my MacBook Pro power cables).
It is worth noting that Apple has many devices with USB-C.
My MacBook Pro has *only* USB-C. Newer Apple TVs (last two or three gens) have only USB-C (in addition to HDMI and power). The new iPad Pro has only USB-C.
Apple isn’t anti-USB-C. But their existing customers are mostly longtime customers who have lots of cables and chargers, and do not want to be forced to buy new stuff.
I wouldn't allow people to disclose their ballots (you still make it illegal to do so). Its simply a crime thats possible to commit, much like it is currently.
The process itself has to prevent it, else it is not a secret ballot. Yes, you can circumvent the processes today with cameraphones... but there are no processes to circumvent in your system. None exist.
There are a few tricks you can employ here, such as the ability to go through a process that looks exactly like casting a vote, but you use different credentials and the resulting ballot does not count, but no-one that does not know your secret (which you can't prove what it is) can tell which will count.
Unless I am missing something, the coercing person can know your secret by coercing you to show them your secret when you receive it. I can force you to show me your secret when you get it, just as I can force you to show me your ballot when you fill it out.
And again, if the system is not brain-dead simple to use, it doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't help me, as someone being coerced, that I can have a way to work around the coercion if I don't know what it is or how to use it.
Does that mean the state is required to enforce that successfully (make violating it impossible), or does it mean it suppose to make some token effort (unenforceable laws).
It's debatable perhaps, but what it must mean at a minimum is that a system that by design does not even attempt to secure any secrecy in preparation or despositing the ballot (such as mail-in voting, and yours) falls clearly short of the legislature's constitutional obligation.
to be clear I'm not seriously advocating using my setup (maybe its an improvement, but its not great for the use case of our existing elections.)
Oh yes, I understand. I am just helping give some context, since "the secret ballot" is so widely misunderstood.
MacDork: my goal is less to preserve the secret ballot than to point out the fact that we've lost the secret ballot. There's massive value in it, and we lost it without most people even realizing it. In my state, it is literally gone: WA has all-mail voting, even though our constitution requires "absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing" our ballots. And there was no debate or discussion about the fact that it clearly violated the constitution.
If we want to live with no secret ballot, fine, but we should understand what it is we're doing.
Also, I disagree with your conception of flash votes: I think recalls should be rare and deliberate and not taken in the heat of a moment. The idea that we can recall people on a whim undermines the point of representative government, which is not that we just elect people to think and act and vote on our behalf, but that we elect people for their judgment, and this would make representatives essentially beholden to polls, instead of exercising their judgment. The problem of officials violating our laws can be dealt with through more access to recalls and so on, perhaps, but without allowing this kind of immediate recall.
It is a secret ballot, it just has some flaws. As long as they (anyone but you) are not suppose to know how you vote, its a secret ballot.
You are incorrect. The point of the secret ballot is not only to allow you to vote without any person knowing how you voted, but to compel you to vote secretly, and thus prevent bribery, coercion, and other evils. That is what a secret ballot means. That is why it is illegal in many states to take a photo of your ballot or show it to anyone else or let anyone else with you in the polling booth.
My system allows a voter to know with confidence no one can know how they voted unless they disclose it themselves.
Exactly. It is thus a system wide open to bribery and coercion, and it is thus not a secret ballot. It's not just about what you choose to disclose: if you are allowed to disclose it, it is not a secret ballot. Period, end of story.
There may be a solution, but until there is, it is not a secret ballot.
The only potential solution I can come up with is allowing repeat voting. So someone can see how you vote... and you can change it again later. Then coercion can be overcome by voting again later, and the value of bribery will decrease for similar reasons. But even then, as long as there is a deadline on voting, the third party could simply demand access at that last moment, so you have no opportunity to vote again. This could possibly be overcome with a way for the voter to select *which* cast ballot to actually count, but regardless, all of this would be a complicated system for the voter and therefore may not actually solve the problem for many voters, even if it could work in theory. That is, it's a useless solution to coercion that someone can vote again, if they don't know they can, or don't know how that works. It has to be a seamless solution or else it doesn't actually guard against coercion.
If I gave up on total audibility of the election by all voters with the ability for everyone to prove the election invalid if they were not counted without trusting the running of the servers, then I could improve the vote disclosure situation a lot (let people sell their votes vs. not have to trust the operates of the election). For now its a tradeoff, and I'm implementing the trustless one first.
How? As long as the circumstances of the act of preparing the ballot are not under your control -- so someone can vote from, essentially, anywhere -- you cannot protect against disclosure, unless you can allow someone to fool the observer as to whether it's actually the final vote (which would actually require some sense of auditability, in that you'd have to, at least up until the "deadline", attach a voter to his vote, so it could be replaced).
That said, its still not worse that whats used here in Washington State, which is supposedly a secret ballot
Actually, no. Out state -- I also live in Washington -- gave up on the secret ballot when it went to all-mail voting. (I personally vote at the county auditor's office, but for reasons other than this.)
For real robustness though, they need to search you for any recording devices (cameras mainly) which could enable you to provide proof of how you voted.
Yes, that is a problem: the secret ballot can be undermined at the polling place with technology almost everyone has in their pocket. But the secret ballot simply does not exist in your system at all, nor in WA's current system.
These kinds of things are a protection against vote buying (and other coercion) approaches.
And here's another problem: WA's constitution (Article IV, Section 6) requires "absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing" our ballots. The mail-in system already violates this, of course. Because who cares about constitutions anymore?
But since you are in WA, you should understand that even though the current system violates the state constitution, so does yours.
Isn't that something worth researching? Why can't there be a one-time-access key mailed to every registered voter?
You did not read my comment very well, because what you propose does not, in any way, deal with the issue I raised: if the system does not compel you to vote secretly, then it is not a secret ballot. Simply giving you a one-time key does absolutely nothing to compel you to vote secretly: you can still show your ballot to anyone you wish.
Surely we can't just say "It's impossible, so let's stop trying."
That is not what I said. I said I know of no way to do it. I welcome proposals that would, but any system that allows a voter to show his ballot to someone else during or after preparation of the ballot is definitionally not a secret ballot, and is still wide open to bribery and coercion. So you would need to find a way to enforce secrecy in the home. Maybe there's a way... but the burden isn't on me to demonstrate it.
Voting on your computer at home, or on your cellphone, or anything like it, means the elimination of the secret ballot.
The point of the secret ballot is not only to allow you to vote without any person knowing how you voted, but to compel you to vote secretly, and thus prevent bribery, coercion, and other evils.
But voting on your own device on your own time opens up for possibility all manner of coercion. This is probably where we're headed, and if you don't care about the issue, fine, but at least educate yourself about it first. I hope that's not too much to ask.
Slashdot Mirror
A true believer in ... what?
No, it is not related to capitalism. Many Marxists share the view I am espousing, in fact.
I think it is fine to ban extremely graphic content, including sex and violence, as you described.
I think it is not fine to ban ideas.
So yes, allow cult recruiting, mentally ill people posting, anorexia promotion. All of that. Yes. Absolutely.
There is a potential difference between not-promotion, and censoring. There is definitely an expressed desire among some to censor, ban, block objectionable content like videos promoting pizzagate and other nonsense. I think that is insane.
But refusing to promote some content, that is a potentially different story, depending on how it is done.
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
The reason why they don't have an audio jack on the new iPad Pros is because it would intrude on the space taken up by the screen because there are almost no bezels—they've decided that aesthetic of small bezels is more important than the headphone jack.
No: in fact, it would be easier to place it on the new iPad Pro, because of the flat edges. There is more than enough room in the device for an audio jack. It has absolutely nothing to do with space.
But yes, it absolutely does have to do with the fact that Bluetooth headphones are becoming ubiquitous.
Yes, they did remove it — in large part —to make it waterproof.
Yes, it could have been made waterproof with the port, at additional cost and complexity. That doesn't make it not a reason.
Nope. As time goes on, more people will have more USB-C cables and chargers, from other devices. The pain will *decrease* the longer they push it out.
That’s what I do. I use that cable all the time.
You’re probably right. Yes, it means you cannot do a “hard reset” and plug it into a computer to fix it, etc. But almost all people never do that anyway. The rest of my family only ever plugs their phones in for charging or headphones. Any emergencies, take it into Apple for servicing, I guess.
That's really not how it works. We’ve seen it before, when iPhones went from the “Dock connector” to Lightning. When Macs went to Firewire, and then to Thunderbolt. They will not have two ports.
And I never said USB-C will “get better.” My point is that it will be a better business decision later. When? Well, since the premise I offered is that people have Lightning already, and not USB-C and since it is well-understood that more people are getting more USB-C devices every year then clearly, over time, the cost for individuals to go to a USB-C phone will decrease over time, since they are more likely to have other USB-C devices over time.
It’s not really complicated.
And that audio port is more expensive and more prone to failure. Shrug.
I have a USB-C-to-Lightning cable. No adapter required.
In fact, I have more of those cables, than I have USB-C-to-USB-C cables. I have a bunch of USB-A-to-USB-C, but one USB-C-to-USB-C (not including my MacBook Pro power cables).
It is worth noting that Apple has many devices with USB-C.
My MacBook Pro has *only* USB-C. Newer Apple TVs (last two or three gens) have only USB-C (in addition to HDMI and power). The new iPad Pro has only USB-C.
Apple isn’t anti-USB-C. But their existing customers are mostly longtime customers who have lots of cables and chargers, and do not want to be forced to buy new stuff.
Nah. There are many Apple-certified inexpensive Lightning cables these days.
he's a potential new customer
False.
He's someone who, in large numbers, would change the market-share of the product
Changing to USB-C would not pull in large numbers of new customers, obviously.
They removed the audio port to make it waterproof.
Considering I have a total of ... zero Lightning cables and accessories, but a ton of standard USB-C?
Who cares? You’re not a customer.
Most customers want to keep the same connector, because they already have chargers and cables, and sometimes even accessories, for it.
USB-C is better in the long run, but that doesn't make it better now.
There are laws like that in some states now, as it is a violation of the law to photograph a ballot, or show it to someone else.
I wouldn't allow people to disclose their ballots (you still make it illegal to do so). Its simply a crime thats possible to commit, much like it is currently.
The process itself has to prevent it, else it is not a secret ballot. Yes, you can circumvent the processes today with cameraphones ... but there are no processes to circumvent in your system. None exist.
There are a few tricks you can employ here, such as the ability to go through a process that looks exactly like casting a vote, but you use different credentials and the resulting ballot does not count, but no-one that does not know your secret (which you can't prove what it is) can tell which will count.
Unless I am missing something, the coercing person can know your secret by coercing you to show them your secret when you receive it. I can force you to show me your secret when you get it, just as I can force you to show me your ballot when you fill it out.
And again, if the system is not brain-dead simple to use, it doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't help me, as someone being coerced, that I can have a way to work around the coercion if I don't know what it is or how to use it.
Does that mean the state is required to enforce that successfully (make violating it impossible), or does it mean it suppose to make some token effort (unenforceable laws).
It's debatable perhaps, but what it must mean at a minimum is that a system that by design does not even attempt to secure any secrecy in preparation or despositing the ballot (such as mail-in voting, and yours) falls clearly short of the legislature's constitutional obligation.
to be clear I'm not seriously advocating using my setup (maybe its an improvement, but its not great for the use case of our existing elections.)
Oh yes, I understand. I am just helping give some context, since "the secret ballot" is so widely misunderstood.
MacDork: my goal is less to preserve the secret ballot than to point out the fact that we've lost the secret ballot. There's massive value in it, and we lost it without most people even realizing it. In my state, it is literally gone: WA has all-mail voting, even though our constitution requires "absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing" our ballots. And there was no debate or discussion about the fact that it clearly violated the constitution.
If we want to live with no secret ballot, fine, but we should understand what it is we're doing.
Also, I disagree with your conception of flash votes: I think recalls should be rare and deliberate and not taken in the heat of a moment. The idea that we can recall people on a whim undermines the point of representative government, which is not that we just elect people to think and act and vote on our behalf, but that we elect people for their judgment, and this would make representatives essentially beholden to polls, instead of exercising their judgment. The problem of officials violating our laws can be dealt with through more access to recalls and so on, perhaps, but without allowing this kind of immediate recall.
It is a secret ballot, it just has some flaws. As long as they (anyone but you) are not suppose to know how you vote, its a secret ballot.
You are incorrect. The point of the secret ballot is not only to allow you to vote without any person knowing how you voted, but to compel you to vote secretly, and thus prevent bribery, coercion, and other evils. That is what a secret ballot means. That is why it is illegal in many states to take a photo of your ballot or show it to anyone else or let anyone else with you in the polling booth.
My system allows a voter to know with confidence no one can know how they voted unless they disclose it themselves.
Exactly. It is thus a system wide open to bribery and coercion, and it is thus not a secret ballot. It's not just about what you choose to disclose: if you are allowed to disclose it, it is not a secret ballot. Period, end of story.
There may be a solution, but until there is, it is not a secret ballot.
The only potential solution I can come up with is allowing repeat voting. So someone can see how you vote ... and you can change it again later. Then coercion can be overcome by voting again later, and the value of bribery will decrease for similar reasons. But even then, as long as there is a deadline on voting, the third party could simply demand access at that last moment, so you have no opportunity to vote again. This could possibly be overcome with a way for the voter to select *which* cast ballot to actually count, but regardless, all of this would be a complicated system for the voter and therefore may not actually solve the problem for many voters, even if it could work in theory. That is, it's a useless solution to coercion that someone can vote again, if they don't know they can, or don't know how that works. It has to be a seamless solution or else it doesn't actually guard against coercion.
If I gave up on total audibility of the election by all voters with the ability for everyone to prove the election invalid if they were not counted without trusting the running of the servers, then I could improve the vote disclosure situation a lot (let people sell their votes vs. not have to trust the operates of the election). For now its a tradeoff, and I'm implementing the trustless one first.
How? As long as the circumstances of the act of preparing the ballot are not under your control -- so someone can vote from, essentially, anywhere -- you cannot protect against disclosure, unless you can allow someone to fool the observer as to whether it's actually the final vote (which would actually require some sense of auditability, in that you'd have to, at least up until the "deadline", attach a voter to his vote, so it could be replaced).
That said, its still not worse that whats used here in Washington State, which is supposedly a secret ballot
Actually, no. Out state -- I also live in Washington -- gave up on the secret ballot when it went to all-mail voting. (I personally vote at the county auditor's office, but for reasons other than this.)
For real robustness though, they need to search you for any recording devices (cameras mainly) which could enable you to provide proof of how you voted.
Yes, that is a problem: the secret ballot can be undermined at the polling place with technology almost everyone has in their pocket. But the secret ballot simply does not exist in your system at all, nor in WA's current system.
These kinds of things are a protection against vote buying (and other coercion) approaches.
And here's another problem: WA's constitution (Article IV, Section 6) requires "absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing" our ballots. The mail-in system already violates this, of course. Because who cares about constitutions anymore?
But since you are in WA, you should understand that even though the current system violates the state constitution, so does yours.
Isn't that something worth researching? Why can't there be a one-time-access key mailed to every registered voter?
You did not read my comment very well, because what you propose does not, in any way, deal with the issue I raised: if the system does not compel you to vote secretly, then it is not a secret ballot. Simply giving you a one-time key does absolutely nothing to compel you to vote secretly: you can still show your ballot to anyone you wish.
Surely we can't just say "It's impossible, so let's stop trying."
That is not what I said. I said I know of no way to do it. I welcome proposals that would, but any system that allows a voter to show his ballot to someone else during or after preparation of the ballot is definitionally not a secret ballot, and is still wide open to bribery and coercion. So you would need to find a way to enforce secrecy in the home. Maybe there's a way ... but the burden isn't on me to demonstrate it.
Voting on your computer at home, or on your cellphone, or anything like it, means the elimination of the secret ballot.
The point of the secret ballot is not only to allow you to vote without any person knowing how you voted, but to compel you to vote secretly, and thus prevent bribery, coercion, and other evils.
That's not just me talking, that's The American and English encyclopædia of law, Volume 10, from 1899, page 585.
But voting on your own device on your own time opens up for possibility all manner of coercion. This is probably where we're headed, and if you don't care about the issue, fine, but at least educate yourself about it first. I hope that's not too much to ask.