There is a very important difference between voting and ATM transactions. With ATMs the system is designed to track the transaction for every step of the way, with a full and very robust audit trail and a reasonable level of security. Voting on the other hand, while it too has to be secure and auditable, it must also be anonymous -- and that's the stickler. ATM networks are not a good model for electronic voting for that fundamental reason. ATM networks show transaction paths from end user initiation-of-business start to final-tallying finish.
It is hopefully clear to most people why one would never want a system that provides a voting receipt that shows how a voting ticket was filled out, as some have suggested. Hint, think how that would facilitate vote purchasing and/or voter intimidation...
The SHARE, SHADE and MADE programs funded research into geographically distributed, e.g. Internet mediated, knowledge capture, design collaboration services. At the beginning of 1994 the MADEFAST experiment was initiated as a test showing that of all of the research worked. MADEFAST was "an exercise in geographically distributed design and prototyping conducted by members of the ARPA MADE research community." There is an ACM paper that was written about it. I worked on MADEFAST--it was my first paid RA'ship in grad school at Stanford. Madefast.org is no more but an archive of that website is here.
I also worked on the short documentary that was filmed during the course of the project and which was shown ultimately to a Congressional committee, IIRC.
Maybe someone somewhere will find the existence of this old research and its public publications of use...
Here are my comments, which are being submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office:
The U.S. Copyright Office should not be used as an substitute yet uber-patent office. By adding any sort trivial addition to a mechanical device to lay a DMCA claim, one can create in effect a de facto patent protection of a commercial device, but with a much longer or unlimited term, and with a free ride of enforcement by the U.S. Government. This
is clearly not what Copyrights are intended to protect.
Imagine an automotive company wishes to force people to purchase only tires manufactured by themselves. They first attempt to force consumer choice by patenting the idea of round tires, but the US Patent Office rules (correctly) that their design has not unique and denies the application. All the MBA's in upper management are crushed.
"Fear not," their lawyers cry, "we'll get something better...we'll get you protection -- and not for a patent's measly 20 years. No we'll give you 120 years of protection...AND the U.S. Government will investigate violations and enforce this 'uber-patent' for you."
"But How?" cry the hopeful executives grateful disbelief.
"By adding a dime's worth of electronic tagging on the tire--we'll call it a Quality Verification Tag that says the tire is an 'original and not remanufacturered' and have the car check for that before it starts."
"But won't our better priced competitors just put the same dime's worth magic in their tires and we'll be back where we started?" wails a VP from under the table of the conference room where they've all gathered.
"No, because we'll say their tires infringe on our..."
"But the car's owner...isn't he already the, um, owner of the car and can do what he wants with his property?" worries the CEO aloud. "Isn't he allowed to buy from the competition? Won't we have to forced him to signed a service contract or something that say he must make all future purchases from us."
For those concerned that 120 years isn't long enough, a company needs only every 119 years just to change the "Quality Verification Tag" and get a whole new Copyright to fend off any and all competition -- for literally until the end of time (or at least the end of the DMCA)." Disney's aspirations ain't go nothin' on Lexmark.
Those who help create the U.S. Constitution wrote in Article I, section 8,
"Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..." [Note: though already clear, emphasis added]
They are surely sitting up in their grave over this end run of authority, their spinning heads give out an incredulous cry of "Whaaaaaaa?"
>It also only covers spammers who have their equipment located in California.
You've got that switched around a bit. The law applies if the mail server that a spam is passing to or through is in California. Thus Hotmail and Yahoo's servers, both located in California, are covered. Plus any ISP whose CA based equipment is used by a spammer to SEND spam is also covered.
The change you'll see is when spammers realize they risk spending jail time for any of their spams sent since Jan. 1, 1999. Now misdemeanor sentences add consecutively, not concurrently, with a max of 6 months per violation. I'd settle for seeing a sentence of a only minute per count be given out, with the number of messages that even a small spammer sends out. Crazy long time you say, that will never happen? California with its three strikes law will and has already sentenced people away for life (at $40k/year cost to taxpayers) for shoplifting a single $7 bottle of shampoo.
Slashdot Mirror
It is hopefully clear to most people why one would never want a system that provides a voting receipt that shows how a voting ticket was filled out, as some have suggested. Hint, think how that would facilitate vote purchasing and/or voter intimidation...
I also worked on the short documentary that was filmed during the course of the project and which was shown ultimately to a Congressional committee, IIRC.
Maybe someone somewhere will find the existence of this old research and its public publications of use...
The U.S. Copyright Office should not be used as an substitute yet uber-patent office. By adding any sort trivial addition to a mechanical device to lay a DMCA claim, one can create in effect a de facto patent protection of a commercial device, but with a much longer or unlimited term, and with a free ride of enforcement by the U.S. Government. This is clearly not what Copyrights are intended to protect.
Imagine an automotive company wishes to force people to purchase only tires manufactured by themselves. They first attempt to force consumer choice by patenting the idea of round tires, but the US Patent Office rules (correctly) that their design has not unique and denies the application. All the MBA's in upper management are crushed.
"Fear not," their lawyers cry, "we'll get something better...we'll get you protection -- and not for a patent's measly 20 years. No we'll give you 120 years of protection...AND the U.S. Government will investigate violations and enforce this 'uber-patent' for you."
"By adding a dime's worth of electronic tagging on the tire--we'll call it a Quality Verification Tag that says the tire is an 'original and not remanufacturered' and have the car check for that before it starts." "No, because we'll say their tires infringe on our..." "No--and here's the trick--it infringes on our Copyrights, unjustly defeating our 'technological controls, thereby allowing unauthorized access' to the car." "Not with the DMCA. Fear not about competition or the previously notions of an unrestrained free market." assures the now quite confident counsel, "It's nice as 'general principle' but," he says as he smiles "public policy certainly does not support copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA in the name of competition...."--
For those concerned that 120 years isn't long enough, a company needs only every 119 years just to change the "Quality Verification Tag" and get a whole new Copyright to fend off any and all competition -- for literally until the end of time (or at least the end of the DMCA)." Disney's aspirations ain't go nothin' on Lexmark.
Those who help create the U.S. Constitution wrote in Article I, section 8,
They are surely sitting up in their grave over this end run of authority, their spinning heads give out an incredulous cry of "Whaaaaaaa?"You've got that switched around a bit. The law applies if the mail server that a spam is passing to or through is in California. Thus Hotmail and Yahoo's servers, both located in California, are covered. Plus any ISP whose CA based equipment is used by a spammer to SEND spam is also covered.
The change you'll see is when spammers realize they risk spending jail time for any of their spams sent since Jan. 1, 1999. Now misdemeanor sentences add consecutively, not concurrently, with a max of 6 months per violation. I'd settle for seeing a sentence of a only minute per count be given out, with the number of messages that even a small spammer sends out. Crazy long time you say, that will never happen? California with its three strikes law will and has already sentenced people away for life (at $40k/year cost to taxpayers) for shoplifting a single $7 bottle of shampoo.