Why would an abusive controlling husband allow their wife/prisoner out of the house to cast a vote in a regular paper election, when such a vote is not controllable?
My point is, that kind of extreme coercion will prevent one-person-one-vote whether or not we have new technology for voting, and the new technology if designed well might help a person vote secretly when they have an hour away from their prison guard.
It would be known that the election will take place sometime this month.
But there would be a series of randomly timed, short 15 minute windows, announced via voting app notification, during which you can cast your vote with your smartphone or computer (requires fingerprint and face scan and secret knowledge to authenticate).
So you have to be being shadowed all the time, so that the vote coercer can be sure to catch you when the voting opportunity comes up.
And an employee can surreptitiously video the vote corruption, and, if laws were set up effectively, get the company or union boss sent to jail for 10 years for tampering with a national/state election.
So first we have to achieve effective freedom from systematic oppression, then we can have Internet voting.
The first one sounds like a pretty good goal anyway. And I think we're a long way along that road in liberal democracies.
What are we, some kind of tin-pot dictatorship with goons running around corralling people? I haven't seen that in my town for a while.
This whole "you will be co-erced into voting on command" thing strikes me as treating the adult population as if we were all helpless children. I don't buy it.
Because it's not possible to bug a voting booth with a hidden micro-camera. Uh huh.
Let me give you this alternative to the ballot booth. Allow people a period of one month to cast their e-ballot. Someone wishing to peer over that person's shoulder then has to follow them around everywhere they go, or imprison them, for the month.
In the cases where that is happening (for example, extreme marital abuse, modern slavery etc) the subject person has a lot bigger problems than whether they got to vote or not, and if none of their friends, acquaintances, relatives, or social agencies can help them out of their prisoner-life, that is a very sad, and hopefully very exceptional case. But should the existence of such extreme corner cases, abhorrent as they are, stop the overwhelming majority of independent, competent adults from voting in a new manner that is likely to encourage far greater democratic participation?
What you're missing, I believe, is that the authentication is required at a certain time, and the anonymity is required at a different, later time. Thus the two can be achieved with a clever enough crypto protocol. The intervening time (casting the ballot: that is, marking the answers, and the transformation of the authenticated right to author those ballot answers into the anonymized record of the ballot answers) can be managed using a secure session.
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
Same goes for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust the concept of trusting a reputation based web of trust. We can't personally understand MOST of the technology that supports our modern lives.
which moves (encrypted) fragments of files around the world, ostensibly for performance and reliability reasons. So it would act like a content delivery network does with whole files. Except that this layer would be the default assumption for where you put data on the Internet. Data in the new paradigm has no home physical location. It only has identity, and access rights granted by possession of decryption keys. For data intended to be fully public, perhaps its metadata would be unencrypted in the layer, for searchability. But that would not imply a particular physical location for the data file payload itself. A search would result only in an identifier, which the layer infrastructure would locate an retrieve from multiple sources.
Data would automatically maintain sufficient worldwide distributed copies of itself, and the system would migrate (and cache) copies of data fragments closer to end-users of the data, based on speculative probabilistic co-access patterns. In other words, data would coalesce toward where it was needed, as an automagic feature of the distributed storage layer.
This kind of distributed encrypted storage layer thing (not owned by any single company of course, but rather both open/libre and partly peer-to-peer) needs to get implemented, and widely adopted so that it is a default assumption of how content on the Internet mostly works, BEFORE it is made substantially illegal by overreaching governments.
That's how to make the Internet remain borderless. Make it a fait accompli that is very hard to subvert technically without blocking nearly every ip address, which, if this is implemented right, could be a partial mirror of fragments of the content.
Yes. Not content to jump the shark, The Donald (otherwise known as the Insane Clown and his Posse) now insists on being jumped by a shark instead, because, in Soviet Russia, shark jumps you.
I don't get this. Most of the monetary value in the world doesn't exist as bills or gold.
It's just numbers created in bank accounts when bank loan out money that they don't actually have. They only have, what is it, 3%, 10% of it?
So if my method of money laundering is just moving and splitting this "virtual number money" around among a confusing number of accounts, then by this judge's logic that's not money laundering because, by her logic, mere numbers in accounts are not money?
Browser makers should just allow encryption plug-ins/extensions (just like they allow other extensions). That way the browser maker is not responsible for the encryption and has no backdoor to it.
And sooner or later, a sensible judge will throw the terms of such a "click here" agreement out in an important case, with a ruling that states "everybody knows that nobody reads that shit" therefore it's invalid because it was not effectively communicated. This is valid legal reasoning because the context is that people are bombarded by impractically large numbers of these things in their everyday use of internet services. It is reasonable to infer that people will routinely start ignoring the fine print.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of fine print, I'm hoping for the first ruling that says along the lines of "The biggest demographic; people over 50, can't read that shit. It's too small. Therefore it is invalid. Bam. Case closed."
The real risk inherent in genetically modified organisms involves the fact that genetic manipulation is becoming increasingly arbitrary, with new techniques that essentially allow building up of genomes or sections of them from human-designed or computer-designed combinations of the basic letters AGTC.
Thus it will become possible to create organisms that are almost arbitrarily different than existing organisms.
It is far from inconceivable that one of these substantially-artificial organisms could take over a large ecosystem niche from existing organisms, AND have a second, unanticipated and quite possibly negative effect.
I can't be more specific about the threat than that, and importantly, neither can the proponents of unleashing arbitrary GMOs into ecosystems. The risk probability may be very low, but the severity could be compensatingly extremely high, due to the self-replicating nature of the threat, and also the fact that until it happens, its negative effect would be an unknown unknown and would be almost impossible to mitigate rapidly enough.
The following, while it is a science fiction novel, illustrates plausible scenarios, given the near impossibility of controlling the spread of new arbitrary artificial pathogens:
Slashdot Mirror
Why would an abusive controlling husband allow their wife/prisoner out of the house to cast a vote in a regular paper election, when such a vote is not controllable?
My point is, that kind of extreme coercion will prevent one-person-one-vote whether or not we have new technology for voting, and the new technology if designed well might help a person vote secretly when they have an hour away from their prison guard.
Along with this, it should also be possible to vote again in a subsequent random one of the voting time windows.
Only one of your submitted ballots counts.
It is your first-submitted ballot that counts.
The other voting sessions look real to any observer, but do nothing.
It would be known that the election will take place sometime this month.
But there would be a series of randomly timed, short 15 minute windows, announced via voting app notification, during which you can cast your vote with your smartphone or computer (requires fingerprint and face scan and secret knowledge to authenticate).
So you have to be being shadowed all the time, so that the vote coercer can be sure to catch you when the voting opportunity comes up.
And an employee can surreptitiously video the vote corruption, and, if laws were set up effectively, get the company or union boss sent to jail for 10 years for tampering with a national/state election.
So first we have to achieve effective freedom from systematic oppression, then we can have Internet voting.
The first one sounds like a pretty good goal anyway. And I think we're a long way along that road in liberal democracies.
What are we, some kind of tin-pot dictatorship with goons running around corralling people? I haven't seen that in my town for a while.
This whole "you will be co-erced into voting on command" thing strikes me as treating the adult population as if we were all helpless children.
I don't buy it.
Because it's not possible to bug a voting booth with a hidden micro-camera. Uh huh.
Let me give you this alternative to the ballot booth. Allow people a period of one month to cast their e-ballot.
Someone wishing to peer over that person's shoulder then has to follow them around everywhere they go, or imprison them, for the month.
In the cases where that is happening (for example, extreme marital abuse, modern slavery etc) the subject person has a lot bigger problems than whether they got to vote or not, and if none of their friends, acquaintances, relatives, or social agencies can help them out of their prisoner-life, that is a very sad, and hopefully very exceptional case. But should the existence of such extreme corner cases, abhorrent as they are, stop the overwhelming majority of independent, competent adults from voting in a new manner that is likely to encourage far greater democratic participation?
What you're missing, I believe, is that the authentication is required at a certain time, and the anonymity is required at a different, later time. Thus the two can be achieved with a clever enough crypto protocol. The intervening time (casting the ballot: that is, marking the answers, and the transformation of the authenticated right to author those ballot answers into the anonymized record of the ballot answers) can be managed using a secure session.
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
Same goes for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to trust the concept of trusting a reputation based web of trust. We can't personally understand MOST of the technology that supports our modern lives.
are running the show.
Wasn't the Olympics supposed to be about the worldwide celebration of amateur sport?
That is, sport done for the love of it, not for money.
This is what anonymization services were invented for, people!
which moves (encrypted) fragments of files around the world, ostensibly for performance and reliability reasons.
So it would act like a content delivery network does with whole files.
Except that this layer would be the default assumption for where you put data on the Internet.
Data in the new paradigm has no home physical location. It only has identity, and access rights granted by possession of decryption keys.
For data intended to be fully public, perhaps its metadata would be unencrypted in the layer, for searchability. But that would not imply a particular physical location for the data file payload itself. A search would result only in an identifier, which the layer infrastructure would locate an retrieve from multiple sources.
Data would automatically maintain sufficient worldwide distributed copies of itself, and the system would migrate (and cache) copies of data fragments closer to end-users of the data, based on speculative probabilistic co-access patterns. In other words, data would coalesce toward where it was needed, as an automagic feature of the distributed storage layer.
This kind of distributed encrypted storage layer thing (not owned by any single company of course, but rather both open/libre and partly peer-to-peer) needs to get implemented, and widely adopted so that it is a default assumption of how content on the Internet mostly works, BEFORE it is made substantially illegal by overreaching governments.
That's how to make the Internet remain borderless. Make it a fait accompli that is very hard to subvert technically without blocking nearly every ip address, which, if this is implemented right, could be a partial mirror of fragments of the content.
Yes. Not content to jump the shark, The Donald (otherwise known as the Insane Clown and his Posse) now insists on being jumped by a shark instead, because, in Soviet Russia, shark jumps you.
Why. Were you planning on acting like a sexist douche at a conference and now you can't get away with it anymore?
Sounds like you need to cast a vote for the insane clown posse guy in November to vent a little of that hormonal rage.
Putin's spy buddies are having a great laugh about this.
Who would have thought it would be so easy to help the USA defeat itself.
I don't get this. Most of the monetary value in the world doesn't exist as bills or gold.
It's just numbers created in bank accounts when bank loan out money that they don't actually have. They only have, what is it, 3%, 10% of it?
So if my method of money laundering is just moving and splitting this "virtual number money" around among a confusing number of accounts, then by this judge's logic that's not money laundering because, by her logic, mere numbers in accounts are not money?
Really confused here.
Now that was definitely government overreach.
As long as I can find a shovel, there's no way they're gittin' ma hard-dug gold.
"China accidentally bans the declaration of new laws that have accidentally restrictive clauses."
"Machine that turns itself off!" ? (thus saving a lot of AI server power)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Woo hoo hoo. That is such a hilariously pathetic level of paranoid insecurity. That really made my day.
Seriously do we still have this level of middle ages paranoid national fervor? Lighten up and catch some monsters.
Browser makers should just allow encryption plug-ins/extensions (just like they allow other extensions).
That way the browser maker is not responsible for the encryption and has no backdoor to it.
And sooner or later, a sensible judge will throw the terms of such a "click here" agreement out in an important case, with a ruling that states "everybody knows that nobody reads that shit" therefore it's invalid because it was not effectively communicated. This is valid legal reasoning because the context is that people are bombarded by impractically large numbers of these things in their everyday use of internet services. It is reasonable to infer that people will routinely start ignoring the fine print.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of fine print, I'm hoping for the first ruling that says along the lines of "The biggest demographic; people over 50, can't read that shit. It's too small. Therefore it is invalid. Bam. Case closed."
I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On The Internet
The real risk inherent in genetically modified organisms involves the fact that genetic manipulation is becoming increasingly arbitrary, with new techniques that essentially allow building up of genomes or sections of them from human-designed or computer-designed combinations of the basic letters AGTC.
Thus it will become possible to create organisms that are almost arbitrarily different than existing organisms.
It is far from inconceivable that one of these substantially-artificial organisms could take over a large ecosystem niche from existing organisms, AND have a second, unanticipated and quite possibly negative effect.
I can't be more specific about the threat than that, and importantly, neither can the proponents of unleashing arbitrary GMOs into ecosystems.
The risk probability may be very low, but the severity could be compensatingly extremely high, due to the self-replicating nature of the threat, and also the fact that until it happens, its negative effect would be an unknown unknown and would be almost impossible to mitigate rapidly enough.
The following, while it is a science fiction novel, illustrates plausible scenarios, given the near impossibility of controlling the spread of new arbitrary artificial pathogens:
https://www.amazon.ca/Windup-G...
A bit is a bit is a bit (from the perspective of the dumb pipe network)
With possibly justifiable exceptions for packets known to be pure DDOS (i.e. entirely malicious, no beneficial purpose to end users).
https://www.facebook.com/photo...
http://www.xe.com/currencychar...
Sounds like that's what Europe got.
The laws I hate the most are those which claim (by their name) to protect something and are actually craftily written to do the exact opposite.
Another win for moneyed interests by lobbying.
There are many examples. This is one of them.
Open closures, interior decorators, and conditional consts. In protest I'm gong back to c++--