They provide a means of auditing the electronic system.
They provide a necessarily flawed means of auditing the system, in which case you might as well just not.
Doing the electronic thing properly implies that it's auditable! Preferably by any voter. That means paper audit trails.
It does NOT mean (necessitate) paper audit trails, and this goal is much more easily solved by a purely electronic system anyway. The flaws in paper audit trails put them light years behind electronic auditing methods.
You slashdotters have this incredible tendency to latch onto an idea without bothering to express concrete reasoning behind it. This is one of those times. You just never finish connecting the dots to explain why paper audit trails are needed.
They necessarily carry the same imprecision existant in all other paper voting systems; OCR and human counting is horribly less precise than purely electronic systems and normally less precise even than the margin of victory in a close race.
Do the electronic thing properly and then forget about the paper. Having people recounting the paper will do nothing but charge that the exact numbers are wrong because they disagree with flawed ones (at additional expense).
Everything in these system is 'virtual'. It makes it easier to loose, to replicate (to steal) or to alter information. I'm quite afraid about that.
No!
Everything is virtual, making it easier, cheaper, and more exact to duplicate, safeguard, recount, and reprocess the votes.
Additionally, because of these features it becomes MUCH more difficult to loose, alter, or corrupt the data.
Electronic voting, done properly, is light years ahead of paper voting, and the less paper in the system the better. Paper audit trails are just asking for trouble.
Compared with a PROPERLY done purely electronic system, having paper involved is #1 less accurate #2 less immediate #3 MORE inviting of fraud #4 MORE expensive
These features are integral to the system.
You're demanding that we unnecessarily include humans in the loop, instead of having them simply stand aside and monitor it.
Yes, the key here is "properly implemented" electronic systems, but then again these are not hugely difficult engineering problems. So long as the states actually bother asking for the proper implementations, they'll get them.
But in the end the number doesn't belong to the customer and these new regulations force businesses to give away things that are rightfully theirs.
I mean, if the US needed to be pushed out of technological backwaters the federal government could simply require all phones and phone services to be immediately discarded and replaced with new ones. Immediately jail any person found using old technology.
I mean, if you're going to start screwing with peoples' property and contract rights like this you might as well go all the way.
This would be just like a person being responsible in part for giving his neighbor permission to use his car however he wants.
There is no theft here. It is generally impossible for someone to gain use of your computer without your permission. Yes, having an open port and a program ready to execute commands coming over that port IS permission.
Just because money changes hands doesn't mean anybody is corrupt.
And once again, the paper trail is just a stupid idea in the first place. Who cares if the votes are on paper or on a properly verifyable electronic system? The electronic one will ALWAYS be superior to the paper one; in terms of accuracy, dependability, reliabiliy, and availability to anyone who wants to look an electronic system wins hands down.
Done properly, electronic voting is superior to paper voting in all ways. Let's not contaminate that by throwing paper back into the mix.
Proper management of a computer, including keeping it from doing Bad Things, absolutely should be the responsibility of owner.
The computer cannot do anything on its own. It can only follow the instructions given to it by someone else, which includes the instruction to follow someone else's instructions.
In the end the operator has the ultimate control of the computer. If the computer does something it does it through permission of the owner and therefore the owner is responsible.
Yes, this does suck in many cases, but the reality is that some people are not qualified to operate today's general purpose computers, and some others need to be forced into better practices with theirs.
Voters can verify that their votes were properly recorded after it is guaranteed to be stored in a sufficient number of redundant recording systems so as to make the chances of disaster lower than that with paper systems.
We can guarantee the validity of the recorded votes, which we absolutely cannot do with paper ballots.
At this point you can recount the votes until your heart's content using whatever combination of vote counting systems you wish, which again is much more than you can say for paper ballots (which quickly deteriorate with each additional counting).
And then of course it is possible to detect tampering, and who says there would be a "the" manufacturer?
This is true - countries using paper ballots with human counters sometimes don't know the outcome of the election until the next day!
Try never, as in we will never know who actually won the most popular votes in the 2000 presidental election because the margin of error of paper ballots is above the margin by which the candidates differed in the official count.
The system does not have the transparency of a pencil-and-paper/hand count system. Any voter in Canada can, if they wish, watch their ballot box from the moment their ballot goes in until the counting is complete.
Engineering...
Electronic voting systems are much more expensive than pencil-and-paper/hand count systems.
The problem is knowing when to question the votes. Even if you put in scantrons you would have no way of knowing when there is a question.
My experience with optical scanners like the scantrons is that their reliability is nearly as bad as the alternatives.
Seriously: all electronic voting is the best choice. There is no complaint against all electronic voting that can't be solved with some relatively simple engineering.
Choosing to go with scantrons or the like simply replaces a potentially flawed system with an absolutely flawed one.
So radar operators would see nothing but a little Enterprise flying through the atmosphere.
I don't know, that might actually be better. Instead of reporting a vague atmospheric disturbance the operator would have to report that he sees the Enterprice entering his airspace. Imaging the paperwork on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a world where every group who wants to can independently count the votes themselves.
Such a setup would probably be a natural result to properly done electronic voting.
They provide a means of auditing the electronic system.
They provide a necessarily flawed means of auditing the system, in which case you might as well just not.
Doing the electronic thing properly implies that it's auditable! Preferably by any voter. That means paper audit trails.
It does NOT mean (necessitate) paper audit trails, and this goal is much more easily solved by a purely electronic system anyway. The flaws in paper audit trails put them light years behind electronic auditing methods.
You slashdotters have this incredible tendency to latch onto an idea without bothering to express concrete reasoning behind it. This is one of those times. You just never finish connecting the dots to explain why paper audit trails are needed.
You're talking about a different loop.
And whoever said you had to trust Diebold? Electronic voting doesn't require a questionable company any more than paper voting.
And what's so great about paper audit trails?
They necessarily carry the same imprecision existant in all other paper voting systems; OCR and human counting is horribly less precise than purely electronic systems and normally less precise even than the margin of victory in a close race.
Do the electronic thing properly and then forget about the paper. Having people recounting the paper will do nothing but charge that the exact numbers are wrong because they disagree with flawed ones (at additional expense).
Everything in these system is 'virtual'. It makes it easier to loose, to replicate (to steal) or to alter information. I'm quite afraid about that.
No!
Everything is virtual, making it easier, cheaper, and more exact to duplicate, safeguard, recount, and reprocess the votes.
Additionally, because of these features it becomes MUCH more difficult to loose, alter, or corrupt the data.
Electronic voting, done properly, is light years ahead of paper voting, and the less paper in the system the better. Paper audit trails are just asking for trouble.
Compared with a PROPERLY done purely electronic system, having paper involved is
#1 less accurate
#2 less immediate
#3 MORE inviting of fraud
#4 MORE expensive
These features are integral to the system.
You're demanding that we unnecessarily include humans in the loop, instead of having them simply stand aside and monitor it.
Yes, the key here is "properly implemented" electronic systems, but then again these are not hugely difficult engineering problems. So long as the states actually bother asking for the proper implementations, they'll get them.
OCR is not nearly as reliable as purely electronic voting may be.
The error rate on OCR would probably be, for example, much larger than the difference in votes taken for the last two presidential contenders.
This whole "How do you really know" question is not a difficult engineering problem. So long as the states demand a solution they'll get it.
Thanks, nevermind :)
But in the end the number doesn't belong to the customer and these new regulations force businesses to give away things that are rightfully theirs.
I mean, if the US needed to be pushed out of technological backwaters the federal government could simply require all phones and phone services to be immediately discarded and replaced with new ones. Immediately jail any person found using old technology.
I mean, if you're going to start screwing with peoples' property and contract rights like this you might as well go all the way.
The answer is yes, and to see why simply look at the opposing viewpoints being constantly announced by the administration and the press.
It's like they're reporting about different countries!
Absolutely
Not exactly but it is their responsibility to foster a healthy economy and promote jobs for its citizens.
Care to prove this?
You might as well have said that it is the responsibility of government to insure that every citizen has access to milkshakes.
You can't unarguably make this statement either.
I'd say the primary purpose of government/law is to give citizens the tools they need to protect thsemselves and their property.
Your analogy is faulty.
This would be just like a person being responsible in part for giving his neighbor permission to use his car however he wants.
There is no theft here. It is generally impossible for someone to gain use of your computer without your permission. Yes, having an open port and a program ready to execute commands coming over that port IS permission.
Is this not corruption?
No, it's not.
Just because money changes hands doesn't mean anybody is corrupt.
And once again, the paper trail is just a stupid idea in the first place. Who cares if the votes are on paper or on a properly verifyable electronic system? The electronic one will ALWAYS be superior to the paper one; in terms of accuracy, dependability, reliabiliy, and availability to anyone who wants to look an electronic system wins hands down.
Done properly, electronic voting is superior to paper voting in all ways. Let's not contaminate that by throwing paper back into the mix.
Proper management of a computer, including keeping it from doing Bad Things, absolutely should be the responsibility of owner.
The computer cannot do anything on its own. It can only follow the instructions given to it by someone else, which includes the instruction to follow someone else's instructions.
In the end the operator has the ultimate control of the computer. If the computer does something it does it through permission of the owner and therefore the owner is responsible.
Yes, this does suck in many cases, but the reality is that some people are not qualified to operate today's general purpose computers, and some others need to be forced into better practices with theirs.
Yes: the reality is that when you're out in public people can see where you are.
Gasp!
This comment is just silly.
Why create the risk? Good question. Close those ports and know what's running on your computers.
ALL of this can be solved by engineering.
Voters can verify that their votes were properly recorded after it is guaranteed to be stored in a sufficient number of redundant recording systems so as to make the chances of disaster lower than that with paper systems.
We can guarantee the validity of the recorded votes, which we absolutely cannot do with paper ballots.
At this point you can recount the votes until your heart's content using whatever combination of vote counting systems you wish, which again is much more than you can say for paper ballots (which quickly deteriorate with each additional counting).
And then of course it is possible to detect tampering, and who says there would be a "the" manufacturer?
This is true - countries using paper ballots with human counters sometimes don't know the outcome of the election until the next day!
Try never, as in we will never know who actually won the most popular votes in the 2000 presidental election because the margin of error of paper ballots is above the margin by which the candidates differed in the official count.
The system does not have the transparency of a pencil-and-paper/hand count system. Any voter in Canada can, if they wish, watch their ballot box from the moment their ballot goes in until the counting is complete.
Engineering...
Electronic voting systems are much more expensive than pencil-and-paper/hand count systems.
Not when using systems with similar accuracy.
Oh god no.
The problem is knowing when to question the votes. Even if you put in scantrons you would have no way of knowing when there is a question.
My experience with optical scanners like the scantrons is that their reliability is nearly as bad as the alternatives.
Seriously: all electronic voting is the best choice. There is no complaint against all electronic voting that can't be solved with some relatively simple engineering.
Choosing to go with scantrons or the like simply replaces a potentially flawed system with an absolutely flawed one.
So radar operators would see nothing but a little Enterprise flying through the atmosphere.
I don't know, that might actually be better. Instead of reporting a vague atmospheric disturbance the operator would have to report that he sees the Enterprice entering his airspace. Imaging the paperwork on that.
(note: yes, it is all a joke)
Until you can actually state why all this tracking is objectively bad, you really need to keep calling them paranoid.
The world's not going to end because some kids are tracked.
If you access my SMTP server with forged headers, that's already aquiring services under false pretenses. It's already illegal.
There is no need for spam legislation at all. Only a need to enforce existing rules.