Auditability - or recovering from errors and fraud
on
E-Voting Expert Testifies
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think, one of the most important safeguards in voting is the possibility to audit and correct the results many times over by many "auditors" (e.g. people and processes who re-count). Paper and pencil in connection with proper processes represent technology/methodology with these characteristics. Good electoral processes include a certain amount of re-counting already in the original count. More than one person looks at each ballot and agreement on the intent of the vote has to be there. If an entire electoral station's vote-counters are corrupt, then ballot boxes can be shipped off to a new group of examiners.
For example, I think e-voting needs to emulate the capability of having several independent examinations of a vote (like several people looking at a ballot, and interpreting which way the vote was intended). This would at least require the capability of having software from more than one provider, each piece of software essentially interpreting the intent of the vote.
Each step of the data gathering and interpretation process should be multi-sourced. And yes, that would mean, that even a log of x/y co-ordinates, which have been touched, should be generated by more than one independent source.
If the independently created and managed processes(hardware/software) in the voting machine all agree on the result, there is a good chance that neither fraud nor error has been present - but if the results amongst the independent processes vary, one needs to investigate.
So, while I think open sourcing is a fundamentally more democratic approach to e-voting software (and hardware!), I think that multi-sourcing of
software (preferably in each machine) is even more important.
While the change is not that dramatic, it is fundamentally a change for the slightly better. The whole ecology of the Internet is better served when the number of monopolies and incestuous business relationships is being reduced rather than increased.
As DNA diversity helps survival of the species, so does diversity help the survival and prospering of the Internet, since the misbehaviour or malfunctioning of any one party has more or less *limited* consequences, rather than global consequences.
Long live diversity!
p.s. The Sitefinder issue may just create a culture, where more and more sites (one day, maybe even end-users?) run their own secondary and customized DNS, with capabilities to easily override misbehaviours by Verisign or and other registry.
Finally, if the registries behave too badly, I don't fundamentally know of a technical reason, why alternative "unofficial" root servers (not really root - but used instead of the real root servers in DNS setups), which behave well couldn't become popular.
It may take a while, but technical knowledge and good ethics can overcome a lot of nonsense.
So, basically, if I read this right..ICANN doesn't per se have a problem with the Sitefinder service, but rather, the manner in which VeriSign implemented it?
Sorry to disagree with you, but I read it only as promising to be open minded about new services as long as they do *not disturb* ongoing operations of *exisitng* one's.
And that seems fair. That is basic backwards compatibility stuff - and yes Verisgn has totally screwed that up, and as far as I'm concerned should lose their accreditation over, if they don't immediately rectify.
yessss!
on Windows, it is still my favorite text editor. It is extremely intuitive. When one of the Java developers of my last company made me aware of it, and I had the control over the development tools budget, we gladly paid for a copy for every developer.
on Linux/KDE, I've been using Kate for HTML and PHP coding.
I find their stories not timely enough anymore for an online publication. I don't think these more traditional sites can compete with the timeliness standards achieved by the blogging approach invented by/.
But: I find sme of the other CNET sites quite a bit more useful (reviews, downloads).
As a hiring manager for non-research IT jobs, I always wanted to make sure that, especially straight out of school, a candidate had the right motivation. And the basic question is: if someone spent the extra time at school, rather than starting to make money, what was their real motivation?
bad:
delay having to get a job
good excuse to obtain further financing from my parents
everyone will know how smart I am
Ph.D. on my business card, and everyone calls me Dr., that will show them!
Slashdot Mirror
I think, one of the most important safeguards in voting is the possibility to audit and correct the results many times over by many "auditors" (e.g. people and processes who re-count). Paper and pencil in connection with proper processes represent technology/methodology with these characteristics. Good electoral processes include a certain amount of re-counting already in the original count. More than one person looks at each ballot and agreement on the intent of the vote has to be there. If an entire electoral station's vote-counters are corrupt, then ballot boxes can be shipped off to a new group of examiners.
For example, I think e-voting needs to emulate the capability of having several independent examinations of a vote (like several people looking at a ballot, and interpreting which way the vote was intended). This would at least require the capability of having software from more than one provider, each piece of software essentially interpreting the intent of the vote.
Each step of the data gathering and interpretation process should be multi-sourced. And yes, that would mean, that even a log of x/y co-ordinates, which have been touched, should be generated by more than one independent source.
If the independently created and managed processes(hardware/software) in the voting machine all agree on the result, there is a good chance that neither fraud nor error has been present - but if the results amongst the independent processes vary, one needs to investigate.
So, while I think open sourcing is a fundamentally more democratic approach to e-voting software (and hardware!), I think that multi-sourcing of software (preferably in each machine) is even more important.
While the change is not that dramatic, it is fundamentally a change for the slightly better. The whole ecology of the Internet is better served when the number of monopolies and incestuous business relationships is being reduced rather than increased.
As DNA diversity helps survival of the species, so does diversity help the survival and prospering of the Internet, since the misbehaviour or malfunctioning of any one party has more or less *limited* consequences, rather than global consequences.
Long live diversity!
p.s. The Sitefinder issue may just create a culture, where more and more sites (one day, maybe even end-users?) run their own secondary and customized DNS, with capabilities to easily override misbehaviours by Verisign or and other registry. Finally, if the registries behave too badly, I don't fundamentally know of a technical reason, why alternative "unofficial" root servers (not really root - but used instead of the real root servers in DNS setups), which behave well couldn't become popular.
It may take a while, but technical knowledge and good ethics can overcome a lot of nonsense.
So, basically, if I read this right
Sorry to disagree with you, but I read it only as promising to be open minded about new services as long as they do *not disturb* ongoing operations of *exisitng* one's. And that seems fair. That is basic backwards compatibility stuff - and yes Verisgn has totally screwed that up, and as far as I'm concerned should lose their accreditation over, if they don't immediately rectify.
yessss! on Windows, it is still my favorite text editor. It is extremely intuitive. When one of the Java developers of my last company made me aware of it, and I had the control over the development tools budget, we gladly paid for a copy for every developer. on Linux/KDE, I've been using Kate for HTML and PHP coding.
I find their stories not timely enough anymore for an online publication. I don't think these more traditional sites can compete with the timeliness standards achieved by the blogging approach invented by /.
But: I find sme of the other CNET sites quite a bit more useful (reviews, downloads).
bad:
- delay having to get a job
- good excuse to obtain further financing from my parents
- everyone will know how smart I am
- Ph.D. on my business card, and everyone calls me Dr., that will show them!
good: