D'oh Sorry. I really was trying to hit "Preview." I swear. Here is what I meant to post:
There's an interesting book called Open Networks Closed Regimes that looks at Internet censorship in China. Basically, the book is in response to the technodeterminists of the early 90s who believed that you could simply add the Internet to an authoritarian country, stir, and get a thriving democracy. The book makes a few flaws and omissions (most notably ignoring the impact of email), but the overall point is pretty sound. It's gross oversimplification to say so... but I will: the Internet is a tool, a tool that crafty people can use for control as much as it can be used to promote openness.
I only mention this because frequently these articles still take a subtly (or not so) technodeterminist slant-- "Hey, look what Internet is doing in China." --When really the credit belongs to determined individuals who are using whatever tools they get their hands on to challenge an oppressive regime. If you really want to promote democracy in China you need to find more ways to help these folks out, not just build bigger pipes.
Nestle is and isn't a good analogy, but regardless the sentiment is straight on.
The real problem with the Nestle campaign wasn't just that they were giving out free formula, but that they also blatently lied... teaching new mothers that the formula was better for their children then breastmilk, when exactly the opposite was true.
With regard to MS... they've been giving out free software in developing countries for some time and it's anything but altruistic. They are trying to get countries "hooked" in much the same manner that Nestle did. In Namibia for instance, MS is donating thousands of free computers to schools in an attempt to drown SchoolsNet, a Linux based initiative to link up Namibian schools.
But then isn't this the same thing that Apple tried in U.S. schools in the 80s?
Yeah, I've seen this article before (probably on/.) and I have to say that I'm not particularly impressed with this solution.
First of all, it really doesn't seem to address the problem. If you walk out with anything that can be used to show who you voted for it violates the sanctity of the secret ballot. There is too much potential for the small contractor to ask his non-english speaking employees to bring their receipts into the office the next day. Or for the "well-meaning" patriarch of the family to make sure that everyone voted for the "right" guy. Or for overzealous NGO operatives to put me in position where it becomes obvious to my friends who I voted for. I'm not saying that these situations will happen often, but they could happen, and it may lead people to question the secrecy of their ballot
Plus I'm not all that convinced that its going to make the truly paranoid all that more comfortable. It seems to simply add complexity to a process that has shown time and time again that it has problems dealing with complexity.
This has been said before on/. and elsewhere but is worth repeating:
Paper receipts that stay at the polling place = good. Allows parellel count of small sample to check machine accuracy; allows recount in the event of a problem.
Paper receipts that go home with you = bad. Potential for intimidation and vote buying.
Even with paper receipts, electronic voting has the potential to be cheaper and faster, and most importantly more accurate that paper and pencil voting. The reason to have paper receipts is to have the ability to do manual recounts or to check the functioning of the machinery. Voters must have confidence in the integrity of the vote, but this doesn't require manual counting at every polling station with electronic voting machinery. Rather, a small random sample of polling stations is selected for recounts of paper receipts and these counts are compared to computer results. If there are overt or accidental "miscalculations" by the machinery, then this will be uncovered by these spot check, and the paper reciepts can be used do an accurate vote count. HR 2239 calls for surprise recounts in 0.5% of jurisdictions.
This sort of process is done all the time in countries in democratic transition to uncover vote fraud. This sort of parallel vote tabulation uncovered the fraud in the recent presidential elections in Georgia and led to the ousting of Shevardnadze.
This system of Parallel Vote Tabulation has been used in countries around the world where there is some fear of impropriety by eleciton officials.
The trick is that you need to trust that the people doing the counting aren't part of the problem, which can usually be accomplished by having independent observers and observers from each of the parties watching the counting and voting throughout the day to be sure that no one is stuffing the receipt box.
The other trick is that this only really works for national and state level elections. The software could still give a "boost" to members of a partiuclar party at the local level, where collecting a statistically significant sample for error checking would require a huge n size nationwide.
Actually something like this is already done in countries where there is the expectation that the governing power (usually a semi-authoritarian ruler) will fudge the numbers.
It's called a Parallel Vote Tabulation, and basically the way it works is to select a sizable random sample of polling stations (For the wannabe statisticians out there, n is determined by the size of the country, number of polling station, how close the election is expected to be etc. The sample may also be stratified to take into account different voting trends in different populations - north v. south, urban v. rural, etc.) An observer is sent to each polling station in the sample to observe the counting process and recording the number of votes for each party as the ballots are being counted. Once information is aggregated around the country it is clear (within a reasonable amount of error) what the outcome was, and whether or not the government fudged the numbers in the "official" announcement of winners.
The trick is that observers have to be able to see the actual votes in the case of paper ballots or the paper receipts in the case of electronic voting. Exit polls are not a sufficient way of getting this information because too many people refuse to participate or lie when asked or vote absentee in that district and are unavailable for polling.
The arguments that OSS causes a loss in job suffers from the same flaw as/. arguments that technology causes a loss of jobs and outsourcing causes a loss in jobs: looking at a particular piece of the economy rather than looking at the economy in the aggregate.
Innovative endeavor is never a bad thing. OSS and motorized street sweepers both cost jobs for someone. But society as a whole is able to be more productive, and more jobs are created. Similarly free trade leads companies to move jobs abroad, but it also makes American businesses possible that would previously have been unprofitable and makes consumer good more attainable. Imagine how expensive products would be and how difficult it would be to run a computer store or a car dealership or a toy factory if all the parts were 4-20x as expensive.
OSS, technology, and free trade really suck for some people. Real people lose real jobs. This is particularly hard on people losing low skill jobs, which are the most likely to be lost due to technology or globalization
The answer isn't stopping innovation (I consider outsourcing a market/resource management innovation). The answer is making sure that there are systems in place that help the people who lose out due to innovation to get the skills to take advantage of the new jobs that are created by innovation.
I think the largest problem with voter turnout is one of education, really... especially at the local level.
Absolutely. Another factor in turnout is that many Americans don't believe that there isn't any difference between the major parties, something that Nader tried to capitolize on in 2000.
Hopefully, the silver lining of the 2000 fiasco is that more people see how big a difference there really is between politicians, and also realize how small the margin of victory can be. (Even if you hold that Gore actually won, he only barely actually won.)
Voter turnout in the U.S. is abysmal, and IT should be used to make it easier for people to vote, byt Internet voting isn't the way. Internet voting is too insecure for logistical rather than technical reasons to gain acceptance. [Someone help me out here. I'm new to/., and I feel like a complete tool referring to my own posts, but it seems more elegant than re-writing. What's the protocol?]
Perhaps a better way to use technology to increase voter turnout is through Election Day Registration. People still have to go to a polling station, but they can register right there, they don't have to register weeks in advance. Also if polling stations statewide were networked with state voter information, than someone would be able to vote wherever they wanted rather than one designated polling station. This would especially help people who sometimes work 12h + shifts or people with large commutes.
Notice that the article only talks about using Internet voting as an alternative to absentee voting for citizens abroad and only in U.S. government agencies where secure Internet-enables voting stations can be set up. This is good .
Internet voting on a large scale will never take place due to logistical [for lack of a better word] rather than technical reasons. Electoral law requires that your vote be made in a manner that is free from influence (intimidation or vote buying). This is controlled by ensuring that voting goes on in select locations where campaigning is not permitted. Even campaign posters within sight of a voting station must be taken down.
With Internet voting, essentially anyplace could be a voting station. I could set up a little voting party for my friends and let them vote on my computer. Don't mind that there is paraphernalia all around for my candidate, or that I'm looking over your shoulder. After the party, laptop and cell in hand, I could help all the little old ladies in my neighborhood vote too.
While I'm usually skeptical of Internet voting, I'm actually in favor of it in the limited case of American personnel overseas, because it is better than the current system. Presently, most absentee votes don't even get counted, unless the margin of victory is less than number of absentee ballots. While this is technically accurate and efficient, it kinda sucks to be one of those people who's vote is never even considered.
On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake (with electronic voting machines, which is different from Internet voting) and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.
Are you kidding me? You consider North Korea to be a democracy? The Democratic Republic of the Congo also has the word "Democratic" in the name, and I'd say its a far cry from a democracy. This has nothing to do with the economic system, as you correctly point out. (DRC is both capitalist and undemocratic.) Rather, this is because the most basic requirement for a democracy is free and credible elections, something that neither DPRK nor DRC can claim... not to mention freedom of participation in political parties in opposition to the government, civil society groups that are able to collectively represent citizen interests, and a military that under the control of (and ultimately deriving its authority from democratically elected officials).
True, famine can be triggered by natural disasters, war, etc., but it arises from situations where the people with the power don't feel any obligation to take care of the public. In grossly oversimplified terms: When your rule depends upon keeping the public happy, then you make sure that you can satisfy the most basic needs of the people before you line your own pocket. When your rule depends on beating the daylights out of anyone who opposes you, then you make sure to take care of yourself and your thugs first, before you direct resources toward frivolous things like "your people eating"
BTW, the most recent famine I was able to find in Japan was in 1732, when the country was still an monarchy.
A decade or so ago, many believed that the Internet would be the harbinger of personal liberty, free expression and democracy throughout the world--take any authoritarian regime, add the Internet, shake, and you'll come back to a thriving pluralistic democracy.
Since then, countries like China, Cuba and others have taught us that it isn't that easy (surprise of all surprises!) The Internet is a tool like any other that determined governments can circumvent and use to support their goals. As previous posters have mentioned this is not only true in authoritarian regimes but also in countries that are ostensibly democratic such as India and the U.S.
A number of people have already eloquently tackled the main flaw of this article, which is that while technology may decrease the number of jobs in an individual case or even in a particular industry, overall technology increases the number of jobs in the economy and improves a society's standard of living. [Paul Krugman also makes this argument quite well, but I haven't been able to find the article]
There is one small caveat to this however. Typically the jobs lost to innovations in technology are unskilled or vocational jobs--it isn't the managers who get the boot, but the guy who used to count and collate by hand, or the girl who used to weld on car doors by hand. You can't always assume that people who have been doing the same job all their lives are going to be able to just pick up and easily find work in some other industry.
While we shouldn't discourage innovation, we should be sensitive to take care of the individuals who get screwed in the short-run because of it. Job training programs for people who have been laid off are one way to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
D'oh Sorry. I really was trying to hit "Preview." I swear. Here is what I meant to post:
There's an interesting book called Open Networks Closed Regimes that looks at Internet censorship in China. Basically, the book is in response to the technodeterminists of the early 90s who believed that you could simply add the Internet to an authoritarian country, stir, and get a thriving democracy. The book makes a few flaws and omissions (most notably ignoring the impact of email), but the overall point is pretty sound. It's gross oversimplification to say so... but I will: the Internet is a tool, a tool that crafty people can use for control as much as it can be used to promote openness.
I only mention this because frequently these articles still take a subtly (or not so) technodeterminist slant-- "Hey, look what Internet is doing in China." --When really the credit belongs to determined individuals who are using whatever tools they get their hands on to challenge an oppressive regime. If you really want to promote democracy in China you need to find more ways to help these folks out, not just build bigger pipes.
There's an interesting book called that looks at Internet censorship in China. Basically, the book is in response to the technodeterminists of the early 90s who believed that you could simply add the Internet to an authoritarian country, stir, and get a thriving democracy. The book makes a few flaws and omissions (most notably ignoring the impact of email), but the overall point is pretty sound. It's gross oversimplification to say so... but I will: the Internet is a tool, a tool that crafty people can use for control as much as it can be used to promote openness. I only mention this because frequently these articles still take a subtly (or not so) technodeterminist slant--"Hey, look what Internet is doing in China."--when really the credit belongs to determined individuals who are using whatever tools they get their hands on to challenge an oppressive regime. If you really want to promote democracy in China you need to find more ways to help these folks out, not just build bigger pipes.
Laws and documents produced by the United States Federal Government are considered in the public domain, however "many [U.S.] state government documents, and most documents from foreign governments, are protected by copyright."
So technically some state and local governments can charge you for laws right now.
Nestle is and isn't a good analogy, but regardless the sentiment is straight on.
The real problem with the Nestle campaign wasn't just that they were giving out free formula, but that they also blatently lied... teaching new mothers that the formula was better for their children then breastmilk, when exactly the opposite was true.
With regard to MS... they've been giving out free software in developing countries for some time and it's anything but altruistic. They are trying to get countries "hooked" in much the same manner that Nestle did. In Namibia for instance, MS is donating thousands of free computers to schools in an attempt to drown SchoolsNet, a Linux based initiative to link up Namibian schools.
But then isn't this the same thing that Apple tried in U.S. schools in the 80s?
Yeah, I've seen this article before (probably on /.) and I have to say that I'm not particularly impressed with this solution.
First of all, it really doesn't seem to address the problem. If you walk out with anything that can be used to show who you voted for it violates the sanctity of the secret ballot. There is too much potential for the small contractor to ask his non-english speaking employees to bring their receipts into the office the next day. Or for the "well-meaning" patriarch of the family to make sure that everyone voted for the "right" guy. Or for overzealous NGO operatives to put me in position where it becomes obvious to my friends who I voted for. I'm not saying that these situations will happen often, but they could happen, and it may lead people to question the secrecy of their ballot
Plus I'm not all that convinced that its going to make the truly paranoid all that more comfortable. It seems to simply add complexity to a process that has shown time and time again that it has problems dealing with complexity.
I don't know, I've never heard of anyone saying:
"You'd better pick number 47 in tonight's PowerBall, or don't bother coming into work tomorrow."
This has been said before on /. and elsewhere but is worth repeating:
Paper receipts that stay at the polling place = good. Allows parellel count of small sample to check machine accuracy; allows recount in the event of a problem.
Paper receipts that go home with you = bad. Potential for intimidation and vote buying.
Even with paper receipts, electronic voting has the potential to be cheaper and faster, and most importantly more accurate that paper and pencil voting. The reason to have paper receipts is to have the ability to do manual recounts or to check the functioning of the machinery. Voters must have confidence in the integrity of the vote, but this doesn't require manual counting at every polling station with electronic voting machinery. Rather, a small random sample of polling stations is selected for recounts of paper receipts and these counts are compared to computer results. If there are overt or accidental "miscalculations" by the machinery, then this will be uncovered by these spot check, and the paper reciepts can be used do an accurate vote count. HR 2239 calls for surprise recounts in 0.5% of jurisdictions.
This sort of process is done all the time in countries in democratic transition to uncover vote fraud. This sort of parallel vote tabulation uncovered the fraud in the recent presidential elections in Georgia and led to the ousting of Shevardnadze.
This system of Parallel Vote Tabulation has been used in countries around the world where there is some fear of impropriety by eleciton officials.
The trick is that you need to trust that the people doing the counting aren't part of the problem, which can usually be accomplished by having independent observers and observers from each of the parties watching the counting and voting throughout the day to be sure that no one is stuffing the receipt box.
The other trick is that this only really works for national and state level elections. The software could still give a "boost" to members of a partiuclar party at the local level, where collecting a statistically significant sample for error checking would require a huge n size nationwide.
Actually something like this is already done in countries where there is the expectation that the governing power (usually a semi-authoritarian ruler) will fudge the numbers.
It's called a Parallel Vote Tabulation, and basically the way it works is to select a sizable random sample of polling stations (For the wannabe statisticians out there, n is determined by the size of the country, number of polling station, how close the election is expected to be etc. The sample may also be stratified to take into account different voting trends in different populations - north v. south, urban v. rural, etc.) An observer is sent to each polling station in the sample to observe the counting process and recording the number of votes for each party as the ballots are being counted. Once information is aggregated around the country it is clear (within a reasonable amount of error) what the outcome was, and whether or not the government fudged the numbers in the "official" announcement of winners.
The trick is that observers have to be able to see the actual votes in the case of paper ballots or the paper receipts in the case of electronic voting. Exit polls are not a sufficient way of getting this information because too many people refuse to participate or lie when asked or vote absentee in that district and are unavailable for polling.
The arguments that OSS causes a loss in job suffers from the same flaw as /. arguments that technology causes a loss of jobs and outsourcing causes a loss in jobs: looking at a particular piece of the economy rather than looking at the economy in the aggregate.
Innovative endeavor is never a bad thing. OSS and motorized street sweepers both cost jobs for someone. But society as a whole is able to be more productive, and more jobs are created. Similarly free trade leads companies to move jobs abroad, but it also makes American businesses possible that would previously have been unprofitable and makes consumer good more attainable. Imagine how expensive products would be and how difficult it would be to run a computer store or a car dealership or a toy factory if all the parts were 4-20x as expensive.
OSS, technology, and free trade really suck for some people. Real people lose real jobs. This is particularly hard on people losing low skill jobs, which are the most likely to be lost due to technology or globalization
The answer isn't stopping innovation (I consider outsourcing a market/resource management innovation). The answer is making sure that there are systems in place that help the people who lose out due to innovation to get the skills to take advantage of the new jobs that are created by innovation.
I think the largest problem with voter turnout is one of education, really... especially at the local level.
Absolutely. Another factor in turnout is that many Americans don't believe that there isn't any difference between the major parties, something that Nader tried to capitolize on in 2000.
Hopefully, the silver lining of the 2000 fiasco is that more people see how big a difference there really is between politicians, and also realize how small the margin of victory can be. (Even if you hold that Gore actually won, he only barely actually won.)
Voter turnout in the U.S. is abysmal, and IT should be used to make it easier for people to vote, byt Internet voting isn't the way. Internet voting is too insecure for logistical rather than technical reasons to gain acceptance. [Someone help me out here. I'm new to /., and I feel like a complete tool referring to my own posts, but it seems more elegant than re-writing. What's the protocol?]
Perhaps a better way to use technology to increase voter turnout is through Election Day Registration. People still have to go to a polling station, but they can register right there, they don't have to register weeks in advance. Also if polling stations statewide were networked with state voter information, than someone would be able to vote wherever they wanted rather than one designated polling station. This would especially help people who sometimes work 12h + shifts or people with large commutes.
Notice that the article only talks about using Internet voting as an alternative to absentee voting for citizens abroad and only in U.S. government agencies where secure Internet-enables voting stations can be set up. This is good .
Internet voting on a large scale will never take place due to logistical [for lack of a better word] rather than technical reasons. Electoral law requires that your vote be made in a manner that is free from influence (intimidation or vote buying). This is controlled by ensuring that voting goes on in select locations where campaigning is not permitted. Even campaign posters within sight of a voting station must be taken down.
With Internet voting, essentially anyplace could be a voting station. I could set up a little voting party for my friends and let them vote on my computer. Don't mind that there is paraphernalia all around for my candidate, or that I'm looking over your shoulder. After the party, laptop and cell in hand, I could help all the little old ladies in my neighborhood vote too.
[Your sig here]
While I'm usually skeptical of Internet voting, I'm actually in favor of it in the limited case of American personnel overseas, because it is better than the current system. Presently, most absentee votes don't even get counted, unless the margin of victory is less than number of absentee ballots. While this is technically accurate and efficient, it kinda sucks to be one of those people who's vote is never even considered.
On the security side, I hope that VeriSign avoids Diebold's mistake (with electronic voting machines, which is different from Internet voting) and makes the source code and security procedures public for scrutiny.
Are you kidding me? You consider North Korea to be a democracy? The Democratic Republic of the Congo also has the word "Democratic" in the name, and I'd say its a far cry from a democracy. This has nothing to do with the economic system, as you correctly point out. (DRC is both capitalist and undemocratic.) Rather, this is because the most basic requirement for a democracy is free and credible elections, something that neither DPRK nor DRC can claim... not to mention freedom of participation in political parties in opposition to the government, civil society groups that are able to collectively represent citizen interests, and a military that under the control of (and ultimately deriving its authority from democratically elected officials).
True, famine can be triggered by natural disasters, war, etc., but it arises from situations where the people with the power don't feel any obligation to take care of the public. In grossly oversimplified terms: When your rule depends upon keeping the public happy, then you make sure that you can satisfy the most basic needs of the people before you line your own pocket. When your rule depends on beating the daylights out of anyone who opposes you, then you make sure to take care of yourself and your thugs first, before you direct resources toward frivolous things like "your people eating"
BTW, the most recent famine I was able to find in Japan was in 1732, when the country was still an monarchy.
A decade or so ago, many believed that the Internet would be the harbinger of personal liberty, free expression and democracy throughout the world--take any authoritarian regime, add the Internet, shake, and you'll come back to a thriving pluralistic democracy.
Since then, countries like China, Cuba and others have taught us that it isn't that easy (surprise of all surprises!) The Internet is a tool like any other that determined governments can circumvent and use to support their goals. As previous posters have mentioned this is not only true in authoritarian regimes but also in countries that are ostensibly democratic such as India and the U.S.
Your ad here
A number of people have already eloquently tackled the main flaw of this article, which is that while technology may decrease the number of jobs in an individual case or even in a particular industry, overall technology increases the number of jobs in the economy and improves a society's standard of living. [Paul Krugman also makes this argument quite well, but I haven't been able to find the article]
There is one small caveat to this however. Typically the jobs lost to innovations in technology are unskilled or vocational jobs--it isn't the managers who get the boot, but the guy who used to count and collate by hand, or the girl who used to weld on car doors by hand. You can't always assume that people who have been doing the same job all their lives are going to be able to just pick up and easily find work in some other industry.
While we shouldn't discourage innovation, we should be sensitive to take care of the individuals who get screwed in the short-run because of it. Job training programs for people who have been laid off are one way to do that.
It's worth noting that there has never been a famine in a democracy.
[source: Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom]
Correlation or causation? You be the judge, but Sen makes a pretty good case for the latter.