Laymen cannot audit this system, nor is the process of assuring anonymity and an accurate count transparent or comprehensible to laymen. That means they cannot trust this system... which is kind of an important aspect of a ballot.
In California I make inkspots on a piece of paper, then it is fed into a big machine. I get s sticker that says, "I voted!" Is that better?
Really? Noone can figure out who you voted for and you can ensure your vote was counted properly? I thought it was one or the other.
Care to point me in the right direction?
Most of the voting systems by David Chaum. I assume others' systems as well. All of these systems work by similar methods. One common trick is that if N numbers are XOR'ed together, then any number can only be revealed by again XOR'ing with the other N-1. So your vote can be XOR'ed with something that hides the actual vote, but the combination of the two can be checked from a list. There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
There are provably secure cyptographic methods to ensure that no one can figure out who you voted for, and that you can check, after the election, that your vote was counted appropriately. These systems even include a method for providing a faked screenshot to be sold to vote buyers. The fact that almost no one uses these systems is the real problem.
If it has to be something you can remember, then some examples are substitution cyphers (eg, rot13, but more complex substitutions work better), keyboard patterns, interleaving two words, spelling backwards, mixing two languages, &c. For example, a substitution cypher of the keyboard key up and to the left moves Password to ")qww294e". Tough choice for mobile, though. Interleave: mybank -> "m!y@b#a$n%k^". Now go make up your own.
White Sands Missile Range donated a DEC System 10 to my school district. Learned assembly on that my senior year, then went on to IBM/360 assembly at the local college the same year. So I learned valuable skills that I never again used.
I spent a year or so working on fire detection for the Orion project, which was, at the time, sending folks to the moon. Fire in space is an incredibly arcane subject, with almost nothing known. On Earth, convection is everything, but in space, there is no gravity to drive convection. In other words, hot air doesn't rise. So flames do really weird, unexpected, unintuitive things.
A little of the money is from Stanford and UC, but most of the $1.4G comes from a consortium of foreign countries. Choose one that has a good site, and build it there.
I'd guess they were throwing away nearly all that aperture -- to get all the scope's light through a 4mm exit pupil, you'd need close to 2000x magnification, which would make the nebula look like it was about 24 degrees across -- okay, that would fit perfectly into a normal field of view.
So, yeah. I hate you even more.
(Wonder what kind of 4mm lens could successfully catch all the light from a system that size? It's been a long, long time since I was immersed in the amateur-telescope-maker literature...)
The exit pupil of the eyepiece is probably more like 20 mm, so that the observers don't have to get their eye exactly in the right place. Wastes a lot of light. I was there last time they put an eye piece on Magellan. I remember being able to spot four moons by moving my eye around, but I no longer remember if it was Jupiter or Saturn.
Just a suggestion that you might want to widen your horizon a bit. Most of what you've been doing is related to number theory. You might consider topology (mobius strips), geometry (compass and ruler), real numbers (show pi is irrational), platonic solids (wikipedia has some you can print, cut out, and fold), zeno's paradoxes (there a many), probability (die rolls and coin tosses), and almost any basic physics demonstration.
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Just because something is criminal does not mean it should be criminal per our system of morals and ethics. Free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, for example.
As well, governments will cooperate on issues that may not be illegal but are inconvenient to them, for whatever reason.
You place too much confidence in government doing the right thing.
Actually I have absolute confidence that most governments will do the wrong thing. But if a system exists for which a diverse set of governments must agree, then doing anything, right or wrong, is more difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.
The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on.
That's like the UN Security Council. If China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States agree, they can do what they want.
That would probably mean their police agencies deciding among themselves.
Let's look at real cases.
If you had a news service, like Wikileaks, that managed to annoy all of them (as a good news organization should do), they could agree to go after that news organization.
And what are the politically-correct grounds for using the back door? Child pornography? Human trafficking? Tax evasion? Drug dealing? Bribery? Terrorism? Capital crimes? Weapons of mass destruction? Waging war?
What if Miss "A" claims that Julian Assange raped her on one night, though she had enthusiastic sex the nights before and after?
Yup. I think you summarized it pretty well. However, the point is to provide a channel of secure communication that requires a relatively high barrier to overcome. The alternative is for these same governments to ban secure communication completely. You make the call.
PrivaTegrity does not attempt to guarantee endpoint safety. Only once the information enters the private network. Your device (eg phone) and the app running on it are always fair game.
What I'm taking away from this is that anything David ever has made or will make in the future should not be trusted.
So you would prefer to trust someone that promises that there is no back door (like, say, Juniper, AT&T, etc), or someone that states up front that there is one that requires multi-national agreement to use?
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux Desktop will achieve 100% at exactly that moment when there are no more desktops.
Laymen cannot audit this system, nor is the process of assuring anonymity and an accurate count transparent or comprehensible to laymen. That means they cannot trust this system... which is kind of an important aspect of a ballot.
In California I make inkspots on a piece of paper, then it is fed into a big machine. I get s sticker that says, "I voted!" Is that better?
Really? Noone can figure out who you voted for and you can ensure your vote was counted properly? I thought it was one or the other. Care to point me in the right direction?
Most of the voting systems by David Chaum. I assume others' systems as well. All of these systems work by similar methods. One common trick is that if N numbers are XOR'ed together, then any number can only be revealed by again XOR'ing with the other N-1. So your vote can be XOR'ed with something that hides the actual vote, but the combination of the two can be checked from a list. There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
Then fork KDE3 and tell 4+ to go fork themselves.
It's been done: https://www.trinitydesktop.org...
There are provably secure cyptographic methods to ensure that no one can figure out who you voted for, and that you can check, after the election, that your vote was counted appropriately. These systems even include a method for providing a faked screenshot to be sold to vote buyers. The fact that almost no one uses these systems is the real problem.
I never got over the KDE3 to KDE4 transition, and switched to something else. I think KDE4 was too complex to survive long-term.
If it has to be something you can remember, then some examples are substitution cyphers (eg, rot13, but more complex substitutions work better), keyboard patterns, interleaving two words, spelling backwards, mixing two languages, &c. For example, a substitution cypher of the keyboard key up and to the left moves Password to ")qww294e". Tough choice for mobile, though. Interleave: mybank -> "m!y@b#a$n%k^". Now go make up your own.
White Sands Missile Range donated a DEC System 10 to my school district. Learned assembly on that my senior year, then went on to IBM/360 assembly at the local college the same year. So I learned valuable skills that I never again used.
I spent a year or so working on fire detection for the Orion project, which was, at the time, sending folks to the moon. Fire in space is an incredibly arcane subject, with almost nothing known. On Earth, convection is everything, but in space, there is no gravity to drive convection. In other words, hot air doesn't rise. So flames do really weird, unexpected, unintuitive things.
Right to be forgotten...I can see the Slashdot rebellion against this article already.
Why? There is no such thing as a right to be forgotten. We don't rebel against Santa Claus, do we?
A little of the money is from Stanford and UC, but most of the $1.4G comes from a consortium of foreign countries. Choose one that has a good site, and build it there.
Small correction - that's Caltech and UC.
That's... amazing. Color me incredibly jealous.
I'd guess they were throwing away nearly all that aperture -- to get all the scope's light through a 4mm exit pupil, you'd need close to 2000x magnification, which would make the nebula look like it was about 24 degrees across -- okay, that would fit perfectly into a normal field of view.
So, yeah. I hate you even more.
(Wonder what kind of 4mm lens could successfully catch all the light from a system that size? It's been a long, long time since I was immersed in the amateur-telescope-maker literature...)
The exit pupil of the eyepiece is probably more like 20 mm, so that the observers don't have to get their eye exactly in the right place. Wastes a lot of light. I was there last time they put an eye piece on Magellan. I remember being able to spot four moons by moving my eye around, but I no longer remember if it was Jupiter or Saturn.
I certainly see a lot of GMTO articles around the 'net, as opposed to the other two projects. Interesting, that.
Please, cut back on the "everyone in your industry are chauvenists assholes and you owe us a place in your ranks" crap?
We don't need shit and abuse in our leisure time, we get enough on the job.
"-1 Uncomfortable Truth"
Just a suggestion that you might want to widen your horizon a bit. Most of what you've been doing is related to number theory. You might consider topology (mobius strips), geometry (compass and ruler), real numbers (show pi is irrational), platonic solids (wikipedia has some you can print, cut out, and fold), zeno's paradoxes (there a many), probability (die rolls and coin tosses), and almost any basic physics demonstration.
I now use Ghostery and whitelist only Project Wonderful. And a flash-blocker, of course.
There are places that allow you to be buried in a pet cemetery. Cheaper.
My sister will green bury people along with their pets @ Eloise Woods.
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Just because something is criminal does not mean it should be criminal per our system of morals and ethics. Free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, for example.
As well, governments will cooperate on issues that may not be illegal but are inconvenient to them, for whatever reason.
You place too much confidence in government doing the right thing.
Actually I have absolute confidence that most governments will do the wrong thing. But if a system exists for which a diverse set of governments must agree, then doing anything, right or wrong, is more difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.
The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on.
I can't believe you could be that naive.
Look up the definition of "probably."
That's like the UN Security Council. If China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States agree, they can do what they want.
That would probably mean their police agencies deciding among themselves.
Let's look at real cases.
If you had a news service, like Wikileaks, that managed to annoy all of them (as a good news organization should do), they could agree to go after that news organization.
And what are the politically-correct grounds for using the back door? Child pornography? Human trafficking? Tax evasion? Drug dealing? Bribery? Terrorism? Capital crimes? Weapons of mass destruction? Waging war?
What if Miss "A" claims that Julian Assange raped her on one night, though she had enthusiastic sex the nights before and after?
Yup. I think you summarized it pretty well. However, the point is to provide a channel of secure communication that requires a relatively high barrier to overcome. The alternative is for these same governments to ban secure communication completely. You make the call.
Every spy agency, then, would see that they could monitor sensitive communications simply by collaborating with other spy agencies?
Not some of them, but all of them. No one trusts the USA, but if you had to get Norway on board, life as a spy might be more difficult.
PrivaTegrity does not attempt to guarantee endpoint safety. Only once the information enters the private network. Your device (eg phone) and the app running on it are always fair game.
What I'm taking away from this is that anything David ever has made or will make in the future should not be trusted.
So you would prefer to trust someone that promises that there is no back door (like, say, Juniper, AT&T, etc), or someone that states up front that there is one that requires multi-national agreement to use?
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
The graph in TFA shows that half of the maintenance team was removed on March 7th. Both new issues and retired issues are going linearly with time.