Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -- Ben Franklin And if they are all armed ? They all starve. Lambs can eat grass, which is usually unarmed. It is not. Grass is stuffed full of all sorts of complicated chemicals that can cause confusion to creatures that chomp it. Not to mention nassty little silica crystals. Lambs can eat grass because they are toughened and honed grass-killers, fitted by millions of years of evolution to survive everything the grass can throw at them. And even then they only cope with some kinds of grass. When a cat eats grass it gets sick. It doesn't take much intelligence to sneak up on a leaf, but it takes one hell of a digestive system to eat it. Us mammals are downstream of a 200-million-year evolutionary race between ourselves and green plants - they evolve a new poison, we evolve to tolerate it. Then we put it in hot drinks. Why else do so many plant compounds have such powerful drug effects on animals? At the time of writing there is no winner in sight. It isn't impossible to imagine one side winning in the end though. The plants really did beat the bacteria way back in the Palaeozoic - wood is about the only living tissue that bacteria can't eat. Which is why there is so much coal around. Fungi got the better of them later. Democracy tries to get the majority of participants through to the next round of the game. Natural selection kills nearly everybody, nearly all the time. Which is why it is so effective. But, given the choice, I'll take democracy. Trust me, I'm a botanist.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:06:43PM +, ken wrote: Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -- Ben Franklin And if they are all armed ? They all starve. Lambs can eat grass, which is usually unarmed. It is not. Grass is stuffed full of all sorts of complicated chemicals that can cause confusion to creatures that chomp it. Not to mention nassty little silica crystals. Lambs can eat grass because they are toughened and honed grass-killers, fitted by millions of years of evolution to survive everything the grass can throw at them. And even then they only cope with some kinds of grass. When a cat eats grass it gets sick. Right, in fact if sheep (and sometimes cattle) eat Phalaris sp., for instance, they get the staggers, depending on the time of year and other environmental conditions, and also upon the alkaloid makeup of the particular cultivar. Phalaris, of course, contains fairly large amounts of tryptamines, like dimethyltriptamine (DMT), as do many other plants. And thank the Goddess for that -- but sheep don't like it. Or maybe they do, and just aren't saying.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -- Ben Franklin And if they are all armed ? They all starve. Lambs can eat grass, which is usually unarmed.
RE: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Optical Mark Sense - certainly the way to go if you want to computerize, except that the manufacturers aren't big Bush Republican donors. I'm used to mechanical lever machines in Delaware and New Jersey (which seem to mostly work well except for write-in votes), plus the punch-card things in California which are boring but workable. If somebody wanted to do an OMS system that had a fancy touch-screen interface, you could have the touch-screen machine print the OMS ballot, and lay out the printed version so it's human-readable, with a bit of extra assistance like checksums, plus have a verifier read it to make sure it's correctly machine-readable. That'd let you have big print for low-sighted people, voice readout for blind people, randomized order for random people, etc. At 11:46 AM 11/27/2003 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 12:56 PM 11/25/03 -0500, Sunder wrote: Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution, usually less than 320x200. Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say 3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture. Actually, it tends to be 352x288, which is the resolution of cheap CCD video camera chips. Some of the early cheap digital cameras used that, before going to 640x480 (good enough for web pictures) and then to higher resolutions. ... Don't you think the cellphone folks will do the more-pixels-game, trying to add features that distinguish their model from the nearly identical other models? They're mostly starting to do 640x480, but they're somewhat limited by the low data rates that most of the phones get. Phones with EDGE or 1xRTT or other higher-speed data rates, and phones that use Bluetooth to upload to computers, are set to do more, but otherwise it tends to take too long to transmit (and remember that for phone-to-phone videos between Japanese teenagers, which are the market driver, it's the slower phone that counts.)
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
At 11:10 PM 11/26/03 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: Cameras in the voting booth? Jesus Christ, you guys are morons. If you want to sell your vote, just vote absentee. The ward guy will even stamp and mail it for you. Happens every election. For some reason I don't understand, people actually drive to queue up and vote in a booth on a given day. So that was the model addressed. Personally I vote absentee, so I have plenty of time to photoshop what I fax to Vinny. As well as being able to submit a new blank ballot if Vinny demands to see the original I faxed (but before its mailed in -that is my commit point, just like opening the curtain used to be on mechanical voting machines).
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:18 am, Tim May wrote: Liberty is characterized in the .sig below: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -- Ben Franklin And if they are all armed ? They all starve. -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
At 07:10 PM 11/25/03 -0800, Tim May wrote: I have no problem with this free choice contract. The only ones allowed to buy votes are the ones running for office. And they are required to do it on credit. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. --Alexander Fraser Tyler
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Major Variola (ret) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 2003-11-25: Vinny the Votebuyer pays you if you send a picture of your face adjacent to the committed receipt, even if you can't touch it. * Voter locks in choice on touch screen. * Paper receipt is printed and shown to voter. * Voter chooses 'great' - receipt disappears into ballot box Voter chooses 'nope' - receipt disappears into trash bin / can be taken home as a souvenir. Since the voting booth is private, no one can see you do this, even if it were made illegal. (And since phones can store images, jamming the transmission at the booth doesn't work.) You send your picture from the cellphone that took it, along with a paypal account number as a text message. The intention behind requiring receipts is not to get totally secure voting, but to get oting that is not much more insecure than the current paper process. I assume the 'take pic, show later' attack is also possible against the current system.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 01:21 pm, Trei, Peter wrote: [snip] All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with then paper ballots. Have some imagination - you could, for example, set things up so the voter, and only the voter, can see the screen and/or paper receipt while voting, but still make it impossible to use a camera without being detected. Peter I was thinking of those boxes with viewing ports that you look into to get your eyes tested when you renew your drivers license. You could have those out in the open, that way you'd have the privacy (only turn the display on if the viewing port is completely covered), but if you tried to use a camera it would be pretty obvious (or you could design the lens of the port to make it impossible to discern the ballot except with the human eye(s)). Here in the sticks we just use the ole' number two pencil to fill in the oval. Some fancy polling places run the ballot through a reader to verify that there aren't any problems (missing ovals, multiple votes, etc.). They'll let you have three tries at it. However, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop me from going back in a few hours later and claiming to be someone else at a different address other than the if the person has already voted or by relying on steel-trap memory of the volunteer elderly ladies than man the poll (of course in our small town that can be pretty effective) :) . -Neil -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:26:18PM -0800, Tim May wrote: (I fully support vote buying and selling, needless to say. Simple right to make a contract.) What's your take on this situation, then: BOSS: Get in that booth and vote Kennedy or I'll fire you. Take this expensive camera with you so you can't pull any funny business. If it were illegal for me to bring the camera, this would be an unenforceable order. I'll do whatever the hell I want when I get into the booth, thank you very much. Good for me. Good for everybody. He with the most slaves should not automatically win the election. Right Tim?
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Nov 25, 2003, at 11:21 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:56 AM, Sunder wrote: Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution, usually less than 320x200. Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say 3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture. Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you carry a good camera into the booth with you. 1. Vinnie the Votebuyer knows the _layout_ of the ballot. He only needs to see that the correct box is punched/marked. Or that the screen version has been checked. I realize you big city types (yes, Tim, Corralitos is big compared to my little burg) have full scale voting booths with curtains (I used the big mechanical machines when I lived in Manhatten), but out here in the sticks, the 'voting booth' is a little standing desk affair with 18 inch privacy shields on 3 sides. If someone tried to take a photo of their ballot in one of those it would be instantly obvious. All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with then paper ballots. Have some imagination - you could, for example, set things up so the voter, and only the voter, can see the screen and/or paper receipt while voting, but still make it impossible to use a camera without being detected. But how could a restriction on gargoyling oneself be constitutional? If Alice wishes to record her surroundings, including the ballot and/or touchscreen she just voted with, this is her business. (I fully support vote buying and selling, needless to say. Simple right to make a contract.) I wasn't endorsing the practicality of people trying to use digital cameras of any sort in any kind of voting booth, just addressing the claim that cellphone cameras don't have enough resolution. Even 320 x 240 has more than enough resolution to show which boxes have been checked, or to mostly give a usable image with a printed receipt. As for creating tamper-resistant and unforgeable and nonrepudiable voting systems, this is a hard problem. For ontological reasons (who controls machine code, etc.). I start with the canonical model of a very hard to manipulate system: blackballing (voting with black or white stones or balls). Given ontological limits on containers (hard to teleport stones into or out of a container), given ontological limits on number of stones one can hold, and so on (I'll leave it open for readers to ponder the process of blackball voting), this is a fairly robust system. (One can imagine schemes whereby the container is on a scale, showing the weight. This detects double voting for a candidate. One lets each person approach the container, reach into his pocket, and then place one stone into the container (which he of course cannot see into, nor can he remove any stone). If the scale increments by the correct amount, e.g, 3.6 grams, then one is fairly sure no double voting has occurred. And if the voter kept his fist clenched, he as strong assurance that no one else saw whether he was depositing a black stone or a white stone into the container. Then if the stones are counted in front of witnesses, 675 black stones vs. 431 white stones is a fairly robust and trusted outcome. Details would include ensuring that one person voted only once (usual trick: indelible dye on arm when stones issued, witnesses present, etc. Attacks would include the Ruling Party depositing extra stones, etc. And consolidating the distributed results has the usual weaknesses.) Things get much more problematic as soon as this is electronified, computerized, as the normal ontological constraints evaporate. Stones can vanish, teleport, be miscounted, suddenly appear, etc. Designing a system which is both robust (all the crypto buzzwords about nonforgeability, satisfaction of is-a-person or one-person constraints, visibility, etc.) and which is also comprehensible to people who are, frankly, unable to correctly punch a paper ballot for Al Gore, is a challenge. I'm not sure either Joe Sixpack in Bakersfield or Irma Yenta in Palm Beach want to spend time learning about all-or-nothing-disclosure and vote commitment protocols. I know about David Chaum's system. He has gotten interested in this problem. I am not interested in this problem. Moreover, I think working on electronic voting only encourages the political process (though implementing wide computer voting and then having more of the winning totals posted before polls close exposures of shenanigans might be useful in undermining support for the concept of democracy, which would be a good thing.) I don't say it's not a security problem worth thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the capabilities stuff, including Granovetter diagrams and boundaries. Probably a nice category theory outlook on voting lurking here (e.g., voting as a pushout in an appropriate category, or something whacky like that). Electronic
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Nov 26, 2003, at 8:10 AM, BillyGOTO wrote: I have no problem with this free choice contract. You can't sell your vote for the same reason that Djinni don't grant wishes for more wishes. A silly comment. I take it you're saying Because the rules don't allow it. Or something similar to this. The rules are precisely what we are discussing. And vote buying is much more widespread than what happens at the lowest level we happen to be talking about here, where Alice is paid $10 to vote for some particular candidate. In fact, vote buying is much more common and more dangerous at the level of political representatives. Appealing to the rules (what your Djinni state as the rules) is nonproductive. Payoffs and kickbacks can be declared illegal, but they continue to happen in various ways. You, in the rest of your comments, show yourself to be one of the many tens of millions who probably need to be sent up the chimneys for their crimes. Liberty's a mental chore, isn't it? Maybe I just don't understand Liberty. I need to meditate on it for a while. I'll use your image of tens of millions of criminals going up in smoke (myself included) as a starting point. PS: Is support of vote buying consistent with rejection of Democracy? Liberty is characterized in the .sig below: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -- Ben Franklin
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with then paper ballots. I think it's called OCR. Paper ballots, marked by the voter, not by software, then counted by software: - the ballot and the audit document are one and the same - no opportunity for software to mess with the printed record - option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through a different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a different vendor) - further option for a manual recount of the original ballots (which are probably more legible than any machine-printed receipts) Oh, and by the way, these are the only kind of electronic voting machines approved, so far, in Mass. Miles Fidelman ** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: I Want My Internet! **
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Miles Fidelman wrote: - option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through a different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a different vendor) or indeed constructing said machines so they *assume* they will be feeding another machine in a chain (so every party could have their own counter in the chain if they wish to, and each gets a bite at the cherry in sequence)
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Dave Howe wrote: Miles Fidelman wrote: - option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through a different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a different vendor) or indeed constructing said machines so they *assume* they will be feeding another machine in a chain (so every party could have their own counter in the chain if they wish to, and each gets a bite at the cherry in sequence) GREAT idea! Sort of like the Space Shuttle computers - 5 operating in parallel, one from a completely different hardware and software vendor.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:18:42AM -0800, Tim May wrote: On Nov 26, 2003, at 8:10 AM, BillyGOTO wrote: I have no problem with this free choice contract. You can't sell your vote for the same reason that Djinni don't grant wishes for more wishes. A silly comment. I take it you're saying Because the rules don't allow it. Or something similar to this. The rules are precisely what we are discussing. In this case, the rules are implemented as the design requirements for the ballot box under discussion. A snoop-resistant ballot box can give the rules some huevos. If I sell you my Kennedy vote and then go into a Snoop-Proof(tm) box and cast it, you won't really be able to tell if I've ripped you off. And vote buying is much more widespread than what happens at the lowest level we happen to be talking about here, where Alice is paid $10 to vote for some particular candidate. In fact, vote buying is much more common and more dangerous at the level of political representatives. And their ballots are generally not cast behind moldy blue curtains.
RE: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Miles Fidelman wrote: Peter Trei wrote: All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with then paper ballots. I think it's called OCR Actually, I think its called 'Optical Mark Sense'. Paper ballots, marked by the voter, not by software, then counted by software: - the ballot and the audit document are one and the same - no opportunity for software to mess with the printed record - option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through a different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a different vendor) - further option for a manual recount of the original ballots (which are probably more legible than any machine-printed receipts) Oh, and by the way, these are the only kind of electronic voting machines approved, so far, in Mass. Miles Fidelman Indeed, thats where I live, and the tech we use. It pretty much fits all the requirements. The only complaints I've heard are: * It doesn't randomize the order of candidate presentation. * No provision for dealing with the blind.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Cameras in the voting booth? Jesus Christ, you guys are morons. If you want to sell your vote, just vote absentee. The ward guy will even stamp and mail it for you. Happens every election.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Doesn't make sense. Votes are already bought and sold, but there's so many middle men taking their cuts in the form of military bases or whatnot that the enduser barely gets some. -TD From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:18:42 -0800 On Nov 26, 2003, at 8:10 AM, BillyGOTO wrote: I have no problem with this free choice contract. You can't sell your vote for the same reason that Djinni don't grant wishes for more wishes. A silly comment. I take it you're saying Because the rules don't allow it. Or something similar to this. The rules are precisely what we are discussing. And vote buying is much more widespread than what happens at the lowest level we happen to be talking about here, where Alice is paid $10 to vote for some particular candidate. In fact, vote buying is much more common and more dangerous at the level of political representatives. Appealing to the rules (what your Djinni state as the rules) is nonproductive. Payoffs and kickbacks can be declared illegal, but they continue to happen in various ways. You, in the rest of your comments, show yourself to be one of the many tens of millions who probably need to be sent up the chimneys for their crimes. Liberty's a mental chore, isn't it? Maybe I just don't understand Liberty. I need to meditate on it for a while. I'll use your image of tens of millions of criminals going up in smoke (myself included) as a starting point. PS: Is support of vote buying consistent with rejection of Democracy? Liberty is characterized in the .sig below: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -- Ben Franklin _ Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Nov 24, 2003, at 8:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/24/2003 11:12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across. What part of I expect there may be was unclear to you? --Tim May The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
In a message dated 11/24/2003 11:12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across. Like what? Regards, Matt-
RE: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
At 2:30 PM -0800 11/24/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 01:04 PM 11/24/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: Thats not how it works. The idea is that you make your choices on the machine, and when you lock them in, two things happen: They are electronically recorded in the device for the normal count, and also, a paper receipt is printed. The voter checks the receipt to see if it accurately records his choices, and then is required to put it in a ballot box retained at the polling site. If there's a need for a recount, the paper receipts can be checked. I imagine a well designed system might show the paper receipt through a window, but not let it be handled, to prevent serial fraud. Vinny the Votebuyer pays you if you send a picture of your face adjacent to the committed receipt, even if you can't touch it. [more deleted] It depends on what happens to the receipt when you say commit. It could automatically go into the ballot box without delay, so you can't take such a photo. I expect that Vinny is already doing this with video of the touch screen verification screen and the voter pressing OK, but he hasn't make me an offer yet. I expect he gets better value for his money with TV ads, and last minute hit mailers. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz| There's nothing so clear as a | Periwinkle (408)356-8506 | vague idea you haven't written | 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com | down yet. -- Dean Tribble | Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
You might check out David Chaum's latest solution at http://www.vreceipt.com/, there are more details in the whitepaper: http://www.vreceipt.com/article.pdf That is irrelevant. Whatever the solution is it must be understandable and verifiable by the Standard high school dropout. Also, the trace must be mechanical in nature and readable sans computers, as there is no reason to trust anything that goes through gates for which one hasn't verifed masks, when stakes are high. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
At 8:04 PM -0800 11/24/03, Tim May wrote: I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across. And since encouraging the democrats has never been a priority for me, I haven't spent much time worrying about how to improve democratic elections. You might check out David Chaum's latest solution at http://www.vreceipt.com/, there are more details in the whitepaper: http://www.vreceipt.com/article.pdf Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz| There's nothing so clear as a | Periwinkle (408)356-8506 | vague idea you haven't written | 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com | down yet. -- Dean Tribble | Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Nov 24, 2003, at 3:52 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: At 2:30 PM -0800 11/24/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 01:04 PM 11/24/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: Thats not how it works. The idea is that you make your choices on the machine, and when you lock them in, two things happen: They are electronically recorded in the device for the normal count, and also, a paper receipt is printed. The voter checks the receipt to see if it accurately records his choices, and then is required to put it in a ballot box retained at the polling site. If there's a need for a recount, the paper receipts can be checked. I imagine a well designed system might show the paper receipt through a window, but not let it be handled, to prevent serial fraud. Vinny the Votebuyer pays you if you send a picture of your face adjacent to the committed receipt, even if you can't touch it. [more deleted] It depends on what happens to the receipt when you say commit. It could automatically go into the ballot box without delay, so you can't take such a photo. If it goes in without any delay, without any chance for Suzie the Sheeple to examine it, then why bother at all? Simply issue an assurance to Suzie that her ballot was duly copied to an adjacent memory store or counting box. When she says Then why did you people even bother?, just shrug and say They told us to do it. As Major Variola said a few messages ago, as soon as human eyes can see it, machines and cameras and cellphones and eavesdroppers and Vinnie the Votebuyer can see it. I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across. And since encouraging the democrats has never been a priority for me, I haven't spent much time worrying about how to improve democratic elections. And since a person should be completely free to sell his or her vote, 99% of the measures to stop vote-buying are bogus on general principles. --Tim May --Tim May, Occupied America They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
RE: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution, usually less than 320x200. Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say 3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture. Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you carry a good camera into the booth with you. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Vinny the Votebuyer pays you if you send a picture of your face adjacent to the committed receipt, even if you can't touch it. Since the voting booth is private, no one can see you do this, even if it were made illegal. (And since phones can store images, jamming the transmission at the booth doesn't work.) You send your picture from the cellphone that took it, along with a paypal account number as a text message.
Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:56 AM, Sunder wrote: Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution, usually less than 320x200. Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say 3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture. Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you carry a good camera into the booth with you. 1. Vinnie the Votebuyer knows the _layout_ of the ballot. He only needs to see that the correct box is punched/marked. Or that the screen version has been checked. Pretty easy to see that Bush has been marked instead of Gore. (For a conventional ballot. For a printed receipt is likely in the extreme that the text will be large, at least for the results.) 2. I don't know about cellphone cameras, but my 1996-vintage one megapixel camera has more than enough resolution, even at the not so great setting (about 360 x 500) to pick up text very well. (I used it to snap photos of some things with labels attached, for insurance reasons.) 3. If Vinnie is serious about this votebuying (I'm not even slightly convinced this would happen nationally, for obvious logistical and who cares? reasons, plus the inability of Palm Beach Jews to punch a conventional ballot, let alone work a digital camera and send the images to Vinnie), he can provide a camera he knows will do the job. Google shows that as of May 2003 the high-end cellphone cameras use CCDs with 640 x 480. This will become the baseline within a short time, certainly long before any of the receipt electronic voting systems are widely deployed. (e.g., this article at http://www.what-cellphone.com/articles/200305/ 200305_Easy_Snapping.php) But the resolution of today's very inexpensive digital cameras, and probably those in today's cellphone cameras, is more than enough to handle a ballot or reasonable-font receipt. --Tim May
RE: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)
Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:56 AM, Sunder wrote: Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution, usually less than 320x200. Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say 3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture. Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you carry a good camera into the booth with you. 1. Vinnie the Votebuyer knows the _layout_ of the ballot. He only needs to see that the correct box is punched/marked. Or that the screen version has been checked. I realize you big city types (yes, Tim, Corralitos is big compared to my little burg) have full scale voting booths with curtains (I used the big mechanical machines when I lived in Manhatten), but out here in the sticks, the 'voting booth' is a little standing desk affair with 18 inch privacy shields on 3 sides. If someone tried to take a photo of their ballot in one of those it would be instantly obvious. All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with then paper ballots. Have some imagination - you could, for example, set things up so the voter, and only the voter, can see the screen and/or paper receipt while voting, but still make it impossible to use a camera without being detected. Peter
