At 09:26 AM 5/30/00 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >It is of course possible to decide that the advantages >of allowing voting from home, for a particular purpose, outweight the >security concerns. This is a legitimate tradeoff and the right choice >depends on the particulars of each election. Precisely. It is entirely the local custom. In many places going physically to vote leads to less participation (e.g., weather, violence in streets, threatened violence at polling places, immobile voters). To assert as Dan did that >Internet voting is anti-democracy and then slam > those who cannot bestir >themselves to be present upon that day and place which is never >a surprise to do that which is the single most precious gift of >all the blood of all the liberators can, in a word, shut up. is simply his opinion, and offensive. Regular voting isn't holy, or even particularly good ---its just the best practice so far, with well-understood medieval tools. You needn't show any proof of citizenship to vote here, for instance, so criminal aliens can and do vote (illegally) very easily. This is not hypothetical. Similarly people can vote multiple times easily. We know this because the protocol allows it, and they are occasionally caught. >The reason I'm writing all this is because I resented David's end note: > >> So standing in line with the masses like some Russian waiting for >> bread somehow immunizes against voter fraud? This isn't offensive to Russians, though perhaps its dated, and truth is an absolute defense against libel, so what to resent here? >> Yeah right... real purty flame there, real Daughters of the American >> Revolution material, blood of the liberators and all, but how about a >real >> argument? Or is your retro dogma supposed to be lapped up >> on the basis of your empty, inflamatory assertions >As I explained, I believe that there are serious advantages and risks to >both approaches, and in any case a civilized discussion is more fruitful >(and fun) than name-calling and offensive methaphors. Its fine to point out attacks and defenses against various protocols. It is neither crypto nor civil to slam people as 'anti-democracy' who don't agree that meat-voting is 'better'. My caustic reply to Dan is a response to his offensive preaching about others being anti-democratic for voting, but not at the polls. Furthermore I think >Dan clearly made a real argument, to which David's only answer was `well if >it's a problem how come a comparably insecure sceanrio is acceptable in my >case` Again, not 'my case' but in the general case. People vote with dead trees because voting was developed before the telegraph. If you want to discuss attacks on voting, its largely cultural and legal ---do you worry more about wifebeating or snipers? And you can discuss technology and processes which resist those attacks to give what you want --high participation uncoercable private one-man-one-vote voting. The point is that lining up doesn't guarantee much. In fact, polling places also constitute denial of service weak points ---amazing how a few snipers can keep turnout low. Also: Conspiracy between the monitors watching the polls, miswired voting machines, pre-loaded polling machines, threats against entire towns if votes didn't go a certain way. All have happened, will happen. - and even that argument could have been made more clearly. There are >better counter arguments, such as that physical attendance is a substantial >barrier for some voters so by requiring it we deny them their right and may >tilt the results. Not a barrier to some voters, but a disincentive for many. Gripe if you want, people are busy. Here in the states, the weather (in colder/wetter parts) affects elections because it affects turnout and high turnout favors one party. Maybe you think, like Dan seems to, well, if they won't vote in the rain they shouldn't vote. But I thought the goal was (uncoercable) participation? >I'll conclude by noting two important differences between mail voting and >Internet voting; I hope David will allow them as `real arguments`... They are valid practical concerns. >1. Mail voting is a non-trivial process, and in many cases less convinient >than Internet voting; as a result it is also acceptable in many cases to >restrict it to special circumstances. Internet voting may be much more >convinient and hence popular, therefore concerns about its security may be >more critical. Mail voting here requires only: literacy ability to use a pencil ability to stamp a letter In-person voting requires: body claiming to be someone signature or 'X' Mail voting is more trivial than net voting (given computers' ease of use) or finding the hour, way, and parking for physical voting. Perhaps you need a State-issued biometrics ID to vote in .il? Its a tradeoff. >2. Physical mail is very low-tech. This means that it is available to >(well, almost) every elligible voter. Presently, convinient Internet access >is not yet available to weak populations. Therefore by making Internet >voting so much easier, weak populations may be (even less) represented than >today. Again, cultural/legal. Clearly you wouldn't do this in America now, but on a modern college campus (e.g., where computer ownership is required and applications only accepted online) you could try it. *Rural* populations are 'weak', and because of their low density, physical voting is more burdensome. Communications-based voting (mail or net doesn't matter) would let more of them vote. Anti-democracy? Maybe rural people shouldn't vote if there's a blizzard that night? >3. Existing operating systems used by Internet machines are far from being >secure. Therefore if Internet voting will allow voting using any browser >and OS, then a virus could easily vote for many users... > >To be fair, concerns 2 and 3 above may be addressed if the government will >create a `secure voting` device and distribute one for each voter, the >device requiring you just to connect it to the phone (or maybe not even >this?). It is doable, in theory. And maybe it will be done once. Maybe. And >maybe these devices will even be trustworthy. Maybe. Finally back to technology. Yes, there are problems. There are problems with mail voting and problems with meat voting. But the problems in tech are workable; the social problems of coercion, well-funded disinfo campaigns to sway voters, intimidation at the physical polls, and the effect of weather on mobility are not tractable with crypto. I'm not arguing that the tech is ready now, but that it could be someday, and that it could be good for getting people to participate. In some environments, it could be less coercable participation too. That's 'better' in my book. I see no reason to be told I am anti-democracy (we all appreciate the real and hypothesized attacks on meat, mail, and electronic voting) or to "shut up" for considering improvements in the apparatus of democracy. The properties of various voting protocols against various attacks can be studied objectively, including meat and postal voting. The details of voting --how you ID yourself, the threats to voters, etc. are local, and one tribe is likely to find others' practices barbaric --either promiscuous or draconian. Best to avoid accusing others of being anti-democracy and stick to objective discussion -properties of protocols and definitions of attacks. Then we can let cultures decide whether snipers or wifebeaters are the appropriate threat model, and what technology is appropriate. dh
