>Joop's statement about passwords was naive, because a fraudulent
>voter *with* a password is no better than a fraudulent voter
>*without* a password. The primary problem remains, as Diane pointed
>out, authenticating the voters in the first place.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
Say you autheticate voters. We have a process that lets you know
I am me and you are you.
Now, you gave to autenticate votes. I eman maybe you're
a registred voter, but maybe you were away and sombody
voted in your name.
How would you fix that? I'd say you'd complain to
sombody. Unless of course they coted the "right"
way for you in which case no harm no foul, right?
Now, if we were to hold some sort of vote today we -
all of use here who to some extent know (but by no
means agree with) each other - would no dount
not be surprised with how we voted. Do we need to
verify each other?
In other words, reduce the proble, by putting
a bound on it - we reallyonly need to verify
people that we don't recognize.
Now, they're gonna vote one way or another, and
either they're real or not. This is not rocket science;
forged votes will have a pattern - votes forged both
for anad against an issue alike and again I believe they'll
cancel each other.
There should be some sort of vote validaiton such
is done with usenet.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
