Your Dagdag-Bawas will be caught by the test I proposed because when I examine the categories, I expect to have say, 100votes for Mr Cong A, 500votes for Mr. Cong B, etc.
So, cheating by dagdag bawas will not pass. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Danny Ching <[email protected]> wrote: > It was caught because we already know what the results should be. > Besides, cheating has become a "Dagdag-Bawas" operation today. Deduct votes > from one candidate and add it to another. Not unless we can manually count > the actual votes cast and tally them, we'd be none the wiser if triggers > were activated. > > What if we do not? Like the actual election. We'd have to count the ballots > by hand and then check the computer's results. > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Michael Janapin >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Sir, >> > I'm really trying my best to understand your reasoning. >> > Of course, the 1000 ballots will be correctly counted and categorized. >> > That's what the programmers will make sure it will do. >> > >> >> OK. >> >> I put in 1000 ballots in my test. I expect to see 1000 ballots. >> >> If some kind of trigger adds 1000 ballots, the actual result will be >> 2000ballots. >> >> Since, I got 2000ballots instead of my expectation 1000ballots, I will >> reject >> the System. >> >> >> > However, that is NOT ALL THAT MATTERS in the election. There's even a >> > loophole in your categorization. Valid, Invalid, Uncategorized would >> > just >> > refer to the ballot count. You have no provision to catch a ballot that >> > will >> > begin to alter the process that counts the actual votes and tabulates it >> > accordingly. >> > >> > The hidden triggers that alter the process can only be caught through >> > source >> > code review. >> > >> > Again, the outcome you are happy with is not enough to satisfy the >> > degree of >> > trustworthiness of the system some are clamoring for. >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Oscar Plameras >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Because when I put in 1000 ballots and the resulting count is 1000 >> >> ballots >> >> and >> >> correctly categorized as valid, invalid, and uncategorized, is all that >> >> matters >> >> in the election. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Michael Janapin >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Sir, >> >> > >> >> > How can it be well and good if your check do not catch the absurdity >> >> > in >> >> > any >> >> > coding? It's bad. Because that code Mr. Locke just produced as an >> >> > example is >> >> > a mischievous one. It will only take just one freaking trigger hidden >> >> > inside >> >> > the source code. >> >> > >> >> > You said your 'check' will not look for such things. Again, that's >> >> > the >> >> > weakness of your proposal. On the other hand, Source Code review will >> >> > allow >> >> > us to look for such things to assure integrity. >> >> > >> >> > You also said that what matters are the outcome. Don't you realize >> >> > that >> >> > the >> >> > outcome is determined by the code? >> >> > >> >> > And finally, I think sir, that you are working on a "Default Accept" >> >> > policy. >> >> > This may not be so assuring when it comes to the code that will >> >> > determine >> >> > our country's next leaders. A saner policy should be "Default Deny." >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Oscar Plameras >> >> > <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The check I propose is by Outcome. >> >> >> >> >> >> If my check will not catch the absurdity in any coding, that's well >> >> >> and >> >> >> good. >> >> >> >> >> >> My check is not going to look for such things. What matters are the >> >> >> outcome >> >> >> or results. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Robert Locke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > Oscar, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If I had a closed system that did the following: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > if (current_date < '2010-05-10) { >> >> >> > do_a_normal_tally(); >> >> >> > } else { >> >> >> > >> >> >> > do_something_slightly_different_but_not_too_obvious(); >> >> >> > } >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How would your proposed "Testing the System by Outcomes" catch >> >> >> > this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Maybe you set the system date to be 2010-05-10, and the ruse is >> >> >> > revealed. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So the programmer does this: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > if (current_date < '2010-05-10 && !obscure_hot_key_pressed) >> >> >> > { >> >> >> > do_a_normal_tally(); >> >> >> > } else { >> >> >> > >> >> >> > do_something_slightly_different_but_not_too_obvious(); >> >> >> > } >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How do you catch it then? Obviously this is an oversimplified >> >> >> > example, but I'm curious to hear how you would expose it. Or are >> >> >> > we >> >> >> > supposed to blindly "trust" that this won't happen? If that's >> >> >> > your >> >> >> > position, then I would say it's a bit naive. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an >> >> >> > advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as >> >> >> > against despots. What is it? Distrust." - Demosthenes >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Rob >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Michael R. Janapin >> >> > Systems Administrator >> >> > PBTS Baguio City, Philippines >> >> > http://mulingsilang.wordpress.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _________________________________________________ >> >> > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> >> > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> >> > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> >> > >> >> _________________________________________________ >> >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Michael R. Janapin >> > Systems Administrator >> > PBTS Baguio City, Philippines >> > http://mulingsilang.wordpress.com >> > >> > >> > _________________________________________________ >> > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> > >> _________________________________________________ >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > > > > -- > Regards, > Danny Ching > > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
