On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:54:09AM +0300, underscore wrote: > All the above could be true ... but the problem in most developing > countries is the word "people" -- who have greater involvement in a > paper based process ... there are enough documented rigged elections
Technology doesn't help with booth-capturing and other Layer 8 (and 9) problems. > around -- in most cases the people are more easy to corrupt than the > system itself (paper or electronic). It is still fundamentally possible to explain people what a tamper-proof seal is, how to check it, and how to observe the voting process and report irregularities to prevent tampering, and the whole principle of inspection and accountability. People intuitively understand such concepts and artifacts. > for e.g. -- this sentence ... > > Paper can be trusted to be fully inspectable to uninstrumented humans. > ... is the very reason paper ballot elections are so easy to rig in > technology and democratic process deficient regions where many such > incidents take place. Yes, but with electronic systems manipulations can be centralized, and can be undetectable in principle. Again, better deal with the devil you know. The one you don't is potentially much, much more scary. > If you have a well audit sealed electronic voting box scenario -- it > would be significantly more difficult to rig it using traditional Traditional, yes. But these are not the droids we're looking for. > means -- at least until the ones attempting to fix an election have > caught up with it technologically. People who design such systems can attack them. And do it so cleverly, you won't realize until the entire vote is stolen. And you won't even be able to prove it's been stolen. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
