-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: internet voting -- ICANN, SmartInitiatives, etc. Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:35:37 -0800 From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Steven M. Bellovin" wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Crowcroft writes: > > > >the bggest problems with security ssytems are generally 90% to do with > >design errors at level 10 (human, not policitcal, economic, > >application, transport etc) > > > > Mostly right, though one shouldn't rule out the possibility of layer > 10-inspired insider tampering with the software. Nor should one ignore > the possiblity of simple bugs -- the electronic equivalent of hanging > chad. Mostly right also, but it is a bug to say that bugs are somehow equivalent to hanging chads. Dimples, pregnant chags and hanging chads are digitization errors, bound to happen in any process that goes from analog to digital (because a digital process has steps and an anlog process is stepless). So, chad problems are inevitable in any system that uses punch cards to record votes (btw, a technology that was first used in 1890 in the US Census). Chad problems can never be entirely fixed or avoided as long as you have that punch card. Bugs, however, can be either fixed or avoided. So, even though many people like to talk in terms of dumbed down soundbytes, one cannot derive any logical conclusion from such soundbytes. Cheers, Ed Gerck
