Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:And... it's not the dems requesting it, which i (Score 1) 299

You think the 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary aren't the Democrats?

I don't. To me, and I expect most everyone, the way you used that term referred to the party leaders. Otherwise I don't see why you should be indignant that your fellow compatriots fund initiatives without consulting you first.

Comment Re:And... it's not the dems requesting it, which i (Score 3, Insightful) 299

Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".

So you're saying Stein cannot possibly consider Hillary to be the lesser evil and couldn't possibly decide to verify that Hillary lost on her own. As for the funding it cannot possibly be the over 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary either. For you it really has to be some conspiracy. Just because... ???

Comment Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid (Score 1) 299

Open source would be better than closed source (more far more audit-able both before and after the election, and likely cheaper in the long run), however I agree, the current approaches to electronic voting machines are worse than paper, and still would be even if open sourced.

All it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.

Comment Re:Two big problems here (Score 2) 299

2) Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs. That makes it far easier for criminals to discover vulnerabilities and tamper with elections. Having open source voting machines virtually guarantees that criminals will be able to exploit vulnerabilities and have a much easier time rigging elections.

That argument has been debunked over and over. The real argument against open-source in elections is that all it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because
that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.

Comment Re:Will Starship Troopers Follow Heinlein's Book? (Score 1) 457

Democracy severely restricted? Nothing like that in the book; separate states have their own governments, and ANYBODY can get Federal citizenship by putting in a 2-year tour of Federal service. You can't buy a franchise, you have to EARN it - but it's open to EVERYONE. If you have one eye and one hand and an IQ of 80, they'll find something for you to do for two years.

So anybody EXCEPT tetraplegics, disabled, and anybody who opposes the war. And you think that's democracy. Sad!

Comment Re:Interesting copyright infrigement definition (Score 1) 121

If I hire you to clean up "Heinrich von Sturm and the Russian Underground of Science" (which has gotten such praise as "readable") and publish it on Amazon, you're doing it under license and it's legal. If you get a copy and do that by yourself, it's illegal.

According to your first post Amazon would be the one doing the distribution, not me. So Amazon would be infringing on your exclusive distribution rights, not me. A lot of "pirates" would love your interpretation of copyright law!

Comment Re:Interesting copyright infrigement definition (Score 1) 121

A DMCA takedown request doesn't prevent you from distributing your work. It informs somebody else that continuing to distribute your work is legally risky, and the somebody else has to decide whether to take your stuff down or face possible liability.

By this definition nobody distributes their copyrighted work themselves: editors, printing companies and transporters do it for book authors, music companies, cd printing plants and transporters do it for musicians, etc. So by your definition it's essentially impossible to interfere with the author's exclusive distribution right. That's nonsensical.

Comment Interesting copyright infrigement definition (Score 2) 121

Quoting the article:

Noting that ‘repeat’ means to do something “again or repeatedly” while an ‘infringer’ is “[s]omeone who interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a copyright,” the Court of Appeals goes on to broaden the scope significantly.

“Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense in the sense that a plaintiff is not required to prove unlawful intent or culpability, and a user does not have to share copyrighted works in order to infringe a copyright,” its opinion reads.

That's an interesting copyright infringement definition. I know the MPAA or RIAA are not liable under the DMCA when they misuse it to take down the video of a bird singing or a Ubuntu iso file. But in doing so they are interfering with the copyright holder's exclusive distribution right and thus are 'infringing' based on plain copyright law and thus could be sued on that basis. Furthermore we know they abuse the DMCA regularly and thus they are 'repeat infringers' so their ISP should cut off their Internet access, even if they don't illegally share copyrighted works. Sounds promising...

Comment Re:Mail-only voting (Score 1) 454

Dumbass.

Dumbass to you too sir. (I didn't know this was a greeting. Must be an american idiom)

People do this in their homes, you know, where they receive their mail. If people are coming into your home and strongarming you, you have some other serious issues to contend with.

A lot of people have spouses or parents coming into their homes ready to play the peer-pressure or wholesale strong-arming game. After all if 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence how many would merely be forced to vote for the right party? How many cases of unprovable vote coercion would even be reported? How many would be investigated?

As to getting a meeting where everyone brings their blank ballots, there is no way to keep that shit secret! It will be found out, and the law will be on their ass! It's not going to happen, so you can put your tinfoil hat down, this isn't a hollywood movie.

Indeed this is different and not a hollywood movie. It's history. While what happened in Chile did not involve mail-in it qualifies as strong-arming on a scale large enough to clear the "no way to keep that shit secret!" threshold. And yet it worked for decades...

Comment Re:Stop treating this like it were binary (Score 2) 332

You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession.

It's not just a few bad eggs. It's all the other eggs that support the bad eggs, cover up their lies, refuse to hold the bad eggs accountable for their actions. So many of the eggs are rotten in this way, often without even realizing it, that any egg that does try to speak up will get broken and thrown out in no time.

Comment Re:Why OS? (Score 1) 140

Voting machines should be open-source coded in assembly language to run directly on the hardware, and the hardware should be open source

Open-source software and hardware is useless for voting computers. What matters is allowing voters to verify that the hardware and software used on election day is the one that was audited. But of course nobody in their right mind would allow a random voter to hook up a hardware probe or run his own code(*) on the voting computer on election day!

(*) I hope you were not thinking of letting the (lying?) voting computer audit itself!

Comment Re:What's the threat model? (Score 1) 140

Voting machines should be simple devices for counting votes, not full blown computers running a general purpose OS. With a bare minimum of functionality there is less attack surface and less need to patch anything.

Even the simplest electronic voting machine can cheat and yet even they cannot be audited by voters on election day. So you're telling us that voters should trust the people they are voting out of office to organize fair elections! That's quite insane.

Comment Re:What's the threat model? (Score 1) 140

Unpatched XP? So what? What's the threat model?

Right. Patched or unpatched does not make much difference. The important thing is that they run a full blown OS, specifically Windows XP, which means 45 million lines of proprietary unauditable code (trade secret). And that's not counting all the other software the manufacturer added on top of it to turn it into a voting computer.

So an attacker has a wealth of juicy targets: the display driver, touchscreen controller, hundreds of drivers, etc. Anything he changes will be a straw in the middle of a haystack... even more so if he works for the manufacturer or is part of the team that defines the reference software platform.

Plus none of that matters for the voter: he will never be allowed to run a debugger or hook up a hardware monitor on election day to verify that the voting machine has not been tampered with, and with good reason since that would allow him to tamper with it. So even a knowledgeable voter will never be able to verify that the voting computer used on election day has not been hacked, which is totally unlike the situation for regular paper ballots boxes.

Slashdot Top Deals

1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

Working...