Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 1) 143

Planes do detect other planes in proximity with the aptly-named proximity warning. Miles in advance. With beeps buzzes and autopilot disengagement. They are called ACAS.

Given that, to quote Wikipedia, while larger civil aircraft carry weather radar, sensitive anti-collision radar is rare in non-military aircraft, ACAS either does not detect planes that don't have a transponder, or need to rely on external systems to do so. Car autopilots can neither rely on other cars and pedestrians having transponders, nor on some central authority warning them when they're about to hit something. Thus they have to detect obstacles entirely on their own which requires a whole lot more sophistication than plane autopilots (which is also why planes have had autopilots for over 30 years and cars are just beginning to get them).

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 1) 143

A car autopilot has to be much more sophisticated than aircraft ones because pedestrians, bicycles and even other cars don't have a transponder broadcasting their position and speed at all times. Furthermore in the air there are essentially no stationary obstacles (mountains and relief don't count: they are well mapped), whereas on the ground there are tons of obstacles (from parked cars to road work, construction areas encroaching on the road, etc). Plus the pilots of other aircrafts are nowhere as crazy and unpredictable as car drivers (fortunately).

Comment Re:"Technologically impossible?" (Score 1) 219

As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation.

Climate warming is easier to understand, there are over 2000 scientists who can and do testify that it is real and still 50% if not more of the population doubts it. And you think the testimony of a paltry 100 cryptographers will be sufficient?

Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems, and only if the results from all three agreed perfectly would the election be considered valid.

So either there are three computers and the voter must enter his vote three times without mistakes otherwise the results will differ causing everyone to doubt the system; or you have a four computer sending the vote data to the three others, after having tampered of leaked the votes, but all three implementations will show the same result, officially "proving" the election was not tampered with. In other words, no dice.

Comment Re:You are missing the point (Score 1) 219

So just use bank ATMs that are located in already secured bank lobbies.

Thus directly giving control of the elections to private companies and reducing citizen oversight to exactly zero.

Yes, this de-anonymizes your vote. ... I think it is a worthy goal to allow everyone a say.

De-anonymizing votes is the opposite of allowing everyone a say (because it enables community / employer / peer pressure). Not in theory, in practice, as shown by Chile's transition from open to secret ballots. Plus Internet (or ATM in your version) voting has nothing with ensuring anyone has a say. Finally, there's no point ensuring everyone has a say if you first made it trivial for anyone in the world to hack elections on a large scale.

Comment Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ball (Score 1) 219

Use a gift card and mail to a PO box service that is engaged under a pseudonym and paid for in cash.

Of course the whole "Internet voting equals Internet buying" analogy is fatally flawed. That's because the store does not care who you are as long as you pay so it's willing to accept a gift card you bought anonymously. In contrast the government wants to restrict voting rights to its constituency so it will never let you vote without first providing some form of identification.

Comment Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score 1) 219

Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...

If cars or airplanes of a specific make keep crashing laymen are going to know pretty quick and will buy from its competitors. Same thing for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.

But if done well, laymen would not know that the election was stolen. And it's not like you can go to the competition. Not only has the government a monopoly on elections, you cannot even escape whatever decisions it takes (no moving abroad is a not an option for most people).

Comment Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score 1) 219

There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.

And that is the problem. To actually verify that these systems work as they claim you need PhD in cryptography which means 99.99% of the voters are left out in the cold. Plus having a working theory is one thing, letting voters make sure on election day that the implementation is not buggy and does not leak your votes to third-parties via a side-channel is another entirely.

Comment Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score 1) 219

For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.

Chile also had open ballots and was not in a state of civil war or armed insurrection. Yet, as soon as they switched to secret ballots the election results changed significantly.

You're forgetting whole cultures and communities where women don't have equal rights (no matter what the law says), and employers who have the will and the means to try and nudge the balance.

Comment Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ball (Score 1) 219

I think if you want an anonymous vote you should be able to vote on paper and if not then a verifiable digital vote. Leave the option to the voter.

Leaving the option to the voter is the same as leaving it to vote buyers and coercers.

One thing, no fucking chads.

Like Internet voting is the only solution to hanging chads. Guess what, in France we use paper and never had and never will get hanging chads!

Comment Re:What if we don't care? (Score 1) 219

I'm even in favor of getting rid of absentee voting for this reason. Lets have the polls open for 2-3 weeks, and offer rides a few of the days instead of mailing ballots back and forth. If you can't make it to an authorized polling place*, you don't get to vote.

You could start by having elections on a Sunday instead of having them on a day where almost no one has time to go and wait in line.

Comment Re: As if current voting systems (Score 1) 219

I can also verify that my vote was accepted for counting by checking online with the Secretary of State's office. If there is a problem I may have a chance to fix it depending on timing. All in all I'm confident that my ballot is secret and that it is being counted.

All you really know is that your vote has been received. They may have thrown it straight into the trash though. That you're confident it is secret and being counted just shows you're of a trusting nature and optimistic.

Comment Re:Blockchain technology (Score 1) 219

If a vote is represented by a cryptocurrency wallet balance, and votes are randomly distributed to voters via paper wallets(no visible unique markings on the outside of the wallets to independently distinguish them from any other), so long as deposit of wallets can be done anonymously(Tor etc.) then this is a highly secure auditable method of electronic voting.

So auditable that a) the state will know exactly how you voted and can send the secret police should you have voted incorrectly, and b) it can even save you the trouble of voting since it knows your wallet id.

Please remember that the whole point of elections is to peacefully overthrow the government in power.

Comment Re:You are missing the point (Score 1) 219

How about instead we just have voting booth machines available at every Town Hall/Police Station, go in, put in your information (or scan your driver's license for it to be quicker) it uses facial recognition like the new automated passport machines, and leave it open for an entire month. So anyone can go vote the 30 days up to the election and the results are tallied that night.

Either these voting booth machines are entirely automated, which seems to be implied, and then it means the machine has both your vote and your id, meaning it violates the anonymity requirement; or you need to have not one but multiple clerks and party representatives manning the booth to ensure no one person can rig things, for a whole month which is going to be very expensive.
Either way the voting machine will need to be guarded day and night to ensure no one tampers with it, again by multiple individuals, again paid for a whole month, again very expensive.

Comment Re:"Technologically impossible?" (Score 1) 219

Please explain what steps you have taken in your voting protocol to ensure that, on election day, any voter can verify that the voting software and hardware actually preserves his/her anonymity and prevents cheating. Don't forget to explain why allowing for this verification by any voter on election day does not introduce any opportunity for tampering. Please keep things short, let's say ~1000 words, start from first principles, and limit yourself to concepts understandable by all voters.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many weeks are there in a light year?