Thanks, Brian, for throwing a bit of common sense into this
insane discussion.

Phyllis

--- Brian Murray <itvegas@...> wrote:
> And someone could, with an adequate supply of cash or
> beer, talk a bunch of
> people into forging documents, wearing disguises and
> making multiple trips or
> whatever in an attempt to manipulate a hard copy vote.
> But 'possible' and
> 'likely' are two very different beasts.  It's possible
> that our next
> president will be Libertarian, Green Party, female,
> single, Asian, black,
> hispanic, openly gay, horribly disfigured, atheist,
> Buddhist, Muslim, or a
> known transvestite, but the smart money says he'll be
> white, straight,
> married, Christian, reasonably good looking and a
> Democrat or a Republican.
>
> The popular notion of hacking is more Hollywood than
> reality.  It's no big
> deal to code for an electronic vote in such a way that
> manipulating it would
> take such a commitment of time and resources as to be
> virtually impossible.
> Reasonably administered sites aren't hacked in minutes or
> hours, but weeks or
> months.  Try too often and you're readily spotted.  Reuse
> the same addresses,
> methods or periods too frequently and you're readily
> spotted.  And then
> there's that most of what's hacked is hacked because it
> sits long with a
> vulnerability that's known because the vulnerable
> application is widely
> distributed or open source.  When the program is a total
> unknown, as it
> should be for an application such as this, the system
> handled prudently and
> the polls kept open just a reasonable time, no one but an
> insider is likely
> to be capable of manipulating the vote.  Even then the
> other insiders would
> have to be on board for it to be executed quickly and
> quietly enough to go
> unnoticed or for it to remain so.  And if we're to worry
> about insiders next
> then we're all just wasting our time here unless someone
> has devised a means
> of running an organization with no one in it.
>
>
> --
> People seem to think that the blanket phrase, "I only
> work here," absolves
> them utterly from any moral obligation in terms of the
> public -- but this
> was precisely Eichmann's excuse for his job in the
> concentration camps.
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Thank you for more elloquently making my point.  If there is to be an online
vote, those of us with some background in internet protocols, security
measures and programming should be involved in the creation of the voting
methodology and procedures.  If you're just going to put up an HTML voting
page with minimal ID procedures, I could spoof 50,000 (or 50,000,000 or any
other very large number you like) votes in a matter of a few hours (possibly
much less).  The entire key to this is the term "reasonably administered".
I "reasonably administer" both my web servers and my clients' file servers.
Therefore, I have, in over 20 years of operation, NEVER had a server hacked.
I can, however, show you public web servers that can be hacked in under 3
minutes by most Micro$oft literate 8th graders.  I strongly suggest we lean
towards my methods of administration (at least from a computer perspective).

My main concern is that FSP succeed.  To that end, I believe that 2 things
are necessary.  1- That the members get to know and learn to trust each
other.  Without this the project WILL FAIL!  2- That any project that FSP
takes on be reasonably administered by those with appropriate expertise.  My
favorite examples of how NOT to do this exist in our current Department of
Education;  Department of Energy;  Department of Health & Human Services;
Social Security Administration (read "Socialist Slavery Admin") and too many
others to list.

While I am not likely a candidate for actual membership in FSP as without a
SSN most states will not allow me to vote, I am willing to work with you to
achieve your goals.  A friend of mine has recently won this argument in
Nevada, I however am currently domiciled in California where the argument
has been fought and lost on numerous occassions.  My other problem is
extracting my wife from California without a divorce.  I've been working on
that for more than 8 years.  While appearing to soften to the notion, she's
still not really open for discussion.

I've let numerous of you know about the project, you know who you are, and
continue to spread the word.  Hopefully, I'll be able to join you sometime
in the not too distant future.  Meanwhile, I would like to see you succeed.

BC.

> On Wednesday 27 November 2002 03:04 pm, voodootyke wrote:
> <snip>
>> > Being computer literate, I could likely create hundreds of bogus
>>> internet presences and very likely greatly influence the outcome of
>>> any on-line election (I actually do that with numerous on-line polls,
>>> just to hear what they have to say when the poll turns out with a
>>> very libertarian slant).
>>
>> Exactly. If were to sic my brother and his hacker buddies on the FSP,
>> they can make DC win the free state vote.
>
> And someone could, with an adequate supply of cash or beer, talk a
> bunch of  people into forging documents, wearing disguises and making
> multiple trips or  whatever in an attempt to manipulate a hard copy
> vote.  But 'possible' and  'likely' are two very different beasts.
> It's possible that our next  president will be Libertarian, Green
> Party, female, single, Asian, black,  hispanic, openly gay, horribly
> disfigured, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or a  known transvestite, but
> the smart money says he'll be white, straight,  married, Christian,
> reasonably good looking and a Democrat or a Republican.
>
> The popular notion of hacking is more Hollywood than reality.  It's no
> big  deal to code for an electronic vote in such a way that
> manipulating it would  take such a commitment of time and resources as
> to be virtually impossible.    Reasonably administered sites aren't
> hacked in minutes or hours, but weeks or  months.  Try too often and
> you're readily spotted.  Reuse the same addresses,  methods or periods
> too frequently and you're readily spotted.  And then  there's that most
> of what's hacked is hacked because it sits long with a  vulnerability
> that's known because the vulnerable application is widely  distributed
> or open source.  When the program is a total unknown, as it  should be
> for an application such as this, the system handled prudently and  the
> polls kept open just a reasonable time, no one but an insider is likely
> to be capable of manipulating the vote.  Even then the other insiders
> would  have to be on board for it to be executed quickly and quietly
> enough to go  unnoticed or for it to remain so.  And if we're to worry
> about insiders next  then we're all just wasting our time here unless
> someone has devised a means  of running an organization with no one in
> it.
>
>
> --
> People seem to think that the blanket phrase, "I only work here,"
> absolves them utterly from any moral obligation in terms of the public
> -- but this was precisely Eichmann's excuse for his job in the
> concentration camps.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Bob Compton wrote:
> Yeah, but the VistaPrint cards are FULL COLOR with graphics!  You need to
> check out the site.  These are really professional full color cards!  Those
> $10/1000 cards are ONE color ink on ONE color paper.  How much do they
> charge for FULL COLOR (4 color CYMB web press process)?  Substantially more,
> me thinks...

I don't know about full color, but they are "professional-looking".  I use
them all the time.  They'll do multiple colors and fonts for something
around $20-$25 per 1000, I think.

I don't want to advertize for Staples -- if Vista has full color for $5.25
shipped, it's a good deal, no question about that.

-Adam

This thread is getting old. It is socially and technologically feasible to
thwart a vote.

1) It is possible to entirely annihilate the valid outcome of any democratic
process without first employing invasive and cryptographically strong
counter-measures
2) We would very much like to believe that we can trust one another.

My own $0.02:
We can trust (most) one another.
We can't be certain that 100% of the vote will be accurate -- that 0.01% of
the pariticpants won't cheat to sway 99.99% of the vote.

What do we want?
A non-invasive assurance that the vote proceeds without tampering that
assures that the 0.01% of the participants aren't unethically weighting
99.99% of the vote!

My own humble proposal:
We effectively employ biometrics to assign private keys to voters who will
digitally sign their electronic transactions. Is this invasive? Yes. Is it
secure and assures one vote per person? Yes.

What will it take?
We will need devices (reviewed openly for accuracy by all members) in (at
least each) state where members reside. They will have to journey to some
location where key pairs are created based on the biometric data they
provide (in person). Once these key pairs are assigned, we can associate
official votes (or other documents) with a single, real person. We don't
need to know *anything* about that person (e.g. date of birth, real name,
etc...) except that their finger prints or retinal-scans resolve to a single
identity.

We now live in an age of technology that, if properly and ethically
employed, will allay fears of fraud, protect anonymity and permit the
persuit of a fair vote for liberty.

There are certainly draw-backs to this approach. We should be exceedingly
critical and explore alternatives or solutions to critiques presented.

I welcome your discourse, and eagerly await an acceptable solution to
whatever problems we must overcome.

-- Logic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Murray" <itvegas@...>
To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 5:37 AM
Subject: [FSP] Hacking the vote ( was 'Re: membership growth' )


> On Wednesday 27 November 2002 03:04 pm, voodootyke wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Being computer literate, I could likely create hundreds of bogus
> >> internet presences and very likely greatly influence the outcome
> >> of any on-line election (I actually do that with numerous on-line
> >> polls, just to hear what they have to say when the poll turns out
> >> with a very libertarian slant).
> >
> > Exactly. If were to sic my brother and his hacker buddies on the
> > FSP, they can make DC win the free state vote.
>
> And someone could, with an adequate supply of cash or beer, talk a bunch
of
> people into forging documents, wearing disguises and making multiple trips
or
> whatever in an attempt to manipulate a hard copy vote.  But 'possible' and
> 'likely' are two very different beasts.  It's possible that our next
> president will be Libertarian, Green Party, female, single, Asian, black,
> hispanic, openly gay, horribly disfigured, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or a
> known transvestite, but the smart money says he'll be white, straight,
> married, Christian, reasonably good looking and a Democrat or a
Republican.
>
> The popular notion of hacking is more Hollywood than reality.  It's no big
> deal to code for an electronic vote in such a way that manipulating it
would
> take such a commitment of time and resources as to be virtually
impossible.
> Reasonably administered sites aren't hacked in minutes or hours, but weeks
or
> months.  Try too often and you're readily spotted.  Reuse the same
addresses,
> methods or periods too frequently and you're readily spotted.  And then
> there's that most of what's hacked is hacked because it sits long with a
> vulnerability that's known because the vulnerable application is widely
> distributed or open source.  When the program is a total unknown, as it
> should be for an application such as this, the system handled prudently
and
> the polls kept open just a reasonable time, no one but an insider is
likely
> to be capable of manipulating the vote.  Even then the other insiders
would
> have to be on board for it to be executed quickly and quietly enough to go
> unnoticed or for it to remain so.  And if we're to worry about insiders
next
> then we're all just wasting our time here unless someone has devised a
means
> of running an organization with no one in it.
>
>
> --
> People seem to think that the blanket phrase, "I only work here," absolves
> them utterly from any moral obligation in terms of the public -- but this
> was precisely Eichmann's excuse for his job in the concentration camps.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:05:02PM -0500, Tim Condon wrote:
>
> >I would feel compelled to ask you to join us in the vote, opting out of
> the states to which you do not want to go. It isn't being dishonorable,
> because the same option is available to everyone, and many are taking
> that option. I would not be surprised to learn that those who are willing

I am in the same situation as motie_d.  The issue that many seem to
be missing is that the decision for us is not which state to move to,
but whether or not we can (or want to) move at all.  Moving for me means
quitting a very good job.  It means uprooting and leaving friends, and
possibly a girlfriend.  It means no more Taco Cabana or Burger Street.
It means an end to all the nice things I've come to love about Texas.
Sure, there will probably be similar nice things about the free state,
but if you're going to ask people to show the level of committment
required to sign on to the FSP, those same people are probably going to
be just as committed to their jobs and their relationships.
Opting-out of states doesn't make that any easier.

The other point that the frothing-at-the-mouth activists are missing
is that we already do live in a free country.  We currently enjoy greater
freedoms that most countries on this planet.  The FSP is about taking
something that's great and making it spectacular.  That's why I've
said that one the FSP's main goals boils down to marketing.

Let me put it this way; if you were dating Latetia Casta, what would
Heidi Klum have to do to get a date with you?

By the way, the "frothing-at-the-mouth" characterization is reserved
for the most extreme nutcases, not the FSP core membership (i.e., the
board).

Kelly

The idea is to comprehend that America is on a slide toward fascism/socialism...
not really any need to make an assessment based on some assumed static
existence, nor a state of the union.

Taking history into context, plus some simple extrapolation for "prediction" of
future probablities, unless we unite our efforts in a synergistic manner, we may
not have such freedoms as you so proclaim for acting on that much longer... and
those "corporate" food chains you value so much will be without competition and
affording the same "service" and quality as the US Postal Service.

The idea is to build the proverbial "Brick House", as the rest of the nation is
blissfully living in dwellings made of sticks and hay.  We could at least be as
intelligent as our famous little piggie who foresaw the danger of the wolf.

A few weeks ago, there was discussion on the list about creating some standard
of "contribution" for those of us who do NOT want to move to Tundras.  Perhaps
its time to re-open it.

c.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Kelly Setzer
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 8:28 AM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: membership growth


   On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:05:02PM -0500, Tim Condon wrote:
   >
   > >I would feel compelled to ask you to join us in the vote, opting out of
   > the states to which you do not want to go. It isn't being dishonorable,
   > because the same option is available to everyone, and many are taking
   > that option. I would not be surprised to learn that those who are willing

   I am in the same situation as motie_d.  The issue that many seem to
   be missing is that the decision for us is not which state to move to,
   but whether or not we can (or want to) move at all.  Moving for me means
   quitting a very good job.  It means uprooting and leaving friends, and
   possibly a girlfriend.  It means no more Taco Cabana or Burger Street.
   It means an end to all the nice things I've come to love about Texas.
   Sure, there will probably be similar nice things about the free state,
   but if you're going to ask people to show the level of committment
   required to sign on to the FSP, those same people are probably going to
   be just as committed to their jobs and their relationships.
   Opting-out of states doesn't make that any easier.

   The other point that the frothing-at-the-mouth activists are missing
   is that we already do live in a free country.  We currently enjoy greater
   freedoms that most countries on this planet.  The FSP is about taking
   something that's great and making it spectacular.  That's why I've
   said that one the FSP's main goals boils down to marketing.

   Let me put it this way; if you were dating Latetia Casta, what would
   Heidi Klum have to do to get a date with you?

   By the way, the "frothing-at-the-mouth" characterization is reserved
   for the most extreme nutcases, not the FSP core membership (i.e., the
   board).

   Kelly



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<< 1) It is possible to entirely annihilate the valid outcome of any
democratic
process without first employing invasive and cryptographically strong
counter-measures
2) We would very much like to believe that we can trust one another. >>

I hesitate to partially-tongue-in-cheek suggest the following, but it was
brought to my attention and thought I'd toss it out there for everyone.

In talking up FSP to a left-wing (but liberty-rational) friend, his first
thought was "hope you're ready for some government infiltration!" My first
reaction was "Into what? A mailing list? A discussion board? All we wanna do
is move!"

I'm not a conspiracy-theorist, but I have always believed there's a grain of
truth in every conspiracy theory. I am quite convinced of the tales of
guv'mint agents being present in every "cell" of leftist groups from the
sixties, and the militia movements of the 90's. So, to any guv'mint agents
on this list, Welcome! Got Freedom?

;-)

Actually, though, I wondered if this particular area, the actual vote, could
be a vulnerable area. However, I do believe from the discussions I've seen
that in the end, a reasonable amount of security will be considered, so I
personally will have no problem with whatever the vote outcome ends up
being.

After all, as has been pointed out before...any of the ten states would be
good candidates!

Well, there goes yet another post into my personal government file....

Kim W.
Dakotabound
********
We're all a little cool today...even North Florida is a balmy 50 degrees
midday on my porch!

North Dakota Friday 11/29/02 Forecast:
Western ND: Hi 44, Lo 31
Eastern ND: Hi 30, Lo 23

How do YOU compare?
********

>  If there is to be an
> online
> vote, those of us with some background in internet protocols, security
> measures and programming should be involved in the creation of the
> voting methodology and procedures.

It is my understanding that there is NOT going to be an online vote. The
voting packet will be snail mailed to the members who aren't wired,
emailed to those who are wired, with the instructions to print out the
voting form and snail it to "headquarters".

There has been recent discussion about whether or not the signature on
the voting form has to be notarized. As I understand it, the Board is
evaluating whether thats needed, or not.

But the vote will NOT be online. So all of this discussion about "hacking"
the vote and crypto keys etc is unnecessary.

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Mary Lou Seymour wrote:

> It is my understanding that there is NOT going to be an online vote. The
> voting packet will be snail mailed to the members who aren't wired,
> emailed to those who are wired, with the instructions to print out the
> voting form and snail it to "headquarters".

Also, people will have the option to scan the printed form, with their
signature, and email the scanned file to a vote counter.

________________________________________________________________________

Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?

If you're worried about confirming that people are real, perhaps
the phone would be a good way to do it. Not many people have more
than one phone number. Phoning 5000 people would be a pain, I
realise, but it would be a cost effective and, well, effective
method, at least for those people who have phones.

It would be fairly easy to make the task of phoning not at all
arduous, too - surely you could find 50 people amongst the
membership to each of whom 100 phone numbers could be allocated,
or 100 members and 50 numbers each. Especially if you could
contrive to allocate the numbers on a somewhat regional basis.

I really hate phones (I'll walk three miles if it's an option
over a phone call), but even I would be willing to call 50
numbers and report back their validity.

Incidentally, I was pushing for an internet vote before, but
with all the people worried about false *signups* (I was
considering false votes to be the worry), I think mailing
things out is best, even with the expense. If you let people
download or receive the voting form by email and print it,
then there is no validation of their address or anything.

(If it were up to me, I'd still do an online vote, with
identity validation by phone, associated with a passworded
online account... But it's not up to me, and I get the
impression the tech ability at the head of the group is
somewhat unsteady. With that in mind, I advocate full
mailing to ensure that every voter is signed up with a
real address.)

--RavenBlack

> Also, people will have the option to scan the printed form, with their
> signature, and email the scanned file to a vote counter.

A human vote counter, right? Who will then print off the scanned file.

At any rate, what the human vote counters will end up with is a stack of
PAPER ballots, all signed (or signed & FAXed) by the voters. No need
for encryption or secure signatures or whatever. And yes, we will have to
trust the human vote counters:-) The human vote counters will then
enter the info where it can be viewed online as a public vote.

If any individual member, after looking at his own vote record, disagreed
that it was indeed his vote, he could "file a protest" that his OWN vote
was miscounted. That takes away the need for notarization, I would
think.

>The issue that many seem to be missing is that the decision for us is not which
state to move to, but whether or not we can (or want to) move at all.  Moving
for me means quitting a very good job.  It means uprooting and leaving friends,
and possibly a girlfriend.  It means no more Taco Cabana or Burger Street. It
means an end to all the nice things I've come to love about Texas.
>Sure, there will probably be similar nice things about the free state, but if
you're going to ask people to show the level of committment required to sign on
to the FSP, those same people are probably going to be just as committed to
their jobs and their relationships. Opting-out of states doesn't make that any
easier.

         Well put, Kelly. But keep in mind that we're not moving out into the
woods to live in tents. In the Freestate, no matter which one is chosen, there
are going to be amenities, including Taco Cabana and Burger Street (or other
reasonable facsimilies). Nevertheless, what you say is true: By far *most* of
the committed libertarians I know have told me they're simply not interested in
moving from where they are. After all, they live where they live, for the most
part, because they *like* living there. That's why we're not going to be able to
just snap our fingers and get 20,000 Porcupines moving to the Freestate. FSP
members are a minority within a minority within a minority. We are libertarians
and other freedom-lovers who are so *very* committed to the idea of setting up a
politically and socially free society...that we're a special group *within* the
libertarian movement. So special that we're willing to pick up and move, which
is a big, hard thing. Nevertheless, what we're
doing is so extraordinary, so brave, so valuable, and so important to America
(and the rest of the world)...that it *will* *be* *worth* *it*! Come with us. We
need you. Freedom needs you. The future needs you.  ---Tim Condon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Okay all you Florida Porcupines. As you know, the Florida meeting for us all to
get together is set for Saturday, December 14, 2002, when we'll meet at the
intersection of I-4 and U.S. 27 at the Grand China Buffet Restaurant at 2:00
p.m. We *may* be able to get our own meeting room at the restaurant, but I need
to give them a better idea of how many people are going to attend. (I know that
people are coming from as far south as Miami, and as far north as the
Tallahassee area, so it could be a good crowd.)

	 So everyone kindly check in with me and let me know if you are going to attend
the Porcupine Meeting *for sure*, and if so, how many interested non-Porcupines
will you be bringing with you. Email me at tim@... and let me know
now, so I can get things further set up.

	 Several people have asked about nearby hotel accommodations, since many of us
are coming from far away. There's a Best Western Hotel right there at the
interchange (NOT the one I gave you the web site for before, which is about 7
miles down the road), where rooms rent out for $54 a night for either 1 or 2
people. In addition, they have "mini-suites" that rent for $73 a night and will
sleep up to 6 people (believe it or not). If people want to stay over (and who
knows, maybe I will too), we could adjourn after the afternoon meeting and have
a Porcupine Party at someone's room at the hotel that night (no tearing stuff
up). So I *also* need to know who among you are interested in getting a room for
that Saturday night---keep in mind we have to get reservations in early, since
mid-December is the middle of the tourist season. If you want to call and talk
to the motel directly yourself, their toll-free number is 863-424-2596. However,
I suggest everyone wait till I see if I can get th
e rooms reserved as a "block," which could mean even cheaper prices.
	 Now check in and email me, everybody! Email me now at tim@... and
let me know how many of you are coming!   ---Tim Condon

Hey Tim,
  I'm currently planning on myself and two non-porky pals attending from Jax. Not
real sure how late we'll be staying, but we plan to be there.
Rob
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Tim Condon
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 3:58 PM
   Subject: [FSP] Calling all Florida Porcupines


         Okay all you Florida Porcupines. As you know, the Florida meeting for us
all to get together is set for Saturday, December 14, 2002, when we'll meet at
the intersection of I-4 and U.S. 27 at the Grand China Buffet Restaurant at 2:00
p.m. We *may* be able to get our own meeting room at the restaurant, but I need
to give them a better idea of how many people are going to attend. (I know that
people are coming from as far south as Miami, and as far north as the
Tallahassee area, so it could be a good crowd.)

         So everyone kindly check in with me and let me know if you are going to
attend the Porcupine Meeting *for sure*, and if so, how many interested
non-Porcupines will you be bringing with you. Email me at tim@...
and let me know now, so I can get things further set up.

         Several people have asked about nearby hotel accommodations, since many
of us are coming from far away. There's a Best Western Hotel right there at the
interchange (NOT the one I gave you the web site for before, which is about 7
miles down the road), where rooms rent out for $54 a night for either 1 or 2
people. In addition, they have "mini-suites" that rent for $73 a night and will
sleep up to 6 people (believe it or not). If people want to stay over (and who
knows, maybe I will too), we could adjourn after the afternoon meeting and have
a Porcupine Party at someone's room at the hotel that night (no tearing stuff
up). So I *also* need to know who among you are interested in getting a room for
that Saturday night---keep in mind we have to get reservations in early, since
mid-December is the middle of the tourist season. If you want to call and talk
to the motel directly yourself, their toll-free number is 863-424-2596. However,
I suggest everyone wait till I see if I can get th
   e rooms reserved as a "block," which could mean even cheaper prices.
         Now check in and email me, everybody! Email me now at
tim@... and let me know how many of you are coming!   ---Tim Condon



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Incidentally, I was pushing for an internet vote before, but with all the
people worried about false *signups* (I was considering false votes to be the
worry), I think mailing things out is best, even with the expense. If you let
people download or receive the voting form by email and print it, then there is
no validation of their address or anything.

         Yes there is, Raven: All the votes will come in as printed sheets of
paper with a name and address; that name and address will be compared to the FSP
membership roster. You can't vote unless you're on the roster.

>But it's not up to me, and I get the impression the tech ability at the head of
the group is somewhat unsteady.

         Naughty, naughty, Raven; wrong again: Actually, the tech ability in the
FSP leadership is superlative as to everyone except me.   ---Tim C.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>Incidentally, I was pushing for an internet vote before, but with all
>>the people worried about false *signups* (I was considering false votes
>>to be the worry), I think mailing things out is best, even with the
>>expense. If you let people download or receive the voting form by email
>>and print it, then there is no validation of their address or anything.
>
>Yes there is, Raven: All the votes will come in as printed sheets of
>paper with a name and address; that name and address will be compared
>to the FSP membership roster. You can't vote unless you're on the roster.

But that wouldn't prevent me from signing up at "123 Chapelle Crescent,
Columbia, MD" and "719 St Peter's Road, Appleby, NY" and "872 Parma
Drive, Norton, FL" and 50 other completely made up addresses, would it?
And casting votes 'from' my false identities at those addresses?

If I wanted to take a few minutes of effort, I could even make up
addresses which exist (zipcodes and all) but have nothing whatsoever
to do with me. Comparing one piece of potentially false information
against another piece of potentially false information supplied by the
same person is no sort of validation.

Of course I have no intention of doing any such thing, and I doubt
anyone else does either, but since people are worried enough about
this sort of thing to disallow online voting, it makes sense to
disallow other mechanisms that have just the same lack of validation.
Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecall and/or by sending
the vote to their stated address would at least make it difficult to
falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address are not.

--RavenBlack

> Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecall and/or by sending the
> vote to their stated address would at least make it difficult to
> falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address are not.

Or, there was the suggestion of having sigs notarized.

Here's another idea; require the voter to include "proof" of residence
address, a copy of drivers license, ID card, <chuckle> voter registration
card, or for the anarchists among us, a copy of a utility bill or rent or
mortgage receipt.

I would be willing to bet there are at least a couple list members that are
employed by a 3 letter angency here specifically for the purpose of
monitoring posts...

> << 1) It is possible to entirely annihilate the valid outcome of any
> democratic
> process without first employing invasive and cryptographically strong
> counter-measures
> 2) We would very much like to believe that we can trust one another. >>
>
> I hesitate to partially-tongue-in-cheek suggest the following, but it
> was brought to my attention and thought I'd toss it out there for
> everyone.
>
> In talking up FSP to a left-wing (but liberty-rational) friend, his
> first thought was "hope you're ready for some government infiltration!"
> My first reaction was "Into what? A mailing list? A discussion board?
> All we wanna do is move!"
>

> >Yes there is, Raven: All the votes will come in as printed sheets of
> >paper with a name and address; that name and address will be compared
> >to the FSP membership roster. You can't vote unless you're on the roster.
>
>But that wouldn't prevent me from signing up at "123 Chapelle Crescent,
>Columbia, MD" and "719 St Peter's Road, Appleby, NY" and "872 Parma
>Drive, Norton, FL" and 50 other completely made up addresses, would it?
>And casting votes 'from' my false identities at those addresses? If I
>wanted to take a few minutes of effort, I could even make up addresses
>which exist (zipcodes and all) but have nothing whatsoever to do with me.
>Comparing one piece of potentially false information against another piece
>of potentially false information supplied by the same person is no sort of
>validation....Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecall and/or by
>sending the vote to their stated address would at least make it difficult
>to falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address are
>not.    --RavenBlack

          You're right Raven. We may well end up having to make a few
thousand phone calls to confirm who's who. Jason and the board are going to
have to decide. ---Tim C.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 04:34 PM 11/29/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey Tim,
>I'm currently planning on myself and two non-porky pals attending from
>Jax. Not real sure how late we'll be staying, but we plan to be there.
>Rob

          Great Rob, and thanx for getting back to me. I'll see you
there.  ---Tim

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On November 29, 2002 Mary Lou observed:

>Here's another idea; require the voter to include "proof" of residence
>address, a copy of drivers license, ID card, <chuckle> voter registration
>card, or for the anarchists among us, a copy of a utility bill or rent or
>mortgage receipt.

A Western compromise would be a pound of flesh and a blood trigger
finger print (lol).

Ben

>> Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecall and/or by sending the
>> vote to their stated address would at least make it difficult to
>> falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address are not.







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

HEY!  I'm no anarchist!  I just choose not to participate in the Socialist
Slavery Ponsi Scheme.  Because of that, they won't allow me the priviledge
of having either a state issued ID, driver's license or voter registration!
Come to think of it, I don't have any phone or utility bills in my name and
I pay my rent in cash (my landlord's preference).  Whenever I've needed "ID"
I've always used an "Affidavit of Fact" witnessed by 3 people that have
known me more than 20 years...  You could say I'm a tad bit invisible...

>> Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecall and/or by sending the
>> vote to their stated address would at least make it difficult to
>> falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address are not.
>
> Or, there was the suggestion of having sigs notarized.
>
> Here's another idea; require the voter to include "proof" of residence
> address, a copy of drivers license, ID card, <chuckle> voter
> registration  card, or for the anarchists among us, a copy of a utility
> bill or rent or  mortgage receipt.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In freestateproject@y..., "Bob Compton" <bobc@v...> wrote:
>
>  ....  Whenever I've needed "ID"
> I've always used an "Affidavit of Fact" witnessed by 3 people that have
> known me more than 20 years
>

Would that be a PHOTO "Affidavit of Fact"?
How do I know you're the one on the Affidavit?

I think Mary Lou was being facetious/ironic in her message below that you
quoted. ;)  After all, she *is* an anarchist.

> HEY!  I'm no anarchist!  I just choose not to participate in the Socialist
> Slavery Ponsi Scheme.  Because of that, they won't allow me the priviledge
> of having either a state issued ID, driver's license or voter registration!
> Come to think of it, I don't have any phone or utility bills in my name and
> I pay my rent in cash (my landlord's preference).  Whenever I've needed "ID"
> I've always used an "Affidavit of Fact" witnessed by 3 people that have
> known me more than 20 years...  You could say I'm a tad bit invisible...
>
[snip]
> > Here's another idea; require the voter to include "proof" of residence
> > address, a copy of drivers license, ID card, <chuckle> voter
> > registration  card, or for the anarchists among us, a copy of a utility
> > bill or rent or  mortgage receipt.

________________________________________________________________________

Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?

Contact the witnesses.

> --- In freestateproject@y..., "Bob Compton" <bobc@v...> wrote:
>>
>>  ....  Whenever I've needed "ID"
>> I've always used an "Affidavit of Fact" witnessed by 3 people that
>> have  known me more than 20 years
>>
>
> Would that be a PHOTO "Affidavit of Fact"?
> How do I know you're the one on the Affidavit?
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

The hardest part of this whole idea is talking my wife into it.  She
of course thinks I am crazy.  I like the way we are thinking.  it is
a good plan to prove that this could work.  And to prove that extreme
freedom can work.  Now if i  can talk my wife into it.  But i figure
i still have a few years to do in,  so we'll be fine..
              Greg

--- In freestateproject@y..., Tim Condon <tim@f...> wrote:
>
> > >Yes there is, Raven: All the votes will come in as printed
sheets of
> > >paper with a name and address; that name and address will be
compared
> > >to the FSP membership roster. You can't vote unless you're on
the roster.
> >
> >But that wouldn't prevent me from signing up at "123 Chapelle
Crescent,
> >Columbia, MD" and "719 St Peter's Road, Appleby, NY" and "872
Parma
> >Drive, Norton, FL" and 50 other completely made up addresses,
would it?
> >And casting votes 'from' my false identities at those addresses?
If I
> >wanted to take a few minutes of effort, I could even make up
addresses
> >which exist (zipcodes and all) but have nothing whatsoever to do
with me.
> >Comparing one piece of potentially false information against
another piece
> >of potentially false information supplied by the same person is
no sort of
> >validation....Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecall
and/or by
> >sending the vote to their stated address would at least make it
difficult
> >to falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address are
> >not.    --RavenBlack
>
>          You're right Raven. We may well end up having to make a
few
> thousand phone calls to confirm who's who. Jason and the board are
going to
> have to decide. ---Tim C.
>
>


Phone calls? Dear lord, that borders on totalitarianism, or heaven
forbid, the evils of zoning! Can't we just be trusting porcupines
and hold cyber paws while we whisper all for one and one for all? ;-]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Greg wrote:

> The hardest part of this whole idea is talking my wife into it.  She
> of course thinks I am crazy.  I like the way we are thinking.  it is
> a good plan to prove that this could work.  And to prove that extreme
> freedom can work.  Now if i  can talk my wife into it.  But i figure
> i still have a few years to do in,  so we'll be fine..
>              Greg

Yes, spousal consent is a very serious issue for many of us, myself
included. ;)  My wife isn't willing to move to Alaska, so we had to opt
out of that state, even though I personally think it's a good candidate.
For some ideas on how to persuade your spouse to agree to the FSP, check
out this discussion:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=15;action=display;threadid=207

________________________________________________________________________

Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@...---http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35

http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?

Hey!  I have an idea!  I'm in the same shape with a wife that doesn't want
to move out of the Peoples Republic of California.  Maybe, those of us with
spouses not wanting to move should get together somehow socially.  I realize
there's great distances between many of us, but if a few of our spouses
could just see how nice the other folks are they may want to move closer to
them...  Just a thought...  Let me know.

BC.

> The hardest part of this whole idea is talking my wife into it.  She
> of course thinks I am crazy.  I like the way we are thinking.  it is  a
> good plan to prove that this could work.  And to prove that extreme
> freedom can work.  Now if i  can talk my wife into it.  But i figure  i
> still have a few years to do in,  so we'll be fine..
>              Greg
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

now tell me something... wouldn't it be nice to have some county prototypes we
could have "in the bank" by 2006 at which to point... and perhaps bring your
wife to see first hand?

by the way, what is the hard part of the "talk into"?  What is her objection?

c.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Greg
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:34 PM
   Subject: [FSP] The hardest part


   The hardest part of this whole idea is talking my wife into it.  She
   of course thinks I am crazy.  I like the way we are thinking.  it is
   a good plan to prove that this could work.  And to prove that extreme
   freedom can work.  Now if i  can talk my wife into it.  But i figure
   i still have a few years to do in,  so we'll be fine..
                Greg



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]