Re: [FSP] Hacking the vote ( was 'Re: membership growth' )
- Thanks, Brian, for throwing a bit of common sense into this
--- 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.
- --- In freestateproject@y..., Tim Condon <tim@f...> wrote:
> > >Yes there is, Raven: All the votes will come in as printed
> > >paper with a name and address; that name and address will becompared
> > >to the FSP membership roster. You can't vote unless you're onthe roster.
> >But that wouldn't prevent me from signing up at "123 Chapelle
> >Columbia, MD" and "719 St Peter's Road, Appleby, NY" and "872Parma
> >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 upaddresses
> >which exist (zipcodes and all) but have nothing whatsoever to dowith me.
> >Comparing one piece of potentially false information againstanother piece
> >of potentially false information supplied by the same person isno sort of
> >validation....Confirming everyone's existence with a phonecalland/or by
> >sending the vote to their stated address would at least make itdifficult
> >to falsify - as a signature and the existence of an address arefew
> >not. --RavenBlack
> You're right Raven. We may well end up having to make a
> thousand phone calls to confirm who's who. Jason and the board aregoing 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? ;-]