Re: "Trusted persons", etc.

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 12:42:13 CDT

On Apr 8, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Alan Dechert wrote:

> On Apr 8, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> I think that, by providing these terms, we will begin
>> to open peoples' minds to the degree of trust that is
>> required by most existing voting systems which
>> may, in turn, help them to see the wisdom of replacing
>> trust with openness and verification.
> I kinda sorta see the logic, but I still don't want it in there --
> certainly
> is not what OVC wants to advance. We want, as much as possible, to
> have the
> glossary reflect what the language we want to use -- not entrench
> what's
> been practiced in the past. That is, what if the terms are accepted?
> How
> do we get them out? I'd rather not have them in at all.
> Alan

It's difficult to remediate the past without using appropriate
terminology to discuss it. For example, I desperately want Trojan
Horses to become relics discussed only in history books. But that's
exactly why I proposed the term for inclusion in the glossary: it
provides the terminology to discuss a very serious issue with
trust-based voting systems. "Trusted person" and "untrusted person" are
just the same. E.g. "Most existing voting systems require the voter to
accept that a variety of trusted persons such as vendors' employees
will not try to cheat. This approach requires an unrealistic degree of
honesty on the part of these trusted persons.... [brief summary of
cheating in elections]. OVC's system, on the other hand, uses public
review and cryptographic protocols to eliminate the need for trusted


OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sat Apr 30 23:17:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 23:17:22 CDT