Re: Barcode Redux

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 10:54:33 CDT

On Jun 4, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Jeff Almeida wrote:
> Put more bluntly, it is impossible for a warm, fuzzy biped to satisfy
> himself that a ballot containing a printed barcode DOES NOT contain any
> personally identifiable information on it;

This is exactly what I wrote in the my note that launched this
discussion!

I think everyone in the discussion knows that this is an issue, some
discussants just think reliability, cost, or scanning speed might
outweigh transparency. I probably thought the same a week ago... but I
think I've joined the anti-barcode-brigade now.

And moreover, I would emphasize again my challenge/wager that I offered
about inserting a covert channel into a barcode (specifically into the
vote encoding)... i.e. I could create one that list members could not
detect in a "blind taste test." I don't specifically believe that I
can write source code that hides the covert channel against
inspection... but I'm not the most clever programmer in the world; my
wager is just that I can create several "black box" encoders, exactly
one of which has a deliberate covert channel, and none of you can
determine which is which.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT