Re: Barcode Redux

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 20:07:19 CDT

On Jun 4, 2004, at 7:12 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> And if you use OCR, you'll need gibberish text representing the
> digital signature.

Nah... you don't need gibberish text if you embed the digital signature
in the watermark. I know that amounts to a covert channel, but not one
that as many voters will think to worry about. Moreover, it seems a
reasonable place to put it if you--very reasonably--think of the
digital signatures as "anti-counterfeit measures" (which they are).

> Is that a reason to dump digital signatures, or to relax the
> "perception of covert channel" constraint? The average person won't
> care about covert channels unless DRE vendors bring it out,

I disagree here. Of course most voters won't use the phrase "covert
channel," which is computer-science-ish lingo. But a lot of voters
will think of it in terms like: "How do I know that barcode doesn't
have my name in it?" ... which is what a covert channel means, after
all.
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:07 2004

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