Re: Wired Mag's look at a future voting receipt...

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 14:37:30 CST

I had seen that; nice to see it profiled.
 
I know its not supposed to be taken literally but here goes:

first this has all the problems that vote-here has. It's not a ballot its a receipt. For example how DOES the voter actually know that the remote validation of his vote actually is a validation it was counted and counted as cast. (e.g. voter votes for bush; machine records kerry; when voter calls in and remote machine says your ballot was counted but it does not say for whom you voted, have you learned anything?, and just because the machine said it was counted how do you know?)

The dicey thing on there is the "at this time <time> 2 of your candidates are leading and zero propositions are leading." Which truth be told is very weak information for reverse engineering but still could concievably tell you something about the other voters votes especially early in the voting process. Not really a major threat. But more importantly it also violates the rule that votes are not counted till all votes are collected.

The other mildly worrisome thing is that voters are voting at an apparently unguarded ATM which would be ripe for coercion, intimidation, and vote selling
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST