[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: [Video] David Bismark: E-voting without fraud 7 minute video Poster Comment: Haven't read thoroughly through all of the many comments at the site yet but here is a random sampling: David Bismark, Nov 11 2010: So a good place to start is to put the term Prêt à Voter into Google Scholar to find many papers published over the last few years. The paper "Prêt à voter: a voter-verifiable voting system" is the currently most authoritative paper and you will find this if you google for the title. As our research is conducted at various universities in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, we have published our results and they are free for you to look at, David Bismark, Nov 11 2010: The votes are decrypted using a key which is held by a group of people. The key is split into many key shares, each of which is held by different trusted parties. Unless all (or a threshold set) of those keyholders come together to decrypt the votes they cannot. Therefore, the likelihood that enough trusted parties want to cheat that they can break the election should be very low. If we select the trusted parties such that they all WANT to be honest and DO NOT WANT to work together (it could be all the political parties + the current government + the opposition + the UN + the EU + the AU + governments of other countries in the region + Richard Dawson and associates) then all of these trusted parties will safeguard the election together. David Bismark, Nov 11 2010: Furthermore, it is not possible to "decrypt the ballot papers in a particular manner, favouring a particular candidate" because the cryptography provides mathematical proof of correct decryption. Remember, we know the public key under which the data has been encrypted and using this key, we can verify that each step of the decryption is done correctly (without providing a link between an encrypted receipt and a decrypted, plaintext vote). system operator, Nov 11 2010: Blah Blah Blah, all the layers of obfuscation merely obfuscate the FACT that no matter what pattern of bits you present as PROOF, it can always be CONTRIVED AFTER the FACT & presented to you as PROOF !! HELLO ???? system operator, Nov 11 2010: Besides, we cannot create a new priest class in the name of technology, Roberto Casati, Nov 11 2010: David, of course we are studying those academic papers. It is part of the public verifiability issue! But TED is neither Youtube nor an academic forum, it's about "ideas worth spreading" so Richard and others are faithful to TED's mission in trying to check whether this particular idea is worth spreading. Public debate requires that we steer a middle course between deference to academic journals and airing one's opionion. Thus, the claim that the system is to be trusted does require a lot more of explaining, not just reference to journals. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D., Oct 31 2011: Not a good idea! Why should voters in the 21st Century have to trek to the polling place every time there is an election? In my book, Internet Voting Now!, I show that Internet voting can be done securely. Its green, convenient, and displaces 18th Century practices w/ 21st C technology. All elections in the USA, and around the world, should be online. Stanislav Ivanov, Nov 19 2011: As you may know in Bulgaria is very popular the vote purchasing - buying the votes of mostly pour and illiterate people in favor of bad apple politicians! I think that the vote will be private if the voter wants it to be! What happens when the voter wants to prove how he/she voted? Just gives the paper with the 2d bar-code to the buyer? system operator, Nov 13 2010: Along your excellent observation [Sir Richard] that it always ends up an "appeal to authority" as you so diplomatically put it, please consider that a crypto system like the one being suggested and ALL others are so weak in reality that in order to implement them an entire Military Command & Control Grid overlay is REQUIRED, i.e. a POLICE STATE, and thus there is even more reason to doubt its results since no one can say anything under such conditions, thus the only way again is this way: http://goo.gl/mq3zh My note: that path goes to http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-FAIL-SAFE-VOTING-SYSTEM.shtml which says: SDF Public Access UNIX System .. Est. 1987. It has various links and a logo pic of a computer. Never heard of it before and don't know what it's about. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
That video was found in the comments section at dailypaul.com here: South Carolina Vote Results Will Be Invalid. Some highlights from the discussion: The blind ID numbers would be published on the net. Anyone would be able to audit, authenticate and tabulate the votes by taken random samples from volunteers who submit thier receipts I believe people should sign the ballot so not more than one vote can count and it can be traced back and verified. watch the documentary "UNCOUNTED" Also posted was a link to the Hacking Democracy - Full Length video, 1:21:58 ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||