Re: [atlarge-discuss] Security of elections Re: [atlarge-discuss] WHAT MOST MEMBERS WANT

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jan and all fellow members,

  The loss of one members privacy is far more expensive in legal costs
that no doubt are going to ensue than the most expensive security
money can buy for a voting system.  But you right Jan that
security comes with a price.  Privacy squandered or abused
needlessly has a much higher price...

  Now even spamers are suing for their privacy being abused!
See: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/1135258
and  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42993-2003Apr6.html

  A word to the wise should be sufficient...

Jan Siren wrote:

> espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> > >
>
> ...
>
> > I can't speak to that issue (not having ever looked at the current
> > membership list) but there are several kinds of security issues
> > involved, whether the voting is on a Web site or by e-mail.
> >
> > 1. Membership status
> >
> > >From what has been said by Vittorio and others, we are indeed at
> > a disadvantage when it comes to ensuring that no individual
> > registers under multiple identities. We simply don't have the
> > means and manpower to verify each registration, and the database
> > in fact does not seem to provide enough information for us to
> > do it if we had.
> >
>
> There is a tension here between our ideals - which for me, as I have stated
> previously, include borderless Internet democracy - and our practicalities,
> which include the fact that we are a budgetless organization in a world in
> which security comes with a price.  The more security we demand, the more it
> costs.  The higher our membership dues, the fewer people can afford to
> belong.
>
> > 2. Confirmation of information supplied
> >
>
> ...
>
> You have identified the concerns, and there is no perfect solution, no matter
> how much we are willing to pay.  No organization could prevent me from
> registering with all of my three valid e-mail addresses.  At this stage of
> our existence, it is adequate to rely on good will: I don't *want* to vote
> three times.  Over the longer term, I think one solution to prevention of
> multiple voting is to incorporate into the voting process itself some
> mechanism which would prevent it from being automated.  Force the human
> element to emerge each time.  I am not speaking simply of those schemes which
> allow someone who wants access to his account, but has forgotten his
> password, to substitute an item of personal information (mother's maiden name
> for example) instead.  I have had to use that sort of entry means myself at
> times, and it works.  Something along that line could be elaborated on.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > One of the deepest ironies within ICANNATLARGE.ORG is that
> > probably nobody outside it thinks it's worth sabotaging but
> > some of its members may be here for exactly that purpose and
> > have the technical ability to do it.
> >
>
> I concur.
>
> ...
>
> Demanding perfection at this stage is to force us out of existence.  "The
> best is the enemy of the good."  The means of security should grow
> organically as the organization grows.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de