Secure Voting software was:Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: You be the Jury (Polling the Lessig- So ndow exchange)

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

Andrew and all,

  If one goes back far enough on the IFWP or the Domain Policy
ML's one will find this subject discussed at length.

  There are several Secure Voting scripts around that accomplish
essentially what you are prescribing here Andrew.  Many are currently
used for stock holders in companies today.  I have used them myself
on quite a few occasions myself.

  Another idea to insure that is good accountability for pure VOTING
online is to use the software the USG also uses presently and have the
FEC (Federal Election Commission) handle the Voting audit.  We do this
for our elections, for instance...  And we do all of our voting online
as well on our extranet...  Pretty simple really as you rightly indicate
in your comments.


McMeikan, Andrew wrote:

> If someone wants compensation for opensourcing something don't jump up and
> down, just see if it is worth it.
>
> My personal preference would be for a very non-complex (small Perl script or
> similar) that registers the vote (a large hashed key emailed out) to
> validate the counting you simply have a form that submits to multiple sites
> (e.g. image request by name of hashkey) and displays the vote received
> indication from each (the small image, maybe with a unique key itself) as
> confirmation.
>
> Each counter site can cross check with others to make sure no counts are
> missed, these logs can be later checked to ensure no cheating (assumes no
> conspiracy between counters, probably at least 3 - 5 sites), e.g. users can
> at random enter their keys to check their vote counted correct on all logs,
> discrepancies listed.
>
> This seems simple enough that it could be coded as open source without
> spending money so long as it is agreed on and the call to code goes out.
>
> Checking of one person one vote is non-trivial no matter how good (snailmail
> and Gov. elections included), I leave that to someone else to figure out.
>
> Hopefully I am not too naive but I think this could happen fairly easy, the
> only hard part is having each person only having one voting key.
>
>         cya,    Andrew...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William X. Walsh [SMTP:william@userfriendly.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:16 PM
> > To:   Joop Teernstra
> > Cc:   Gordon Cook; DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM; ifwp@ifwp.org;
> > icann-europe@fitug.de
> > Subject:      Re[2]: [ICANN-EU] Re: You be the Jury (Polling the Lessig-
> > Sondow         exchange)
> >
> > Hello Joop,
> >
> > Sunday, September 24, 2000, 6:27:00 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > > I went ahead and designed and commissioned  the Polling Booth. I make
> > its
> > > use available for free. If it is going to be open source, I would like
> > to
> > > be paid what it is worth. Fair? It is quite complex with a lot of
> > > functionality.
> >
> > So is a lot of open source software.  What is your point?
> >
> > > Auditing is a different matter.
> > > Auditing votes is opening a can of worms at the best of times.
> > > Voters want results. Any auditing process, unless it is needed to
> > determine
> > > the outcome of a power struggle, is a holdup for the voters.
> > > It puts those who are demanding audits in control, especially if there
> > are
> > > no detailed rules for an auditing process.
> >
> > What rules do you need?  You check the votes against the voting
> > results, and the auditors reserve the right to spot check votes, to
> > verify that the person in question did indeed vote as indicated.
> > Lastly, independent verification of the voters rolls.  With your IDNO
> > you are the only person who holds the voting rolls, and are the sole
> > voice to the membership.  We have to take your word that those members
> > even exist, much less that they voted.
> >
> > This is why these things should NEVER be vested in the control of any
> > one person or small group of like minded people.
> >
> > > It also endangers the anonymity of a vote.
> > > This is the reason why so often members of associations vote by
> > acclamation
> > > for destruction of the Ballot papers.
> >
> > Please.  The anonymity of the vote is already compromised because YOU
> > can tell who voted how.  All this does is shift that to a group of
> > independent auditors, who of course are bound to maintain
> > confidentiality unless foul play is discovered.
> >
> > > In the meantime, cheap unsubstantiated slander against independent
> > Polling
> > > resources, without ever providing an alternative is not helping
> > democracy.
> >
> > No slander, Joop. I've only stated the facts.  When what I described
> > occurred once or twice, it was just coincidence not worth of mention.
> > When it happened in the exact same fashion, with the same results,
> > numerous times, it becomes a pattern that cannot be ignored, and
> > certainly justifies suspicion.  Your iron grip control only further
> > provides a justification for suspicion.  Your own power and control
> > complex works against your credibility.
> >
> > > If WXW sees a vote going against him in real time, perhaps he should
> > > consider the feedback effect that real time result publishing has.
> >
> > Sorry, Joop, but that has no result against the person controlling the
> > polling booth have the potential for manipulating the results.
> >
> > > Real Time results is a feature that can be turned on or off, in
> > accordance
> > > with the will of the voters.
> >
> > And again only leads to further suspicion.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> >
> The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other
> use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
> you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete
> the material from your system. Utility Services Corporation (USC) is not
> responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made
> by USC or for the effect of the changes on the material’s meaning.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208