[LINK] Fwd: vip-l: Electronic votiing

[David Goldstein]

Again Craig Sanders demonstrates he has no idea what he's talking
about. As it says on the HREOC website, "The Disability Discrimination
Act makes it against the law to treat you unfairly because of your
disability." By not enabling a person who is blind to vote
independently is a clear case of discrimination. Further, "Direct
disability discrimination happens when a person with a disability is treated less favourably than a person without the disability would be treated in the same or similar circumstances. It would be direct disability discrimination if you were refused entry to a nightclub because you have a disability and use a wheelchair but people who did not use a wheelchair were still being allowed into the club."

And then "Discrimination also happens when there is a requirement or condition or practice that is the same for everyone but has an unfair effect on a particular group of people. This is known as indirect discrimination."

So I would imagine the Australian Electoral Commission is in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. See http://hreoc.gov.au/complaints_information/guides/info_sheet_dda.html

I
may need advice on what security arrangements are in place in the
current Victorian election, but then, you have no idea on what they are
do you Craig?

And it's not about convenience, it's about discrimination and human rights.

Feel
free with your opinion about me being a moron. Hey, at least I don't
discriminate against people with disabilities. I'll sleep better at
night knowing that.

David

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
To: Link Mailing List <link at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Saturday, 18 November, 2006 9:01:35 AM
Subject: Re: [LINK] Fwd: vip-l: Electronic votiing

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:47:21PM -0800, David Goldstein wrote:
> What absolute garbage. There is a potential for abuse in any means of
> voting. 

and some systems have far greater potential than others.

with the current manual system, a vote-rigger would have to corrupt many
thousands of people.

with e-voting, they only have to corrupt one programmer, or one tabulating
machine.

the risk is far greater, the potential for abuse is far greater.

> The potential for fraud is huge in the current system. 

actually, it's tiny. there are far too many eyes watching the entire
process for electoral fraud to be anything but a small-scale problem at
worst.

> I've been advised, and am awaiting on further information, that indeed
> the security used in the electronic voting is of a high standard. I
> will post this when it's received.

if you need to rely on advice then you're not qualified to judge.
 
> And people who are blind could vote before, only as long as someone
> else assisted them. Concerns of fraud were never mentioned here. They
> required a friend, relative or electoral officer to assist them. So
> how would they know they had actually voted for who they wanted. So
> huge potential for fraud here.

no, it is a tiny potential for fraud. the number of blind voters
is miniscule, not enough to make any significant difference in any
electorate.

my opposition to e-voting has nothing to do with blind voters, it is
against e-voting in general because it enables large-scale (wholesale)
electoral fraud.


> Further, the blind do not and have never had adequate voting
> provisions. Have you ever discussed the issues with people who are
> blind. Sure, some individuals don't care, but a lot do. They have
> never had the option of independent voting, of being able to vote in
> privacy.

frankly, i don't care very much. i'm far more concerned about the
security and reliability of the election for EVERYONE than i am about
the convenience of a few.

you seem to place the convenience of a few above the democratic rights
of all - in particular, the right to a fair, open, and above-board
election.


> You say e-voting can't be monitored. But then, no voting system can
> be perfectly monitored. It doesn't negate the need for high levels of
> security. Your argument is rubbish. 100 years ago, 500 years ago, the
> demands of the community were different. Today we expect and demand
> better rights for all, not just the disabled, but women, people of
> various religious and ethnic groups, and so on. Laws and opinions
> change.

this is more bullshit.  it's not about rights, it's about convenience.

convenience is NEVER a good enough reason to compromise security.


> The real question isn't am I "a corporate shill or just a
> sucker?" It's do you discriminate against disabled people. Obviously
> the answer is yes.

bullshit. the fact that i am capable of seeing that security is far more
important than convenience does not mean that i discriminate against the
disabled. it means that the cost of catering to their convenience is not
worth the inherent reduction in security.

i guess you've answered the question by refusing to answer it - you're a
corporate shill.



> I couldn't give a crap about top-posting. I hate hard to find
> in-message replies, especially when it gets to about 10 replies...

that's because you're a moron.  you demonstrate it in everything you write.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link




Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com