[LINK] [UK] Call for e-voting to be scrapped amid security fears

[Janet Hawtin]

On 6/27/07, Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:10:09AM +0930, Janet Hawtin wrote:
> > Can you test it on voting re surveys in shopping centres or for big
> > brother or jjj at football events?
>
> it's not really intended for junk like that.

I am seeing those opportunities of collecting mass traffic.
Testing on 'junk' would be nicer than testing on critical election data imho.

> it takes people (lots of people) out of the vote-counting process, which
> is just asking for trouble. with enough people scrutineering, it's
> almost impossible to corrupt the electoral process to any significant
> degree...but when you reduce it to a bunch of computers and a handful of
> people, you only need to corrupt/threaten a few people to corrupt the
> election.

understood thanks

> there are also serious issues of anonymity vs security (choose one or
> the other, but not both with e-voting), and vote-buying/vote-coercion.

yes. privacy transparency search data copyright and control
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070625-eff-and-cdt-torrentspy-decision-could-spell-end-of-internet-privacy.html
are another bunch of elephants in the room for many of our
internet technologies. we have not had a debate about a persons right
to themself in a networked context. if a networked context means
!privacy then
people need the right to know what is recorded about them, to contest it
what else about aggregated self is subject to the same concerns?

I am concerned that these approaches to risk are generating adherance
to broadcast models of communication because we feel it is more
important to have someone to sue than it is for communications
technology to work well and for due diligence to have a proportional
scope to the kind of business/participation role people are playing.
Censorship, voice self and access are defined by reaction to risk.
these impact who we are.

For example risk/insurance is being used as a motivator for scoping or
at least suggesting who should contribute to IT based on whether
people are members and are deemed trusted. This suits broadcast models
where contribution is defined. This does not suit open communities.
Open communities generate security and lower risk by making practices
open and transparent. The quality is a matter of process not
membership. Access to participation would be at risk where
organisations are only able to get access to government fundings based
on whether they have used a broadcast method of reducing risk. I feel
this is a concern for local groups who want to provide opportunities
for local people starting out and volunteering with IT.
Conformance to a predicted career path and membership are not the only
paths to excellence. If youre looking for innovative solutions and
reliable practice it can be a part of
how work and training and networks and transparency and testing function.

Just feel there is a lot we are accepting about how our information
and communication spaces must be defined without starting from a
perspective of defining what our own not negotiables are about social
space and freedom.