Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (52) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
ACTA alert!
Search
[top-politics] Re: Software initiatives
-
14/10/06 02:42
+1
+ one little notice. In politics, I am actually not interested into anonymous decision making due to reason I already mentioned. Decision making is allways based on power relations (it can be delebirated process, but it is allways about power), so if one person is even affraid to state publicly his own opinion, that what is the true power such person has? I believe, TOP principle will actually build up completely TOP power structure that will profilate and proliferate on the prinicples of knoweldge sharing and responsibility towards common good.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
15/10/06 12:41
Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particular issue and representative voting in an particular issue. On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from voting at all, or on what you want.
This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sad fact.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
15/10/06 17:39
On 10/15/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particularissue and representative voting in an particular issue.On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from votingat all, or on what you want.This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sadfact.
And threats would be no issue for representatives? Since representatives can have so many more votes than a mere individual and there votes are not anonymous, it seems to me that it would be very effective to threat and otherwise trying to influence the votes of representatives. The only way i see around it is to have the identity of representatives anonymous, to refer to a recent discussion in the swedish forum =)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 00:43
ketty . wrote:
On 10/15/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. In this way we might legitimate secret ballots of our reprensetatives. To keep them safe from bad people. Yet, no demonstration, no power.Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particularissue and representative voting in an particular issue.On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from votingat all, or on what you want.This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sadfact.
And threats would be no issue for representatives?Since representatives canhave so many more votes than a mere individual and there votes are notanonymous, it seems to me that it would be very effective to threat andotherwise trying to influence the votes of representatives.
:-)
The only way isee around it is to have the identity of representatives anonymous, torefer to a recent discussion in the swedish forum =)
And here comes up the problem. No transparency, place for discrepancy among actions and declarations. Less trust in such structure. Place for questioning of not popular decisions and system as whole.
If you have transparent system, than all of this becomes too obvious to try to deny it.
Though, at internet organisations Ive monitored, people would just realise there is no point to hide their opinion. After all, what is the power I have if there is 10 people, 7 are claiming for one thing and 2 are not interested, if I gain 5 votes and other member who was widely publicly supported gets 3 votes? So, what is the point than? Me personaly would not trust such people to much. If there was transparent process, it all obvious, no place for undmining hypocricy. OK. Not all people are willing to go public. But what is the point about them?
Do you want to undrmine legitmation process beacuse of they are affraid? I believe that is the part they have to deal with. One more thing that I have noticed- when people go anonym, they bitch much more regularly then when thay go with ID. I believe it is up to psychological (everybody is wathcing) effect where they can only turn to what they find is really fair, loosing process of calculations that might go against them sooner or later. So, why risk it?
In this very moment, I can hardly imagine such TOP organisation has need to go secret voting. I even find it be contradiction that would deny essence of TOP. Can anyone imagine some real picture that might go in front of us, that would excuse such move?
Sure, but you have to differ between individual votes in an particular
issue and representative voting in an particular issue.
Two classes of people. Do they have same rights, or what? Or should we let them be secret and enable them be not attacked by their political enemies? Why not?
On the individual level there can be threats stopping you from votingat all, or on what you want.This is seen all over the world in traditional elections so it’s a sadfact.
We can not compare to traditional systems. This what we are building is new paradigm of politics.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 01:22
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
And here comes up the problem. No transparency, place for discrepancyamong actions and declarations. Less trust in such structure. Place forquestioning of not popular decisions and system as whole.If you have transparent system, than all of this becomes too obvious totry to deny it.
[…]
What you are advocating is transparency of individual votes, right?
I understand it can sound a bit weird, but i see that as completely different from representaive votes.
Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in, right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals?
Wrong :)
As i see it “representative” should not be equated with “individual”. An individual have vote power, an representative should have no vote power not orginating from individuals.Assume the identity of a representative can not be tracked to a real life individual. (Maybe you can only track it to a public gpg key.) Assume the representative, having his/her real life identity hidden, casts some really extreme votes.
So what? Being merly a representative (and not a real individual) the votes has no power. The only way for those votes to have power would be if real life individuals delegated their votes to the representative.So, where is the transparency lost?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 20:11
ketty wrote:
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes.And here comes up the problem. No transparency, place for discrepancyamong actions and declarations. Less trust in such structure. Place forquestioning of not popular decisions and system as whole.If you have transparent system, than all of this becomes too obvious totry to deny it.
[…]What you are advocating is transparency of individual votes, right?I understand it can sound a bit weird, but i see that as completelydifferent from representaive votes.Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in,right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals?
They have to vote publicly, right?
Wrong :)As i see it “representative” should not be equated with “individual”. Anindividual have vote power, an representative should have no vote power notorginating from individuals.Assume the identity of a representative can not be tracked to a real lifeindividual. (Maybe you can only track it to a public gpg key.)
Why? Though, I have to notice one more thing up there. The same question as one for Serge actually. How do you imagine this whole process goes and what is the moment we will say, OK, now, lets not be that transparent any more. Lets hide some things in order of safety because that is common good. What is the moment you are talking about? Maybe it is too far from me, that it does not worry me too much, nor makes me interested in going against principle of transparency out of mere specualations based on current, instead of TOP system.
Assume the representative, having his/her real life identity hidden, castssome really extreme votes.So what? Being merly a representative (and not a real individual) the voteshas no power. The only way for those votes to have power would be if reallife individuals delegated their votes to the representative.So, where is the transparency lost?
Its lost in not seeing his origin of power. An his origins of power are Mirko, Marko, Pejo, Sanja, Branka, Mark and Emanuel. They are his true origins. Not number 7.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 21:16
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in,right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals?
They have to vote publicly, right?
I am a bit confused, do you want:
A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public?Either way we probably all agree that representatives’ votes should be public. :)
Why? Though, I have to notice one more thing up there. The same
question as one for Serge actually. How do you imagine this wholeprocess goes and what is the moment we will say, OK, now, lets not bethat transparent any more. Lets hide some things in order of safetybecause that is common good. What is the moment you are talking about?Maybe it is too far from me, that it does not worry me too much, normakes me interested in going against principle of transparency out ofmere specualations based on current, instead of TOP system.
I don’t visualize anything going in the direction of less trasparency. Just because a representative does not need to identify itself using dna and phone number does not mean it can’t. It’s all in the powers of voters. If they want to put their trust in some totaly mysterious person then that’s up to them.
Please note that i am being a bit sarcastic. I don’t think a gpg identified person is any more mysterious than a dna identified one. Both identifications are totaly meaningless if you have no past knowlege of the person. What i am advocating is leaving up to the representatives how to identificate, and leaving up to the voters to chose what identification to trust.
Assume the representative, having his/her real life identity hidden, casts
some really extreme votes.So what? Being merly a representative (and not a real individual) the
votes
has no power. The only way for those votes to have power would be if
reallife individuals delegated their votes to the representative.So, where is the transparency lost?
Its lost in not seeing his origin of power. An his origins of power areMirko, Marko, Pejo, Sanja, Branka, Mark and Emanuel. They are his trueorigins. Not number 7.Yes i agree, they are the orgin of power. They are also individual voters and not representatives(gatherering of votes). You are still advocating for the publicity of individual votes are you? When i said “where is the transparency lost” i was talking about identification of representatives. Assuming no special requirements on how and if representatives should identify themself are made, we have two scenarious:
- Personal votes are publicly visible. Since also representatives’ votes are visible you can trace the power from it’s origin (the individuals) to the final position. No transparecy is lost.
- Personal votes are not publicy visible. Since the origin of power is hidden to start with, there is no transparency to lose. So neither in this case is any transparency lost.
So in my opinion specifying how/if representatives should identify themselfs, or not specify, does not change the transparency in any way.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 22:06
ketty wrote:
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
If its TOP than it is TOP. Transparent, open, public. You can not take this in parts you like and in parts you do not like, do not take it. Actually, this oportunistic mode of TOP is the mode that functions today. So, yes. I am for everything to be public.
I am a bit confused, do you want:A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public?or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public?Representatives is just individuals who other individuals puts trust in,right? Why should they have differnt rights from other individuals?
They have to vote publicly, right?Either way we probably all agree that representatives’ votes should bepublic. :)
Of course :)
I don’t visualize anything going in the direction of less trasparency. Justbecause a representative does not need to identify itself using dna andphone number does not mean it can’t. It’s all in the powers of voters. Ifthey want to put their trust in some totaly mysterious person then that’s upto them.
Maybe I misunderstood you. You want to say that proxies might be virtual identites? That is interesting thought. So, if ones choose to trust virtual identity, that is his right? OK. Fine with me. Though, as long as responsibility is big, big part of efficient political system, in that moment we can state that DPs do not care no responsiblity but virtual one. Can we do that? If we can, everything it is all right.
Please note that i am being a bit sarcastic. I don’t think a gpg identifiedperson is any more mysterious than a dna identified one. Bothidentifications are totaly meaningless if you have no past knowlege of theperson. What i am advocating is leaving up to the representatives how toidentificate, and leaving up to the voters to chose what identification totrust.
I agree. Yet. Real identity means real attachment. In real identity before you, you can be carmic whore only once, with virtual identity you can be carma whore every day. So, if someones wants to trust virtual identity, I asume it is his right and his responsibility.
OK. I understand now.Its lost in not seeing his origin of power. An his origins of power areMirko, Marko, Pejo, Sanja, Branka, Mark and Emanuel. They are his trueorigins. Not number 7.
Yes i agree, they are the orgin of power. They are also individual votersand not representatives(gatherering of votes). You are still advocating forthe publicity of individual votes are you? When i said “where is thetransparency lost” i was talking about identification of representatives.
Assuming no special requirements on how and if representatives shouldidentify themself are made, we have two scenarious:1. Personal votes are publicly visible. Since also representatives’ votesare visible you can trace the power from it’s origin (the individuals) tothe final position. No transparecy is lost.2. Personal votes are not publicy visible. Since the origin of power ishidden to start with, there is no transparency to lose. So neither in thiscase is any transparency lost.
Yet. In the same manner we can notice todays political party and aplause it as long as there is no transparency lost. The merit is TOP system, not current sitation. And in TOP system stuff go from transparent, open and public political decision.
So in my opinion specifying how/if representatives should identifythemselfs, or not specify, does not change the transparency in any way.
So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation? OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its power base, than it is not problem to me neither.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 22:28
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation?OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to itspower base, than it is not problem to me neither.
Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we are agreeing. Yay! :)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
19/10/06 13:50
ketty wrote:
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
Welcome, Ketty! :)So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation?OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to itspower base, than it is not problem to me neither.
Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we areagreeing. Yay! :)———=Part_42673_25465795.1161030524383Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1X-Google-AttachSize: 639On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:———=_Part_4267325465795.1161030524383—So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation?
OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to its
power base, than it is not problem to me neither.
Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we are agreeing. Yay! :)
I’m still confused upon what you are agreeing on?:Orginal question from
Ketty: “A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public? or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public? "What are you choice here?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
19/10/06 21:21
On 10/19/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
ketty wrote:
On 10/16/06, Gordan Ponjavic <gponjavic@gmail.com> wrote:
Welcome, Ketty! :)I’m still confused upon what you are agreeing on?:Orginal question fromKetty:“A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public?or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public?”What are you choice here?So, the question is can virtual identity be part of TOP organisation?OK. I agree that it can. Though, if that part is not problem to itspower base, than it is not problem to me neither.
Took some time for us to understand eachother, but it looks like we areagreeing. Yay! :)Actually, i don’t have a strong position on this yet. I think i need to think a lot about it first.. What are your choice? Is it B (as that seems to be the position of AD) ?
What me and Gordan where agreeing on was that representatives could be virtual identities. There is no need for them to be tied to a birth certificate – they could just as well be tied to a public gpg-key or similar. It is up to the potential people delegating their votes to decide what identification to trust.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 09:35
Orginal question from
Ketty:“A. individuals’ votes are public, representatives’ votes are public?or B. individuals’ votes are hidden, representatives’ votes are public?”
What are you choice here?
Actually, i don’t have a strong position on this yet. I think i need to
think a lot about it first.. What are your choice? Is it B (as that seems to
be the position of AD) ?What me and Gordan where agreeing on was that representatives could be virtual identities. There is no need for them to be tied to a birth certificate – they could just as well be tied to a public gpg-key or similar. It is up to the potential people delegating their votes to decide
what identification to trust.-OK, but indentification is one thing, the principle of publicity of the votes something else.
I would consider B, with the addition that a representative (AD delegate) can be a person or an organization.
In any case, all delegates have to be clearly identified as well as all direct voters by the system in order to have a clear electors list (who have the rigth to cast a vote).
But as discussed above, there is no need to have a direct voters votes or delegations public, in contrast to delegates whos votes are really a result of 1. how many delegated votes they have, 2. an intellectual work by analyzing facts and coming to a conclusion.So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account, only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see all votes and delegations he made and can make.
Only the anonymous account will then be part of the electors list. For control reasons, the voter shall be able to see if his/her vote really is part of the vote counting and shall have the possibility to complain if this would not be the case.
Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number of independent servers, all running the same certified software. If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy to identify the reason.
And a delegate will only see how many delegated votes he have, not whos.
I personally think that a personal vote from a delegate should be secret, just as it is today for traditional reps in the elections for parliaments.
In the case of an organization working as a delegate, there is ofcourse no personal vote..-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 11:40
So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account,only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see allvotes and delegations he made and can make.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but the relationship between a pseudo and the real life person private?
No need anymore to have an encrypted account.
Only the anonymous account will then be part of the electors list.For control reasons, the voter shall be able to see if his/her votereally is part of the vote counting and shall have the possibility tocomplain if this would not be the case.
This trail is important for all actions.
Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number ofindependent servers, all running the same certified software.If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy toidentify the reason.
It might be interesting to have independent servers with different software. Alike planes or rockets which are controlled by different computers, to get some independence from bugs and other weaknesses.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 13:07
So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account,
only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see allvotes and delegations he made and can make.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but the
relationship between a pseudo and the real life person private? No need anymore to have an encrypted account.
-No, because then mapping of individuals might occur, in order to figure out who’s behind an encrypted account.
And I don’t se why it would be easier.
In fact also each different vote from one account should also be crypted with a second key only known by the voter himself. These functions are easy to fix nowadays.Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number of
independent servers, all running the same certified software.If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy toidentify the reason.
It might be interesting to have independent servers with different
software. Alike planes or rockets which are controlled by different computers, to get some independence from bugs and other weaknesses.-Well, AD envison very strict rules for upgrading and testing the software to be used.
This software should be downloadable for any interested in running his own vote counting server in order to check and/or find flaws in it. For instance could a newspaper or sceptic of any kind run his own server in order to find any errors in the soft and report it. In order to maintain high credability for the system it is important to also allways have full control in what soft is used and it should not be frequent upgrades once a stable version is found. But for development use, ofcourse, some servers could be running an upgrade for sake of bug finding (beta-testing) before it is considered safe and working.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 17:07
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:07:15AM -0700, MG wrote:
What mapping do you have in mind?So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an cryptedaccount, only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where hecan see all votes and delegations he made and can make.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but therelationship between a pseudo and the real life person private?No need anymore to have an encrypted account.
-No, because then mapping of individuals might occur, in order tofigure out who’s behind an encrypted account.How would that be different to my proposition.
Let me try to summarize:
- real life person is public, many secret actions
- real life person is secret, many public actions
And I don’t se why it would be easier.
In the first case, there are many secrets for one person. In the second there is only one secret per person. This is why I consider it simpler.
Plus it allows to develop an online persona with a history and a reputation.
Strict rules will make the whole system brittle.
-Well, AD envison very strict rules for upgrading and testing thesoftware to be used.Votecounting shall take place conquently on an unlimited number ofindependent servers, all running the same certified software.If any server reports different results in a vote it is easy toidentify the reason.
It might be interesting to have independent servers with *different*software. Alike planes or rockets which are controlled by differentcomputers, to get some independence from bugs and other weaknesses.
What is important is not that everything works along the same tune, but that results are verifiable. It’s a much lower target isn’t it? And it should be obtainable through different technologies.
This software should be downloadable for any interested in running hisown vote counting server in order to check and/or find flaws in it.For instance could a newspaper or sceptic of any kind run his ownserver in order to find any errors in the soft and report it.In order to maintain high credability for the system it is important toalso allways have full control in what soft is used and it should notbe frequent upgrades once a stable version is found.But for development use, ofcourse, some servers could be running anupgrade for sake of bug finding (beta-testing) before it is consideredsafe and working.
I’m using mails as my transmission protocol. I’m very low tech that way :)
With mails, anybody could verify the votes using a pen and paper (of course, it might get tedious).
echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 17:27
On 10/20/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
Let me try to summarize:* real life person is public, many secret actions* real life person is secret, many public actions
And I don’t se why it would be easier.
In the first case, there are many secrets for one person. In the secondthere is only one secret per person. This is why I consider it simpler.Plus it allows to develop an online persona with a history and areputation.
I agree with this.
And i also agree that using only one software, even if the source of the software is public and tested by many, is a bad idea. Some bugs will not be found untill the have made their share of harm. The best way to protect against bugs is to simultanly use independent software.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
21/10/06 17:10
Unfortunately the simples programming isn’t good enough if secret votes shall be an option for individual voters.
I’ll start a new thread about that.Regarding different soft, sure, nothing stops the paralell use of different versions in order to find bugs and security issues. But one and only one will have to be the official when this system is in production.
There should be a very trusted board, with immediate recall, responsible as admins for this system.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
21/10/06 17:39
Regarding different soft, sure, nothing stops the paralell use ofdifferent versions in order to find bugs and security issues.But one and only one will have to be the official when this system isin production.
Planes and rockets use different softwares and technologies.
Why not also do the same with voting systems? Is that such a weird idea?
There should be a very trusted board, with immediate recall,responsible as admins for this system.
That board is a single point of failure. Brittle.
Better to let all interested parties in the system, like it’s already the case in most elections where you have many boards with many participants.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 15:27
At 11:39 AM 10/21/2006, echarp wrote:
If what you are building is a power structure, as distinct from a corruption-immune system like FA/DP — which maintains its relative immunity by leaving nearly all power at the member level — then you will almost certainly need a board, and officers. Yes, this is a possible failure point, no doubt about that, but the problems with boards happen when the members are not actively involved and there is no means for a member recognizing the problem to effectively and efficiently communicate with the rest of the members, the board can block it.There should be a very trusted board, with immediate recall,responsible as admins for this system.
That board is a single point of failure. Brittle.This is why I propose FA/DP as a communications structure, and non-FAs, perhaps with DP structure, in power structures. And that “power structure” might quite well elect and have the power of recall over a board. Which then hires and has the power of firing employees. Officers are employees.
It’s the corporate model, folks, been going for hundreds of years. Where it goes astray is where there are large numbers of uninvolved and uninformed shareholders, because the structure was designed for relatively small numbers of investors. And, you will note, it incorporates proxy voting. Because those investors would not have accepted less!
Delegable proxy is just an extension and not even a totally necessary one, as far as the actual power structure is concerned. If you have an FA/DP superstructure, the FA/DP proxy can recommend an appropriate legal proxy to the member. And that can be a standing appointment, revocable at any time. This is what a proxy is!
So it could be pretty safe, even with a board holding the immediate reins of power. As long as they cannot control communication and analysis among the members!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 10:15
If what you are building is a power structure, as distinct from a corruption-immune system like FA/DP — which maintains its relative immunity by leaving nearly all power at the member level — then you will almost certainly need a board, and officers. Yes, this is a possible failure point, no doubt about that, but the problems with boards happen when the members are not actively involved and there is no means for a member recognizing the problem to effectively and efficiently communicate with the rest of the members, the board can block it.
Basically, we don’t know what happens after democratic decisions are taken. Board, government, administrators, commission.
It is open to all possibilities.
But, during the vote, any single point of failure ought to be removed to strengthen the whole thing. Consensus is the tool of choice to agree on what the expressed decisions are (as is currently the case).
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 10:24
Basically, we don’t know what happens after democratic decisions are
taken. Board, government, administrators, commission.
It is open to all possibilities.
But, during the vote, any single point of failure ought to be removed to
strengthen the whole thing. Consensus is the tool of choice to agree onwhat the expressed decisions are (as is currently the case).
-Just like to add that what possibilities and rights a bord should have ofcourse have to very clearly specified and it shall only be more or less technical issues about the voting process in relation to the design intent, nothing more.
So his has to be written clearly in a regulation document, otherwise this board soon enough will contain old politicians seeing a way of preserving their own power instead of acting simple clerks, working more as servants to the voters.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 10:44
The voting system has to be defined for the voters to cast their vote. Anybody willing should be able to follow that through and, with the votes database, be able to come to the correct results.But, during the vote, any single point of failure ought to beremoved to strengthen the whole thing. Consensus is the tool ofchoice to agree on what the expressed decisions are (as is currentlythe case).
Just like to add that what possibilities and rights a bord should haveofcourse have to very clearly specified and it shall only be more orless technical issues about the voting process in relation to thedesign intent, nothing more.
The voting procedure should be defined… democratically! ;)
So his has to be written clearly in a regulation document, otherwisethis board soon enough will contain old politicians seeing a way ofpreserving their own power instead of acting simple clerks, workingmore as servants to the voters.
Coming to a consensus is a matter of technicality. Otherwise it is open to all sorts of other matters.
That consensus should become a widespread habit, where many will check all results, and media would report their own. Then it’s a matter of reputation and outcomes.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 12:18
+1
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 12:18
-
24/10/06 10:44
-
24/10/06 10:24
-
23/10/06 16:52
+1! Exactly my point! With TOP applied on this board, no risk for corruption and misleading of the users, the people.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 10:15
-
23/10/06 01:47
You are misunderstanding.
I’m not against different initiatives and developments. I’m only saying that for every given vote casting, there shall be one and only one soft counting and handling all votes casting. This is obvous need for having trust in the democratical process. Just as we today have only one way of haveing our votes in elections counted, by a predetermined group of people handling the ballot boxes etc etc.
The board I’m talking about is the only way to control that this is the case.
It would be the parallell to todays voting authorities.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 13:03
You are misunderstanding.
Maybe. But I think I do understand your point. Just I disagree with it.
I’m not against different initiatives and developments.
Cool.
I’m only saying that for every given vote casting, there shall be oneand only one soft counting and handling all votes casting.
And I’m comparing it with planes and rockets, where there are multiple softwares.
Do you see my point?
This is obvous need for having trust in the democratical process.
Trust should be obtained through verifiability, transparency.
You have a database of votes, which can be replicated quite easily. You let everybody obtain it, you let everybody count.
Wouldn’t that be much better to obtain trust? Isn’t verifying everything by yourself much better than having a central organism whom you’ll have to trust?
Just as we today have only one way of haveing our votes in electionscounted, by a predetermined group of people handling the ballot boxesetc etc.
The group is not predetermined (in France anyway). There is generally one way to count, but I’m not sure there could not be others. I could try proposing it next time I do the counting.
The trouble with physical votes, is that you can’t copy it and process it multiple times in parallel.
But using internet you can.
The board I’m talking about is the only way to control that this is thecase.
This screams of “single point of failures”. In engineering, you want to remove them.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 14:03
And I’m comparing it with planes and rockets, where there are multiple
softwares.
Do you see my point?
-Well, no. In a 747 there is one and only one soft controlling the right rudder of the wing as response to the signals from cockpit. If there where several and one where coming to a different conclusion, a light might go on in cockpit.
But still there should be only one soft doing the job until the pilot says otherwise. (Written by a non-avation engineer..)You have a database of votes, which can be replicated quite easily. You
let everybody obtain it, you let everybody count.
Wouldn’t that be much better to obtain trust? Isn’t verifying everything
by yourself much better than having a central organism whom you’ll haveto trust?
-Sure, but still only one as regarded the choosen one. The others might show errors in number one which will improve for next time or restart a new vote.
The alternative you are suggesting, that we rely on mr Johns new fancy soft, coming to a new “obvious” result is not to build trust for internet democracy.The group is not predetermined (in France anyway). There is generally
one way to count, but I’m not sure there could not be others. I could try proposing it next time I do the counting.
-The group can be choosen out of people of the street or whatever, but their voting algortihm + method of counting will have to be predetermined. =Parallell servers running ONE soft, not many If there where money enogh, there could be other groups conting differently and applying other algos but that would have been for comparison and verification, not for legal purpose.
case.The board I’m talking about is the only way to control that this is the
This screams of “single point of failures”. In engineering, you want to
remove them.
-Well, what you are suggesting seems like wild west in comparison.. Who will judge which soft that counted correctly this very time? A new vote about that or??
There must be someone in charge for the pratical of running votes/elections just as for the rudder controls in a plane, this is basic and not an invention of mine.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 16:11
Redundancy.And I’m comparing it with planes and rockets, where there are*multiple* softwares.Do you see my point?
Well, no. In a 747 there is one and only one soft controlling theright rudder of the wing as response to the signals from cockpit.
Modern aircrafts which rely on a software controller ensure that not one software fault will bring down the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems :
Therefore virtually all fly-by-wire systems are triply or quadruplyredundant: they have three or four computers in parallel, and three orfour separate wires to each control surface. If one or two computerscrash, the others continue working. In addition most early digitalfly-by-wire aircraft also had an analog electric, mechanical orhydraulic backup control system.
Do you now see my point?
The alternative you are suggesting, that we rely on mr Johns new fancysoft, coming to a new “obvious” result is not to build trust forinternet democracy.
Who is to rely on mr Johns? The point is not to rely on one element.
It is not the wild west, but good old engineering practices.
Well, what you are suggesting seems like wild west in comparison..The board I’m talking about is the only way to control that thisis the case.
This screams of “single point of failures”. In engineering, youwant to remove them.
Redundancy. Verifiability.
Who will judge which soft that counted correctly this very time?
You don’t judge, you go see the person reporting a different result and try to come to an agreement.
There are different steps for that.
Is the votes database the same?
How are votes deciphered?
What request is used to calculate the result?
If our current voting procedure allow every party to participate and come to a consensus, why not do that again but using software and internet?
There must be someone in charge for the pratical of runningvotes/elections just as for the rudder controls in a plane, this isbasic and not an invention of mine.
The demo is in charge! ;-)
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 16:48
Modern aircrafts which rely on a software controller ensure that not one
software fault will bring down the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems :
Therefore virtually all fly-by-wire systems are triply or quadruplyredundant: they have three or four computers in parallel, and three orfour separate wires to each control surface. If one or two computerscrash, the others continue working. In addition most early digitalfly-by-wire aircraft also had an analog electric, mechanical orhydraulic backup control system.
Do you now see my point?
-Well, OK, forgot that there is so much redundance in a plane.., but, Boeing would newer sell a plane without testing and certifying all these redundant programs.This is my point, Boeing acts here as a trusted board sorting out different redundant.
They don’t leave software development to opensource community and just bring them in as another redundance improver.You don’t judge, you go see the person reporting a different result and
try to come to an agreement.
-I’m fine with that and such parallell running can be used. But. for legal resons we cannot see this as test environment once using it for making laws etc.
In that stage there must be a core soft with as little bugs as possible.
All problems with it and better solutions found by competing soft shall ofcourse be reported and afterwards corrected/improved. But until a fix/improvemnet is fully tested and found OK, the old soft must be the case.
And there must be somebody in charge for this process, just as in Boeing.Otherwise no one will sit down at takeoff anymore..
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 17:05
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
-I’m fine with that and such parallell running can be used.But. for legal resons we cannot see this as test environment once usingit for making laws etc.In that stage there must be a core soft with as little bugs aspossible.
You seem to assume the bugs of a groups of parallel softwares is all bugs existing in any of the softwares. But infact the bugs of the group is only the ones existing in all softwares. Do you see why it makes total sence to use not one but a group of parallel software for a prodution environment (making laws)?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 17:27
But how shall a two result situation be handled when we have an important vote?
And who will handle it?-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 17:32
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
But how shall a two result situation be handled when we have animportant vote?And who will handle it?
You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 17:40
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:36:54PM +0200, ketty wrote:
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
Or try to come to a consensus.But how shall a two result situation be handled when we have animportant vote?And who will handle it?
You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)As already happens in all voting offices.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 00:57
You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)
-See?
Or try to come to a consensus.
As already happens in all voting offices.
-Is it? And what even if so, if we call a discussion of a badly written or torn ballot a “software problem”, isn’t the people in that voting office a trusted board?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 10:29
Of course you could, but it is bad engineering.
See?You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)
They are not a trusted board.Or try to come to a consensus.As already happens in all voting offices.
Is it? And what even if so, if we call a discussion of a badly writtenor torn ballot a “software problem”, isn’t the people in that votingoffice a trusted board?
They are all willing people and parties. They reach a consensus.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 10:29
-
24/10/06 00:57
-
23/10/06 17:40
-
23/10/06 17:32
-
23/10/06 17:38
They don’t leave software development to opensource community andjust bring them in as another redundance improver.
There are plenty of ways to make software. But, for verifiability there is no need for a complex and complete thing, as serge stated, a spreadsheet should do the trick.
I’m fine with that and such parallell running can be used.But. for legal resons we cannot see this as test environment once usingit for making laws etc.
We already use a decentralized and consensual system (polling stations). Where would the laws conflict with how the laws are made?
The entity responsible for votes, in a democracy, is the demos… Isn’t that quite logical? :-)
+1In that stage there must be a core soft with as little bugs aspossible.
You seem to assume the bugs of a groups of parallel softwares is all bugsexisting in any of the softwares. But infact the bugs of the group is only theones existing in all softwares. Do you see why it makes total sence to usenot one but a group of parallel software for a prodution environment (makinglaws)?
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 17:27
-
23/10/06 17:05
-
23/10/06 16:48
-
23/10/06 15:17
Hey,
I think your disagreement (echard and Magnus) stems from the voting methods you advocate so that in essence I believe your arguments actually complement each other. In the case of AD’s continous voting approach, there is a need for a much more specific piece of soft to be integrated in the system as it determines the closing of a vote dynamically. This need for integration and crosstalk is absent from echarp’s approach as he is thinking of vote verification after the fact (if I am understanding both your arguments correctly), which indeed could be done with something as simple as an excel spreadsheet populated with the voting results.
One could imagine that different counting pieces of code could be certified by delegates handling voting methods in the system (trustworthiness solved, Magnus?) and used in parallel so as to ensure that should one counting system fail or be compromised, other systems may show the discrepancy and raise a red flag (satisfying mode of operation, echarp?). This way you would have the certification needed for results to be trustworthy while enjoying the added security of having several counting options, discrepancies in which would be a reasonnable basis for investigation into a possible manipulation or irregularity.
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 23:27
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:19:12PM +0200, Serge wrote:
I think your disagreement (echard and Magnus) stems from the votingmethods you advocate so that in essence I believe your argumentsactually complement each other.
Hopefully.In the case of AD’s continous voting approach, there is a need for amuch more specific piece of soft to be integrated in the system as itdetermines the closing of a vote dynamically.
I also advocate continuous voting. But then I don’t consider that votes need to be closed.
This need for integration and crosstalk is absent from echarp’sapproach as he is thinking of vote verification after the fact (if Iam understanding both your arguments correctly), which indeed could bedone with something as simple as an excel spreadsheet populated withthe voting results.
+1
“After” is verifiability. But it can and should occur at all time, in real time.
With luck every voter could be able to look up the results on different nodes, and see if his personal votes are correctly accounted for.
One could imagine that different counting pieces of code could becertified by delegates handling voting methods in the system(trustworthiness solved, Magnus?) and used in parallel so as to ensurethat should one counting system fail or be compromised, other systemsmay show the discrepancy and raise a red flag (satisfying mode ofoperation, echarp?).
The mode of operation… I don’t have anything precise in mind. The point is just to have as many verification nodes as possible, then a consensus to define the result.
If that was to work properly, that system would organise in real time and wouldn’t need anything formal.
This way you would have the certification needed for results to betrustworthy while enjoying the added security of having severalcounting options, discrepancies in which would be a reasonnable basisfor investigation into a possible manipulation or irregularity.
Investigation of course, and deliberation, conviction. Using computers and the simplest procedures possible, it should be possible to quickly determine what went wrong and how to correct it.
Best regards,Serge
Sincèrement
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 23:27
-
23/10/06 16:11
-
23/10/06 14:59
+1
Public voting records allow replicability of voting results in a simple format which in turn allows everyone to verify the vote count for themselves (and that their vote is what they did cast and hasn’t been altered)… This is simpe, straightforward and embodies the ideal of Transparent, Open and Public. Echarp I agree wholeheartedly with your approach.
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 00:58
+1
Ofcourse!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 00:58
-
23/10/06 14:03
-
23/10/06 02:29
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m only saying that for every given vote casting, there shall be oneand only one soft counting and handling all votes casting.This is obvous need for having trust in the democratical process.Just as we today have only one way of haveing our votes in electionscounted, by a predetermined group of people handling the ballot boxesetc etc.
This is a trust by ignorance. You say different soft counting all comming to the same result will make people belive there is something fishy going on?! And in the case of different results, won’t it make people aware of the danger of putting to much trust in soft counting systems?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 09:35
ketty wrote:
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
Well,you are a programmer…I’m only saying that for every given vote casting, there shall be oneand only one soft counting and handling all votes casting.This is obvous need for having trust in the democratical process.Just as we today have only one way of haveing our votes in electionscounted, by a predetermined group of people handling the ballot boxesetc etc.
This is a trust by ignorance. You say different soft counting all comming tothe same result will make people belive there is something fishy going on?!And in the case of different results, won’t it make people aware of thedanger of putting to much trust in soft counting systems?———=Part_91397_29187093.1161563343521Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8X-Google-AttachSize: 988On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:I’m only saying that for every given vote casting, there shall be one
and only one soft counting and handling all votes casting.
This is obvous need for having trust in the democratical process.
Just as we today have only one way of haveing our votes in elections
counted, by a predetermined group of people handling the ballot boxes
etc etc.
This is a trust by ignorance. You say different soft counting all comming to the same result will make people belive there is something fishy going on?! And in the case of different results, won’t it make people aware of the danger of putting to much trust in soft counting systems?
———=_Part_9139729187093.1161563343521—
My mind goes to the average citizen.
If we told them, hey, we will count your votes now and maybe we all will come to the same result, otherwise we will agree later on which result is the correct one.
Or we will launch a new vote if things seems too messy… What trust do you think this will bring to media and public?Instead, IF there will be any faults reported and IF this shows up to be due to a faulty software or other computer related error. The resons will be investigated thoroughly (by the committe and ofcourse by everyone willing to contribute) and the error will be corrected in a new certified version. Then I think trust can be built in the long term.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 09:35
-
23/10/06 13:03
-
23/10/06 15:27
-
21/10/06 17:39
-
20/10/06 17:32
+1 and someday => +10 ;)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
21/10/06 17:10
-
20/10/06 17:07
-
20/10/06 14:21
echarp wrote:
So, if we imagine some community that goes this way, than we have to understand there is some commonly trusted body which states that someones virtual entity present rl person in that community. That commonly trusted body is by default non TOP. If people agree to that, than I have to acklaim that either.So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account,only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see allvotes and delegations he made and can make.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but therelationship between a pseudo and the real life person private?No need anymore to have an encrypted account.Even though, I do actually see no need for this body in political projections I can notice.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
24/10/06 01:07
So, if we imagine some community that goes this way, than we have to
understand there is some commonly trusted body which states that someones virtual entity present rl person in that community. That commonly trusted body is by default non TOP. If people agree to that, than I have to acklaim that either.
-No, It’s only a thing between you and the computer(s). This secret connection can be a pair of keys, only known by you, not by a board or something.
But for all non-delegates, I think secret connections between the cast ballots and the personal account is enough.
I only see need for VID when a delegate want the option of voting differently than as delegate, maybe when the delegation is not only one person but a party or Greenpeace or so. Teh VId would be used for the delegating vote casting, and the personal for personal vote casting.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 14:50
There does not need to be only one. There can be as many as users want. And each user can choose which one he wants to go through.
So, if we imagine some community that goes this way, than we have tounderstand there is some commonly trusted body which states thatsomeones virtual entity present rl person in that community.So what’s needed is that every direct-voter has an crypted account,only accessible by himself, (not even an admin) where he can see allvotes and delegations he made and can make.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have all votes and delegations public, but therelationship between a pseudo and the real life person private?No need anymore to have an encrypted account.
It’s a third party trustee.
That commonly trusted body is by default non TOP. If people agree tothat, than I have to acklaim that either.
It would seem non transparent, yes.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 15:03
BTW; these third party trustees need to share the same base in order of acknowledgment of its participators.
Yes?-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 15:27
BTW; these third party trustees need to share the same base in order ofacknowledgment of its participators.Yes?
Not at all.
- on the EL write yourself as anonymous and going through trustee T
- with a token from EL (to authenticate yourself) go to trustee T
- with a token from T go to EL in order to obtain a pseudo
El => trustee T => EL
The point is to remove the link between a real life person and its pseudo.
The token could probably be replaced with the use of a PGP key.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 15:41
How can you prevent me from going to 5 trustees, caring 5 different identities if these trusties do not share the base?
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 15:52
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:41:17AM -0700, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
How can you prevent me from going to 5 trustees, caring 5 differentidentities if these trusties do not share the base?
The tokens are there for this reason.echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 16:28
On 10/20/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:41:17AM -0700, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
How can you prevent me from going to 5 trustees, caring 5 differentidentities if these trusties do not share the base?
The tokens are there for this reason.So the real mapping is between individuals and tokens, and that mapping is public (because anyone can be a trustee?). And the mappings done by each trustee is completely hidden? How can i be sure no cheating is going on with the hidden mappings?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 16:37
You choose the trustee.
So the real mapping is between individuals and tokens, and that mapping ispublic (because anyone can be a trustee?). And the mappings done by eachtrustee is completely hidden? How can i be sure no cheating is going on withthe hidden mappings?How can you prevent me from going to 5 trustees, caring 5 differentidentities if these trusties do not share the base?
The tokens are there for this reason.
There can be any number of them. You can be a trustee.
Of course it would be silly to have a trustee which only manages one pseudonym :)
Oh, a trustee could be a physical voting station, with a physical ballot and all that.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 17:01
On 10/20/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
You choose the trustee.There can be any number of them.You can be a trustee.
How, to verify that the final id given by a trustee does in fact correspond to an orginal token? (Since the final mapping is secret..)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 17:20
Who wants to verify that?You choose the trustee.There can be any number of them.You can be a trustee.
How, to verify that the final id given by a trustee does in fact correspond toan orginal token? (Since the final mapping is secret..)
The EL manager will see some people marked as anonymous and using some trustees. The only important thing for him is that the number of people coming back from those trustees is equal or inferior to those who left.
Individual participants should trust the trustee enough to choose it. If they don’t, they can set up their own.
In case of large troubles, I don’t know, let’s say 10% of one trustee’s users are complaining, the EL manager could decide to reset everything coming from it. Easy.
An individual user, which can authenticate for his real persona and his pseudo, could decide to complain and to reset just those 2. Of course then he will have to trust the EL admin because the relationship will be known to him.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 17:31
On 10/20/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
Who wants to verify that?
I first thought that a trustee might give him/her-self several votes. But considering that the number of tokens going in and ids going out of the trustees is visible, i am not sure it is a real consern…
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 17:38
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:31:48PM +0200, ketty wrote:
On 10/20/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
I think there is still a valid attack there. But the user will notice it real quick, and it will be reported (he will notice it due to the fact that his pseudo won’t work).Who wants to verify that?
I first thought that a trustee might give him/her-self several votes. Butconsidering that the number of tokens going in and ids going out of thetrustees is visible, i am not sure it is a real consern…Then it’s all matters of reputation.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 02:48
Why the added complexity of trustees, tokens, anonymity and whatever else? Not to mention linking one’s public statements to their actual vote doesn’t seem possible anymore in this setup (goodbye transparency).
Most agree that having someone’s real ID being linked to their voting record and posts etc would be a real danger to the openness of any debate. If everyone first weighs their contribution on the scale of how much trouble they can land themselves in, you can kiss whistleblowers and advocates of controversial causes goodbye. Which would be a terrible thing for any meaningful democratic debate to happen.
The only apparent alternative to secret voting imo is moving the secrecy onto one’s real ID. Going to full anonymity brings right back the problem of having a trail for trust-building so the logical solution would be in my opinion a unique and authenticated online ID. This way there is a clear trail of votes and opinions for everyone, which actually allows one to choose and change delegates – this is not possible with secret voting if we are talking of large scale system, in which it is assumed a large majority of participants will have the votes of others delegated to them for some issues so that saying that delegates’ records have to be public and not voters is saying that maybe 20% of all voters might enjoy a measure of anonymity (and these 20% will be the ones probably delegating everything and participate very little in the debates in the first place).
This seems far simpler and actually is transparent (which anonymity is not – by definition it’s a cloak). Also this discussion has been active in 3 threads (among which leparlement and security) so apologies if I’ve repeated some previously stated things.
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 13:46
Why the added complexity of trustees, tokens, anonymity and whateverelse?
It is an added complexity and a security risk. Which is why it is up to each participant to choose his trustee or just to remain public.
Tokens are just one way to manage the technicality of it. What is important if the handshake between an electoral list and a trustee.
And again, an anonymous pseudo is just an option.
Not to mention linking one’s public statements to their actual votedoesn’t seem possible anymore in this setup (goodbye transparency).
This is the choice of each electoral list manager and each participant.
No obligation there.
Most agree that having someone’s real ID being linked to their votingrecord and posts etc would be a real danger to the openness of anydebate. If everyone first weighs their contribution on the scale of howmuch trouble they can land themselves in, you can kiss whistleblowersand advocates of controversial causes goodbye. Which would be aterrible thing for any meaningful democratic debate to happen.
Very valid argument.
The only apparent alternative to secret voting imo is moving thesecrecy onto one’s real ID. Going to full anonymity brings right backthe problem of having a trail for trust-building so the logicalsolution would be in my opinion a unique and authenticated online ID.
+1
This way there is a clear trail of votes and opinions for everyone,which actually allows one to choose and change delegates – this is notpossible with secret voting if we are talking of large scale system, inwhich it is assumed a large majority of participants will have thevotes of others delegated to them for some issues so that saying thatdelegates’ records have to be public and not voters is saying thatmaybe 20% of all voters might enjoy a measure of anonymity (and these20% will be the ones probably delegating everything and participatevery little in the debates in the first place).This seems far simpler and actually is transparent (which anonymity isnot – by definition it’s a cloak).
I fear it is still a kind of opacity: the relationship between an identity and a persona is hidden.
But is it so different to the authentication mechanism used? You know, the login and password most online systems will require of you. Or even the private PGP key you can use to sign your actions.
Also this discussion has been active in 3 threads (among whichleparlement and security) so apologies if I’ve repeated somepreviously stated things.
No problem for me. You want to continue on http://leparlement.org/security ? ;)
echarp
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
23/10/06 13:46
-
23/10/06 02:48
-
20/10/06 17:38
-
20/10/06 17:31
-
20/10/06 17:20
-
20/10/06 17:01
-
20/10/06 16:37
-
20/10/06 16:06
OK. I do not understand the way, but if you took it into consideration, than everything is fine.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 16:34
Let me try to use an image then.
You are on the boat called EL. You have a nice seat which allows you to participate.
You stand up, take a piece of paper which you put on your seat. On that piece of paper you write the name of a boat T onto which you are going to move.
You move to boat T, change your physical appearance.
You move back to boat EL, but at another seat.
In such a setting, it’s rather easy for the EL captain to make sure you don’t move to 5 other anonymising boats.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
20/10/06 16:34
-
20/10/06 16:28
-
20/10/06 15:52
-
20/10/06 15:27
-
20/10/06 15:03
-
24/10/06 01:07
-
20/10/06 13:07
-
20/10/06 11:40
-
20/10/06 09:35
-
19/10/06 21:21
-
17/10/06 01:37
:)
Though, I am rather interested what do other things about this issue. Markus?
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
19/10/06 13:50
-
16/10/06 22:28
-
16/10/06 21:20
Hi Gale,
Ok so I should clarify that in my view of it there should be two distinct identities:
1) Your physical, name surname verifiable identity, protected by an adequate mechanism (nothing’s ever 100% proof, but ways can be designed for maintaining one’s real identity private)
2) Your authenticated unique online identity, which is completely transparent – ie votes and various posts/discussions are available to anyoneInterestingly enough, should a small town experiment with a TOP system as means of government, there would be a need for making sure each eligible voting citizen gets one and one only one login – otherwise you risk electoral frauds. Therefore it would be easy to take advantage of this registration/authentification step to ensure eligible citizens benefit from the same protections when they vote online as when they do in a voting booth. The issue here is to shield someone from threats and possible risks of harm that may arise from one’s advocacy of an issue or choice of vote.
There would be no issues of transparence as one would know anyone else speaking/voting is an eligible citizen, and for example would be able to see one another’s records of opinion/posts/contributions and votes, and subject it to scrutiny – and possibly choose to delegate his/her vote on a given issue.
Hope this answers at least some of your observations.
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 22:25
Serge wrote:
There would be no issues of transparence as one would know anyone elsespeaking/voting is an eligible citizen, and for example would be ableto see one another’s records of opinion/posts/contributions and votes,and subject it to scrutiny – and possibly choose to delegate his/hervote on a given issue.Hope this answers at least some of your observations.
I understand that being TOP means being exposed in public and in front of those who are not so keen about your political ideas. Yet, you have to keep in mind that this is global problem of TOP. There is no fog to hide. And that is the problem every single person who enters TOP politics is going to experience.But.
The true power of TOP is precisely in the courage to stand behind your political ideas. This gives you political power and influence. And not just to you, but every single person who is willing to use this paradigm in order of political success. No free lunch I am afraid.
So. What do we get from the other side? We can start empathysing with those who are exposed, we can join them, we can earn respect and position to realise our political intentions. No free lunch I repeat. And no power in those who are afraid to stand behind of what they think. If there is no power, than their vote is being only a wish, nothing mandatory. And it cant be mandatory as long as authority can not be someone who is afraid of the one to whom he is “willing”/wishing to use force. That is contradiction that can be shortcutted.
So this problem you mention remains being open. And it needs new mechanisms that will protect right to make decision. Yet, as in opensource in software development, where hackers can read the whole code (which helps them rather much), more eyes solve these problems, so opensource as fully transparent source (it is not being closed not even in security issues!!!) is many fields even more secure than closed source.
Paradox it is.
ATB,
GaleBest regards,Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 21:33
On 10/16/06, Serge <sversille@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok so I should clarify that in my view of it there should be twodistinct identities:1) Your physical, name surname verifiable identity, protected by anadequate mechanism (nothing’s ever 100% proof, but ways can be designedfor maintaining one’s real identity private)2) Your authenticated unique online identity, which is completelytransparent – ie votes and various posts/discussions are available toanyone
The tricky part is making the part where you assign an online identity to a physical person transparent without making the mapping between the two identities publicy visible. How do i know for sure no one sitting in a privileged position gives themself a whole bunch of online personalities?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 22:25
-
16/10/06 21:16
-
16/10/06 20:11
-
16/10/06 01:22
-
15/10/06 20:29
+1
Freedom of expression requires protection. Anonymity of voting seems the best available protection at this point. One can hope that one day we might be able to voice our opinion and cast votes in complete openness without fear of retribution, but looking at a system to be implemented here and now, i think we need to take voter’s protection with the utmost seriousness.
Adding a separate online identity to the equation would allow to create a base for building trust in proxies and allow a system to be efficient and remain TOP.all the best,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 00:51
-1
Serge wrote:
+1Freedom of expression requires protection. Anonymity of voting seemsthe best available protection at this point
Voting is expressing will, not opinion. That is the essence of the vote power. And no power, no legitimation. No power, no politics at all. Yet, you can act paternisticly and offer them to express their opinion becuase you are good person that cares. But, than we are not talking about power base behind you, but some imptent fun club that wont be too influencive.The same thing as petitions btw. You can send millions of signatures, but if the goverment doesnt find these signature threatening, they wont find them serios thing in a process of letting go their interests.
Even demonstrations that is actually public principe as petitions are not too interesting if they are not a threat. And what can you imagine with secret ballots? Hmh.
One can hope that one daywe might be able to voice our opinion and cast votes in completeopenness without fear of retribution, but looking at a system to beimplemented here and now, i think we need to take voter’s protectionwith the utmost seriousness.
OK. How do you imagine Internet democracy be established? Maybe I missed your key point?
Adding a separate online identity to the equation would allow to createa base for building trust in proxies and allow a system to be efficientand remain TOP.
What I find out is that TOP gives that system efficiency.
ATB,
Galeall the best,Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
16/10/06 00:51
-
16/10/06 00:43
-
15/10/06 17:39
-
15/10/06 12:41