As a long time reader of comp.risks, and having a professional interest in security (as a sysadmin), I'll take this opportunity to say that anyone who is promoting online voting as a replacement for paper ballots is (in my opinion) one or more of a)Hopelessly naive, b)Frighteningly optimistic, c)Woefully ignorant of the problems of authentication combined with anonymity, d)Ignoring the problems of coercion, or (worst of all) e) Willing to accept vote tampering. I do not seriously think that the Electoral Commissioner would be willing to accept vote tampering, but every electronic or online system has been demonstrated to be vulnerable to it. Worse, such attacks can occur at any point, be it in corrupt coding, interference with the ballots, or by injecting forged ballots. All of these have be proven to be possible in every practical and theoretical system proposed to date. This is ignoring the problem of d) - if the voting is not occurring in a public place, how do you prove that t...
Not all religious people are like this.
ReplyDeleteGranted. Speaking as one. There are, however a number of classes of religious persons and believers in various other 'isms' (in particular certain political 'isms') that this very much applies to.
ReplyDeleteAnything that takes over a person's identity has this exact effect. From the extremists in either major political party to football teams, religions (and atheists) and people who wrap their identity around a brand name.. ie - Apple or Android, Ford & Holden, Mac or Windows, Canon vs Nikon etc etc.. humans aren't, by and large, rational across all things.
ReplyDeleteSo very true, Paul Pichugin.
ReplyDeleteChange that sign holder to a anti vaccine study and who is right?
ReplyDeleteAh, but the anti-vax studies are provably false, and so are not facts, but lies. Your argument does not succeed.
ReplyDelete