[Fwd: Re: [E-voting] About Estonian e-voting]
caburt at alphalink.com.au
Mon Oct 24 13:13:14 IST 2005
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:40:43PM +1000, Craig Burton wrote:
>>We wouldn't be discussing it if it was never successful. One virtue of
>>electronic voting is that fewer hands touch the votes.
>That's not a virtue. That's a weakness.
This relies on the hands being virtuous.
>You will need a clean compiler, a clean version of every library that
>compiler uses, a clean version of the kernel running the compiler, and
>clean version of the hardware running the compiler. And you'll need all
>of that all over again for the running binary. It is a complete waste of
There are no absolutes; that's bad form.
A hack has to work, it has to work silently and specifically and it has
to not be detected. It has to work in the presence of other software,
it has to work on software that changes, it has to be developed, tested,
successfully deployed, it has to wait till the right time. You imply
its a cakewalk to have whatever hack you can think of hidden anywhere
you can imagine on any machine anywhere. That's simply impossible.
The real risks can be managed.
If this software process looks cumbersome, you haven't seen a
Hare-Clarke recount with Robson Rotation (there are several permutations
of the ballot layout) for 200,000 votes. Actually, I haven't either,
but it took a month. That's enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the E-voting