What is Digg?177 Comments
- thredden, on 03/09/2009, -3/+87prolly more secure than diebold systems.
- Yggdrasil, on 03/09/2009, -12/+821) Vote
2) Delete Cookies
3) Goto 1 - krystofr, on 03/09/2009, -8/+68"Web based" and "secure" never belong in the same sentence
- extravagant, on 03/09/2009, -4/+49well, time will tell just how secure it really is.
- zephc, on 03/09/2009, -3/+43walking around with your filled-in ballot stapled to your forehead is more secure than diebold's voting systems.
- Daniel591992, on 03/09/2009, -7/+41Cause Scientists from Harvard would never think of that...
- Ductapemaster, on 03/09/2009, -7/+40Nothing is ever truly secure, especially if it's on the internet.
- DaviDTC, on 03/10/2009, -2/+26This web based voting system isn't secure.
I win. - L0NER, on 03/10/2009, -1/+25Hell no, ZeroCool and AcidBurn would hack this ***** using a 3d interface, a payphone and some roller blades
- InfiniteNothing, on 03/09/2009, -2/+20Dugg under the assumption of humor.
- ChileanGoD, on 03/10/2009, -2/+18Nothing...
When you think of it... nothing prevents you from selling your vote right now. - Shadow503, on 03/10/2009, -2/+16It's open source, so if it's broken, don't report the bug and rig the election.
- zephc, on 03/09/2009, -1/+15It's open source, so if it's broken, go fix it!
- theskillwithin, on 03/09/2009, -0/+14SOURCE CODE.
And proof that source code released is used.
Also, i dont know if im the only one, but this ***** scares me. - Saitekc, on 03/09/2009, -3/+16Some kid in a basement will crack it.
- theskillwithin, on 03/10/2009, -1/+14a secure system can still be used to change votes. it just changes them securely.
- enantiodromia, on 03/10/2009, -1/+14SOMEBODY'S A YALE MAN!
- naner, on 03/10/2009, -0/+13Sure it does - currently you can't provide proof to the buyer that you actually voted for their candidate. With this, you get a "receipt" which you then bring to the buyer and they give you money/hookers.
- walkable, on 03/09/2009, -4/+16Forgive me if I'm completely ignorant on this, but what would prevent you from selling your vote using the web-based system?
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -0/+10@ufia, you could quite possibly be the most devoted troll I've ever seen. I'm digging your comment up just out respect for your tenacity.
- theskillwithin, on 03/10/2009, -0/+9they dont have breathalizers at the polling booth...
- houndeyex, on 03/10/2009, -1/+9That is probably not the best solution for this after the fact.
- RudeTurnip, on 03/10/2009, -1/+9Fact: Vote the "wrong way" in some places and your life could be in peril.
- gasoline, on 03/10/2009, -0/+8First? *****, we've had electronic voting for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_ ...
Here's a brief overview of the implementation:
http://www.vvk.ee/english/Internet_Voting_in_Eston ...
And in-depth info:
http://www.vvk.ee/engindex.html#0002 - wissler, on 03/10/2009, -0/+7How exactly does an admin know that an account is fake? I can make as many google accounts as I want.
- fajitamelt, on 03/10/2009, -0/+7Get the foot job?
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -1/+8You didn't GTFJ did you?
- FatBurger, on 03/09/2009, -1/+8Because drunk posting isn't bad enough, now they'll let us drunk VOTE?
- prab, on 03/10/2009, -2/+9You missed the entire point of this system. Each and every voter can verify that the vote was conducted correctly. You don't have to trust the people in power at all.
- theaceoffire, on 03/10/2009, -0/+6It's open source, so if it's broken, 80 people will see it on every side, and only one has to mention it to get it fixed.
Meanwhile, close source has dozens of holes that no one can report. That makes me feel better. - enantiodromia, on 03/10/2009, -0/+6it's a nice idea, but without giving every voter a piece of hardware, such as a SecureID or some other kind of physical key, i just don't see it working that well.
- iritegood, on 03/10/2009, -0/+6Who wants to bet on how long some hacker group beats teh encryption and rigs teh election for a third party candidate?
Better yet: SQL Injection! 5 trillion votes for Ron Paul FTW - censormagnet, on 03/10/2009, -0/+6i knew it! according to this ron paul won ;)
- d03boy, on 03/10/2009, -1/+7ADMINISTRATOR
***** - inactive, on 03/10/2009, -1/+7What would prevent you from selling your vote using the current system?
- jazino, on 03/09/2009, -6/+11I like the part where they seem positive that it is secure. Maybe it is and it would be nice but there are some pretty resourceful and intelligent people out there who like a challenge.
- jazino, on 03/10/2009, -0/+5While I agree the internet is not ready now if ever for voting, wouldn't the current system favor those with the ability to make it to a polling station?
Before you laugh it can actually be a problem because people with low-income or disability cannot simply drive or walk to the nearest polling station. And in the past efforts have been made to keep certain demographics from even making it to the polling place. - catbeller, on 03/10/2009, -0/+5With trillions of dollars to make, believe it. Putting Bush in made some people, what, eight trillion dollars so far?
- KineticShampoo, on 03/09/2009, -3/+8The jerk store called and they're all out of you!
- prab, on 03/10/2009, -3/+8Sorry to ruin the joke, but it is based on a Google account. The administer of the vote has to pre-approve every account before the vote starts. You can't even just make more than one account because the administer should notice that the extras are fake. This process closely mirrors current voter registration.
- redgiemental, on 03/10/2009, -0/+5Voting on a working day favours people who don't work.
This allows more old retired people to vote than younger people.
See how it can be turned around? - jawagas, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4Haha, love how Scientists are the ones who did this. Great title.
- bobburn1, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4Secure for about...5 seconds.
- 2of8, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4In response to the above two posts: it's not possible to check who you voted for using the current system, as people don't come outside of the polls with papers in their hand, etc. I assume that if you do this digitally, you can take a screenshot or something. Just my thoughts.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 03/10/2009, -1/+5Time already has told. It's based on PKI, which has had one security issue in recent years. That one security issue had to do with the strength of the underlying hash, not the strength of the encryption.
- willgonz, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4RRRRiiiigggghhhhttttt
- InfiniteNothing, on 03/09/2009, -3/+7No one claims perfect security only practical security. It only has to be a bit more secure than the competing technologies.
- Dankenbring, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4totally thought this was gonna be an onion article
- dusanmal, on 03/10/2009, -0/+4No need for time. Just use old secure and tried (in harsh and evil places) technology. Everyone votes in person. With thumbprint on the paper ballot and ink that will soak in that finger for weeks to make sure no one double-votes. Why one needs to vote over Internet? Lack of feet and lack of the wheelchair?
- 2of8, on 03/10/2009, -0/+3Go back to your rock. Somebody might hack into your email, or your bank account, etc.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 183 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is