Are we not still faced with the same problem? Whoever owns and controls (secretly or otherwise) the technology can influence what people believe to be public opinion. I think the solution lies elsewhere. What is needed is a paradigm shift in the poplulation's view of the media. There needs to be a healthy mistrust of the media. Eduction is the key. If the history of propoganda and it's disastrous effects on the world were properly taught in schools, the next generations would not as easily make the same mistakes as we have. As an aside, the large media companies should be torn down and started from scratch with absolutely no coorporate (or otherwise) lobbying.
OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
DrEvil,
yes - education is key to any successful modern society. However, trust can be gained within technology by a number of different ways. One is by introducing some external overseer that can verify that the processes are performing as expected. Furthermore, the process can be transparent up to some point - so that verification can be made by anyone. This is still possible with anonymizing techniques - like a different userid for each "issue/topic". That way - individual counts can be upheld with anonymity - and you can identify voting results to several independent "authorities" at the same time - which also ensures the security in case of technological failures. Another approach is using opensource, as well as module integrity fingeprints/certificates for processes running on the system - or similar embedded external verification systems so that the information and results presented to you are verified by third parties as genuine.
There are many solutions and approaches to ensuring the trust in systems. Many of these techniques are also discussed in the electronic voting research papers available on CiteSeer.
yes - education is key to any successful modern society. However, trust can be gained within technology by a number of different ways. One is by introducing some external overseer that can verify that the processes are performing as expected. Furthermore, the process can be transparent up to some point - so that verification can be made by anyone. This is still possible with anonymizing techniques - like a different userid for each "issue/topic". That way - individual counts can be upheld with anonymity - and you can identify voting results to several independent "authorities" at the same time - which also ensures the security in case of technological failures. Another approach is using opensource, as well as module integrity fingeprints/certificates for processes running on the system - or similar embedded external verification systems so that the information and results presented to you are verified by third parties as genuine.
There are many solutions and approaches to ensuring the trust in systems. Many of these techniques are also discussed in the electronic voting research papers available on CiteSeer.
Quote from Gringinho:
DrEvil,
yes - education is key to any successful modern society. However, trust can be gained within technology by a number of different ways. One is by introducing some external overseer that can verify that the processes are performing as expected. Furthermore, the process can be transparent up to some point - so that verification can be made by anyone. This is still possible with anonymizing techniques - like a different userid for each "issue/topic". That way - individual counts can be upheld with anonymity - and you can identify voting results to several independent "authorities" at the same time - which also ensures the security in case of technological failures.
There are many solutions and approaches to ensuring the trust in systems. Many of these techniques are also discussed in the electronic voting research papers available on CiteSeer.
Ask yourself what got us here. Money and power will always corrupt. It will find always find a way. I doubt I am on the only one here that believes that electronic voting makes is easier to fix a vote than ever. How easy to install a patch (this can be done by stealth) and you have yourself a 100% genuine rigged democratic result.
DrEvil,
electronic voting makes a lot of things easier. Just because something is easier, does not mean that it should be overlooked - neither voting or the possible fraud. Like I pointed out, there are numerous ways of securing electronic voting.
I watched the documentary on the international inspection group consisting of election researchers and computer security experts that looked into the 2000 US presidential election and the electronic voting scheme used by USA. It was not exactly what you'd call "high-tech", and easily defrauded and ridden with opportunities for failure.
The documentary was something I got from www.bt-chat.com ... don't remember the name right now, as it was a few years ago that I watched it.
Found it ... "Hacking Democracy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy
It is true that "everyone have their price", and you can force or lure someone into corrupting their work or systems. However, a reasonable counter-measure is by using sufficiently transparent methods and open systems - thus welcoming verification and scrutiny. Also, the models and systems in use need to be updated to stay immune to attacks - just like any other democratic institution and society.
Anyone seeing the "Outfoxed" and "Hacking Democracy" documentaries should be pretty alarmed of the state of things in the US - and probably elsewhere in the world.
electronic voting makes a lot of things easier. Just because something is easier, does not mean that it should be overlooked - neither voting or the possible fraud. Like I pointed out, there are numerous ways of securing electronic voting.
I watched the documentary on the international inspection group consisting of election researchers and computer security experts that looked into the 2000 US presidential election and the electronic voting scheme used by USA. It was not exactly what you'd call "high-tech", and easily defrauded and ridden with opportunities for failure.
The documentary was something I got from www.bt-chat.com ... don't remember the name right now, as it was a few years ago that I watched it.
Found it ... "Hacking Democracy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy
It is true that "everyone have their price", and you can force or lure someone into corrupting their work or systems. However, a reasonable counter-measure is by using sufficiently transparent methods and open systems - thus welcoming verification and scrutiny. Also, the models and systems in use need to be updated to stay immune to attacks - just like any other democratic institution and society.
Anyone seeing the "Outfoxed" and "Hacking Democracy" documentaries should be pretty alarmed of the state of things in the US - and probably elsewhere in the world.
Quote from Gringinho:
DrEvil,
electronic voting makes a lot of things easier. Just because something is easier, does not mean that it should be overlooked - neither voting or the possible fraud. Like I pointed out, there are numerous ways of securing electronic voting.
I watched the documentary on the international inspection group consisting of election researchers and computer security experts that looked into the 2000 US presidential election and the electronic voting scheme used by USA. It was not exactly what you'd call "high-tech", and easily defrauded and ridden with opportunities for failure.
The documentary was something I got from www.bt-chat.com ... don't remember the name right now, as it was a few years ago that I watched it.
It is true that "everyone have their price", and you can force or lure someone into corrupting their work or systems. However, a reasonable counter-measure is by using sufficiently transparent methods and open systems - thus welcoming verification and scrutiny. Also, the models and systems in use need to be updated to stay immune to attacks - just like any other democratic institution and society.
A voting system is as honest as the person who wrote it, maintains it, administers it etc. Btw, the no commercial media sources feel strongly that electronic voting has been used and will be used to rig results:
http://www.naturalnews.com/electronic_voting.html
America's news, whether magazine, newspaper, broadcast news, cable or radio, is controlled by 5 corporations.
Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Green, Independent - that should bother anyone.
Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Green, Independent - that should bother anyone.
DrEvil,
like I mention in my augmented post - the "Hacking Democracy" shows how the 2000 US presidential election could easily have been a fraud - by showing how easy it was to circumvent electronic "voting security". It was almost shamefully easy and naive - and mostly kept hidden from public scrutiny.
There are huge commercial interests in most facets of society - and not all have the best interests of democracy in mind.
like I mention in my augmented post - the "Hacking Democracy" shows how the 2000 US presidential election could easily have been a fraud - by showing how easy it was to circumvent electronic "voting security". It was almost shamefully easy and naive - and mostly kept hidden from public scrutiny.
There are huge commercial interests in most facets of society - and not all have the best interests of democracy in mind.
Corporate lobbyists and other special interest groups are saturating political elections, all they way from inception through the campaign and election wakes - and then into daily political process for those elected by the public. There are increasingly more money and commercial interests involved in the political decision - and political parties as well as politicians are "only human". Still, the population is left no choice but to trust these politicians with their security, economy, child education and society's future.
I do think it's in the public's interest to see a stronger and more secure democracy taking form.
I do think it's in the public's interest to see a stronger and more secure democracy taking form.