Re: Attack on CS research by Chronicle for Higher Education

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: tom () memestreams net
Date: January 23, 2007 1:31:37 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Attack on CS research by Chronicle for Higher  
Education

As a resident of Georgia who has attended local "town hall" meetings on
this subject, I think there ARE two sides to this story, and I think
they are talking past each other because both cling to an incorrect but
emotionally important notion: That we know how to run a totally flawless
election.

Its natural for computer security people to ask themselves how a system
can be manipulated. We look at these voting systems, see the
inevitability of attack, and argue that we ought to attach a paper
audit trail. In our minds this offers some of the advantages of
computer tabulation with a safety valve that can take us back to the
way things used to work. The problem here is that we're assuming things
used to work.

At least in Georgia, elections officials seem to be more cynical about
that. They've dealt first hand with the logistics of paper ballots and
they view human errors in the process as unacceptable. At the same
time, they aren't computer security experts, and so the objections that
are being raised about vulnerabilites seem less real to them. The
problem here is that they beleive computers are a solution to a broken
system, and that attaching paper printers to the side means reattaching
the broken part.

The reason these differences of perspective collapse into name calling
is that the alternative is emotionally unacceptable to either side: We
have to come to terms with the fact that running totally accurate,
totally fair, totally anonymous elections on a national scale is a
really hard problem. We don't know how to do it and we've never done it
before. I shudder to think what the situation was like 100 years ago,
and I have to wonder if the electoral college wasn't intended to be as
much a check upon an unreliable system as a check upon the people
themselves.

This idea is so difficult for people to accept, that they'd prefer to
believe that their election officials are involved in a criminal
conspiracy operated by their personal partisan enemies or that these
researchers have no credibility and are simply trying to sell a
product.

I think everyone needs to open their minds a bit. We're not going to
come up with effective solutions to these problems if we aren't willing
to listen.

I'd like to point out some excellent articles Avi Rubin wrote about his
experiences working as an elections volunteer. I think its important
that security researchers who are really interested in this problem
follow his lead and get involved in their local voting process. You
really need that perspective to understand the problem holistically.

http://www.avirubin.com/judge.html

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [IP] Re: Attack on CS research by Chronicle for Higher
> Education
> From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Date: Tue, January 23, 2007 11:02 am
> To: ip () v2 listbox com
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: L Jean Camp <ljean () ljean com>
> Date: January 23, 2007 10:47:46 AM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Attack on CS research by Chronicle for Higher
> Education
>
> _STENOGRAPHERS_ print BS exactly as it is fed to them when they know
> it is not true. Journalists are supposed to  be more than PR-vomiting
> automatons. Indeed you {Dave Wilson <dave () wilson net>} have no self-
> respect to advocate that this is an acceptable standard.
>
> There are "two sides" to the voting issue, just like "evolution" and
> "intelligent design" as well as the handful of experts who are paid
> to disbelieve global warming provide another side.  Paid, under-
> qualified shills are given equal time to the consensus of the
> scientific community. Under this standard, Holocaust deniers and
> historians should be given equal time. Because there are "two sides".
>
> There simply are not two sides to many stories. That so many in
> journalism believe that this is acceptable does not make it less than
> a shameful printing of personal attacks and falsehoods. This kind of
> idiocy is why so many Americans do NOT believe in evolution and think
> the previous Iraqi regime was involved in 9/11.
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Dave Wilson <dave () wilson net> wrote:
>
> > This story is not an attack by the Chronicle on anything. It's a
> > "balanced" story that gives equal weight to arguments from people
> > who are opposed to the use of electronic voting systems and people
> > who think they're fine. I don't know the author but this is a
> > classic journalistic "on the one hand, on the other hand" story (I
> > left CHE ten years ago and left journalism five years after that in
> > no small measure because of the limitations of this format; putting
> > the "official statement" in your story, even if you know it's BS,
> > can seriously erode your self-respect)..
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -
> You are subscribed as tom () memestreams net
> To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
> Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/
> Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/? 
> &
> Unsubscribe: http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=496885-55bbab4b- 
> fzr72zh7
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at:  
Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1788750&user_secret=f2ab41d2
Unsubscribe: http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=1788750-f2ab41d2-0efdgqqi
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com