Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

Roeland,
  I think the existing Certification Authority infrastructure is
the way to go, since it's already there, and it's badly
underused.  My Thawte cert is free, but it only verifies that the
person who requested the id gave an email address that he
controls (or that he hijacked the DNS).  The next upgrade to my
id would require (I believe) a notary.  Anyway, I forgot about
all this and it makes sense to use the existing CA infrastructure
to strengthen Internet voting.
 Miles Whitener

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Miles B. Whitener'" <mbw@i-theta.com>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]
Discussion


> You are correct. But, there are ways to do this without having
globally
> unique identity cards, using public-key technologies, combined
with
> one-time-passcodes, and locally-issued ID (drivers licenses,
state cards,
> credit-cards, etc.). A side-effect is that everything is
encrypted as well
> (personal fav). Yes, there is an up-front cost of voter
registration. But,
> it is a one time cost. Remember, all you have to do is to
certify that an
> entity is not the same as another, using the current
infrastructure as a
> starting point.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:25 AM
> > To: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]
> > Discussion
> >
> >
> > Just a comment on identifying voters.  In the US, there's no
> > national identity number.  The Social Security card is used
as
> > one, but that's only because individuals have accepted this
> > ad-hoc, risky and often illegal practice.  Individuals in the
US,
> > except for the Social "security" system, are identified only
> > locally.
> >
> > Voting is just one of the problems with the idea of the
Internet
> > as some kind of global meta-society.  Americans don't embrace
the
> > idea of even national identity numbers -- and I hope they
will
> > oppose global ones.  And I hope that those in other nations
who
> > do not like the idea of a global hegemony with the _worst_ of
> > American leaders at or near its helm with think the same way.
> >
> > Internet governance can't be done as a "democracy".
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> > To: "'Joop Teernstra'" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; "Roeland
Meyer"
> > <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> > Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]
> > Discussion
> >
> >
> > > Yes, to further drive the point home, I am able to bring
over
> > 128,000 users,
> > > to this WG, from human-speed.com, at the touch of a bash
> > script. They would
> > > all vote exactly the way I want them to. SMOP (Simple
Matter Of
> > Programming)
> > > combined with a spare Linux box. Any decent systems admin
has
> > the
> > > capabilities to do similar.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 12:33 AM
> > > > To: Roeland Meyer
> > > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3.
[Constituencies]
> > > > Discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 23:38 26/01/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:
> > > > >You know, from my statements, that I am actually in
favor of
> > > > the idea. But,
> > > > >it will take some time to develop the code, the
procedures,
> > and the
> > > > >mechanisms. What I meant by infeasibility is that it
cannot
> > > > be done, at this
> > > > >time. There are a LOT of details regarding eVoting, all
of
> > > > them deal with
> > > > >authentication. You know for fact, that I can send, at
the
> > > > next moment, an
> > > > >email that 95% of this audience will swear originates
from
> > > > you. Many of us
> > > > >watched Joe Baptista do it in the GA. I imagine that you
> > > > could probably do
> > > > >it yourself. I know about a dozen ways to fix that
problem,
> > > > but they ALL
> > > > >need political acceptance.
> > > > >
> > > > >It is infeasible, at this time, and in this time-frame.
It
> > > > is a decidedly
> > > > >non-trivial issue.
> > > >
> > > > Roeland is right.
> > > > While it is relatively easy to make sure that no one
votes
> > > > twice, and that
> > > > only those who get a password can vote, is is not easy to
> > > > determine if a
> > > > separate identity on the Net is really separate from
another
> > entity.
> > > >
> > > > People may subscribe to this ML with more than one
identity,
> > > > and some do,
> > > > perhaps for purely practical reasons.
> > > >
> > > > For the moment this does not need to worry us, as there
is
> > not enough
> > > > incentive to manipulate the vote.
> > > > The vote largely conforms with the content of the
postings.
> > > >
> > > > If it were different, of if  a lone voice tries to
multiply
> > > > himself into
> > > > something more weighty, then we would have to scrutinize
the
> > > > voters' roll
> > > > more closely.
> > > >
> > > > What I could do, is to publish the latest voters' roll.
> > (Names Only)
> > > > We actually did this when we had our chair nominations.
All
> > > > subscribers who
> > > > had subscribed with a name (some had not) were listed for
> > > > nomination ticks.
> > > > If you have a password, you can still access this list in
the
> > > > Archive of
> > > > the Polling Booth.
> > > >
> > > > Let's not go down this rathole of voter identity.
> > > > Please let's go back to discussing the constituency
structure
> > and how
> > > > stakeholder interests can be better represented in the
DNSO.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> > > > the Cyberspace Association and
> > > > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> > > > Elected representative.
> > > > http://www.idno.org
> > > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org
list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org
list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html