well I get the hypocrisy but not trusting computers to count votes is a pretty good take imo. We of all people know how easy it is for computers to get things wrong, and worse, how hard it is to figure out what it was exactly that went wrong.
Edit, to clarify: Itās ofc fine to use computers to count paper ballots. But replacing them with digital votes would be a problem, and this quote suggests (to me) that they wouldnāt consider that a problem, which bothers me
@can The system Texas uses is pretty solid. We have a set of many machines which offer the selections and print a human-readable ballot so you can verify the selections you made. We then have another machine on top of the ballot bin which does the first count of the votes, since machine-printed characters are easy to OCR. The ballots stay in the bin for later hand counts.
@bob_zim and the fact that the last sentence in your reply is important shows that computers canāt be trusted with this. There always needs to be a way for humans to clearly verify the result, without having to be a nerd. Otherwise thereās no trust, and without trust, thereās no democracy.
Iām not saying computers canāt assist in the process, but we shouldnāt rely on them.
@can @bob_zim thatās true of most everything we trust computers with they matters. They can do them much more efficiently, and save costs, but human validation and spot checking is an essential safety control. The hypocrisy stands.
@can are they computers? Iāve lived in six different states and for the most part theyāre just scanners that pick up what people have marked on the ballot and tally them.
He is #trumps favourite son for now, until the money runs out. Considering that it turned out he got here as an illegal immigrant, and according to #tRumps playbook, he may be qualified to be the first to be deported. š š š
Bekijk je favoriete video's, luister naar de muziek die je leuk vindt, upload originele content en deel alles met vrienden, familie en anderen op YouTube.
the numbers reported are all fake. actual sale much lower. humanoid's all fake. cgi bullshit. he is desperate to raise more money for failing spaceX. wall street is in it too....
Besides the fact the South African born owner of the largest #EV car manufacturer in the world is backing a man who calls #ClimateChange "a hoax" and will roll back ALL #CarbonReduction targets currently in placeā¦
ā¦He claims to fear what #Harris will do to him if she wins.
Ergo, he'd be better off supporting pro-EV Harris working to ensure she wins.
But this isn't about fear of Harris' retribution. It's about POWER, RACISM & HATE.
Just a small contribution for debate: in Venezuela they have printed and e-vote. Maduro stolled the ellections and never showed de records of the e-votes. Why? Because it IS Very difficult and hard fraud e-vote records. Here in Brazil Bolsonaro insisted in frauds (we use 100,% e-vote). Never get It... E-vote is secure. It IS not a Musk toy.
To begin with, the computers in the cars are protected much better than those of the voting machines.
Furthermore, it depends on what "voting machines" means. In my country they are just glorified printers. The voter uses the computer of the machine to select a vote - but eventually the selection is printed and then counted by hand.
And if the meaning is "remote voting", then voting has requirements like anonymity, non-repudiation, authentication, protection from coercion, etc. that car computers don't need and don't have. I once wrote a small essay on this subject - "why we can order cucumbers over the Internet but can't vote remotely".
Oh, yes, and the self-drviving part of Musk's cars pretty much sucks; I wouldn't trust that, either.
With the current state of Tesla's self-driving, lives surely are in the balance, LOL.
They did try to implement fully electronic voting here but, thankfully, we made them see some sense, so we're using the glorified printers for now. And even that is optional - I mean, they have to be available, but people can select to mark their vote by hand on a piece of paper, if they so prefer.
Sorry to hear that but I don't understand what my posts have to do with it. I assume it's because you're afraid of the possible new government? Then it's the fault of that government and of those who voted for it; requiring a trustworthy and and secure voting process has nothing to do with it. Besides, I was speaking about my country.
But let me elaborate on the "trustworthy" part, because this was one of the arguments we used here. See, if the voting process is "hackable", an adversary (internal or external) doesn't even need to actually hack it. All that is needed is to demonstrate the possibility and this would undermine the trust in the election process. So, an old and established method that people already trust is preferable. If it were up to me, I'd remove computers from the process entirely - pen and paper only.
@bontchev our e-voting machines have a paper trail. They either count paper belllots, or they produce paper receipts to be vetted by the voter and any audit.
let me reiterate: a foreign agent billionaire who makes computers intended to eminently reliable is purposefully trying to sow doubt on our very validated and paper-redundant democratic elections. That is bad, and the hypocrisy is worth lampooning.
Pink
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •well I get the hypocrisy but not trusting computers to count votes is a pretty good take imo. We of all people know how easy it is for computers to get things wrong, and worse, how hard it is to figure out what it was exactly that went wrong.
Edit, to clarify: Itās ofc fine to use computers to count paper ballots. But replacing them with digital votes would be a problem, and this quote suggests (to me) that they wouldnāt consider that a problem, which bothers me
Zimmie
in reply to Pink • • •Pink
in reply to Zimmie • • •@bob_zim and the fact that the last sentence in your reply is important shows that computers canāt be trusted with this. There always needs to be a way for humans to clearly verify the result, without having to be a nerd. Otherwise thereās no trust, and without trust, thereās no democracy.
Iām not saying computers canāt assist in the process, but we shouldnāt rely on them.
Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Pink • • •Catherine is Exhausted
in reply to Pink • • •Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Catherine is Exhausted • • •NO NAME
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Maddad āļø
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Considering that it turned out he got here as an illegal immigrant, and according to #tRumps playbook, he may be qualified to be the first to be deported.
š š š
Daniel Taylor
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •to be fair, it's well established that we can't trust his self-driving cars as well
He'd never admit that directly, of course
spv
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Mallory's Musings & Mischief
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •tbf we also can't trust them to drive
like, i hate the guy, but....
Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor: • • •Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor: • • •Dave "Wear A Goddamn Mask" Cochran :donor:
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •nono, i'm with you. i get glib when i don't have anything else to contribute but feel compelled to say something.
i'm working on it, honest.
Andreas K
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •uzayran
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Luuk_Aalders
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Stefan Scholl
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •you could never trust computers to count votes.
youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs
- YouTube
youtu.beDJHVII
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Tanuj Gupta
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •MugsysRapSheet š©šš
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •#ElonMusk is a moron, AND I CAN PROVE IT:
Besides the fact the South African born owner of the largest #EV car manufacturer in the world is backing a man who calls #ClimateChange "a hoax" and will roll back ALL #CarbonReduction targets currently in placeā¦
ā¦He claims to fear what #Harris will do to him if she wins.
Ergo, he'd be better off supporting pro-EV Harris working to ensure she wins.
But this isn't about fear of Harris' retribution. It's about POWER, RACISM & HATE.
xs4me2
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Tim Ward āšŖšŗš¶ #FBPE
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Well, we can't trust computers to count votes.
People who care about clean elections count pieces of paper by hand.
Leeloo
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •It's not about trusting the computer, it's about trusting the people who wrote the code and the politicians who paid for it.
And if you trust them, why bother voting?
Trusting politicians if for people in North Korea. Because they don't have any other options.
Amro has been
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •If you want to vote remotely and by computer,
you can key the candidate of your choice into any available Tesla.
Your vote counts!
kkeller
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •ValĆ©ria
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Luna chan
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Blaidd Drwg
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Blaidd Drwg • • •morb
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Sterling
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Sterling • • •Pepperbike
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •VessOnSecurity
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Goddammit, this is such ignorant bullshit...
To begin with, the computers in the cars are protected much better than those of the voting machines.
Furthermore, it depends on what "voting machines" means. In my country they are just glorified printers. The voter uses the computer of the machine to select a vote - but eventually the selection is printed and then counted by hand.
And if the meaning is "remote voting", then voting has requirements like anonymity, non-repudiation, authentication, protection from coercion, etc. that car computers don't need and don't have. I once wrote a small essay on this subject - "why we can order cucumbers over the Internet but can't vote remotely".
Oh, yes, and the self-drviving part of Musk's cars pretty much sucks; I wouldn't trust that, either.
Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to VessOnSecurity • • •VessOnSecurity
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to VessOnSecurity • • •VessOnSecurity
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •With the current state of Tesla's self-driving, lives surely are in the balance, LOL.
They did try to implement fully electronic voting here but, thankfully, we made them see some sense, so we're using the glorified printers for now. And even that is optional - I mean, they have to be available, but people can select to mark their vote by hand on a piece of paper, if they so prefer.
Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to VessOnSecurity • • •VessOnSecurity
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Sorry to hear that but I don't understand what my posts have to do with it. I assume it's because you're afraid of the possible new government? Then it's the fault of that government and of those who voted for it; requiring a trustworthy and and secure voting process has nothing to do with it. Besides, I was speaking about my country.
But let me elaborate on the "trustworthy" part, because this was one of the arguments we used here. See, if the voting process is "hackable", an adversary (internal or external) doesn't even need to actually hack it. All that is needed is to demonstrate the possibility and this would undermine the trust in the election process. So, an old and established method that people already trust is preferable. If it were up to me, I'd remove computers from the process entirely - pen and paper only.
Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to VessOnSecurity • • •Lesley Carhart :unverified:
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •aardvark
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Alerta! Alerta!
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •OutOfSpace
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Bernd Paysan R.I.P Natenom šÆļø
in reply to Lesley Carhart :unverified: • • •Sounds funny, but he's right, and that's a consensus amongst everybody who understands programming.
It's not that computers couldn't do that task, the task as such is easy. It is just too difficult to verify that no evil player manipulated them.
The voting computer must keep your individual vote secret, and must make the counting transparent and auditable. These two things are a contradiction.