In banning anonymous comments, Reuters is just being consistant with the main stream media's view of the public. Blogs are bad because, unless you went to a prestigious journalism school, you're not responsible enough to do "our" work. Anonymous comments are bad because you're not mature enough to judge what you're reading.
The main stream media has always had a condescending form of noblesse oblige which justifies their view that only they are worthy enough to feed you the truth.
What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
So, the government knows that it's better to let stupid criminals use open forms of communication rather than driving them underground where it's harder to monitor them? Maybe the NSA should have a talk with the US attorneys general who are going after Craig's List and explain this simple concept.
Not really - if it's ever discovered that some type of fraud did in fact take place, having tight security that only a few can get past takes an IMMENSE amount of options away from one's "plausible deniability".
I disagree. Imagine some secret government cabal. Their trusted tech guys presents to them a plan whereby they can control the election results using a "shell-injection vulnerability". The catch? That a bunch of college kids could also control the election results if they figure out the hack. Oh, and by the way, it's been proven that hacks like these can be discovered in a matter of days with relatively little effort. I've never made a pitch to a secret government cabal -- that you know of -- but I'd be fearful of my job (if not my life) if I presented a plan like this. Plausible deniability might be a factor, but it would be so overshadowed by the possibility that the system would be rehacked that it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't so much forget it as never knew about that in the first place. But...very interesting reading. It just goes to show that even what you think is the most thorough review can sometimes not find the vulnerability in the system.
I guess this supports the idea that these kinds of vulnerabilities are not part of some government conspiracy to allow tampering with votes by a select few. If you want to control who gets elected, you wouldn't do so using an exploit that the unwashed masses could access. You'd want a back door into the system that would only allow the select few to control the results.
My point isn't that there aren't government officials that wouldn't want to or have even tried to corrupt e-voting; just that these kinds of vulnerabilies don't support this premise.
Incidentally, I do support open source for e-voting machines/systems, but even this wouldn't prevent the introduction of a back door. They could publish all the source code and have it be reviewed by millions and, at the last minute before compiling, add a back door.
A voting system that is transparently secure, safe and assured to be a true vote of the participants is dangerous to any state that would remain in power.
I understand this point. But what I was trying to do, in my sarcastic way, was to point out that your assertion seems to conflict with the facts. The only way that I can see that you can reconcile your assertion that the government thinks that e-voting is dangerous and intolerable with the fact that they already implement all kinds of e-voting schemes is to resort to conspiracy theory.
OK, so the government doesn't want safe and secure e-voting, but they do want unsafe and insecure voting so that they can tamper with the results? I think you're giving the government much more credit that it deserves. As I've mentioned in other replies, I think it's much more likely that the cause of the problems with e-voting is due to simple incompetence and pride rather than a conspiracy to dupe the public into using corruptible e-voting machines.
I guess what I should have done is simply as why do you think that governments are rolling out e-voting machine after e-voting machine if they think that e-voting is intolerable?
It's probably easier to rig voting machines from a distance and claim it's a bug if you're caught than physically cheat when counting ballots, what with all the witnesses and protocol...
Your point would have more impact if most computer systems worked perfectly according to specificiations and met all user expectations. I can assure you that this is not the case. The fact that e-voting system have the same problems that almost all systems have isn't a sign of a conspiracy; it just means that a human was involved in its creation.
....why do you think it's more likely that a politician has "good" intentions?
OK, here's my take on this. I think that the politician who goes into politics for outright corrupt reasons is in the minority. What's far more likely is that they go into politics with good intentions and end up getting corrupted. One form of corruption is the daily horse trading of politics; I vote for your bill even though I morally disagree with it in exchange for your promise of a vote (most likely for something that you morally disagree with). Over time, you're so used to playing fast and loose with your moral convictions, you don't even think that what you're doing is wrong any more. But here's the key. Even the self-deluded have good intentions. They think that the best way to achieve their objectives is to sell their soul.
I'm not some wide-eyed optimist who thinks that it's all sweetness and light in Washington. There are plenty of politicians out there who just want to game the system to get as much power, money, drugs, and sex as they can handle. But I do think that they are the minority. Most are stupid, ignorant, and self-deluded, but not evil. I honestly believe in the "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." quote.
This is why I think that the implication of Mr. Fitch's post -- that there's some government conspiracy to discredit e-voting -- is almost certainly wrong.
With a sufficiently "secure and safe" at-home voting service, you could move toward replacing some representative positions with direct democracy.
Well, if by "some representative positions" you mean members of Congress, I don't think that would be a good idea. You could, but the representative Democracy we have in America works because it's a relatively good balance between mob rule and authoritarianism. In other words, a representative government is not a good idea because it solves the problem of people traveling long distances to vote; it's a good idea because it's a good idea. Sure, there could be some tweaks to improve things, but the system tends to work. Maybe as well as any human organization that big can work.
Any perfectly secure e-voting would also be secure from government tampering, thus prevent any fixing of results and thus be unacceptable by the government.
Right, but the point I was trying to make is that if the government really didn't want secure and safe e-voting (becuase they couldn't tamper with the results), then the easiest option would be to simply not implement e-voting. All they'd have to do is play to the fear of the American public of insecurity on the Internet and that would be that. No more talk of all this "danerous" e-voting nonsense. So, the other option is that they want insecure and unsafe e-voting (but that it appears secure and safe) so that they can tamper with the results. Which I think is a ridiculous position. It's a far simpler and more likely explanation that they have good intentions and are just incompitant. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Oooh! I got it. You think that the government thinks that e-voting is dangerous and they wouldn't tolerate it. No, that can't be it either because we're back to the fact that they actually put in place an e-voting scheme, which they clearly wouldn't do if they thought it was dangerous and intolerable. That is, unless I was right that you think it's part of a conspiracy to discredit e-voting machines by the governement. But that would mean the government is smart and capable enough to pull off a conspiracy like this, which clearly doesn't make any sense either. Nope, I'm back to giving up.
Unfortunately, no government would permit such a 'dangerous' system to get started, let alone exist.
So, you have dangerous in quotes so you must think that e-voting not dangerous. Else why put it in quotes? But your post title says that it's intolerable. E-voting is not dangerous, but it's intolerable? Maybe you meant that it's intolerable to the government, not the people. But then you say that no government would permit e-voting. But the story is about a government that implemented e-voting, so that wouldn't make any sense. Maybe you meant that no government would permit secure and safe e-voting. But this would mean that the government wanted their e-voting system to get hacked. What, so they can discredit e-voting by setting up a system that gets hacked and they're willing to look like idiots to achieve their ends? Wait, maybe you meant that e-voting would be intolerable to the people. Wait, that makes no sense either. Oh well. I give up.
IANAL, but I think these were separate suits, one against each target. Why should one company help another defend against such a suit?
Companies which are potentially targets of bogus patent lawsuits could pay into a common fund which would act as an insurance policy, if you will. The criteria for when this insurance policy would pay for your defense would be based on sensible definitions of patentability and not the patent office's definition. Can you find any prior art? If yes, the fund pays. Is the patent on an obvious idea or concept? If yes, the fund pays. Is there a hint that the lawsuit is legitimate, then the fund wouldn't pay.
Of course, the definition of what is bogus is subjective, but if you established clear guidelines, I would think that this would work. Maybe something like this is already in place. There's insurance for everything else; why not bogus patent lawsuits?
the system favors big companies and allows them to avoid competition from startups
Ah, now you're on to something. I think that's at the heart of the real answer to my question. It may be cheaper to fight patent lawsuits in the long term, but since the big companies really don't want patent reform, they don't want to do anything that would upset the status quo and view settlements as just a cost of doing business.
If too many patents start being challenged, someone might start having crazy ideas and, I dunno, start thinking on patent reforms.
That's a good point. But when has hypocritical thinking stopped a company from pursuing a legal tactic? If you're Apple, you can invoke the "moron in a hurry" criteria as a defense and then turn around an sue someone else for patent infringement that wouldn't pass this test. Right now, I'm still thinking it has more to do with short-term thinking.
It's kind of (not exactly!) like the thinking used in kidnapping cases. If everyone held their ground and never paid a ransom, then kidnapping would stop being a profitable business. But when your family member is the one who has been kidnapped, you're not really thinking about solving the overall problem of kidnapping.
I know that expecting long-term thinking from a publicly-traded company is asking a bit much, but wouldn't the best approach for a big company be to fight any and all bogus patents to the last breath? After a while, the patent trolls would just move on to easier targets. It's like that old joke about two guys being chased by a bear.
Guy 1, "This is crazy! We can't outrun a bear!"
Guy 2, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
If you're Apple, Microsoft, or Google, why wouldn't you just use the "Guy 2" model and let the other guys get sued? No, it wouldn't solve the overall problem, but you'd end up with at least a fewer bad patents out there and your company would be getting some long-term gain for some short-term pain.
Watch as major media profits go back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left....
Nice. Yeah, there's a bit of a difference between a magic bullet (JFK assassination conspiracy theory) and a silver bullet (the one thing that will solve your problem).
"Atari Wants To Work With 'Illegitimate' Sites... After Being One Of The Earlier Supporters Of 'Pre-Settlement' Deals"
Well, the executive didn't actually call the sites illegitimate, just the copies of Atari games being hosted by the sites. This may seem like a petty distinction, but from the headline, I got the impression that the executive was backhandedly bashing these sites, when in fact his attitude seems to mark a change of attitude at Atari.
I've always wondered what happens behind the scenes in these types of situations...
1) The lawyers tell their clients what an awful idea it would be to move ahead with a lawsuit because of the negative publicity, but the clients move ahead anyway.
2) The lawyer doesn't warn their clients because he knows he'll make more money from the lawsuit in spite of the fact that there's a good possibility that the backlash could remove his client's monopoly.
3) Or is it possible that both parties are so wrapped up in their greed, they actually don't realize that most people can see through their flimsy pretense and view what they're doing as wrong?
Is that all you have? Ambiguous allegations and straw man arguments? If you want to be seriously viewed as anything but a troll, you might want to cite statements actually made by TechDirt authors and explain why you think these statements are not correct. Otherwise your post is just worthless noise.
On the post: Reuters Dumps Anonymous Comments: Throwing Out A Bunch Of Babies With The Bathwater?
Big media obliges
The main stream media has always had a condescending form of noblesse oblige which justifies their view that only they are worthy enough to feed you the truth.
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies Angry At France Over Three Strikes; Worried It Will Drive Encryption Usage
What's good for spooks is not good for the vice squad?
On the post: Details Of How The DC Online Voting System Was Hacked: Small Vulnerability, Huge Consequences
Re:
I disagree. Imagine some secret government cabal. Their trusted tech guys presents to them a plan whereby they can control the election results using a "shell-injection vulnerability". The catch? That a bunch of college kids could also control the election results if they figure out the hack. Oh, and by the way, it's been proven that hacks like these can be discovered in a matter of days with relatively little effort. I've never made a pitch to a secret government cabal -- that you know of -- but I'd be fearful of my job (if not my life) if I presented a plan like this. Plausible deniability might be a factor, but it would be so overshadowed by the possibility that the system would be rehacked that it wouldn't be worth the effort.
On the post: Details Of How The DC Online Voting System Was Hacked: Small Vulnerability, Huge Consequences
Re: Re: Unsecure, but in the wrong way
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't so much forget it as never knew about that in the first place. But...very interesting reading. It just goes to show that even what you think is the most thorough review can sometimes not find the vulnerability in the system.
On the post: Details Of How The DC Online Voting System Was Hacked: Small Vulnerability, Huge Consequences
Unsecure, but in the wrong way
My point isn't that there aren't government officials that wouldn't want to or have even tried to corrupt e-voting; just that these kinds of vulnerabilies don't support this premise.
Incidentally, I do support open source for e-voting machines/systems, but even this wouldn't prevent the introduction of a back door. They could publish all the source code and have it be reviewed by millions and, at the last minute before compiling, add a back door.
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
I understand this point. But what I was trying to do, in my sarcastic way, was to point out that your assertion seems to conflict with the facts. The only way that I can see that you can reconcile your assertion that the government thinks that e-voting is dangerous and intolerable with the fact that they already implement all kinds of e-voting schemes is to resort to conspiracy theory.
OK, so the government doesn't want safe and secure e-voting, but they do want unsafe and insecure voting so that they can tamper with the results? I think you're giving the government much more credit that it deserves. As I've mentioned in other replies, I think it's much more likely that the cause of the problems with e-voting is due to simple incompetence and pride rather than a conspiracy to dupe the public into using corruptible e-voting machines.
I guess what I should have done is simply as why do you think that governments are rolling out e-voting machine after e-voting machine if they think that e-voting is intolerable?
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
Your point would have more impact if most computer systems worked perfectly according to specificiations and met all user expectations. I can assure you that this is not the case. The fact that e-voting system have the same problems that almost all systems have isn't a sign of a conspiracy; it just means that a human was involved in its creation.
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
OK, here's my take on this. I think that the politician who goes into politics for outright corrupt reasons is in the minority. What's far more likely is that they go into politics with good intentions and end up getting corrupted. One form of corruption is the daily horse trading of politics; I vote for your bill even though I morally disagree with it in exchange for your promise of a vote (most likely for something that you morally disagree with). Over time, you're so used to playing fast and loose with your moral convictions, you don't even think that what you're doing is wrong any more. But here's the key. Even the self-deluded have good intentions. They think that the best way to achieve their objectives is to sell their soul.
I'm not some wide-eyed optimist who thinks that it's all sweetness and light in Washington. There are plenty of politicians out there who just want to game the system to get as much power, money, drugs, and sex as they can handle. But I do think that they are the minority. Most are stupid, ignorant, and self-deluded, but not evil. I honestly believe in the "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." quote.
This is why I think that the implication of Mr. Fitch's post -- that there's some government conspiracy to discredit e-voting -- is almost certainly wrong.
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
Well, if by "some representative positions" you mean members of Congress, I don't think that would be a good idea. You could, but the representative Democracy we have in America works because it's a relatively good balance between mob rule and authoritarianism. In other words, a representative government is not a good idea because it solves the problem of people traveling long distances to vote; it's a good idea because it's a good idea. Sure, there could be some tweaks to improve things, but the system tends to work. Maybe as well as any human organization that big can work.
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
Right, but the point I was trying to make is that if the government really didn't want secure and safe e-voting (becuase they couldn't tamper with the results), then the easiest option would be to simply not implement e-voting. All they'd have to do is play to the fear of the American public of insecurity on the Internet and that would be that. No more talk of all this "danerous" e-voting nonsense. So, the other option is that they want insecure and unsafe e-voting (but that it appears secure and safe) so that they can tamper with the results. Which I think is a ridiculous position. It's a far simpler and more likely explanation that they have good intentions and are just incompitant. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable
On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
Re: Possible, but intolerable
So, you have dangerous in quotes so you must think that e-voting not dangerous. Else why put it in quotes? But your post title says that it's intolerable. E-voting is not dangerous, but it's intolerable? Maybe you meant that it's intolerable to the government, not the people. But then you say that no government would permit e-voting. But the story is about a government that implemented e-voting, so that wouldn't make any sense. Maybe you meant that no government would permit secure and safe e-voting. But this would mean that the government wanted their e-voting system to get hacked. What, so they can discredit e-voting by setting up a system that gets hacked and they're willing to look like idiots to achieve their ends? Wait, maybe you meant that e-voting would be intolerable to the people. Wait, that makes no sense either. Oh well. I give up.
On the post: Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?
Re: Re:
Companies which are potentially targets of bogus patent lawsuits could pay into a common fund which would act as an insurance policy, if you will. The criteria for when this insurance policy would pay for your defense would be based on sensible definitions of patentability and not the patent office's definition. Can you find any prior art? If yes, the fund pays. Is the patent on an obvious idea or concept? If yes, the fund pays. Is there a hint that the lawsuit is legitimate, then the fund wouldn't pay.
Of course, the definition of what is bogus is subjective, but if you established clear guidelines, I would think that this would work. Maybe something like this is already in place. There's insurance for everything else; why not bogus patent lawsuits?
On the post: Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?
Re: Re: Long term
Ah, now you're on to something. I think that's at the heart of the real answer to my question. It may be cheaper to fight patent lawsuits in the long term, but since the big companies really don't want patent reform, they don't want to do anything that would upset the status quo and view settlements as just a cost of doing business.
On the post: Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?
Re: Re: Long term
That's a good point. But when has hypocritical thinking stopped a company from pursuing a legal tactic? If you're Apple, you can invoke the "moron in a hurry" criteria as a defense and then turn around an sue someone else for patent infringement that wouldn't pass this test. Right now, I'm still thinking it has more to do with short-term thinking.
It's kind of (not exactly!) like the thinking used in kidnapping cases. If everyone held their ground and never paid a ransom, then kidnapping would stop being a profitable business. But when your family member is the one who has been kidnapped, you're not really thinking about solving the overall problem of kidnapping.
On the post: Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?
Long term
Guy 1, "This is crazy! We can't outrun a bear!"
Guy 2, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
If you're Apple, Microsoft, or Google, why wouldn't you just use the "Guy 2" model and let the other guys get sued? No, it wouldn't solve the overall problem, but you'd end up with at least a fewer bad patents out there and your company would be getting some long-term gain for some short-term pain.
On the post: The Search For The Mythological Magical Business Model Bullet
Re: Optimism...
Nice. Yeah, there's a bit of a difference between a magic bullet (JFK assassination conspiracy theory) and a silver bullet (the one thing that will solve your problem).
On the post: Atari Wants To Work With 'Illegitimate' Sites... After Being One Of The Earlier Supporters Of 'Pre-Settlement' Deals
Illegitimate
Well, the executive didn't actually call the sites illegitimate, just the copies of Atari games being hosted by the sites. This may seem like a petty distinction, but from the headline, I got the impression that the executive was backhandedly bashing these sites, when in fact his attitude seems to mark a change of attitude at Atari.
On the post: Funeral Directors Want To Put Monks In Jail For Offering 'Unauthorized' Coffins
The lawyer or the client
1) The lawyers tell their clients what an awful idea it would be to move ahead with a lawsuit because of the negative publicity, but the clients move ahead anyway.
2) The lawyer doesn't warn their clients because he knows he'll make more money from the lawsuit in spite of the fact that there's a good possibility that the backlash could remove his client's monopoly.
3) Or is it possible that both parties are so wrapped up in their greed, they actually don't realize that most people can see through their flimsy pretense and view what they're doing as wrong?
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Embracing 'Free' Doesn't Mean You Make No Money
Re:
Next >>