Re: Yes to Publicity! Not to Anonimity! Was: Re: GNOME Foundation Annual Elections - proposal

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:29:48AM -0700, Aleksey Sanin wrote:
> I hate to tell you this but the security *is* different. Please consider 
> a situation with something
> happening in a closed dark room (anonimous voting) and something 
> happening outside (open voting).
> In both case, there are people who would be able to do things that 
> nobody would notice.
> But in the first case it's much more simple.

Huh?  Discuss the security of the actual scheme not of some analogy.  I will
use your logic to show the opposite:

Consider a situation of something being in a closed (locked) dark room
where noone has access, and something being taped to a lamp post on a busy
street.  Which do you think is more likely to get stolen.  (If you can
provide reasonable logic for the first, I'm taping all my valuables to
a lamp post)

So, DISCUSS THE ACTUAL SYSTEM!  NOT AN ANALOGY.

There is no "dark room".  My room has just the same amount light no matter
how I vote.  I just use a different signature (the secret key), one that only
I know.  The voting script doesn't need to remember the association between
me and the signature actually.  Please give an EXPLICIT scenario of the
proposed system where an abuse is possible in such a way where it is not
possible with the system as it was done a year ago.  As in, give a sequence
of exact events and things some 'evil' person must do that are NOT possible
in the old system.

> Next, the people votes are never honest ones. It's not an ideal world 
> but real life. You have to admit that
> not only candidate program, candidate expirience but also person's 
> relationship with candidate makes
> a lot of diference. IMHO, the reason "this guy opposed me in the flame 
> war last week thus I would not vote
> for him" is not much different from "this guy is my boss and I would 
> vote for him".

So?  Anonymous voting is not a solution to everything.  How is public voting
of any help here.  If someone pissed me off in a flamewar, he knows I'm
pissed at him and so I'd even publically not vote for him.  Or privately.

Nobody said anonymous voting is a panacea, people say you are likely to get
BETTER, not BEST results.

> If you get closer to democracy then you get closer to dictatorship. This 
> is the reason why current political
> system *are not* fully democratic (but this moves our discussion far 
> away from the subject).

This is completely off topic, and way off point.  So your line of reasoning
is that ANY change towards anything considered MORE democratic is a move
towards dictatorship?  That logic has a flaw, see if you can find it.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
                       -- Napoleon