Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Covered booths with computers should be maintained to give a choice but not enforced."
Why don't you want people to know how you voted, comrade Gareth?
In the benign circumstances we currently enjoy this may not bother you, but I regard secrecy as essential.
If it comes to that, many of that small group of disabled people who would benefit might have quite different opinions to their caregivers...
It also strikes me that you don't seem worried about the integrity of such a system. Could you explain why?
(Non-secret ballots do pose fewer problems for automation than secret ones, but even in a non-secret ballot, the system ought to provide a receipt. Now, what if the receipt says the wrong thing? How will you repudiate the vote so you can have another go? If your vote is challenged, how will we prove your receipt is genuine? If there are no receipts, how can we audit the system?)
-
That's an angle I hadn't thought of. But yes: voting is an important ritual.
I'm against any plans for internet voting. Partly because of the very severe technological challenges in constructing a secure system, but mostly because it will totally destroy faith in the outcome.
Right now, if enough people don't trust the system, in theory all the votes can be counted and recounted until they do. And every individual vote can be inspected. And any fool can look at a ballot paper.
In a purely electronic system, disputes boil down to competing experts saying "trust me." Although there are ways to make is possible to verify what code is running on what hardware, and to make votes auditable, only a very few people are qualified to implement them, and even fewer people can get them right. I doubt if NZ has even one judge who has sufficent technical ability to follow the kinds of evidence that would need to be presented. A jury would need advanced maths degrees.
Think about everything we hear now about viruses, Trojans, so-called "zombie" PCs. Suppose that, say, the Chinese secret police wish to interfere with our vote. What a marvellous range of options there are for them. They could compromise your PC. Perhaps your computer will vote, but the wrong party will be transmitted. Perhaps you will get a nice "thank for you for your vote" but no vote will be transmitted. Perhaps a bunch of "zombies" will simply take down the central server that records votes. Etc etc.
Now suppose that some of that activity was detected. Once it was known, how much faith would you have in the replacement election we would then have to have? Which presumably would be running on the same system that just crapped out?
Whatever the financial savings in such a system, to me they can't outweigh the loss of the public trust.
I'm all for electronic counting of paper votes, like they do in Brazil. That speeds up the process a lot. But in that system there's always a paper trail, and the paper votes are primary.
Interesting background here.
Note: this is my professional business, and such a scheme would provide lots of work for my industry. I still think it's a really bad idea.
Internet voting doesn't really fix anything that's wrong with the current system, and introduces a whole lot of issues of it's own. Let's kill the idea with extreme scorn before it gets traction, please.
-
"How's a breakfast of devilled kidneys?"
I love kidneys! Luckily, I have a long spoon.
-
"'rumours about HC's private' life, are coming from NAts and C/T."
All I know is that my first contact with them was Kiwiblog comments... thank God I gave up reading them about 6 months ago; it's done me the world of good.
-
Here's a thing, Shep - the day after that story broke, I noticed someone hitting an old blog entry of mine about some unfortunate behaviour from white power gang members in Westport. They were looking for a particular name...
-
"if 200 metres was too far, she might be advised to call the venue and make arrangements in future."
No, that's unreasonable. I can get right outside most cultural venues in Wellington for a pickup without undue hassle. I don't think I would be ringing up beforehand just in case the PM happens to be out for the evening.
-
Silo at Masi... god I miss that woman
You and me both.
-
Ah, but the difference is: you never see any pterodactyls around here. So like the elephant powder keeping the elephants away, but unlike cannabis prohibition, those protection measures work. In that sense, pterodactyl prevention provides better value for money...
-
Quite, DeepRed. Note that the police are quoted as saying they were useful in apprehending criminals. However, what we really want is prevention. It is some comfort when the person who gave you the basj is identified, but better that it didn't happen at all.
Do CCTV cameras deter crime? I don't know. I doubt very much that they deter alcohol or drug related assault - the kind of impaired judgement that makes you think that smacking someone up is a good idea is not likely to consider the likelihood of apprehension and punishment.
We do know though that visible authority figures do have a deterrent effect.
I am firmly against extending police powers and surveillance but totally in favour of spending large sums on more cops on the beat.
-
I am not buying this suggestion of sprays, homemade or commercial.
So you're strolling home, and someone comes up to you, and hits you.
At what point do you manage to get your spray out of your bag or pocket, make sure the nozzle is facing the right way, point it at your assailant and give them a good dose? Sounds like a recipe for getting the shit kicked out of you while you desperately fumble around, I reckon.
The one and only reliable strategy for any reasonably fit person is to run away, if possible while screaming loudly for help. Your boys were outnumbered (two people possibly with weapons in the car, remember).