<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_06_193239</id>
	<title>Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244317080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ncvoter.net/" rel="nofollow">JMcCloy</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin\_Poulsen">Kevin Poulsen</a>, senior editor at Wired News, asks readers '<a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/cfp-evote/">Is internet voting safe?</a>' and has a poll at the end of the article. So far, 32\% responding actually think that internet voting is worth it, risks and all. It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable."</i> The system described, used in Arizona in last year's election process, isn't just checking a box and clicking a button, but Poulsen lays out some scenarios by which it could be subverted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>JMcCloy writes " Kevin Poulsen , senior editor at Wired News , asks readers 'Is internet voting safe ?
' and has a poll at the end of the article .
So far , 32 \ % responding actually think that internet voting is worth it , risks and all .
It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable .
" The system described , used in Arizona in last year 's election process , is n't just checking a box and clicking a button , but Poulsen lays out some scenarios by which it could be subverted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JMcCloy writes "Kevin Poulsen, senior editor at Wired News, asks readers 'Is internet voting safe?
' and has a poll at the end of the article.
So far, 32\% responding actually think that internet voting is worth it, risks and all.
It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable.
" The system described, used in Arizona in last year's election process, isn't just checking a box and clicking a button, but Poulsen lays out some scenarios by which it could be subverted.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237311</id>
	<title>Preaching to the choir</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1244290740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slash tends to be inhabited by techies who 'get it' but I'm thinking the same thing....</p><p>4chan<br>4chan<br>4chan<br>4chan<br>4chan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Can't wait until the first letters of the winners spell MUDKIPS!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slash tends to be inhabited by techies who 'get it ' but I 'm thinking the same thing....4chan4chan4chan4chan4chan ...Ca n't wait until the first letters of the winners spell MUDKIPS !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slash tends to be inhabited by techies who 'get it' but I'm thinking the same thing....4chan4chan4chan4chan4chan ...Can't wait until the first letters of the winners spell MUDKIPS!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239255</id>
	<title>Re:Security isn't the question though...</title>
	<author>teletoca</author>
	<datestamp>1244312160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Banks DO just "create money" The only check on this phenomenon is the reserve requirements the government places on depository institutions. Check out this link for a more in depth explanation of how banks create money :   <a href="http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html" title="ingrimayne.com" rel="nofollow">http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html</a> [ingrimayne.com] .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Banks DO just " create money " The only check on this phenomenon is the reserve requirements the government places on depository institutions .
Check out this link for a more in depth explanation of how banks create money : http : //ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html [ ingrimayne.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banks DO just "create money" The only check on this phenomenon is the reserve requirements the government places on depository institutions.
Check out this link for a more in depth explanation of how banks create money :   http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html [ingrimayne.com] .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235945</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The source code would have to be open before I would trust it.</p><p>Crypto behind e-voting has some similarities with e-cash. Its a really interesting topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The source code would have to be open before I would trust it.Crypto behind e-voting has some similarities with e-cash .
Its a really interesting topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The source code would have to be open before I would trust it.Crypto behind e-voting has some similarities with e-cash.
Its a really interesting topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28248107</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>rastos1</author>
	<datestamp>1244494680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Online banking solves the problem of securely *transferring* data. You don't get a paper trail to election, but you do get a monthly balance of your bank account on paper (or you can check it in some other way). With voting you can securely transfer the vote into black box and then you have to *trust* that the display on the black box does match the number of votes cast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions , and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system could n't be the same .
Online banking solves the problem of securely * transferring * data .
You do n't get a paper trail to election , but you do get a monthly balance of your bank account on paper ( or you can check it in some other way ) .
With voting you can securely transfer the vote into black box and then you have to * trust * that the display on the black box does match the number of votes cast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.
Online banking solves the problem of securely *transferring* data.
You don't get a paper trail to election, but you do get a monthly balance of your bank account on paper (or you can check it in some other way).
With voting you can securely transfer the vote into black box and then you have to *trust* that the display on the black box does match the number of votes cast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235981</id>
	<title>Not much different than mail in ballots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whereas "true" Internet voting is a phenomenally bad idea (when implemented in a way that's acceptable to the majority of voters), the Arizona system isn't really Internet voting.  It's more "absentee ballots" that use the Internet as the delivery mechanism rather than the normal postal system.</p><p>Mail-in ballots are extremely common in Arizona ever since they changed the "absentee balloting" system into a more generic "everybody can use it" system.  For instance, I have a ballot automatically mailed to be before every election, no matter how big or small, without me having to do anything but sign up a couple years ago.  It's very slick.</p><p>The ballot is a normal paper one exactly like those found in the polling place.  I fill it out by completing arrows pointing to my choice (easy and not even remotely ambiguous) then put it in a specially coded envelope that I sign and mail in.  On the other end, a poll worker opens the envelope, marks that I voted (to prevent multiple votes), saves off my signature, and puts the ballot through the normal recording devices to record my vote.  The voter lists in my local polling place have me marked as "mail in" so if I were to drop by on election day, they would accept my ballot but it would only be counted after all other ballots are counted and they can verify that I hadn't already voted.</p><p>It's extremely convenient and has made the difference between voting only in the major elections to voting in all of them (and learning a lot more about local candidates in the process).  The drawback is that I have to trust that my vote isn't tied with my name.  See, when you are at a polling station, then they record that you voted, but your actual ballot isn't in any way tied to you.  With the mail-in process, it's possible that that is still the case (maybe the person/system opening the envelopes isn't the one recording the votes)... but you can't know for sure.  For all I know, they may have a database mapping people with who they vote for.  Honestly, that doesn't bother me at this point.  I am pretty vocal about who I vote for and have even publicly posting my voting lists for the world to see before.  I guess I would stop the mail-in only if I had reason to believe that my vote wasn't being counted.</p><p>Anyway, that's the mail-in system.  The "Internet voting" system is effectively that but for people overseas.  That option was never available for me since I'm local.  The only difference is that instead of putting their ballot into an envelope and signing that, they instead scan it in and upload it to a server.  Everything else is identical.</p><p>The article does make a few good points on some ways that that system could be subverted.  Yeah, there are definitely a few more attack points... but they seem a little far fetched at this point.  The level of effort required to implement any of the attack vectors would only be worth it if done at a bigger scale.  That is, if this started being available to ALL AZ residents, then it starts to matter.  For now... meh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas " true " Internet voting is a phenomenally bad idea ( when implemented in a way that 's acceptable to the majority of voters ) , the Arizona system is n't really Internet voting .
It 's more " absentee ballots " that use the Internet as the delivery mechanism rather than the normal postal system.Mail-in ballots are extremely common in Arizona ever since they changed the " absentee balloting " system into a more generic " everybody can use it " system .
For instance , I have a ballot automatically mailed to be before every election , no matter how big or small , without me having to do anything but sign up a couple years ago .
It 's very slick.The ballot is a normal paper one exactly like those found in the polling place .
I fill it out by completing arrows pointing to my choice ( easy and not even remotely ambiguous ) then put it in a specially coded envelope that I sign and mail in .
On the other end , a poll worker opens the envelope , marks that I voted ( to prevent multiple votes ) , saves off my signature , and puts the ballot through the normal recording devices to record my vote .
The voter lists in my local polling place have me marked as " mail in " so if I were to drop by on election day , they would accept my ballot but it would only be counted after all other ballots are counted and they can verify that I had n't already voted.It 's extremely convenient and has made the difference between voting only in the major elections to voting in all of them ( and learning a lot more about local candidates in the process ) .
The drawback is that I have to trust that my vote is n't tied with my name .
See , when you are at a polling station , then they record that you voted , but your actual ballot is n't in any way tied to you .
With the mail-in process , it 's possible that that is still the case ( maybe the person/system opening the envelopes is n't the one recording the votes ) ... but you ca n't know for sure .
For all I know , they may have a database mapping people with who they vote for .
Honestly , that does n't bother me at this point .
I am pretty vocal about who I vote for and have even publicly posting my voting lists for the world to see before .
I guess I would stop the mail-in only if I had reason to believe that my vote was n't being counted.Anyway , that 's the mail-in system .
The " Internet voting " system is effectively that but for people overseas .
That option was never available for me since I 'm local .
The only difference is that instead of putting their ballot into an envelope and signing that , they instead scan it in and upload it to a server .
Everything else is identical.The article does make a few good points on some ways that that system could be subverted .
Yeah , there are definitely a few more attack points... but they seem a little far fetched at this point .
The level of effort required to implement any of the attack vectors would only be worth it if done at a bigger scale .
That is , if this started being available to ALL AZ residents , then it starts to matter .
For now... meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas "true" Internet voting is a phenomenally bad idea (when implemented in a way that's acceptable to the majority of voters), the Arizona system isn't really Internet voting.
It's more "absentee ballots" that use the Internet as the delivery mechanism rather than the normal postal system.Mail-in ballots are extremely common in Arizona ever since they changed the "absentee balloting" system into a more generic "everybody can use it" system.
For instance, I have a ballot automatically mailed to be before every election, no matter how big or small, without me having to do anything but sign up a couple years ago.
It's very slick.The ballot is a normal paper one exactly like those found in the polling place.
I fill it out by completing arrows pointing to my choice (easy and not even remotely ambiguous) then put it in a specially coded envelope that I sign and mail in.
On the other end, a poll worker opens the envelope, marks that I voted (to prevent multiple votes), saves off my signature, and puts the ballot through the normal recording devices to record my vote.
The voter lists in my local polling place have me marked as "mail in" so if I were to drop by on election day, they would accept my ballot but it would only be counted after all other ballots are counted and they can verify that I hadn't already voted.It's extremely convenient and has made the difference between voting only in the major elections to voting in all of them (and learning a lot more about local candidates in the process).
The drawback is that I have to trust that my vote isn't tied with my name.
See, when you are at a polling station, then they record that you voted, but your actual ballot isn't in any way tied to you.
With the mail-in process, it's possible that that is still the case (maybe the person/system opening the envelopes isn't the one recording the votes)... but you can't know for sure.
For all I know, they may have a database mapping people with who they vote for.
Honestly, that doesn't bother me at this point.
I am pretty vocal about who I vote for and have even publicly posting my voting lists for the world to see before.
I guess I would stop the mail-in only if I had reason to believe that my vote wasn't being counted.Anyway, that's the mail-in system.
The "Internet voting" system is effectively that but for people overseas.
That option was never available for me since I'm local.
The only difference is that instead of putting their ballot into an envelope and signing that, they instead scan it in and upload it to a server.
Everything else is identical.The article does make a few good points on some ways that that system could be subverted.
Yeah, there are definitely a few more attack points... but they seem a little far fetched at this point.
The level of effort required to implement any of the attack vectors would only be worth it if done at a bigger scale.
That is, if this started being available to ALL AZ residents, then it starts to matter.
For now... meh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236461</id>
	<title>Re:The bad thing is work can fource you to vote th</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244282940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it is illegal to stop someone from going to a polling place to vote if you're an employer, this includes holding it against them or firing them for it.  All you can do is refuse to pay them for time spent doing it.  Same with if you volunteer to be a poll worker, it's like jury duty...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is illegal to stop someone from going to a polling place to vote if you 're an employer , this includes holding it against them or firing them for it .
All you can do is refuse to pay them for time spent doing it .
Same with if you volunteer to be a poll worker , it 's like jury duty.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is illegal to stop someone from going to a polling place to vote if you're an employer, this includes holding it against them or firing them for it.
All you can do is refuse to pay them for time spent doing it.
Same with if you volunteer to be a poll worker, it's like jury duty...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236779</id>
	<title>MARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1244285640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone tag it <a href="http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/27/moot-wins-time-inc-loses/" title="musicmachinery.com">marblecakealsothegame</a> [musicmachinery.com]. Not saying that Arizona's voting system would be even remotely as exploitable as Time's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone tag it marblecakealsothegame [ musicmachinery.com ] .
Not saying that Arizona 's voting system would be even remotely as exploitable as Time 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone tag it marblecakealsothegame [musicmachinery.com].
Not saying that Arizona's voting system would be even remotely as exploitable as Time's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238743</id>
	<title>clear private data</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1244305200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after voting in this, and vote multiple times.</p><p>Because dumb questions deserve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after voting in this , and vote multiple times.Because dumb questions deserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after voting in this, and vote multiple times.Because dumb questions deserve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236265</id>
	<title>Internet voting vulnerable at all ends</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244281620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have already pointed out, it becomes impossible to verify that our elections officials are acting honestly.  Some do; some don't; most have an unfounded trust in their employees/volunteers (to not assist in fraud).  This is the big problem.</p><p>There are myriad other problems too.  What happens if the polls are closed early by to a DDoS attack?  How can you guarantee the server won't be hacked? (It happens to banks sometimes.)  What about the machines people are voting from?  If they're voting from home (and not a kiosk), you can tell your computer to vote for candidate A, your computer can tell you that you voted for candidate A, but the botnet virus on your machine may have voted on your behalf for candidate B.</p><p>We're miles away from free and fair elections, but Internet voting is the wrong direction to travel to get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have already pointed out , it becomes impossible to verify that our elections officials are acting honestly .
Some do ; some do n't ; most have an unfounded trust in their employees/volunteers ( to not assist in fraud ) .
This is the big problem.There are myriad other problems too .
What happens if the polls are closed early by to a DDoS attack ?
How can you guarantee the server wo n't be hacked ?
( It happens to banks sometimes .
) What about the machines people are voting from ?
If they 're voting from home ( and not a kiosk ) , you can tell your computer to vote for candidate A , your computer can tell you that you voted for candidate A , but the botnet virus on your machine may have voted on your behalf for candidate B.We 're miles away from free and fair elections , but Internet voting is the wrong direction to travel to get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have already pointed out, it becomes impossible to verify that our elections officials are acting honestly.
Some do; some don't; most have an unfounded trust in their employees/volunteers (to not assist in fraud).
This is the big problem.There are myriad other problems too.
What happens if the polls are closed early by to a DDoS attack?
How can you guarantee the server won't be hacked?
(It happens to banks sometimes.
)  What about the machines people are voting from?
If they're voting from home (and not a kiosk), you can tell your computer to vote for candidate A, your computer can tell you that you voted for candidate A, but the botnet virus on your machine may have voted on your behalf for candidate B.We're miles away from free and fair elections, but Internet voting is the wrong direction to travel to get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235919</id>
	<title>Maybe convenience is the stronger factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a feeling that the voters think its worth it risks and all because they wont have to leave their desk to vote. Safety comes into conflict with convenience here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling that the voters think its worth it risks and all because they wont have to leave their desk to vote .
Safety comes into conflict with convenience here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling that the voters think its worth it risks and all because they wont have to leave their desk to vote.
Safety comes into conflict with convenience here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237127</id>
	<title>Security can be had.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244288940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But security isn't the question. The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast.</p></div><p>Have a look at this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end\_auditable\_voting\_systems" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end\_auditable\_voting\_systems</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>What you might be saying (and what I'll claim) isn't that there is no secure way of implementing the currently implemented protocol.  It's that it's the <em>wrong protocol</em>, since it's basically "1. Tell the vote-counter what your vote is; 2. trust the vote-counter to report the correct final tally."</p><p>There are ways to remove the trust requirement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But security is n't the question .
The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast.Have a look at this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end \ _auditable \ _voting \ _systems [ wikipedia.org ] What you might be saying ( and what I 'll claim ) is n't that there is no secure way of implementing the currently implemented protocol .
It 's that it 's the wrong protocol , since it 's basically " 1 .
Tell the vote-counter what your vote is ; 2. trust the vote-counter to report the correct final tally .
" There are ways to remove the trust requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But security isn't the question.
The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast.Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end\_auditable\_voting\_systems [wikipedia.org]What you might be saying (and what I'll claim) isn't that there is no secure way of implementing the currently implemented protocol.
It's that it's the wrong protocol, since it's basically "1.
Tell the vote-counter what your vote is; 2. trust the vote-counter to report the correct final tally.
"There are ways to remove the trust requirement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238489</id>
	<title>Halifax, Nova Scotia</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1244302320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The City of Halifax (HRM) had their last election via telephone and paper ballot. There were a few articles questioning it before but none after. Nobody questioned the company doing it, their code, any audits, or the cost. The reasoning was that the voter turnout was low and this would increase it. I don't think that voter turnout is a valid goal; in that increasing the quality of the vote might be. So lowering security to increase turnout might very well be lowering the quality of the voting twice. Encouraging lazy people to vote and risking tampering.

My question is how to fight electronic voting. It is only a matter of time (if not already) that someone cheats and wins an electronically counted vote.
I once worked at a poll. The entire system was set up to audit audit audit with the assumption that people would either try to cheat or at least screw up. So like a real poll where represetatives of each party get to watch the count each party should be allowed access to the code and to audit the system live in action.
Minimally I would want a complete tap of the raw feed going into the computers so that I can play back the entire election into my own untampered computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The City of Halifax ( HRM ) had their last election via telephone and paper ballot .
There were a few articles questioning it before but none after .
Nobody questioned the company doing it , their code , any audits , or the cost .
The reasoning was that the voter turnout was low and this would increase it .
I do n't think that voter turnout is a valid goal ; in that increasing the quality of the vote might be .
So lowering security to increase turnout might very well be lowering the quality of the voting twice .
Encouraging lazy people to vote and risking tampering .
My question is how to fight electronic voting .
It is only a matter of time ( if not already ) that someone cheats and wins an electronically counted vote .
I once worked at a poll .
The entire system was set up to audit audit audit with the assumption that people would either try to cheat or at least screw up .
So like a real poll where represetatives of each party get to watch the count each party should be allowed access to the code and to audit the system live in action .
Minimally I would want a complete tap of the raw feed going into the computers so that I can play back the entire election into my own untampered computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The City of Halifax (HRM) had their last election via telephone and paper ballot.
There were a few articles questioning it before but none after.
Nobody questioned the company doing it, their code, any audits, or the cost.
The reasoning was that the voter turnout was low and this would increase it.
I don't think that voter turnout is a valid goal; in that increasing the quality of the vote might be.
So lowering security to increase turnout might very well be lowering the quality of the voting twice.
Encouraging lazy people to vote and risking tampering.
My question is how to fight electronic voting.
It is only a matter of time (if not already) that someone cheats and wins an electronically counted vote.
I once worked at a poll.
The entire system was set up to audit audit audit with the assumption that people would either try to cheat or at least screw up.
So like a real poll where represetatives of each party get to watch the count each party should be allowed access to the code and to audit the system live in action.
Minimally I would want a complete tap of the raw feed going into the computers so that I can play back the entire election into my own untampered computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240435</id>
	<title>Intimidation?</title>
	<author>Barrie\_rdv</author>
	<datestamp>1244378040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do they handle the threat of people getting intimidated to vote for someone? If you vote in a regular voting booth noone can ever know who you voted for, but there is no telling if someone isn't forced to vote at gunpoint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they handle the threat of people getting intimidated to vote for someone ?
If you vote in a regular voting booth noone can ever know who you voted for , but there is no telling if someone is n't forced to vote at gunpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they handle the threat of people getting intimidated to vote for someone?
If you vote in a regular voting booth noone can ever know who you voted for, but there is no telling if someone isn't forced to vote at gunpoint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237099</id>
	<title>Vote selling is possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244288700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I voted, I wasn't strip-searched for cameras.</p><p>Here's how Tony the Mobster buys your vote: you'll deliver to him a small video of you in the booth, with the ballot clearly made out as a vote for what he wants, and you exiting the booth putting the vote in the urn.  The he won't shoot your kneecaps.</p><p>He'll probably even help you with a good enough covert camera if your cell phone will attract too much attention.</p><p>Anybody got an idea for how to limit this?  Tony is a resourceful man, he can send goons to your polling station who'll observe you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I voted , I was n't strip-searched for cameras.Here 's how Tony the Mobster buys your vote : you 'll deliver to him a small video of you in the booth , with the ballot clearly made out as a vote for what he wants , and you exiting the booth putting the vote in the urn .
The he wo n't shoot your kneecaps.He 'll probably even help you with a good enough covert camera if your cell phone will attract too much attention.Anybody got an idea for how to limit this ?
Tony is a resourceful man , he can send goons to your polling station who 'll observe you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I voted, I wasn't strip-searched for cameras.Here's how Tony the Mobster buys your vote: you'll deliver to him a small video of you in the booth, with the ballot clearly made out as a vote for what he wants, and you exiting the booth putting the vote in the urn.
The he won't shoot your kneecaps.He'll probably even help you with a good enough covert camera if your cell phone will attract too much attention.Anybody got an idea for how to limit this?
Tony is a resourceful man, he can send goons to your polling station who'll observe you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236493</id>
	<title>PKI is the simple answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244283180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If every vote were digitally signed, internet voting would be secure.  Yes, there would need to be added privacy protections, similar to HIPPA for medical records, to prevent the aggregation of one's voting history, but it would certainly be secure.  The simple fact is that it's not *internet voting* that is difficult to secure, it is *anonymous internet voting* that is impossible to secure.  People who wish to vote via paper should be able to continue to do so, but if on the internet persons should simply register a X.509 Public Key with their local government to use to validate votes signed with the corresponding Private Key. I for one would welcome internet voting, even at the price of risking my voting history being tracked, because it would INCREASE the voice of the people and DECREASE the voice of corporations and the politicians those corporations support through contributions.</p><p>Frankly, the loss of power by the "gatekeepers" of democracy -- political parties and elected politicians -- is the primary reason internet voting will not ever become possible.  All the gatekeepers have a strong interest in keeping the cost of consulting the citizens as high as possible.  More's the pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If every vote were digitally signed , internet voting would be secure .
Yes , there would need to be added privacy protections , similar to HIPPA for medical records , to prevent the aggregation of one 's voting history , but it would certainly be secure .
The simple fact is that it 's not * internet voting * that is difficult to secure , it is * anonymous internet voting * that is impossible to secure .
People who wish to vote via paper should be able to continue to do so , but if on the internet persons should simply register a X.509 Public Key with their local government to use to validate votes signed with the corresponding Private Key .
I for one would welcome internet voting , even at the price of risking my voting history being tracked , because it would INCREASE the voice of the people and DECREASE the voice of corporations and the politicians those corporations support through contributions.Frankly , the loss of power by the " gatekeepers " of democracy -- political parties and elected politicians -- is the primary reason internet voting will not ever become possible .
All the gatekeepers have a strong interest in keeping the cost of consulting the citizens as high as possible .
More 's the pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If every vote were digitally signed, internet voting would be secure.
Yes, there would need to be added privacy protections, similar to HIPPA for medical records, to prevent the aggregation of one's voting history, but it would certainly be secure.
The simple fact is that it's not *internet voting* that is difficult to secure, it is *anonymous internet voting* that is impossible to secure.
People who wish to vote via paper should be able to continue to do so, but if on the internet persons should simply register a X.509 Public Key with their local government to use to validate votes signed with the corresponding Private Key.
I for one would welcome internet voting, even at the price of risking my voting history being tracked, because it would INCREASE the voice of the people and DECREASE the voice of corporations and the politicians those corporations support through contributions.Frankly, the loss of power by the "gatekeepers" of democracy -- political parties and elected politicians -- is the primary reason internet voting will not ever become possible.
All the gatekeepers have a strong interest in keeping the cost of consulting the citizens as high as possible.
More's the pity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236507</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244283300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is very little difference between an ATM transaction and online banking. Both transmit over the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is very little difference between an ATM transaction and online banking .
Both transmit over the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is very little difference between an ATM transaction and online banking.
Both transmit over the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236455</id>
	<title>Easily secured</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1244282940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poulsen's avenue of attack is discussed as if it were an intractable problem of Internet voting. Really, Arizona could defeat this attack with a simple addition to the process: require an additional mailed copy of the ballot. Compare the physical copy with the electronic copy. If anyone's differs significantly, you know there's someone trying to rig the election. As an added bonus, you have a trail for the FBI to follow in determining who's going to spend some quality time in a small room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poulsen 's avenue of attack is discussed as if it were an intractable problem of Internet voting .
Really , Arizona could defeat this attack with a simple addition to the process : require an additional mailed copy of the ballot .
Compare the physical copy with the electronic copy .
If anyone 's differs significantly , you know there 's someone trying to rig the election .
As an added bonus , you have a trail for the FBI to follow in determining who 's going to spend some quality time in a small room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poulsen's avenue of attack is discussed as if it were an intractable problem of Internet voting.
Really, Arizona could defeat this attack with a simple addition to the process: require an additional mailed copy of the ballot.
Compare the physical copy with the electronic copy.
If anyone's differs significantly, you know there's someone trying to rig the election.
As an added bonus, you have a trail for the FBI to follow in determining who's going to spend some quality time in a small room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173</id>
	<title>Security isn't the question though...</title>
	<author>MarkusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1244280960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>But security isn't the question.  The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast.  Whoever controls the system can make it report whatever results they want, and there's no way to tell if they are telling the truth or not.  If your first thought is "well, make it open source," <a href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html" title="bell-labs.com">think again</a> [bell-labs.com].</p><blockquote><div><p>I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The difference being that the banks (which run both ATMs and online banking sites) don't also control the money supply.  If they did (e.g., if they could just create money the way the government does) we'd have a major problem.  No matter how <i>secure</i> the process is, once it subsumes enough levels that you have know way of knowing if it's just reporting made-up numbers, you have a problem.

</p><p>--MarkusQ</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we could n't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots .
But security is n't the question .
The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast .
Whoever controls the system can make it report whatever results they want , and there 's no way to tell if they are telling the truth or not .
If your first thought is " well , make it open source , " think again [ bell-labs.com ] .I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions , and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system could n't be the same .
The difference being that the banks ( which run both ATMs and online banking sites ) do n't also control the money supply .
If they did ( e.g. , if they could just create money the way the government does ) we 'd have a major problem .
No matter how secure the process is , once it subsumes enough levels that you have know way of knowing if it 's just reporting made-up numbers , you have a problem .
--MarkusQ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.
But security isn't the question.
The problem is that with secure and anonymous electronic voting there is no outside way to verify that the results reported have anything to do with the votes cast.
Whoever controls the system can make it report whatever results they want, and there's no way to tell if they are telling the truth or not.
If your first thought is "well, make it open source," think again [bell-labs.com].I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.
The difference being that the banks (which run both ATMs and online banking sites) don't also control the money supply.
If they did (e.g., if they could just create money the way the government does) we'd have a major problem.
No matter how secure the process is, once it subsumes enough levels that you have know way of knowing if it's just reporting made-up numbers, you have a problem.
--MarkusQ
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238395</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244301360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mafia?  How about your SPOUSE...  or your parent if you're an over 18 voter still living with one...</p><p>We can NOT gurantee that each voter making a remote electronic transaction can do so in private, and without coersion.  We also can't guarantee that the person placing the vote is actually the voter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mafia ?
How about your SPOUSE... or your parent if you 're an over 18 voter still living with one...We can NOT gurantee that each voter making a remote electronic transaction can do so in private , and without coersion .
We also ca n't guarantee that the person placing the vote is actually the voter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mafia?
How about your SPOUSE...  or your parent if you're an over 18 voter still living with one...We can NOT gurantee that each voter making a remote electronic transaction can do so in private, and without coersion.
We also can't guarantee that the person placing the vote is actually the voter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235879</id>
	<title>Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough?</title>
	<author>ldconfig</author>
	<datestamp>1244279100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Thats a trick question lmao its gotta be hahahahahahahahahaha</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Arizona 's Internet Voting System Safe Enough ?
... Thats a trick question lmao its got ta be hahahahahahahahahaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is Arizona's Internet Voting System Safe Enough?
... Thats a trick question lmao its gotta be hahahahahahahahahaha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239089</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244309760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a nice mossberg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a nice mossberg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a nice mossberg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237935</id>
	<title>Perfect!</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1244296500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in California, and we have electronic voting provided by Diebold.  I can tell you that it works perfectly here!</p><p>Everyone votes, and a Republican or Democrat wins every time.  I'm pretty sure that means democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in California , and we have electronic voting provided by Diebold .
I can tell you that it works perfectly here ! Everyone votes , and a Republican or Democrat wins every time .
I 'm pretty sure that means democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in California, and we have electronic voting provided by Diebold.
I can tell you that it works perfectly here!Everyone votes, and a Republican or Democrat wins every time.
I'm pretty sure that means democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237589</id>
	<title>As it turns out -- it's not</title>
	<author>[Zappo]</author>
	<datestamp>1244293440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been answering this question since I did my master's work on the subject 10 years ago.  I commented in particular on an Arizona e-primary trial at one point.</p><p>As low-tech as it seems, there really are some useful properties of paper-based systems that seem hard to achieve when the physical tokens are removed.</p><p>Here are some recent and not-so-recent posts:</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6507&amp;cid=940549" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6507&amp;cid=940549</a> [slashdot.org] Re:Hrmph. Voting unsafe?    July 12th, 2000<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27682&amp;cid=2975240" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27682&amp;cid=2975240</a> [slashdot.org] Re:All the arguments against online elections      *02:06 PM February 8th, 2002<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53211&amp;cid=5263219" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53211&amp;cid=5263219</a> [slashdot.org] Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg      *05:17 AM February 9th, 2003<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&amp;cid=6434503" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&amp;cid=6434503</a> [slashdot.org] Re:There is always a Way      *12:06 PM July 14th, 2003<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77420&amp;cid=6901725" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77420&amp;cid=6901725</a> [slashdot.org] Re:Why not use digital cash-like protocols?      *01:49 PM September 8th, 2003<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605423&amp;cid=24086593" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605423&amp;cid=24086593</a> [slashdot.org] Re:The problem      *01:56 PM July 7th, 2008</p><p>Finally, I recently had a several post long discussion with a fellow slashdotter underneath this May 29 2009 post:<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1249937&amp;cid=28144379" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1249937&amp;cid=28144379</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been answering this question since I did my master 's work on the subject 10 years ago .
I commented in particular on an Arizona e-primary trial at one point.As low-tech as it seems , there really are some useful properties of paper-based systems that seem hard to achieve when the physical tokens are removed.Here are some recent and not-so-recent posts : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 6507&amp;cid = 940549 [ slashdot.org ] Re : Hrmph .
Voting unsafe ?
July 12th , 2000http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 27682&amp;cid = 2975240 [ slashdot.org ] Re : All the arguments against online elections * 02 : 06 PM February 8th , 2002http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 53211&amp;cid = 5263219 [ slashdot.org ] Re : Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg * 05 : 17 AM February 9th , 2003http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 70945&amp;cid = 6434503 [ slashdot.org ] Re : There is always a Way * 12 : 06 PM July 14th , 2003http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 77420&amp;cid = 6901725 [ slashdot.org ] Re : Why not use digital cash-like protocols ?
* 01 : 49 PM September 8th , 2003http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 605423&amp;cid = 24086593 [ slashdot.org ] Re : The problem * 01 : 56 PM July 7th , 2008Finally , I recently had a several post long discussion with a fellow slashdotter underneath this May 29 2009 post : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1249937&amp;cid = 28144379 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been answering this question since I did my master's work on the subject 10 years ago.
I commented in particular on an Arizona e-primary trial at one point.As low-tech as it seems, there really are some useful properties of paper-based systems that seem hard to achieve when the physical tokens are removed.Here are some recent and not-so-recent posts:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6507&amp;cid=940549 [slashdot.org] Re:Hrmph.
Voting unsafe?
July 12th, 2000http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27682&amp;cid=2975240 [slashdot.org] Re:All the arguments against online elections      *02:06 PM February 8th, 2002http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53211&amp;cid=5263219 [slashdot.org] Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg      *05:17 AM February 9th, 2003http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70945&amp;cid=6434503 [slashdot.org] Re:There is always a Way      *12:06 PM July 14th, 2003http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77420&amp;cid=6901725 [slashdot.org] Re:Why not use digital cash-like protocols?
*01:49 PM September 8th, 2003http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605423&amp;cid=24086593 [slashdot.org] Re:The problem      *01:56 PM July 7th, 2008Finally, I recently had a several post long discussion with a fellow slashdotter underneath this May 29 2009 post:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1249937&amp;cid=28144379 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238151</id>
	<title>Re:This is going to sound horrible...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244298360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong, but if you can't be assed to stand in a line for a few minutes to cast your vote, if it ain't worth that much time for you, I'd rather have you abstain from voting. If you can't spend an hour standing there, you certainly didn't spend half that time pondering what or who to vote for.</p><p>And then it's maybe better for democracy as a whole if you didn't vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , but if you ca n't be assed to stand in a line for a few minutes to cast your vote , if it ai n't worth that much time for you , I 'd rather have you abstain from voting .
If you ca n't spend an hour standing there , you certainly did n't spend half that time pondering what or who to vote for.And then it 's maybe better for democracy as a whole if you did n't vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, but if you can't be assed to stand in a line for a few minutes to cast your vote, if it ain't worth that much time for you, I'd rather have you abstain from voting.
If you can't spend an hour standing there, you certainly didn't spend half that time pondering what or who to vote for.And then it's maybe better for democracy as a whole if you didn't vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236479</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>masshuu</author>
	<datestamp>1244283120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For instance, not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software. If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you're doing it wrong.</p></div><p>Must be running windows.
I know people seem to assume linux is 100\% safe, and while its not 100\%, its way up there(much more secure than windows) as long as you don't have people downloading porno files that require root to run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software .
If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you 're doing it wrong.Must be running windows .
I know people seem to assume linux is 100 \ % safe , and while its not 100 \ % , its way up there ( much more secure than windows ) as long as you do n't have people downloading porno files that require root to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software.
If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you're doing it wrong.Must be running windows.
I know people seem to assume linux is 100\% safe, and while its not 100\%, its way up there(much more secure than windows) as long as you don't have people downloading porno files that require root to run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789</id>
	<title>Internet Voting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a negative correlation between a knowledge of computer security and the desire to introduce Internet voting.  The more you have of the first the less you want the second. If crackers can get into the Pentagon computers and when we find the plans of Marine Helicopter One in a Tehran coffee shop, then we should realize that getting into a domestic voting system to alter the results is trivial.<br>The voting machines are about the same security level as WEP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a negative correlation between a knowledge of computer security and the desire to introduce Internet voting .
The more you have of the first the less you want the second .
If crackers can get into the Pentagon computers and when we find the plans of Marine Helicopter One in a Tehran coffee shop , then we should realize that getting into a domestic voting system to alter the results is trivial.The voting machines are about the same security level as WEP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a negative correlation between a knowledge of computer security and the desire to introduce Internet voting.
The more you have of the first the less you want the second.
If crackers can get into the Pentagon computers and when we find the plans of Marine Helicopter One in a Tehran coffee shop, then we should realize that getting into a domestic voting system to alter the results is trivial.The voting machines are about the same security level as WEP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239575</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1244317260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
By giving you a secret PIN number in advance and letting you vote early.
</p><p>
If you type the wrong PIN number, the voting application appears to work, but nothing you do is counted.
</p><p>
If you type the right PIN number, it is counted, but it undoes any previous vote you made.
Also, no means is provided to see the last vote you made or to know that your submission is undoing or changing a previous vote.
</p><p>
So with the mafia standing behind you, you can vote exactly like you wanted, but the PIN number you submit at the end after entering the votes is wrong, so the votes won't be counted.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By giving you a secret PIN number in advance and letting you vote early .
If you type the wrong PIN number , the voting application appears to work , but nothing you do is counted .
If you type the right PIN number , it is counted , but it undoes any previous vote you made .
Also , no means is provided to see the last vote you made or to know that your submission is undoing or changing a previous vote .
So with the mafia standing behind you , you can vote exactly like you wanted , but the PIN number you submit at the end after entering the votes is wrong , so the votes wo n't be counted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
By giving you a secret PIN number in advance and letting you vote early.
If you type the wrong PIN number, the voting application appears to work, but nothing you do is counted.
If you type the right PIN number, it is counted, but it undoes any previous vote you made.
Also, no means is provided to see the last vote you made or to know that your submission is undoing or changing a previous vote.
So with the mafia standing behind you, you can vote exactly like you wanted, but the PIN number you submit at the end after entering the votes is wrong, so the votes won't be counted.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239775</id>
	<title>A bit regarding Maricopa County, AZ elections</title>
	<author>PhrkOnLsh</author>
	<datestamp>1244407740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a member of the Phoenix Arizona GNU/Linux user group.<p>

Back in November a few days before elections, one of the group's members Jim March (if you google the name + Diebold, sequioa etc, you see that he is the real deal) sent a request to the group looking for volunteers to help monitor processes in the voting systems which were not being adequately tracked, such as "monitoring the 22 "regional receiving stations" where ballots come in from the field for modem uploads to the central tabulator" and "Those able to pull only a shorter shift can visit a polling place as it closes and photograph the end-of-day vote tallies as they come out of the precinct voting machines...before those votes can be hacked either in-route via memory card manipulation or at the central tabulator's MS-SQL database"</p><p>

What went on on the list after this was a disturbing expose of the Maricopa County and Pima County arizona electronic voting systems. While these are not of the "download, vote scan and upload" variety, the similarites, and how "secure" voting systems may soon be implemented, raise many questions about the validity and security of using, among other things, unprotected access and ms-sql databases (with a protected front-end, mind you, but they are easily subverted by using Access or direct SQL commands on the databases, with NO PASSWORDS in some cases)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* On election night, observers spotted an MS-Access manual being
referred to by the lead operator. MS-Access is banned from voting
systems (ain't approved) and the Diebold central tabulator database is
in MS-Access format. If you get to it with Diebold's front-end, it
looks secure enough. Get to it in Access and all security falls apart
completely...you can do anydamnthing you want.</p><p>

* When we got the audit logs in December 2006, there was what appeared
to be data manipulation plus they had peeked into who was winning and
losing based on the mail-in vote five days *before* election day.
This was illegal as hell, and they did this consistently across most
elections - not just the RTA.</p><p>

* We fought a public records suit, won, and found yet more rotten
stuff including a lot of memory card re-uploads, more than any normal
election ever. I'll go into details if anybody wants but let's just
say, it looked bad.</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt; MS-Access is banned from voting</p><p>
&gt;&gt; systems (ain't approved)</p><p>
&gt; This is a very refreshing change from the status quo! Out of curiousity,</p><p>
&gt; what are the approved DBs for voting systems?</p><p>

You're asking the wrong question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p><p>

ONLY those pieces of software specifically used for elections can be
used in elections, in most states anyhow, AZ being one of 'em.</p><p>

The proprietary database front ends by Sequoia, Diebold and ES&amp;S are
approved. Sequoia uses an MS-SQL back end, Diebold uses the MS-Access
runtime back end (they're switching to MS-SQL on the back end "soon")
and I forget what ES&amp;S is doing. But it's basically the same:
proprietary front-end application, likely an MS back end.</p><p>

In the case of Diebold, the MS-Access front end (the boxed consumer
product) can communicate with the existing back-end and back-door the
whole election. By diddling with the data files (which are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.MDB
extension) in MS-Access, you can tweak the audit log, tweak vote
totals, basically do whatever you want, no password needed, no audit
trail even created.</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>On a more serious note: banks have procedures to prevent insiders from
hacking accounts. You can't absolutely block people from doing it,
but you can block people from tampering with the discovery/oversight
mechanism. Serious computer accounting takes the term "audit log"
seriously.</p><p>

Diebold put the audit log into the MS-Access database as just another table.</p> </div><p>Basically, if you can't trust the physical machines, how on earth will you be able to trust online voting? Sure, it isn't the "download, vote, scan and upload" type of voting that March writes about, it is scary to think how easily such "secure" systems can be completely 0wned. How hard would it be to manipulate the online votes, either en route or once they are counted and in one of the mentioned voting systems? </p><p>

Voting systems such as was described in the OP are a thing of the past. They will soon be replaced with such lovely proprietary and "secure" technologies I've described above. Hell, who knows, we GNU/Linux guys may not even get a say in the online voting if such systems are purely M$ powered technologies.</p><p>

The real question is: Do you trust someone else with your vote? Are any voting measurements safe to hacking/changing (Paper or not)?</p><p>

Sources:</p><p>
<a href="http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20081103.154522.6e6e3b28.en.html#20081103.154522.6e6e3b28" title="phoenix.az.us" rel="nofollow">http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20081103.154522.6e6e3b28.en.html#20081103.154522.6e6e3b28</a> [phoenix.az.us] </p><p>
<a href="http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20090416.172946.c1278c8a.en.html#20090416.172946.c1278c8a" title="phoenix.az.us" rel="nofollow">http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20090416.172946.c1278c8a.en.html#20090416.172946.c1278c8a</a> [phoenix.az.us] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a member of the Phoenix Arizona GNU/Linux user group .
Back in November a few days before elections , one of the group 's members Jim March ( if you google the name + Diebold , sequioa etc , you see that he is the real deal ) sent a request to the group looking for volunteers to help monitor processes in the voting systems which were not being adequately tracked , such as " monitoring the 22 " regional receiving stations " where ballots come in from the field for modem uploads to the central tabulator " and " Those able to pull only a shorter shift can visit a polling place as it closes and photograph the end-of-day vote tallies as they come out of the precinct voting machines...before those votes can be hacked either in-route via memory card manipulation or at the central tabulator 's MS-SQL database " What went on on the list after this was a disturbing expose of the Maricopa County and Pima County arizona electronic voting systems .
While these are not of the " download , vote scan and upload " variety , the similarites , and how " secure " voting systems may soon be implemented , raise many questions about the validity and security of using , among other things , unprotected access and ms-sql databases ( with a protected front-end , mind you , but they are easily subverted by using Access or direct SQL commands on the databases , with NO PASSWORDS in some cases ) * On election night , observers spotted an MS-Access manual being referred to by the lead operator .
MS-Access is banned from voting systems ( ai n't approved ) and the Diebold central tabulator database is in MS-Access format .
If you get to it with Diebold 's front-end , it looks secure enough .
Get to it in Access and all security falls apart completely...you can do anydamnthing you want .
* When we got the audit logs in December 2006 , there was what appeared to be data manipulation plus they had peeked into who was winning and losing based on the mail-in vote five days * before * election day .
This was illegal as hell , and they did this consistently across most elections - not just the RTA .
* We fought a public records suit , won , and found yet more rotten stuff including a lot of memory card re-uploads , more than any normal election ever .
I 'll go into details if anybody wants but let 's just say , it looked bad .
&gt; &gt; MS-Access is banned from voting &gt; &gt; systems ( ai n't approved ) &gt; This is a very refreshing change from the status quo !
Out of curiousity , &gt; what are the approved DBs for voting systems ?
You 're asking the wrong question : ) .
ONLY those pieces of software specifically used for elections can be used in elections , in most states anyhow , AZ being one of 'em .
The proprietary database front ends by Sequoia , Diebold and ES&amp;S are approved .
Sequoia uses an MS-SQL back end , Diebold uses the MS-Access runtime back end ( they 're switching to MS-SQL on the back end " soon " ) and I forget what ES&amp;S is doing .
But it 's basically the same : proprietary front-end application , likely an MS back end .
In the case of Diebold , the MS-Access front end ( the boxed consumer product ) can communicate with the existing back-end and back-door the whole election .
By diddling with the data files ( which are .MDB extension ) in MS-Access , you can tweak the audit log , tweak vote totals , basically do whatever you want , no password needed , no audit trail even created .
On a more serious note : banks have procedures to prevent insiders from hacking accounts .
You ca n't absolutely block people from doing it , but you can block people from tampering with the discovery/oversight mechanism .
Serious computer accounting takes the term " audit log " seriously .
Diebold put the audit log into the MS-Access database as just another table .
Basically , if you ca n't trust the physical machines , how on earth will you be able to trust online voting ?
Sure , it is n't the " download , vote , scan and upload " type of voting that March writes about , it is scary to think how easily such " secure " systems can be completely 0wned .
How hard would it be to manipulate the online votes , either en route or once they are counted and in one of the mentioned voting systems ?
Voting systems such as was described in the OP are a thing of the past .
They will soon be replaced with such lovely proprietary and " secure " technologies I 've described above .
Hell , who knows , we GNU/Linux guys may not even get a say in the online voting if such systems are purely M $ powered technologies .
The real question is : Do you trust someone else with your vote ?
Are any voting measurements safe to hacking/changing ( Paper or not ) ?
Sources : http : //lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20081103.154522.6e6e3b28.en.html # 20081103.154522.6e6e3b28 [ phoenix.az.us ] http : //lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20090416.172946.c1278c8a.en.html # 20090416.172946.c1278c8a [ phoenix.az.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a member of the Phoenix Arizona GNU/Linux user group.
Back in November a few days before elections, one of the group's members Jim March (if you google the name + Diebold, sequioa etc, you see that he is the real deal) sent a request to the group looking for volunteers to help monitor processes in the voting systems which were not being adequately tracked, such as "monitoring the 22 "regional receiving stations" where ballots come in from the field for modem uploads to the central tabulator" and "Those able to pull only a shorter shift can visit a polling place as it closes and photograph the end-of-day vote tallies as they come out of the precinct voting machines...before those votes can be hacked either in-route via memory card manipulation or at the central tabulator's MS-SQL database"

What went on on the list after this was a disturbing expose of the Maricopa County and Pima County arizona electronic voting systems.
While these are not of the "download, vote scan and upload" variety, the similarites, and how "secure" voting systems may soon be implemented, raise many questions about the validity and security of using, among other things, unprotected access and ms-sql databases (with a protected front-end, mind you, but they are easily subverted by using Access or direct SQL commands on the databases, with NO PASSWORDS in some cases)* On election night, observers spotted an MS-Access manual being
referred to by the lead operator.
MS-Access is banned from voting
systems (ain't approved) and the Diebold central tabulator database is
in MS-Access format.
If you get to it with Diebold's front-end, it
looks secure enough.
Get to it in Access and all security falls apart
completely...you can do anydamnthing you want.
* When we got the audit logs in December 2006, there was what appeared
to be data manipulation plus they had peeked into who was winning and
losing based on the mail-in vote five days *before* election day.
This was illegal as hell, and they did this consistently across most
elections - not just the RTA.
* We fought a public records suit, won, and found yet more rotten
stuff including a lot of memory card re-uploads, more than any normal
election ever.
I'll go into details if anybody wants but let's just
say, it looked bad.
&gt;&gt; MS-Access is banned from voting
&gt;&gt; systems (ain't approved)
&gt; This is a very refreshing change from the status quo!
Out of curiousity,
&gt; what are the approved DBs for voting systems?
You're asking the wrong question :).
ONLY those pieces of software specifically used for elections can be
used in elections, in most states anyhow, AZ being one of 'em.
The proprietary database front ends by Sequoia, Diebold and ES&amp;S are
approved.
Sequoia uses an MS-SQL back end, Diebold uses the MS-Access
runtime back end (they're switching to MS-SQL on the back end "soon")
and I forget what ES&amp;S is doing.
But it's basically the same:
proprietary front-end application, likely an MS back end.
In the case of Diebold, the MS-Access front end (the boxed consumer
product) can communicate with the existing back-end and back-door the
whole election.
By diddling with the data files (which are .MDB
extension) in MS-Access, you can tweak the audit log, tweak vote
totals, basically do whatever you want, no password needed, no audit
trail even created.
On a more serious note: banks have procedures to prevent insiders from
hacking accounts.
You can't absolutely block people from doing it,
but you can block people from tampering with the discovery/oversight
mechanism.
Serious computer accounting takes the term "audit log"
seriously.
Diebold put the audit log into the MS-Access database as just another table.
Basically, if you can't trust the physical machines, how on earth will you be able to trust online voting?
Sure, it isn't the "download, vote, scan and upload" type of voting that March writes about, it is scary to think how easily such "secure" systems can be completely 0wned.
How hard would it be to manipulate the online votes, either en route or once they are counted and in one of the mentioned voting systems?
Voting systems such as was described in the OP are a thing of the past.
They will soon be replaced with such lovely proprietary and "secure" technologies I've described above.
Hell, who knows, we GNU/Linux guys may not even get a say in the online voting if such systems are purely M$ powered technologies.
The real question is: Do you trust someone else with your vote?
Are any voting measurements safe to hacking/changing (Paper or not)?
Sources:
http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20081103.154522.6e6e3b28.en.html#20081103.154522.6e6e3b28 [phoenix.az.us] 
http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/thread/20090416.172946.c1278c8a.en.html#20090416.172946.c1278c8a [phoenix.az.us] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238065</id>
	<title>Re:why not?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244297700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't do it right and you can't do it well. That's the problem here.</p><p>You would have to trust a machine that cannot be trusted because nobody who is able to check it for manipulation would do it. How the heck should this be done "right and/or well"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't do it right and you ca n't do it well .
That 's the problem here.You would have to trust a machine that can not be trusted because nobody who is able to check it for manipulation would do it .
How the heck should this be done " right and/or well " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't do it right and you can't do it well.
That's the problem here.You would have to trust a machine that cannot be trusted because nobody who is able to check it for manipulation would do it.
How the heck should this be done "right and/or well"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235709</id>
	<title>Recipe for pseudo democracy</title>
	<author>LucidBeast</author>
	<datestamp>1244321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I ever start a dictatorship, first thing I do, is get everybody voting electronically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ever start a dictatorship , first thing I do , is get everybody voting electronically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I ever start a dictatorship, first thing I do, is get everybody voting electronically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236015</id>
	<title>The bad thing is work can fource you to vote there</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244280000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bad thing is work can force you to vote there way my makeing you vote at work while they see the why that you are voting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bad thing is work can force you to vote there way my makeing you vote at work while they see the why that you are voting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bad thing is work can force you to vote there way my makeing you vote at work while they see the why that you are voting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236211</id>
	<title>This is going to sound horrible...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244281200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but I haven't voted in the last 3 elections because I simply can't/don't'/won't stand in line at a local elementary school/post office/whatever to cast a ballot. It's time away from work or my family - and I honestly feel like I'm part of the country where my vote doesn't matter (thanks EC).</p><p>If I could do my polling online, I would be voting every time, and probably paying more attention to the elections because people like me could vote. Even if I had been blue or red in the last 20 elections, I still wouldn't feel that manually voting was such a waste of time...maybe there's more people like me.</p><p>On the flipside, this also opens the gates to shitholes on the internet like 4chan amassing armies to vote for Rick Astley.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I have n't voted in the last 3 elections because I simply ca n't/do n't'/wo n't stand in line at a local elementary school/post office/whatever to cast a ballot .
It 's time away from work or my family - and I honestly feel like I 'm part of the country where my vote does n't matter ( thanks EC ) .If I could do my polling online , I would be voting every time , and probably paying more attention to the elections because people like me could vote .
Even if I had been blue or red in the last 20 elections , I still would n't feel that manually voting was such a waste of time...maybe there 's more people like me.On the flipside , this also opens the gates to shitholes on the internet like 4chan amassing armies to vote for Rick Astley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I haven't voted in the last 3 elections because I simply can't/don't'/won't stand in line at a local elementary school/post office/whatever to cast a ballot.
It's time away from work or my family - and I honestly feel like I'm part of the country where my vote doesn't matter (thanks EC).If I could do my polling online, I would be voting every time, and probably paying more attention to the elections because people like me could vote.
Even if I had been blue or red in the last 20 elections, I still wouldn't feel that manually voting was such a waste of time...maybe there's more people like me.On the flipside, this also opens the gates to shitholes on the internet like 4chan amassing armies to vote for Rick Astley.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237295</id>
	<title>A democracy cannot exist...</title>
	<author>Paleolibertarian</author>
	<datestamp>1244290560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From bondage to spiritual faith;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From spiritual faith to great courage;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From courage to liberty;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From liberty to abundance;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From abundance to selfishness;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From selfishness to complacency;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From complacency to apathy;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From apathy to dependency;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From dependency back into bondage.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Alexander Fraser Tytler  -  1805</p><p>So where in that cycle do you think we are now?</p><p>Edwin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government .
It can only last until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury .
From that moment on the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury , with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy , always followed by a dictatorship .
The average age of the world 's great civilizations has been 200 years .
These nations have progressed through the following sequence :                     From bondage to spiritual faith ;                     From spiritual faith to great courage ;                     From courage to liberty ;                     From liberty to abundance ;                     From abundance to selfishness ;                     From selfishness to complacency ;                     From complacency to apathy ;                     From apathy to dependency ;                     From dependency back into bondage .
                                                        Alexander Fraser Tytler - 1805So where in that cycle do you think we are now ? Edwin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only last until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury.
From that moment on the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
                    From bondage to spiritual faith;
                    From spiritual faith to great courage;
                    From courage to liberty;
                    From liberty to abundance;
                    From abundance to selfishness;
                    From selfishness to complacency;
                    From complacency to apathy;
                    From apathy to dependency;
                    From dependency back into bondage.
                                                        Alexander Fraser Tytler  -  1805So where in that cycle do you think we are now?Edwin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235633</id>
	<title>Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe?'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244320860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes 32\%<br>No 22\%<br>Ron Paul 46\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes 32 \ % No 22 \ % Ron Paul 46 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes 32\%No 22\%Ron Paul 46\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236643</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Voting</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244284560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You had a really good point about the negative correlation, but you lost it.  Hacking the pentagon is not trivial.  It's telling that it is <em>possible</em>.  Regular voting machines are more secure than WEP, but that's not saying much.  (Home PCs used for Internet voting would have less security than WEP on average, but that's another topic.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had a really good point about the negative correlation , but you lost it .
Hacking the pentagon is not trivial .
It 's telling that it is possible .
Regular voting machines are more secure than WEP , but that 's not saying much .
( Home PCs used for Internet voting would have less security than WEP on average , but that 's another topic .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had a really good point about the negative correlation, but you lost it.
Hacking the pentagon is not trivial.
It's telling that it is possible.
Regular voting machines are more secure than WEP, but that's not saying much.
(Home PCs used for Internet voting would have less security than WEP on average, but that's another topic.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236739</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Trivial\_Zeros</author>
	<datestamp>1244285280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple. Have one of the questions be: "Is a member of the mafia standing behind you." Of course, since if a member of the mafia is standing behind them, they will be forced to reply "No", make sure that the answer is switched.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple .
Have one of the questions be : " Is a member of the mafia standing behind you .
" Of course , since if a member of the mafia is standing behind them , they will be forced to reply " No " , make sure that the answer is switched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.
Have one of the questions be: "Is a member of the mafia standing behind you.
" Of course, since if a member of the mafia is standing behind them, they will be forced to reply "No", make sure that the answer is switched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235899</id>
	<title>Radical transparency?</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1244279220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical\_transparency" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical\_transparency</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
With things like 'registered republican' or 'registered democrat' in place, I see no problem with this.. Majority of people that do vote also do not cover their political views anyway, so do we really need anonymous voting ? E-voting or not, this is the only way for voting to be accountable and truly verifiable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical \ _transparency [ wikipedia.org ] With things like 'registered republican ' or 'registered democrat ' in place , I see no problem with this.. Majority of people that do vote also do not cover their political views anyway , so do we really need anonymous voting ?
E-voting or not , this is the only way for voting to be accountable and truly verifiable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical\_transparency [wikipedia.org]
 
With things like 'registered republican' or 'registered democrat' in place, I see no problem with this.. Majority of people that do vote also do not cover their political views anyway, so do we really need anonymous voting ?
E-voting or not, this is the only way for voting to be accountable and truly verifiable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236813</id>
	<title>Re:Not much different than mail in ballots</title>
	<author>letsief</author>
	<datestamp>1244285760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is Arizona's system not susceptible to the same attacks as the more traditional notion of Internet voting systems?  You still have problems with having to trust that the software on the election server isn't changing votes.  You still have to hope voters aren't being tricked into going to a phishing website and giving up their voting credential- their signature.  You still have to worry about malicious code on voters' computers.  You still have to worry about denial-of-service attacks.  So, what exactly is significantly safer about this type of Internet voting system?

<br> <br>

Plus, this system still just relies on comparing voters' signatures for voter authentication. Do you really think the election officials and poll workers verifying these signatures are experts in signature verification?  At least with Internet voting there's an opportunity to do stronger, more automated authentication, but this completely avoids that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Arizona 's system not susceptible to the same attacks as the more traditional notion of Internet voting systems ?
You still have problems with having to trust that the software on the election server is n't changing votes .
You still have to hope voters are n't being tricked into going to a phishing website and giving up their voting credential- their signature .
You still have to worry about malicious code on voters ' computers .
You still have to worry about denial-of-service attacks .
So , what exactly is significantly safer about this type of Internet voting system ?
Plus , this system still just relies on comparing voters ' signatures for voter authentication .
Do you really think the election officials and poll workers verifying these signatures are experts in signature verification ?
At least with Internet voting there 's an opportunity to do stronger , more automated authentication , but this completely avoids that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Arizona's system not susceptible to the same attacks as the more traditional notion of Internet voting systems?
You still have problems with having to trust that the software on the election server isn't changing votes.
You still have to hope voters aren't being tricked into going to a phishing website and giving up their voting credential- their signature.
You still have to worry about malicious code on voters' computers.
You still have to worry about denial-of-service attacks.
So, what exactly is significantly safer about this type of Internet voting system?
Plus, this system still just relies on comparing voters' signatures for voter authentication.
Do you really think the election officials and poll workers verifying these signatures are experts in signature verification?
At least with Internet voting there's an opportunity to do stronger, more automated authentication, but this completely avoids that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236013</id>
	<title>Work in a union shop?</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244279940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You better have voted correctly or you're going to get your legs broken.
</p><p>
Yes we need a secret ballot.
</p><p>
If you are fool enough to trust unions substitute employer, same answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You better have voted correctly or you 're going to get your legs broken .
Yes we need a secret ballot .
If you are fool enough to trust unions substitute employer , same answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You better have voted correctly or you're going to get your legs broken.
Yes we need a secret ballot.
If you are fool enough to trust unions substitute employer, same answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238121</id>
	<title>Technology isn't the issue</title>
	<author>igb</author>
	<datestamp>1244298180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A hundred comments and no-one seems to have mentioned the problem we're seeing in the UK with postal votes: `heads of family' or even `community leaders' using it as an excuse for block voting.  Postal voting was made available on demand, rather than requiring a reason, in the UK a few years ago, with the best of intentions.    What's happened now is that oppressive fathers, oppressive husbands and in some cases soi-disant `community leaders' are able to force people to apply for a postal vote (or simply apply for a postal vote in their name and rely on their not complaining) and use it themselves.  Internet voting has precisely the same problem: I can take my partner's vote, or my children's vote, and use it.  We're now seeing horrendous corruption in certain parts of the country --- decency forbids me from saying where, but let's just say ``Inner city areas where every third shops is a sweet centre''.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A hundred comments and no-one seems to have mentioned the problem we 're seeing in the UK with postal votes : ` heads of family ' or even ` community leaders ' using it as an excuse for block voting .
Postal voting was made available on demand , rather than requiring a reason , in the UK a few years ago , with the best of intentions .
What 's happened now is that oppressive fathers , oppressive husbands and in some cases soi-disant ` community leaders ' are able to force people to apply for a postal vote ( or simply apply for a postal vote in their name and rely on their not complaining ) and use it themselves .
Internet voting has precisely the same problem : I can take my partner 's vote , or my children 's vote , and use it .
We 're now seeing horrendous corruption in certain parts of the country --- decency forbids me from saying where , but let 's just say ` ` Inner city areas where every third shops is a sweet centre'' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hundred comments and no-one seems to have mentioned the problem we're seeing in the UK with postal votes: `heads of family' or even `community leaders' using it as an excuse for block voting.
Postal voting was made available on demand, rather than requiring a reason, in the UK a few years ago, with the best of intentions.
What's happened now is that oppressive fathers, oppressive husbands and in some cases soi-disant `community leaders' are able to force people to apply for a postal vote (or simply apply for a postal vote in their name and rely on their not complaining) and use it themselves.
Internet voting has precisely the same problem: I can take my partner's vote, or my children's vote, and use it.
We're now seeing horrendous corruption in certain parts of the country --- decency forbids me from saying where, but let's just say ``Inner city areas where every third shops is a sweet centre''.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238101</id>
	<title>Re:Radical transparency?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244297940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know where you are from, but allow me a little story from my country.</p><p>In my country, certain parties have certain influence. For example, if you want to work on the railroads, you better be a party member of the socialists. Why? Because. OF COURSE it is no requirement to be one to get a job there, but strangely, socialists are usually far, far more qualified for the jobs... odd, and of course a coincicence...</p><p>For large industrial companies, at least if you want a job that doesn't break your back for 1000 a month, the people's party is more the one you should be a member of. OF COURSE it is by no means a requirement, but strangely, their members are usually more qualified... you get the idea.</p><p>Now, how many of those do you think are "truely" socialists? Or supporters of a christian-conservative party? And how many are just a member to get the "right" job?</p><p>And how many do you think would support the idea of "public" voting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where you are from , but allow me a little story from my country.In my country , certain parties have certain influence .
For example , if you want to work on the railroads , you better be a party member of the socialists .
Why ? Because .
OF COURSE it is no requirement to be one to get a job there , but strangely , socialists are usually far , far more qualified for the jobs... odd , and of course a coincicence...For large industrial companies , at least if you want a job that does n't break your back for 1000 a month , the people 's party is more the one you should be a member of .
OF COURSE it is by no means a requirement , but strangely , their members are usually more qualified... you get the idea.Now , how many of those do you think are " truely " socialists ?
Or supporters of a christian-conservative party ?
And how many are just a member to get the " right " job ? And how many do you think would support the idea of " public " voting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where you are from, but allow me a little story from my country.In my country, certain parties have certain influence.
For example, if you want to work on the railroads, you better be a party member of the socialists.
Why? Because.
OF COURSE it is no requirement to be one to get a job there, but strangely, socialists are usually far, far more qualified for the jobs... odd, and of course a coincicence...For large industrial companies, at least if you want a job that doesn't break your back for 1000 a month, the people's party is more the one you should be a member of.
OF COURSE it is by no means a requirement, but strangely, their members are usually more qualified... you get the idea.Now, how many of those do you think are "truely" socialists?
Or supporters of a christian-conservative party?
And how many are just a member to get the "right" job?And how many do you think would support the idea of "public" voting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235795</id>
	<title>Let the computers count the votes</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244321880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starting one day after computers are granted the right to vote.
</p><p>Until then let's have people do it.  If it's not important enough of an issue for some people to take the time to even count the votes, it's not important enough to put to a vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starting one day after computers are granted the right to vote .
Until then let 's have people do it .
If it 's not important enough of an issue for some people to take the time to even count the votes , it 's not important enough to put to a vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starting one day after computers are granted the right to vote.
Until then let's have people do it.
If it's not important enough of an issue for some people to take the time to even count the votes, it's not important enough to put to a vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244280900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.</p></div><p>Your physical security is also an issue.</p><p>If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.</p><p>But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.</p><p>How could you fix this "security hole" in the internet voting scheme?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we could n't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.Your physical security is also an issue.If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you 're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.How could you fix this " security hole " in the internet voting scheme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.Your physical security is also an issue.If you go to a polling station then you can be sure no one will force you to cast your vote on his preferred candidate.But if you vote from your home via the internet then members of the local mafia can stand behind your back while you're voting and they can force you to vote on the politician who pays them.How could you fix this "security hole" in the internet voting scheme?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235971</id>
	<title>Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244279640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because our Diebold machines are so accurate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because our Diebold machines are so accurate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because our Diebold machines are so accurate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236665</id>
	<title>Re:The bad thing is work can fource you to vote th</title>
	<author>j-stroy</author>
	<datestamp>1244284740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Marble Cake Also The Game</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marble Cake Also The Game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marble Cake Also The Game</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237513</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1244292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fundamental problem with voting is the requirement of anonymity.  That blows away any hope of accountability.  Your bank knows who you are, every time you swipe your card or key in your account number.  The voting system does not.</p><p>Either we do away with voter anonymity, or we quit bitching and get used to our current unfixable system.  There is no middle-ground, because you either apply absolute trust, or no trust at all.</p><p>Frankly, I think we should stop voting for a while, and let things be decided by coin toss.  Statistically speaking, it's mathematically equal to the current voting system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem with voting is the requirement of anonymity .
That blows away any hope of accountability .
Your bank knows who you are , every time you swipe your card or key in your account number .
The voting system does not.Either we do away with voter anonymity , or we quit bitching and get used to our current unfixable system .
There is no middle-ground , because you either apply absolute trust , or no trust at all.Frankly , I think we should stop voting for a while , and let things be decided by coin toss .
Statistically speaking , it 's mathematically equal to the current voting system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem with voting is the requirement of anonymity.
That blows away any hope of accountability.
Your bank knows who you are, every time you swipe your card or key in your account number.
The voting system does not.Either we do away with voter anonymity, or we quit bitching and get used to our current unfixable system.
There is no middle-ground, because you either apply absolute trust, or no trust at all.Frankly, I think we should stop voting for a while, and let things be decided by coin toss.
Statistically speaking, it's mathematically equal to the current voting system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237891</id>
	<title>It is inherently impossible</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244296200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The caveat is that you would have to trust a machine that you cannot trust: The voter's computer.</p><p>You would have to send the voter a sealed machine that he MUST NOT BE ABLE to manipulate in ANY way. Not because he could manipulate it, but because it could be manipulated by someone else without the voter's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but even that wouldn't make it secure... allow me to start at the beginning.</p><p>Internet voting suffers from the same problem that internet banking suffers: The (lack of) security on the side of the user. The core problem is that neither you nor the user could verify whether the data sent to you was manipulated or not because you only see what the machine sends you, the user only sees what his machine displays to him. If the machine is compromised, neither you nor the user has a way to detect this. Well, technically the user could, but let's assume the average user and consider him a computer illiterate who couldn't tell a modem from a toaster.</p><p>Running a "check" against the machine is pointless as well. You only communicate with the machine you want to check through a defined protocol which can be hijacked as well. It does increase the stakes and it does increase the overhead for a potential attacker, but the "prize" we're talking about is to determine the politics of a county, state or country. I'd say it's usually worth it!</p><p>So you could put a tamper-proof machine into your voter's hands. Ok, then the attack has to happen at the ISP level, a DNS cache poinsoning or a reroute through an attacker's machines can at least block the votes that he deems "unfavorable", depending on the protocol it may enable him to actually change votes.</p><p>Sorry to burst that bubble. But you can NOT make internet voting safe. And, personally, democracy is IMO too important to trust it to something like the internet. Or machines in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The caveat is that you would have to trust a machine that you can not trust : The voter 's computer.You would have to send the voter a sealed machine that he MUST NOT BE ABLE to manipulate in ANY way .
Not because he could manipulate it , but because it could be manipulated by someone else without the voter 's ... but even that would n't make it secure... allow me to start at the beginning.Internet voting suffers from the same problem that internet banking suffers : The ( lack of ) security on the side of the user .
The core problem is that neither you nor the user could verify whether the data sent to you was manipulated or not because you only see what the machine sends you , the user only sees what his machine displays to him .
If the machine is compromised , neither you nor the user has a way to detect this .
Well , technically the user could , but let 's assume the average user and consider him a computer illiterate who could n't tell a modem from a toaster.Running a " check " against the machine is pointless as well .
You only communicate with the machine you want to check through a defined protocol which can be hijacked as well .
It does increase the stakes and it does increase the overhead for a potential attacker , but the " prize " we 're talking about is to determine the politics of a county , state or country .
I 'd say it 's usually worth it ! So you could put a tamper-proof machine into your voter 's hands .
Ok , then the attack has to happen at the ISP level , a DNS cache poinsoning or a reroute through an attacker 's machines can at least block the votes that he deems " unfavorable " , depending on the protocol it may enable him to actually change votes.Sorry to burst that bubble .
But you can NOT make internet voting safe .
And , personally , democracy is IMO too important to trust it to something like the internet .
Or machines in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The caveat is that you would have to trust a machine that you cannot trust: The voter's computer.You would have to send the voter a sealed machine that he MUST NOT BE ABLE to manipulate in ANY way.
Not because he could manipulate it, but because it could be manipulated by someone else without the voter's ... but even that wouldn't make it secure... allow me to start at the beginning.Internet voting suffers from the same problem that internet banking suffers: The (lack of) security on the side of the user.
The core problem is that neither you nor the user could verify whether the data sent to you was manipulated or not because you only see what the machine sends you, the user only sees what his machine displays to him.
If the machine is compromised, neither you nor the user has a way to detect this.
Well, technically the user could, but let's assume the average user and consider him a computer illiterate who couldn't tell a modem from a toaster.Running a "check" against the machine is pointless as well.
You only communicate with the machine you want to check through a defined protocol which can be hijacked as well.
It does increase the stakes and it does increase the overhead for a potential attacker, but the "prize" we're talking about is to determine the politics of a county, state or country.
I'd say it's usually worth it!So you could put a tamper-proof machine into your voter's hands.
Ok, then the attack has to happen at the ISP level, a DNS cache poinsoning or a reroute through an attacker's machines can at least block the votes that he deems "unfavorable", depending on the protocol it may enable him to actually change votes.Sorry to burst that bubble.
But you can NOT make internet voting safe.
And, personally, democracy is IMO too important to trust it to something like the internet.
Or machines in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238377</id>
	<title>Re:Security isn't the question though...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244301120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can assign voters a unique (anonymous) 'receipt' ID. Voters can then, at any point in time down the track, log in and retrieve the vote cast for that voter ID. If it has been tampered with, the fraud can be identified and reported. I think self regulation is the key, people will want to confirm their vote made it through properly, you just need to implement such a system of user initiated self-checks.</p><p>As far as tabulation goes, I don't see how that's any less secure than human tabulators who might be corrupt. Just have several independent bodies tally the votes, using their own techniques, and ensure there is a consensus. They should perfectly match, and if not, investigation will be required.</p><p>Only problem remains is votes cast by people who never actually cast a vote. Again, when someone logs in to vote it will detect they've already voted, and inform them. This can then be reported to officials as tampering, and investigated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can assign voters a unique ( anonymous ) 'receipt ' ID .
Voters can then , at any point in time down the track , log in and retrieve the vote cast for that voter ID .
If it has been tampered with , the fraud can be identified and reported .
I think self regulation is the key , people will want to confirm their vote made it through properly , you just need to implement such a system of user initiated self-checks.As far as tabulation goes , I do n't see how that 's any less secure than human tabulators who might be corrupt .
Just have several independent bodies tally the votes , using their own techniques , and ensure there is a consensus .
They should perfectly match , and if not , investigation will be required.Only problem remains is votes cast by people who never actually cast a vote .
Again , when someone logs in to vote it will detect they 've already voted , and inform them .
This can then be reported to officials as tampering , and investigated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can assign voters a unique (anonymous) 'receipt' ID.
Voters can then, at any point in time down the track, log in and retrieve the vote cast for that voter ID.
If it has been tampered with, the fraud can be identified and reported.
I think self regulation is the key, people will want to confirm their vote made it through properly, you just need to implement such a system of user initiated self-checks.As far as tabulation goes, I don't see how that's any less secure than human tabulators who might be corrupt.
Just have several independent bodies tally the votes, using their own techniques, and ensure there is a consensus.
They should perfectly match, and if not, investigation will be required.Only problem remains is votes cast by people who never actually cast a vote.
Again, when someone logs in to vote it will detect they've already voted, and inform them.
This can then be reported to officials as tampering, and investigated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239551</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1244316840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes, definitely <a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voting\_machines.png" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">doing it wrong</a> [xkcd.com]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , definitely doing it wrong [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, definitely doing it wrong [xkcd.com]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28241329</id>
	<title>VoteOnDemand.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VoteOnDemand.com -- the only internet voting system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VoteOnDemand.com -- the only internet voting system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VoteOnDemand.com -- the only internet voting system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</id>
	<title>Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.<br> <br>I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.<br> <br>That being said, the current state of the industry is pathetic.  For instance, not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its <i>anti-virus software</i>.  If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you're doing it wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we could n't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots .
I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions , and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system could n't be the same .
That being said , the current state of the industry is pathetic .
For instance , not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software .
If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still refuse to believe that eventually we couldn't make Internet voting more secure than paper ballots.
I already consider online banking to be at least as secure as ATM transactions, and I see no reason why a properly designed online voting system couldn't be the same.
That being said, the current state of the industry is pathetic.
For instance, not too long ago a Diebold machine was exploited by its anti-virus software.
If you have anti-virus software running on your electronic voting system you're doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236319</id>
	<title>The problem is TV News</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1244281920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the US had "proper" laws controlling the press, this might not be a problem.  If TV News had a shred of ethics, this might not be a problem.  Neither is the case, so we are faced with a very difficult situation.</p><p>The TV News is going to announce a winner before everyone goes to bed.  In the case of national elections, this pretty much means midnight Eastern time.  They have to do this or they lose relevence and people won't bother watching their election coverage.  This then directly affects ratings and they lose money.  Big money, on the order of millions of dollars.  It is also the case in the US that if Station A doesn't announce a winner then Station B will.  No getting away from it.</p><p>So we can either have made-up results that are based on exit polls, surveys and trends or we can have official results.  One way or the other, there will be results.  In 2000 Al Gore was announced the winner a few minutes before midnight by CBS.  Nobody else went along with it.  However, everyone watching CBS who went to be before the 2:00 AM retraction was convinced the next morning that Bush stole the election right out from under Gore.</p><p>Can you imagine if CBS had announced McCain the winner at midnight only to retract it later?  What about in 2012?  Can we have TV News announcing unofficial winners of national elections?  Why is it in the US we are doing this when other countries can take a couple of weeks to announce a winner?  No, I don't think the US is going to change and I do not think we are going to get laws passed to prevent news organizations from announcing unofficial results.  And there is no way the TV News people are just going to wake up and decide that it might be unethical to announce a winner prematurely.</p><p>So we better have quick official results.  Official.  Binding.  Maybe not 100\% accurate, but quick.  This is one of those cases where there needs to be an answer, a final answer, right away.  Doesn't have to be the perfect answer, but it does have to be final.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US had " proper " laws controlling the press , this might not be a problem .
If TV News had a shred of ethics , this might not be a problem .
Neither is the case , so we are faced with a very difficult situation.The TV News is going to announce a winner before everyone goes to bed .
In the case of national elections , this pretty much means midnight Eastern time .
They have to do this or they lose relevence and people wo n't bother watching their election coverage .
This then directly affects ratings and they lose money .
Big money , on the order of millions of dollars .
It is also the case in the US that if Station A does n't announce a winner then Station B will .
No getting away from it.So we can either have made-up results that are based on exit polls , surveys and trends or we can have official results .
One way or the other , there will be results .
In 2000 Al Gore was announced the winner a few minutes before midnight by CBS .
Nobody else went along with it .
However , everyone watching CBS who went to be before the 2 : 00 AM retraction was convinced the next morning that Bush stole the election right out from under Gore.Can you imagine if CBS had announced McCain the winner at midnight only to retract it later ?
What about in 2012 ?
Can we have TV News announcing unofficial winners of national elections ?
Why is it in the US we are doing this when other countries can take a couple of weeks to announce a winner ?
No , I do n't think the US is going to change and I do not think we are going to get laws passed to prevent news organizations from announcing unofficial results .
And there is no way the TV News people are just going to wake up and decide that it might be unethical to announce a winner prematurely.So we better have quick official results .
Official. Binding .
Maybe not 100 \ % accurate , but quick .
This is one of those cases where there needs to be an answer , a final answer , right away .
Does n't have to be the perfect answer , but it does have to be final .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US had "proper" laws controlling the press, this might not be a problem.
If TV News had a shred of ethics, this might not be a problem.
Neither is the case, so we are faced with a very difficult situation.The TV News is going to announce a winner before everyone goes to bed.
In the case of national elections, this pretty much means midnight Eastern time.
They have to do this or they lose relevence and people won't bother watching their election coverage.
This then directly affects ratings and they lose money.
Big money, on the order of millions of dollars.
It is also the case in the US that if Station A doesn't announce a winner then Station B will.
No getting away from it.So we can either have made-up results that are based on exit polls, surveys and trends or we can have official results.
One way or the other, there will be results.
In 2000 Al Gore was announced the winner a few minutes before midnight by CBS.
Nobody else went along with it.
However, everyone watching CBS who went to be before the 2:00 AM retraction was convinced the next morning that Bush stole the election right out from under Gore.Can you imagine if CBS had announced McCain the winner at midnight only to retract it later?
What about in 2012?
Can we have TV News announcing unofficial winners of national elections?
Why is it in the US we are doing this when other countries can take a couple of weeks to announce a winner?
No, I don't think the US is going to change and I do not think we are going to get laws passed to prevent news organizations from announcing unofficial results.
And there is no way the TV News people are just going to wake up and decide that it might be unethical to announce a winner prematurely.So we better have quick official results.
Official.  Binding.
Maybe not 100\% accurate, but quick.
This is one of those cases where there needs to be an answer, a final answer, right away.
Doesn't have to be the perfect answer, but it does have to be final.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240321</id>
	<title>Re:Not much different than mail in ballots</title>
	<author>asdfndsagse</author>
	<datestamp>1244376000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have an identical mail-in system here in washington state, and i have to agree its excellent. Here all voting is mail-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have an identical mail-in system here in washington state , and i have to agree its excellent .
Here all voting is mail-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have an identical mail-in system here in washington state, and i have to agree its excellent.
Here all voting is mail-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236221</id>
	<title>Secure compared to what?</title>
	<author>PatMcGee</author>
	<datestamp>1244281260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my reading of the description, the system that Arizona has isn't all that much more insecure than the paper system they have. There are a very few more ways to attack it, but I think that to perpetrate a major attack, it would be easier to make the attack on the paper side.

Given that, I think the electronic system is "secure enough", at least until they make the paper system more secure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my reading of the description , the system that Arizona has is n't all that much more insecure than the paper system they have .
There are a very few more ways to attack it , but I think that to perpetrate a major attack , it would be easier to make the attack on the paper side .
Given that , I think the electronic system is " secure enough " , at least until they make the paper system more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my reading of the description, the system that Arizona has isn't all that much more insecure than the paper system they have.
There are a very few more ways to attack it, but I think that to perpetrate a major attack, it would be easier to make the attack on the paper side.
Given that, I think the electronic system is "secure enough", at least until they make the paper system more secure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235853</id>
	<title>why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244278920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Done right, done well (Bruce Schneier outlines a secure voting system in Applied Cryptography), it's essentially the same thing as a mail-in ballot.
<br> <br>
Right now computerized voting is a disaster, but it doesn't really *have* to be that way. Given the proper legal underpinnings, enforcing standards that have been created by a group of genuine experts (ie, not lobbyists), sure. On the other hand, traditional voting <i>ain't broke</i>. It takes a matter of hours to get a result in all but the closest elections. The current/old system works just fine, and if more money is spent, it should be on election monitors and the like, to enforce fair voting and fair counting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Done right , done well ( Bruce Schneier outlines a secure voting system in Applied Cryptography ) , it 's essentially the same thing as a mail-in ballot .
Right now computerized voting is a disaster , but it does n't really * have * to be that way .
Given the proper legal underpinnings , enforcing standards that have been created by a group of genuine experts ( ie , not lobbyists ) , sure .
On the other hand , traditional voting ai n't broke .
It takes a matter of hours to get a result in all but the closest elections .
The current/old system works just fine , and if more money is spent , it should be on election monitors and the like , to enforce fair voting and fair counting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Done right, done well (Bruce Schneier outlines a secure voting system in Applied Cryptography), it's essentially the same thing as a mail-in ballot.
Right now computerized voting is a disaster, but it doesn't really *have* to be that way.
Given the proper legal underpinnings, enforcing standards that have been created by a group of genuine experts (ie, not lobbyists), sure.
On the other hand, traditional voting ain't broke.
It takes a matter of hours to get a result in all but the closest elections.
The current/old system works just fine, and if more money is spent, it should be on election monitors and the like, to enforce fair voting and fair counting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235993</id>
	<title>The alternative isn't safe, either</title>
	<author>Dzimas</author>
	<datestamp>1244279820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last few Federal elections in the USA have revealed significant voting machine flaws (both mechanical and electronic) anyway. Actually, I'm bewildered that the gov't doesn't hire professional designers to clearly lay out printed and electronic ballots. The ones I've seen look like they were designed by the sort of person who self-publishes a conspiracy theory newsletter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last few Federal elections in the USA have revealed significant voting machine flaws ( both mechanical and electronic ) anyway .
Actually , I 'm bewildered that the gov't does n't hire professional designers to clearly lay out printed and electronic ballots .
The ones I 've seen look like they were designed by the sort of person who self-publishes a conspiracy theory newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last few Federal elections in the USA have revealed significant voting machine flaws (both mechanical and electronic) anyway.
Actually, I'm bewildered that the gov't doesn't hire professional designers to clearly lay out printed and electronic ballots.
The ones I've seen look like they were designed by the sort of person who self-publishes a conspiracy theory newsletter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238235</id>
	<title>Re:Safe or not...</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1244299440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Oregon, we vote by mail.  Vote buying and coercion is theoretically possible, but it's such a cultural taboo that it hasn't been a problem - if anyone tried to buy votes, there would be enough of a public outcry that it would have to stop.  In other states with a different culture, this may not be the case.</p><p>Our vote by mail system is probably vastly more secure than Arizona's online voting system, but this theoretical vulnerability does exist in both systems.  However, most states have a provision for voting absentee, often with no restrictions (i.e. you simply request an absentee ballot; you don't have to provide a good reason why you can't make it to the polls).  In last year's election, various groups were encouraging people to vote absentee, to make sure their votes would be counted in case of problems on Election Day.  Absentee voting is just as susceptible to vote buying and coercion, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it's been a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Oregon , we vote by mail .
Vote buying and coercion is theoretically possible , but it 's such a cultural taboo that it has n't been a problem - if anyone tried to buy votes , there would be enough of a public outcry that it would have to stop .
In other states with a different culture , this may not be the case.Our vote by mail system is probably vastly more secure than Arizona 's online voting system , but this theoretical vulnerability does exist in both systems .
However , most states have a provision for voting absentee , often with no restrictions ( i.e .
you simply request an absentee ballot ; you do n't have to provide a good reason why you ca n't make it to the polls ) .
In last year 's election , various groups were encouraging people to vote absentee , to make sure their votes would be counted in case of problems on Election Day .
Absentee voting is just as susceptible to vote buying and coercion , but I 've never heard anyone suggest that it 's been a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Oregon, we vote by mail.
Vote buying and coercion is theoretically possible, but it's such a cultural taboo that it hasn't been a problem - if anyone tried to buy votes, there would be enough of a public outcry that it would have to stop.
In other states with a different culture, this may not be the case.Our vote by mail system is probably vastly more secure than Arizona's online voting system, but this theoretical vulnerability does exist in both systems.
However, most states have a provision for voting absentee, often with no restrictions (i.e.
you simply request an absentee ballot; you don't have to provide a good reason why you can't make it to the polls).
In last year's election, various groups were encouraging people to vote absentee, to make sure their votes would be counted in case of problems on Election Day.
Absentee voting is just as susceptible to vote buying and coercion, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it's been a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237009</id>
	<title>Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1244287800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If I ever start a dictatorship, first thing I do, is get everybody voting electronically."</p><p>If I ever start a dictatorship, the first thing I do, is abolish voting alltogether and start a massive propaganda campaign. But that's just me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If I ever start a dictatorship , first thing I do , is get everybody voting electronically .
" If I ever start a dictatorship , the first thing I do , is abolish voting alltogether and start a massive propaganda campaign .
But that 's just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If I ever start a dictatorship, first thing I do, is get everybody voting electronically.
"If I ever start a dictatorship, the first thing I do, is abolish voting alltogether and start a massive propaganda campaign.
But that's just me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235747</id>
	<title>He must mean "Is it secure?".</title>
	<author>woverly</author>
	<datestamp>1244321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although there are limited data available, all indications are that Internet voting is not hazardous.  So far it doesn't seem to be carcinogenic, nor has anyone become pregnant or contracted an STD by Internet voting.</p><p>We have to assume that if the Internet is secure enough for us to buy stuff, then it is secure enough for voting.  Certainly far more effort will be spent to make transactions involving money secure than to make voting secure.  From a practical standpoint, only close elections can be stolen anyway.  If a close election is stolen, then approximately the same number of persons disagree with the result as if the election were not stolen, so what difference does it really make from the standpoint of quality of outcome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although there are limited data available , all indications are that Internet voting is not hazardous .
So far it does n't seem to be carcinogenic , nor has anyone become pregnant or contracted an STD by Internet voting.We have to assume that if the Internet is secure enough for us to buy stuff , then it is secure enough for voting .
Certainly far more effort will be spent to make transactions involving money secure than to make voting secure .
From a practical standpoint , only close elections can be stolen anyway .
If a close election is stolen , then approximately the same number of persons disagree with the result as if the election were not stolen , so what difference does it really make from the standpoint of quality of outcome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although there are limited data available, all indications are that Internet voting is not hazardous.
So far it doesn't seem to be carcinogenic, nor has anyone become pregnant or contracted an STD by Internet voting.We have to assume that if the Internet is secure enough for us to buy stuff, then it is secure enough for voting.
Certainly far more effort will be spent to make transactions involving money secure than to make voting secure.
From a practical standpoint, only close elections can be stolen anyway.
If a close election is stolen, then approximately the same number of persons disagree with the result as if the election were not stolen, so what difference does it really make from the standpoint of quality of outcome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240389</id>
	<title>Re:Full Results of Poll: ' Is internet voting safe</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1244377380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's actually:<br>Yes 32\%<br>No 22\%<br>Cowboy Neal 46\%</p><p>Just remember:<br>
&nbsp; - Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.<br>
&nbsp; - This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's actually : Yes 32 \ % No 22 \ % Cowboy Neal 46 \ % Just remember :   - Do n't complain about lack of options .
You 've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice .
Those are the breaks .
  - This whole thing is wildly inaccurate .
Rounding errors , ballot stuffers , dynamic IPs , firewalls .
If you 're using these numbers to do anything important , you 're insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's actually:Yes 32\%No 22\%Cowboy Neal 46\%Just remember:
  - Don't complain about lack of options.
You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice.
Those are the breaks.
  - This whole thing is wildly inaccurate.
Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls.
If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235685</id>
	<title>Irony is...</title>
	<author>Tinctorius</author>
	<datestamp>1244321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... an Internet poll about the "safety" of Internet polls.</p><p>Especially if you are "persuaded to trust" the results and derive some sort of observation from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... an Internet poll about the " safety " of Internet polls.Especially if you are " persuaded to trust " the results and derive some sort of observation from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... an Internet poll about the "safety" of Internet polls.Especially if you are "persuaded to trust" the results and derive some sort of observation from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28241551</id>
	<title>What about viruses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244392260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother trying to attack hardened servers run by pros when you can just install an IE plugin that makes it look like you voted for Candidate A and then sends a vote for Candidate B?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother trying to attack hardened servers run by pros when you can just install an IE plugin that makes it look like you voted for Candidate A and then sends a vote for Candidate B ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother trying to attack hardened servers run by pros when you can just install an IE plugin that makes it look like you voted for Candidate A and then sends a vote for Candidate B?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236415</id>
	<title>Speaking as a citizen of Arizona</title>
	<author>Crosseyed &amp; Painless</author>
	<datestamp>1244282640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any change, technological or otherwise, that reduces the influence of the idiots in this state can only be a good thing.  Sweet merciful Christ, just look at our senators, our representatives...  Napolitano is the first governor in decades that didn't end her term in disgrace or prison, and she gets promoted out-of-state.  McCain is our <i>sane</i> senator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any change , technological or otherwise , that reduces the influence of the idiots in this state can only be a good thing .
Sweet merciful Christ , just look at our senators , our representatives... Napolitano is the first governor in decades that did n't end her term in disgrace or prison , and she gets promoted out-of-state .
McCain is our sane senator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any change, technological or otherwise, that reduces the influence of the idiots in this state can only be a good thing.
Sweet merciful Christ, just look at our senators, our representatives...  Napolitano is the first governor in decades that didn't end her term in disgrace or prison, and she gets promoted out-of-state.
McCain is our sane senator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237929</id>
	<title>Re:Vote selling is possible</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244296440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bit too much overhead for just a single vote.</p><p>OTOH, getting a few thousands/millions computer infected so they vote they way they "should" is fairly trivial.</p><p>It's a bit like the copyright battle. It was no problem when physical media were involved. The overhead to copy a book is nontrivial, and usually it's cheaper to just buy the book. It's very different in the digital world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit too much overhead for just a single vote.OTOH , getting a few thousands/millions computer infected so they vote they way they " should " is fairly trivial.It 's a bit like the copyright battle .
It was no problem when physical media were involved .
The overhead to copy a book is nontrivial , and usually it 's cheaper to just buy the book .
It 's very different in the digital world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit too much overhead for just a single vote.OTOH, getting a few thousands/millions computer infected so they vote they way they "should" is fairly trivial.It's a bit like the copyright battle.
It was no problem when physical media were involved.
The overhead to copy a book is nontrivial, and usually it's cheaper to just buy the book.
It's very different in the digital world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235815</id>
	<title>Scary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244321940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So far, 32\% responding actually think that internet voting is worth it, risks and all. It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable."</p></div><p>So you're saying that an internet poll (something that's guaranteed to have a bias towards everything internet) has a strong majority of people agreeing that internet voting is <i>not</i> worth it, and the conclusion you reach is that "[it's] scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable?" The numbers seem to suggest that it actually isn't all that easy to persuade people to trust such a system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , 32 \ % responding actually think that internet voting is worth it , risks and all .
It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable .
" So you 're saying that an internet poll ( something that 's guaranteed to have a bias towards everything internet ) has a strong majority of people agreeing that internet voting is not worth it , and the conclusion you reach is that " [ it 's ] scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable ?
" The numbers seem to suggest that it actually is n't all that easy to persuade people to trust such a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, 32\% responding actually think that internet voting is worth it, risks and all.
It is scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable.
"So you're saying that an internet poll (something that's guaranteed to have a bias towards everything internet) has a strong majority of people agreeing that internet voting is not worth it, and the conclusion you reach is that "[it's] scary how easily people can be persuaded to trust a system that is so vulnerable?
" The numbers seem to suggest that it actually isn't all that easy to persuade people to trust such a system.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235979</id>
	<title>Re:Recipe for pseudo democracy</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1244279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about the candidates. If all of the options are all you then who cares if they use e-voting? It really doesn't matter. All the choices are for your team(s).</p><p>That's how I see this debate over e-voting. Until the two party system behind it is fixed it's really not going to matter. Paper ballots can be rigged easily, there is hardly any security. Oh you got a phone bill and a state ID? well that seems legit, step into the ballot booth Mr. Popadopolis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the candidates .
If all of the options are all you then who cares if they use e-voting ?
It really does n't matter .
All the choices are for your team ( s ) .That 's how I see this debate over e-voting .
Until the two party system behind it is fixed it 's really not going to matter .
Paper ballots can be rigged easily , there is hardly any security .
Oh you got a phone bill and a state ID ?
well that seems legit , step into the ballot booth Mr. Popadopolis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the candidates.
If all of the options are all you then who cares if they use e-voting?
It really doesn't matter.
All the choices are for your team(s).That's how I see this debate over e-voting.
Until the two party system behind it is fixed it's really not going to matter.
Paper ballots can be rigged easily, there is hardly any security.
Oh you got a phone bill and a state ID?
well that seems legit, step into the ballot booth Mr. Popadopolis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237335</id>
	<title>You teach us, Anon.  You teach us all.</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1244291040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, when moot is elected president in 2012 or something, I guess we'll know if it's safe or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when moot is elected president in 2012 or something , I guess we 'll know if it 's safe or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when moot is elected president in 2012 or something, I guess we'll know if it's safe or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238033</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Voting</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244297400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That correlation is there, but personally I'd be wary of internet voting because of my experience with internet banking and how (easily) it is manipulated.</p><p>The point is, if you have only one channel to communicate with your communication partner, and this channel is not under your or your partner's control, neither you nor him can verify whether the data you sent is actually from you or whether it was manipulated on the way.</p><p>And example:</p><p>About 2 years ago, I had a fairly interesting piece of malware on my table that altered your online banking transactions on the fly. It downloaded the necessary information from its attack server and sat there waiting for you to make your next transaction. When you sent 100 bucks to Joe, it sent to the bank that you want to send 10k bucks to Igor. The bank confirmed those 10k bucks to Igor and asked for your confirmation key. The malware displayed to the user that 100 bucks were to be sent to Joe and asked the user for the confirmation. The user confirmed, the malware forwarded the key to the bank, and 10k bucks were transfered, even though the user thought he was sending just 100 bucks, and also to someone else.</p><p>The bank, despite having good IT security key personnell, cannot in any way determine whether the transaction was what the user intended to do. The user, otoh, is no computer expert and thus believes what his machine tells him.</p><p>So while electronic voting may be a security problem due to a possible manipulation from the voting machines' manufacturer or others tampering with them, online voting is at a far bigger risk of manipulation because anyone, not just someone "in the loop" could pull off a large scale election fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That correlation is there , but personally I 'd be wary of internet voting because of my experience with internet banking and how ( easily ) it is manipulated.The point is , if you have only one channel to communicate with your communication partner , and this channel is not under your or your partner 's control , neither you nor him can verify whether the data you sent is actually from you or whether it was manipulated on the way.And example : About 2 years ago , I had a fairly interesting piece of malware on my table that altered your online banking transactions on the fly .
It downloaded the necessary information from its attack server and sat there waiting for you to make your next transaction .
When you sent 100 bucks to Joe , it sent to the bank that you want to send 10k bucks to Igor .
The bank confirmed those 10k bucks to Igor and asked for your confirmation key .
The malware displayed to the user that 100 bucks were to be sent to Joe and asked the user for the confirmation .
The user confirmed , the malware forwarded the key to the bank , and 10k bucks were transfered , even though the user thought he was sending just 100 bucks , and also to someone else.The bank , despite having good IT security key personnell , can not in any way determine whether the transaction was what the user intended to do .
The user , otoh , is no computer expert and thus believes what his machine tells him.So while electronic voting may be a security problem due to a possible manipulation from the voting machines ' manufacturer or others tampering with them , online voting is at a far bigger risk of manipulation because anyone , not just someone " in the loop " could pull off a large scale election fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That correlation is there, but personally I'd be wary of internet voting because of my experience with internet banking and how (easily) it is manipulated.The point is, if you have only one channel to communicate with your communication partner, and this channel is not under your or your partner's control, neither you nor him can verify whether the data you sent is actually from you or whether it was manipulated on the way.And example:About 2 years ago, I had a fairly interesting piece of malware on my table that altered your online banking transactions on the fly.
It downloaded the necessary information from its attack server and sat there waiting for you to make your next transaction.
When you sent 100 bucks to Joe, it sent to the bank that you want to send 10k bucks to Igor.
The bank confirmed those 10k bucks to Igor and asked for your confirmation key.
The malware displayed to the user that 100 bucks were to be sent to Joe and asked the user for the confirmation.
The user confirmed, the malware forwarded the key to the bank, and 10k bucks were transfered, even though the user thought he was sending just 100 bucks, and also to someone else.The bank, despite having good IT security key personnell, cannot in any way determine whether the transaction was what the user intended to do.
The user, otoh, is no computer expert and thus believes what his machine tells him.So while electronic voting may be a security problem due to a possible manipulation from the voting machines' manufacturer or others tampering with them, online voting is at a far bigger risk of manipulation because anyone, not just someone "in the loop" could pull off a large scale election fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28248107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28241551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_193239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28240321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237099
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28239575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28248107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28241551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28235789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28238033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28237311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_193239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_193239.28236665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
