<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_31_0120223</id>
	<title>Contest To Hack Brazilian Voting Machines</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257005340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Brazilian elections went electronic many years ago, with very fast results but a few complaints from losers, of course. Next month, 10 teams that accepted the challenge <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&amp;hl=en&amp;js=y&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww1.folha.uol.com.br\%2Ffolha\%2Finformatica\%2Fult124u645011.shtml&amp;sl=pt&amp;tl=en&amp;history\_state0=">will have access to hardware and software</a> (Google translation; <a href="http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/informatica/ult124u645011.shtml">original in Portuguese</a>) for the amount of time they requested (from one hour to four days). Some will try to break the vote's secrecy and some will try to throw in malicious code to change the entered votes without leaving traces."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Brazilian elections went electronic many years ago , with very fast results but a few complaints from losers , of course .
Next month , 10 teams that accepted the challenge will have access to hardware and software ( Google translation ; original in Portuguese ) for the amount of time they requested ( from one hour to four days ) .
Some will try to break the vote 's secrecy and some will try to throw in malicious code to change the entered votes without leaving traces .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Brazilian elections went electronic many years ago, with very fast results but a few complaints from losers, of course.
Next month, 10 teams that accepted the challenge will have access to hardware and software (Google translation; original in Portuguese) for the amount of time they requested (from one hour to four days).
Some will try to break the vote's secrecy and some will try to throw in malicious code to change the entered votes without leaving traces.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</id>
	<title>why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1256925780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never understood how, on a technical level, electronic voting has failed so hard in many countries. write a simple app that writes the vote to a flat text file, then reads the recorded result back to the voter for them to confirm, and store a hash of the result seperately. encrypt all the drives, lock down the hardware in each location with steel boxes and armed gaurds if needed.<p>
transport the results out of the voting location with the votes and hashs seperately and count then use the hash to verify that the count wasn't tampered with in transit etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood how , on a technical level , electronic voting has failed so hard in many countries .
write a simple app that writes the vote to a flat text file , then reads the recorded result back to the voter for them to confirm , and store a hash of the result seperately .
encrypt all the drives , lock down the hardware in each location with steel boxes and armed gaurds if needed .
transport the results out of the voting location with the votes and hashs seperately and count then use the hash to verify that the count was n't tampered with in transit etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood how, on a technical level, electronic voting has failed so hard in many countries.
write a simple app that writes the vote to a flat text file, then reads the recorded result back to the voter for them to confirm, and store a hash of the result seperately.
encrypt all the drives, lock down the hardware in each location with steel boxes and armed gaurds if needed.
transport the results out of the voting location with the votes and hashs seperately and count then use the hash to verify that the count wasn't tampered with in transit etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932883</id>
	<title>A lesson taught to other countries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting to see that true care for democracy can rise in some developing countries while it keeps fading in other, richer ones where the political model tends to oligarchy backed by pre-orwellian laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to see that true care for democracy can rise in some developing countries while it keeps fading in other , richer ones where the political model tends to oligarchy backed by pre-orwellian laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting to see that true care for democracy can rise in some developing countries while it keeps fading in other, richer ones where the political model tends to oligarchy backed by pre-orwellian laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932431</id>
	<title>Wikipedia vaguely confirms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256928180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it runs Linux btw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it runs Linux btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it runs Linux btw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932177</id>
	<title>Hack the judges</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256923920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The simplest way to win this is to hack the judging process so that your team is announced the winner, with a false claim that you hacked one of the machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simplest way to win this is to hack the judging process so that your team is announced the winner , with a false claim that you hacked one of the machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simplest way to win this is to hack the judging process so that your team is announced the winner, with a false claim that you hacked one of the machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29939893</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a brazilian and i work at elections.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a hippo from Rio's zoo. <i>Cacareco</i> was his name, IIRC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a hippo from Rio 's zoo .
Cacareco was his name , IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a hippo from Rio's zoo.
Cacareco was his name, IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29935539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933073</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1256985360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>write a simple app that writes the vote to a flat text file,</p></div><p>Thus writing the votes sequentially. If you independently record the order in which people vote (audio recorder in your pocket), then you can pretty easily know how each of them voted. See, you've failed at preserving voter privacy already. Preserving it requires randomizing the order of the votes in some way, which is not very practical with a flat text file.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>pretends to</b> then read the recorded result back to the voter for them to confirm,</p></div><p>Fixed that for you. What's written in the file does not have to match what's recorded in the file and the voter will never be able to prove anything. The software you wrote may not be the one that's used during the elections either. And again it's unlikely you'll be able to prove anything.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and store a hash of the result separately. encrypt all the drives, lock down the hardware in each location with steel boxes and armed guards if needed.</p></div><p>All this protects is the result. You need to prevent tampering of the software and yet make it possible to update it to integrate fixes (unless you claim to be able to produce bug-free software in your first attempt). You also need to make it possible to change the ballot definitions obviously (unless you plan on your system being used only once and then thrown away), and yet prevent non authorized parties (including election employees) from hacking them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>encrypt all the drives,</p></div><p>Encryption is to prevent unauthorized parties from reading the disk. What you really want is signing of all the executable code by a trusted authority so you can detect any tampering. The problem is finding a trusted authority: it obviously cannot be the government in place, not the voting computer manufacturer either, a random bloke taken off the streets? (who picks him?)

</p><p>Yet another problem is that none of this lets the voter verify the voting machine in front of him has not been hacked on election day.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
transport the results out of the voting location with the votes and hash separately and count then use the hash to verify that the count wasn't tampered with in transit etc.</p></div><p>All election officials have to do is prepare matching votes and hashes in advance of the election and substitute them for the real ones during transport, or in the secure storage room to which the public does not have access. Lesson: as soon as something leaves the polling place, and thus escapes the surveillance of the public, you can assume it has been corrupted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>write a simple app that writes the vote to a flat text file,Thus writing the votes sequentially .
If you independently record the order in which people vote ( audio recorder in your pocket ) , then you can pretty easily know how each of them voted .
See , you 've failed at preserving voter privacy already .
Preserving it requires randomizing the order of the votes in some way , which is not very practical with a flat text file .
pretends to then read the recorded result back to the voter for them to confirm,Fixed that for you .
What 's written in the file does not have to match what 's recorded in the file and the voter will never be able to prove anything .
The software you wrote may not be the one that 's used during the elections either .
And again it 's unlikely you 'll be able to prove anything.and store a hash of the result separately .
encrypt all the drives , lock down the hardware in each location with steel boxes and armed guards if needed.All this protects is the result .
You need to prevent tampering of the software and yet make it possible to update it to integrate fixes ( unless you claim to be able to produce bug-free software in your first attempt ) .
You also need to make it possible to change the ballot definitions obviously ( unless you plan on your system being used only once and then thrown away ) , and yet prevent non authorized parties ( including election employees ) from hacking them.encrypt all the drives,Encryption is to prevent unauthorized parties from reading the disk .
What you really want is signing of all the executable code by a trusted authority so you can detect any tampering .
The problem is finding a trusted authority : it obviously can not be the government in place , not the voting computer manufacturer either , a random bloke taken off the streets ?
( who picks him ?
) Yet another problem is that none of this lets the voter verify the voting machine in front of him has not been hacked on election day .
transport the results out of the voting location with the votes and hash separately and count then use the hash to verify that the count was n't tampered with in transit etc.All election officials have to do is prepare matching votes and hashes in advance of the election and substitute them for the real ones during transport , or in the secure storage room to which the public does not have access .
Lesson : as soon as something leaves the polling place , and thus escapes the surveillance of the public , you can assume it has been corrupted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>write a simple app that writes the vote to a flat text file,Thus writing the votes sequentially.
If you independently record the order in which people vote (audio recorder in your pocket), then you can pretty easily know how each of them voted.
See, you've failed at preserving voter privacy already.
Preserving it requires randomizing the order of the votes in some way, which is not very practical with a flat text file.
pretends to then read the recorded result back to the voter for them to confirm,Fixed that for you.
What's written in the file does not have to match what's recorded in the file and the voter will never be able to prove anything.
The software you wrote may not be the one that's used during the elections either.
And again it's unlikely you'll be able to prove anything.and store a hash of the result separately.
encrypt all the drives, lock down the hardware in each location with steel boxes and armed guards if needed.All this protects is the result.
You need to prevent tampering of the software and yet make it possible to update it to integrate fixes (unless you claim to be able to produce bug-free software in your first attempt).
You also need to make it possible to change the ballot definitions obviously (unless you plan on your system being used only once and then thrown away), and yet prevent non authorized parties (including election employees) from hacking them.encrypt all the drives,Encryption is to prevent unauthorized parties from reading the disk.
What you really want is signing of all the executable code by a trusted authority so you can detect any tampering.
The problem is finding a trusted authority: it obviously cannot be the government in place, not the voting computer manufacturer either, a random bloke taken off the streets?
(who picks him?
)

Yet another problem is that none of this lets the voter verify the voting machine in front of him has not been hacked on election day.
transport the results out of the voting location with the votes and hash separately and count then use the hash to verify that the count wasn't tampered with in transit etc.All election officials have to do is prepare matching votes and hashes in advance of the election and substitute them for the real ones during transport, or in the secure storage room to which the public does not have access.
Lesson: as soon as something leaves the polling place, and thus escapes the surveillance of the public, you can assume it has been corrupted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933003</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>cameigons</author>
	<datestamp>1256983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But applying the same logic, we should go back to manual in a whole lot of other areas where things are nowadays totally automated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But applying the same logic , we should go back to manual in a whole lot of other areas where things are nowadays totally automated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But applying the same logic, we should go back to manual in a whole lot of other areas where things are nowadays totally automated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932195</id>
	<title>A brazilian?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a lot of voting machines...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a lot of voting machines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a lot of voting machines...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29937199</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>XCondE</author>
	<datestamp>1256985060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just add a paper trail to the electronic system.</p><p>Once the results are disclosed the sore losers can count the vote themselves (just don't leave them alone in the room with the print-outs)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just add a paper trail to the electronic system.Once the results are disclosed the sore losers can count the vote themselves ( just do n't leave them alone in the room with the print-outs )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just add a paper trail to the electronic system.Once the results are disclosed the sore losers can count the vote themselves (just don't leave them alone in the room with the print-outs)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934677</id>
	<title>Hacking an election: easier than it sounds</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1257005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people seem to believe that hacking an election that uses electronic voting machines is so hard it's the stuff of science fiction.

</p><p>However some time ago I came across an <a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-athens-affair" title="ieee.org">article</a> [ieee.org] describing how an unknown group hacked the Vodafone-Panafon cell-phone system. To me this hack conclusively proves that these groups have the technical and financial resources necessary to steal an electronic voting election.

</p><p>Consider:
</p><ul>
<li>They tapped the cellphones of Greece's prime minister and over 100 high-ranking dignitaries. All people for whom security is important and who would have noticed if something was amiss.</li>

<li>They hacked into Vodafone's switches: equipment that's rarer and more expensive than voting machines.</li>

<li>They had to hot-patch the software in memory since these switches are almost never rebooted. No such trickery is needed for voting machines.</li>

<li>They also had to ensure their hacks would evade detection and survive the regular software upgrades. In particular these upgrades perform checksums on the running software to ensure the starting point is as expected. But hey had countermeasures to avoid detection by these checksums. Not an issue you have if you hack the voting machines at the right time before the election.</li>

<li>To evade detection they also had to make sure none of their activity would be visible in any of the audit logs.</li>

<li>Yet, they remained undetected for over 6 months and where only detected by chance. In an election your hack only has to remain undetected for one day, then it can wipe itself clean and you've won.</li>

<li>The group who performed this hack was never identified.</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people seem to believe that hacking an election that uses electronic voting machines is so hard it 's the stuff of science fiction .
However some time ago I came across an article [ ieee.org ] describing how an unknown group hacked the Vodafone-Panafon cell-phone system .
To me this hack conclusively proves that these groups have the technical and financial resources necessary to steal an electronic voting election .
Consider : They tapped the cellphones of Greece 's prime minister and over 100 high-ranking dignitaries .
All people for whom security is important and who would have noticed if something was amiss .
They hacked into Vodafone 's switches : equipment that 's rarer and more expensive than voting machines .
They had to hot-patch the software in memory since these switches are almost never rebooted .
No such trickery is needed for voting machines .
They also had to ensure their hacks would evade detection and survive the regular software upgrades .
In particular these upgrades perform checksums on the running software to ensure the starting point is as expected .
But hey had countermeasures to avoid detection by these checksums .
Not an issue you have if you hack the voting machines at the right time before the election .
To evade detection they also had to make sure none of their activity would be visible in any of the audit logs .
Yet , they remained undetected for over 6 months and where only detected by chance .
In an election your hack only has to remain undetected for one day , then it can wipe itself clean and you 've won .
The group who performed this hack was never identified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people seem to believe that hacking an election that uses electronic voting machines is so hard it's the stuff of science fiction.
However some time ago I came across an article [ieee.org] describing how an unknown group hacked the Vodafone-Panafon cell-phone system.
To me this hack conclusively proves that these groups have the technical and financial resources necessary to steal an electronic voting election.
Consider:

They tapped the cellphones of Greece's prime minister and over 100 high-ranking dignitaries.
All people for whom security is important and who would have noticed if something was amiss.
They hacked into Vodafone's switches: equipment that's rarer and more expensive than voting machines.
They had to hot-patch the software in memory since these switches are almost never rebooted.
No such trickery is needed for voting machines.
They also had to ensure their hacks would evade detection and survive the regular software upgrades.
In particular these upgrades perform checksums on the running software to ensure the starting point is as expected.
But hey had countermeasures to avoid detection by these checksums.
Not an issue you have if you hack the voting machines at the right time before the election.
To evade detection they also had to make sure none of their activity would be visible in any of the audit logs.
Yet, they remained undetected for over 6 months and where only detected by chance.
In an election your hack only has to remain undetected for one day, then it can wipe itself clean and you've won.
The group who performed this hack was never identified.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932993</id>
	<title>Re:Lets do it here, too.</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1256983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do I verify that what I am auditing is actually what is used on election day? Oh yeah, I can't really. Oops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I verify that what I am auditing is actually what is used on election day ?
Oh yeah , I ca n't really .
Oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I verify that what I am auditing is actually what is used on election day?
Oh yeah, I can't really.
Oops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933021</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?</i> <br> <br>Most likely it's simply an issue of "follow the money".<br> <br> <i>So whyion  not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open? That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote. It's simple enough to understand. While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.</i> <br> <br>One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address voter intimidation, gerrymandering, conflicts of interests between people running the election and candidates, differing nomination/campaigning rules for different candidates, etc. Many of which are actually far bigger problems...<br> <br> <i>That paper based system may take a bit more time,</i> <br> <br>Such systems are generally quick enough for political systems where the results of the election take effect within hours/days. In places such as the USA elected people may not actually start for weeks/months after the election. What is the situation in Brazil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so " popular " .
Why do the people in charge keep promoting it ?
Most likely it 's simply an issue of " follow the money " .
So whyion not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open ?
That way the eventual loser 's representatives , 3rd party observers , various other people can observe every count of each vote .
It 's simple enough to understand .
While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff , most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem .
One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address voter intimidation , gerrymandering , conflicts of interests between people running the election and candidates , differing nomination/campaigning rules for different candidates , etc .
Many of which are actually far bigger problems... That paper based system may take a bit more time , Such systems are generally quick enough for political systems where the results of the election take effect within hours/days .
In places such as the USA elected people may not actually start for weeks/months after the election .
What is the situation in Brazil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular".
Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?
Most likely it's simply an issue of "follow the money".
So whyion  not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open?
That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote.
It's simple enough to understand.
While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.
One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address voter intimidation, gerrymandering, conflicts of interests between people running the election and candidates, differing nomination/campaigning rules for different candidates, etc.
Many of which are actually far bigger problems...  That paper based system may take a bit more time,  Such systems are generally quick enough for political systems where the results of the election take effect within hours/days.
In places such as the USA elected people may not actually start for weeks/months after the election.
What is the situation in Brazil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115</id>
	<title>Little bit more info...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for those who do not RTFA.</p><p>The teams can bring any software or equipment they want to try and break the machines' security.</p><p>And there is even a bounty of a little more than USD$2000,00 paid by the government to the team that gets closer to the goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for those who do not RTFA.The teams can bring any software or equipment they want to try and break the machines ' security.And there is even a bounty of a little more than USD $ 2000,00 paid by the government to the team that gets closer to the goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for those who do not RTFA.The teams can bring any software or equipment they want to try and break the machines' security.And there is even a bounty of a little more than USD$2000,00 paid by the government to the team that gets closer to the goal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934115</id>
	<title>Re:But I can't verify the system... so it's useles</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257000780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I have a PhD in computer science and a lot of experience debugging other peoples' code.  If you gave me the source code to an electronic voting system, I could not be more than 50\% sure that I had found all of the potential ways of exploiting it.  Even if I do manage to convince myself that it is bug free, which might be possible if it were developed using formal methods, then I still have no way of verifying that the software that I audited is the software I am using to vote.  More than 99\% of the population is likely to be less able to audit the code.</p><p>
We don't use electronic (or mechanical) voting here, we use a pen and paper.  I can look at the paper and validate that it has the mark next to the candidate that I wanted.  I can then put it in a box.  If I want, I can volunteer to watch the box and see that no one removes ballots from it before it is counted.  I can then watch, or even participate in, the counting.  The number of votes counted is then published and I can check the totals match for the constituency.  Anyone with basic numeracy can validate this mechanism.  Most people don't choose to, but each of the candidates will nominate people that they trust to do so and they can select these people from the entire population, not just from some technical priesthood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I have a PhD in computer science and a lot of experience debugging other peoples ' code .
If you gave me the source code to an electronic voting system , I could not be more than 50 \ % sure that I had found all of the potential ways of exploiting it .
Even if I do manage to convince myself that it is bug free , which might be possible if it were developed using formal methods , then I still have no way of verifying that the software that I audited is the software I am using to vote .
More than 99 \ % of the population is likely to be less able to audit the code .
We do n't use electronic ( or mechanical ) voting here , we use a pen and paper .
I can look at the paper and validate that it has the mark next to the candidate that I wanted .
I can then put it in a box .
If I want , I can volunteer to watch the box and see that no one removes ballots from it before it is counted .
I can then watch , or even participate in , the counting .
The number of votes counted is then published and I can check the totals match for the constituency .
Anyone with basic numeracy can validate this mechanism .
Most people do n't choose to , but each of the candidates will nominate people that they trust to do so and they can select these people from the entire population , not just from some technical priesthood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I have a PhD in computer science and a lot of experience debugging other peoples' code.
If you gave me the source code to an electronic voting system, I could not be more than 50\% sure that I had found all of the potential ways of exploiting it.
Even if I do manage to convince myself that it is bug free, which might be possible if it were developed using formal methods, then I still have no way of verifying that the software that I audited is the software I am using to vote.
More than 99\% of the population is likely to be less able to audit the code.
We don't use electronic (or mechanical) voting here, we use a pen and paper.
I can look at the paper and validate that it has the mark next to the candidate that I wanted.
I can then put it in a box.
If I want, I can volunteer to watch the box and see that no one removes ballots from it before it is counted.
I can then watch, or even participate in, the counting.
The number of votes counted is then published and I can check the totals match for the constituency.
Anyone with basic numeracy can validate this mechanism.
Most people don't choose to, but each of the candidates will nominate people that they trust to do so and they can select these people from the entire population, not just from some technical priesthood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932957</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>cameigons</author>
	<datestamp>1256983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whatever the potential problems I still believe it works better than the traditional voting system. If not, people should be questioning the widespread use of web banking or software in airplanes too. I'm not saying I don't think those are as secure as it gets(more than humans anyway), but the interesting point is that it seems to interest some of those with power that voting machines keep being unreasonably untrusted while some other more complex systems not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever the potential problems I still believe it works better than the traditional voting system .
If not , people should be questioning the widespread use of web banking or software in airplanes too .
I 'm not saying I do n't think those are as secure as it gets ( more than humans anyway ) , but the interesting point is that it seems to interest some of those with power that voting machines keep being unreasonably untrusted while some other more complex systems not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever the potential problems I still believe it works better than the traditional voting system.
If not, people should be questioning the widespread use of web banking or software in airplanes too.
I'm not saying I don't think those are as secure as it gets(more than humans anyway), but the interesting point is that it seems to interest some of those with power that voting machines keep being unreasonably untrusted while some other more complex systems not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932097</id>
	<title>First prize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256922840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>winners will be elected</htmltext>
<tokenext>winners will be elected</tokentext>
<sentencetext>winners will be elected</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29935539</id>
	<title>I'm a brazilian and i work at elections.</title>
	<author>bircho</author>
	<datestamp>1257013260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paper ballot is far from perfect. I think we are better this way. People will not hack a voting machine to win, just buy votes. It's easier.

Brazil is a very big country and counting votes was always problematic. Now we have a official result in the same day.

Elections for legislative branch was a problem too. People wrote the name or a nickname of a candidate, or just swear. A monkey (or another animal from a zoo, can't remember) was elected years ago as a prostest.

Buying votes is harder too. They just took people who cant read and gave a paper already marked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paper ballot is far from perfect .
I think we are better this way .
People will not hack a voting machine to win , just buy votes .
It 's easier .
Brazil is a very big country and counting votes was always problematic .
Now we have a official result in the same day .
Elections for legislative branch was a problem too .
People wrote the name or a nickname of a candidate , or just swear .
A monkey ( or another animal from a zoo , ca n't remember ) was elected years ago as a prostest .
Buying votes is harder too .
They just took people who cant read and gave a paper already marked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paper ballot is far from perfect.
I think we are better this way.
People will not hack a voting machine to win, just buy votes.
It's easier.
Brazil is a very big country and counting votes was always problematic.
Now we have a official result in the same day.
Elections for legislative branch was a problem too.
People wrote the name or a nickname of a candidate, or just swear.
A monkey (or another animal from a zoo, can't remember) was elected years ago as a prostest.
Buying votes is harder too.
They just took people who cant read and gave a paper already marked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932549</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1256930700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't think you need a print out to take with you - after all what exactly is it achieving? it won't be used in a recount. if it's deposited like a normal ballot you've achieved nothing. you certainly won't keep it and check that your vote has been recorded later on, since it's supposed to be a secret ballot remmeber, you don't want your name against how you voted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't think you need a print out to take with you - after all what exactly is it achieving ?
it wo n't be used in a recount .
if it 's deposited like a normal ballot you 've achieved nothing .
you certainly wo n't keep it and check that your vote has been recorded later on , since it 's supposed to be a secret ballot remmeber , you do n't want your name against how you voted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't think you need a print out to take with you - after all what exactly is it achieving?
it won't be used in a recount.
if it's deposited like a normal ballot you've achieved nothing.
you certainly won't keep it and check that your vote has been recorded later on, since it's supposed to be a secret ballot remmeber, you don't want your name against how you voted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933715</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>NeoStrider\_BZK</author>
	<datestamp>1256996880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I belive its much more a matter of logistics than security.<br>I work in the election system here in Brasil (ok, "Brazil"). It happens that Im a computer science student, but they take anyone "at random" and make them work that day or I would have to pay a fine. OTOH, I could, theoricly , take 2 days off. (ha! we live in capitalism. Of course I work as if I never had this 2 days off)</p><p>Now, getting to the point:<br>Working in the elections is a real hard work becouse you have to deal with a real big crowd , with lots of iliterate ( I live in Rio, so its not in my zone, but I know that in the big country, in north there are lots - In my zone, I actually get lots of judges and other pendantic important authorities , as I live in a sprawl). With paper voting, it would be a colossal work.<br>You guys must keep in mind that voting in Brazil is mandatory and you can lose a lot of granted rights if you dont vote.</p><p>I remember some 20 years ago, when I was just a kid playing my NES , when it was all paper and we had our first "trully democratic" election in 35 years after the military dictatiorship. My father and my aunt would have to drop their work for days only to work on counting the votes and everything was much more corruption and error prone. In fact, my father was once offered a bribe, but refused , as (--)pendatic as he is. With electronic voting,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen, fraud is harder.</p><p>There a brazillian adage that says: "it might be easier to take out the couch to get rid of termites, but its much better to Do The Right Thing (tm)" (or something along those lines...). Its not a matter of scrapping elec voting becouse its unsafe, but rather a matter of improving it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will stll belive we live in rain forrests<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,side by side with indians and monkeys and we have carnaval the whole year<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Belive us. We are hard working people (with a huge tax charge to pay)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I belive its much more a matter of logistics than security.I work in the election system here in Brasil ( ok , " Brazil " ) .
It happens that Im a computer science student , but they take anyone " at random " and make them work that day or I would have to pay a fine .
OTOH , I could , theoricly , take 2 days off .
( ha ! we live in capitalism .
Of course I work as if I never had this 2 days off ) Now , getting to the point : Working in the elections is a real hard work becouse you have to deal with a real big crowd , with lots of iliterate ( I live in Rio , so its not in my zone , but I know that in the big country , in north there are lots - In my zone , I actually get lots of judges and other pendantic important authorities , as I live in a sprawl ) .
With paper voting , it would be a colossal work.You guys must keep in mind that voting in Brazil is mandatory and you can lose a lot of granted rights if you dont vote.I remember some 20 years ago , when I was just a kid playing my NES , when it was all paper and we had our first " trully democratic " election in 35 years after the military dictatiorship .
My father and my aunt would have to drop their work for days only to work on counting the votes and everything was much more corruption and error prone .
In fact , my father was once offered a bribe , but refused , as ( -- ) pendatic as he is .
With electronic voting , ,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen , fraud is harder.There a brazillian adage that says : " it might be easier to take out the couch to get rid of termites , but its much better to Do The Right Thing ( tm ) " ( or something along those lines... ) .
Its not a matter of scrapping elec voting becouse its unsafe , but rather a matter of improving it .
Otherwise , the rest of the world will stll belive we live in rain forrests ,side by side with indians and monkeys and we have carnaval the whole year ; - ) Belive us .
We are hard working people ( with a huge tax charge to pay )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I belive its much more a matter of logistics than security.I work in the election system here in Brasil (ok, "Brazil").
It happens that Im a computer science student, but they take anyone "at random" and make them work that day or I would have to pay a fine.
OTOH, I could, theoricly , take 2 days off.
(ha! we live in capitalism.
Of course I work as if I never had this 2 days off)Now, getting to the point:Working in the elections is a real hard work becouse you have to deal with a real big crowd , with lots of iliterate ( I live in Rio, so its not in my zone, but I know that in the big country, in north there are lots - In my zone, I actually get lots of judges and other pendantic important authorities , as I live in a sprawl).
With paper voting, it would be a colossal work.You guys must keep in mind that voting in Brazil is mandatory and you can lose a lot of granted rights if you dont vote.I remember some 20 years ago, when I was just a kid playing my NES , when it was all paper and we had our first "trully democratic" election in 35 years after the military dictatiorship.
My father and my aunt would have to drop their work for days only to work on counting the votes and everything was much more corruption and error prone.
In fact, my father was once offered a bribe, but refused , as (--)pendatic as he is.
With electronic voting, ,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen, fraud is harder.There a brazillian adage that says: "it might be easier to take out the couch to get rid of termites, but its much better to Do The Right Thing (tm)" (or something along those lines...).
Its not a matter of scrapping elec voting becouse its unsafe, but rather a matter of improving it.
Otherwise, the rest of the world will stll belive we live in rain forrests ,side by side with indians and monkeys and we have carnaval the whole year ;-)Belive us.
We are hard working people (with a huge tax charge to pay)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29972000</id>
	<title>Re:A lesson taught to other countries</title>
	<author>marcobat</author>
	<datestamp>1257257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has always been the biggest problem with democracy, people don't always vote the way they are "supposed" to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has always been the biggest problem with democracy , people do n't always vote the way they are " supposed " to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has always been the biggest problem with democracy, people don't always vote the way they are "supposed" to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934219</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised nobody has implemented something that spits out a receipt that you can use to check online later that your vote is what you originally intended it to be. E.G. if the machines assign a random number to every voter card. Then a receipt is tied to that vote and given to the voter and if he/she fears of voting manipulation, they can go online and check their vote in a database that isn't tied to anything but the random number and what the person voted on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised nobody has implemented something that spits out a receipt that you can use to check online later that your vote is what you originally intended it to be .
E.G. if the machines assign a random number to every voter card .
Then a receipt is tied to that vote and given to the voter and if he/she fears of voting manipulation , they can go online and check their vote in a database that is n't tied to anything but the random number and what the person voted on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised nobody has implemented something that spits out a receipt that you can use to check online later that your vote is what you originally intended it to be.
E.G. if the machines assign a random number to every voter card.
Then a receipt is tied to that vote and given to the voter and if he/she fears of voting manipulation, they can go online and check their vote in a database that isn't tied to anything but the random number and what the person voted on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29996922</id>
	<title>Contest Reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This process is the result of a group asking that the code of the voting machines be released for public inspection. We all know how bad can security by obscurity be, and instead of releasing the source code for validation by all Brazilians they put this contest on as a show for marketing that the electronic voting is secure. This group that wants the souce code has met candidates that voted for themselves and ended up with no votes on the elections. So we can assume with a good probability that this voting machines has malicious or bugged software in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This process is the result of a group asking that the code of the voting machines be released for public inspection .
We all know how bad can security by obscurity be , and instead of releasing the source code for validation by all Brazilians they put this contest on as a show for marketing that the electronic voting is secure .
This group that wants the souce code has met candidates that voted for themselves and ended up with no votes on the elections .
So we can assume with a good probability that this voting machines has malicious or bugged software in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This process is the result of a group asking that the code of the voting machines be released for public inspection.
We all know how bad can security by obscurity be, and instead of releasing the source code for validation by all Brazilians they put this contest on as a show for marketing that the electronic voting is secure.
This group that wants the souce code has met candidates that voted for themselves and ended up with no votes on the elections.
So we can assume with a good probability that this voting machines has malicious or bugged software in them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932989</id>
	<title>But I can't verify the system... so it's useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care if you have a provably correct system (in the sense of a formal mathematical proof AND a code audit AND a hardware audit) because I cannot verify that that is the system I am indeed interacting with! On the other hand with paper and pencil I can easily verify that my vote was recorded correctly (did I make an X in the circle I wanted?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. yup.) and I can also EASILY verify that the vote is counted correctly (anyone is legally allowed to watch the count including people not affiliated with political parties, referred to as <a href="http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article\_search/article.asp?id=139&amp;lang=e&amp;frmPageSize=&amp;textonly=false" title="elections.ca">Electoral observation</a> [elections.ca]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if you have a provably correct system ( in the sense of a formal mathematical proof AND a code audit AND a hardware audit ) because I can not verify that that is the system I am indeed interacting with !
On the other hand with paper and pencil I can easily verify that my vote was recorded correctly ( did I make an X in the circle I wanted ?
.. yup .
) and I can also EASILY verify that the vote is counted correctly ( anyone is legally allowed to watch the count including people not affiliated with political parties , referred to as Electoral observation [ elections.ca ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if you have a provably correct system (in the sense of a formal mathematical proof AND a code audit AND a hardware audit) because I cannot verify that that is the system I am indeed interacting with!
On the other hand with paper and pencil I can easily verify that my vote was recorded correctly (did I make an X in the circle I wanted?
.. yup.
) and I can also EASILY verify that the vote is counted correctly (anyone is legally allowed to watch the count including people not affiliated with political parties, referred to as Electoral observation [elections.ca]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932357</id>
	<title>Re:Little bit more info...</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1256926860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd bring a hammer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd bring a hammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd bring a hammer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29941359</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1257087960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; In fact, my father was once offered a bribe, but refused , as (--)pendatic as he is. With electronic voting,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen, fraud is harder.</p><p>But where's your proof that fraud is harder? All I see is they have to bribe fewer people.</p><p>So far a number of Brazilians keep claiming that fraud is harder, but provide no proof at all. Just because reports of fraud are down does not mean fraud is harder or rarer - it could mean that fraud is harder to detect (which is normal for most electronic voting systems out there).</p><p>If there is no \_effective\_ penalty for offering bribes to counters like your father (e.g. nothing good happens even if your dad reports it, and maybe even bad stuff could happen), I don't see why an electronic system would make things better.</p><p>Unless perhaps the Brazilian election system is as verifiable as the system mentioned in the video I linked to ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s</a> [youtube.com] ). However even in that case, the voters could be bribed to lie and say stuff has been tampered with when they haven't.</p><p>In the Canadian and other systems, the counters count the paper votes in the \_open\_ in front of observers. In my country (Malaysia) the vote counters lift up the paper ballot to show it to observers. So far I think in my country the cheating probably comes mainly from postal votes. So there's a limit to the amount of rigging they can do (the ruling party actually lost control of a few states in the last election - they sure pissed off enough people). Of course there's gerrymandering too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In fact , my father was once offered a bribe , but refused , as ( -- ) pendatic as he is .
With electronic voting , ,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen , fraud is harder.But where 's your proof that fraud is harder ?
All I see is they have to bribe fewer people.So far a number of Brazilians keep claiming that fraud is harder , but provide no proof at all .
Just because reports of fraud are down does not mean fraud is harder or rarer - it could mean that fraud is harder to detect ( which is normal for most electronic voting systems out there ) .If there is no \ _effective \ _ penalty for offering bribes to counters like your father ( e.g .
nothing good happens even if your dad reports it , and maybe even bad stuff could happen ) , I do n't see why an electronic system would make things better.Unless perhaps the Brazilian election system is as verifiable as the system mentioned in the video I linked to ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ZDnShu5V99s [ youtube.com ] ) .
However even in that case , the voters could be bribed to lie and say stuff has been tampered with when they have n't.In the Canadian and other systems , the counters count the paper votes in the \ _open \ _ in front of observers .
In my country ( Malaysia ) the vote counters lift up the paper ballot to show it to observers .
So far I think in my country the cheating probably comes mainly from postal votes .
So there 's a limit to the amount of rigging they can do ( the ruling party actually lost control of a few states in the last election - they sure pissed off enough people ) .
Of course there 's gerrymandering too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; In fact, my father was once offered a bribe, but refused , as (--)pendatic as he is.
With electronic voting, ,the results come by the end of the election day and while it can happen, fraud is harder.But where's your proof that fraud is harder?
All I see is they have to bribe fewer people.So far a number of Brazilians keep claiming that fraud is harder, but provide no proof at all.
Just because reports of fraud are down does not mean fraud is harder or rarer - it could mean that fraud is harder to detect (which is normal for most electronic voting systems out there).If there is no \_effective\_ penalty for offering bribes to counters like your father (e.g.
nothing good happens even if your dad reports it, and maybe even bad stuff could happen), I don't see why an electronic system would make things better.Unless perhaps the Brazilian election system is as verifiable as the system mentioned in the video I linked to ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s [youtube.com] ).
However even in that case, the voters could be bribed to lie and say stuff has been tampered with when they haven't.In the Canadian and other systems, the counters count the paper votes in the \_open\_ in front of observers.
In my country (Malaysia) the vote counters lift up the paper ballot to show it to observers.
So far I think in my country the cheating probably comes mainly from postal votes.
So there's a limit to the amount of rigging they can do (the ruling party actually lost control of a few states in the last election - they sure pissed off enough people).
Of course there's gerrymandering too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932619</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1256932260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?</i></p><p>Seriously?</p><p>Can't speak to Brazil specifically, but the "popularity" of electronic voting, or more correctly, the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods, can be summed in two words:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging\_chad" title="wikipedia.org">hanging chad</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Those two words, in turn, gave rise to another infamous two words: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush" title="wikipedia.org">Bush v. Gore</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>The aftermath, described <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000\_United\_States\_presidential\_election#Aftermath" title="wikipedia.org">here</a> [wikipedia.org], included the passage of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help\_America\_Vote\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Help America Vote Act</a> [wikipedia.org] which, among other things, funded the purchase of electronic voting systems.</p><p>The rest happened in your state capitol.</p><p>If you don't reside in the US, you can be sure that your own elected representatives took note of what happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so " popular " .
Why do the people in charge keep promoting it ? Seriously ? Ca n't speak to Brazil specifically , but the " popularity " of electronic voting , or more correctly , the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods , can be summed in two words : hanging chad [ wikipedia.org ] .Those two words , in turn , gave rise to another infamous two words : Bush v. Gore [ wikipedia.org ] .The aftermath , described here [ wikipedia.org ] , included the passage of the Help America Vote Act [ wikipedia.org ] which , among other things , funded the purchase of electronic voting systems.The rest happened in your state capitol.If you do n't reside in the US , you can be sure that your own elected representatives took note of what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular".
Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?Seriously?Can't speak to Brazil specifically, but the "popularity" of electronic voting, or more correctly, the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods, can be summed in two words:  hanging chad [wikipedia.org].Those two words, in turn, gave rise to another infamous two words: Bush v. Gore [wikipedia.org].The aftermath, described here [wikipedia.org], included the passage of the Help America Vote Act [wikipedia.org] which, among other things, funded the purchase of electronic voting systems.The rest happened in your state capitol.If you don't reside in the US, you can be sure that your own elected representatives took note of what happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933037</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This argument gets trotted out every time electronic voting comes up.  However, it's a straw man.  You have no verfiability with paper ballots, so why do you expect it with electronic voting?  As they say "Voting decides nothing, those who count the votes decide everything". <br>
&nbsp; <br>I invite you to educate yourself.  Take a look at the election results for any election in the last 10 years that included a recount.  Why are the numbers different?  What verification do you have that your vote was counted correctly, or for that matter, at all?  NONE.  At least with an electronic system, if the machine checks out, then you know the results are perfect.  Period.  Any decent programmer can write the recording/tabulating software to be simple and secure, add in a bit of disk security and read only access from anything other than the TCP mainboard and Bingo, 100\% accurate results every time.  <br>
&nbsp; <br>In fact, it's so simple it's downright trivial.  Which begs the question, WTF is wrong with you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This argument gets trotted out every time electronic voting comes up .
However , it 's a straw man .
You have no verfiability with paper ballots , so why do you expect it with electronic voting ?
As they say " Voting decides nothing , those who count the votes decide everything " .
  I invite you to educate yourself .
Take a look at the election results for any election in the last 10 years that included a recount .
Why are the numbers different ?
What verification do you have that your vote was counted correctly , or for that matter , at all ?
NONE. At least with an electronic system , if the machine checks out , then you know the results are perfect .
Period. Any decent programmer can write the recording/tabulating software to be simple and secure , add in a bit of disk security and read only access from anything other than the TCP mainboard and Bingo , 100 \ % accurate results every time .
  In fact , it 's so simple it 's downright trivial .
Which begs the question , WTF is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This argument gets trotted out every time electronic voting comes up.
However, it's a straw man.
You have no verfiability with paper ballots, so why do you expect it with electronic voting?
As they say "Voting decides nothing, those who count the votes decide everything".
  I invite you to educate yourself.
Take a look at the election results for any election in the last 10 years that included a recount.
Why are the numbers different?
What verification do you have that your vote was counted correctly, or for that matter, at all?
NONE.  At least with an electronic system, if the machine checks out, then you know the results are perfect.
Period.  Any decent programmer can write the recording/tabulating software to be simple and secure, add in a bit of disk security and read only access from anything other than the TCP mainboard and Bingo, 100\% accurate results every time.
  In fact, it's so simple it's downright trivial.
Which begs the question, WTF is wrong with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932979</id>
	<title>Re:Lets do it here, too.</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1256983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like this idea. Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure, let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it.</p></div><p>All it will prove is that these machines are hard to hack for outsiders. But the number one threat is that of insiders; mainly the government in place (who has most to lose in an election) and corrupt programmers at the company making the voting computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this idea .
Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure , let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it.All it will prove is that these machines are hard to hack for outsiders .
But the number one threat is that of insiders ; mainly the government in place ( who has most to lose in an election ) and corrupt programmers at the company making the voting computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this idea.
Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure, let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it.All it will prove is that these machines are hard to hack for outsiders.
But the number one threat is that of insiders; mainly the government in place (who has most to lose in an election) and corrupt programmers at the company making the voting computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932463</id>
	<title>Re:Hack the judges</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256928960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any voting system will have risk due to human judges- this test will hopefully prove that electronic voting (on Brazilian machines) has no additional openings. If this works for Brazil, American companies have no excuse not to let us do the same to their machines (not that it will likely happen anyways). In any case this sounds great and I wish more governments would do things like this to prove trustworthiness rather than expect everyone to trust the government baselessly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any voting system will have risk due to human judges- this test will hopefully prove that electronic voting ( on Brazilian machines ) has no additional openings .
If this works for Brazil , American companies have no excuse not to let us do the same to their machines ( not that it will likely happen anyways ) .
In any case this sounds great and I wish more governments would do things like this to prove trustworthiness rather than expect everyone to trust the government baselessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any voting system will have risk due to human judges- this test will hopefully prove that electronic voting (on Brazilian machines) has no additional openings.
If this works for Brazil, American companies have no excuse not to let us do the same to their machines (not that it will likely happen anyways).
In any case this sounds great and I wish more governments would do things like this to prove trustworthiness rather than expect everyone to trust the government baselessly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932959</id>
	<title>You FAIL It?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">though, I have to head spiining</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>though , I have to head spiining [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>though, I have to head spiining [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932329</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256926440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simplist explanation is that corruption is the problem not the technical aspects of these voting machines.  These errors wouldn't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason...  That's the only real way to clean up the corruption; get the public to put real pressure on the entities involved in the voting process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simplist explanation is that corruption is the problem not the technical aspects of these voting machines .
These errors would n't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason... That 's the only real way to clean up the corruption ; get the public to put real pressure on the entities involved in the voting process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simplist explanation is that corruption is the problem not the technical aspects of these voting machines.
These errors wouldn't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason...  That's the only real way to clean up the corruption; get the public to put real pressure on the entities involved in the voting process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933177</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256987460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't the first civilization which is a sucker for shiny new things. Electronic voting is a fundamentally flawed concept. Its fault is not a discrepancy between specification and implementation of the technology, but a discrepancy between the required properties and the specification. But it's shiny and new, so people will eventually fall for it, and go down with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't the first civilization which is a sucker for shiny new things .
Electronic voting is a fundamentally flawed concept .
Its fault is not a discrepancy between specification and implementation of the technology , but a discrepancy between the required properties and the specification .
But it 's shiny and new , so people will eventually fall for it , and go down with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't the first civilization which is a sucker for shiny new things.
Electronic voting is a fundamentally flawed concept.
Its fault is not a discrepancy between specification and implementation of the technology, but a discrepancy between the required properties and the specification.
But it's shiny and new, so people will eventually fall for it, and go down with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932401</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1256927700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verifiability. And that is almost impossible if you don't provide a printout. All the solutions that provide a printout could succeed though, for example <a href="http://www.bingovoting.de/" title="bingovoting.de">Bingo voting</a> [bingovoting.de] or <a href="http://www.punchscan.org/" title="punchscan.org">Punchscan</a> [punchscan.org].<br>So far companies such as Diebold sell "we know this is 100\% secure, trust us" and that seems to be what sufficed for the people choosing a product. Cost, loss of democracy and provable security haven't been a criterion it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verifiability .
And that is almost impossible if you do n't provide a printout .
All the solutions that provide a printout could succeed though , for example Bingo voting [ bingovoting.de ] or Punchscan [ punchscan.org ] .So far companies such as Diebold sell " we know this is 100 \ % secure , trust us " and that seems to be what sufficed for the people choosing a product .
Cost , loss of democracy and provable security have n't been a criterion it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verifiability.
And that is almost impossible if you don't provide a printout.
All the solutions that provide a printout could succeed though, for example Bingo voting [bingovoting.de] or Punchscan [punchscan.org].So far companies such as Diebold sell "we know this is 100\% secure, trust us" and that seems to be what sufficed for the people choosing a product.
Cost, loss of democracy and provable security haven't been a criterion it seems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932551</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>geantvert</author>
	<datestamp>1256930700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A huge problems with the flat log file is that it breaks the secrecy. If you know the order of the voters you can easily figure out who voted what.</p><p>A better solution could be to print or select a ballot paper and have it sent into a ballot box after visual verification by the voter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge problems with the flat log file is that it breaks the secrecy .
If you know the order of the voters you can easily figure out who voted what.A better solution could be to print or select a ballot paper and have it sent into a ballot box after visual verification by the voter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge problems with the flat log file is that it breaks the secrecy.
If you know the order of the voters you can easily figure out who voted what.A better solution could be to print or select a ballot paper and have it sent into a ballot box after visual verification by the voter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934727</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1257005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address [...] gerrymandering</p></div><p>In case anyone doubts gerrymandering still happens: <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&amp;district=17" title="govtrack.us">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&amp;district=17</a> [govtrack.us] and <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&amp;district=4" title="govtrack.us">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&amp;district=4</a> [govtrack.us].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address [ ... ] gerrymanderingIn case anyone doubts gerrymandering still happens : http : //www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd ? state = IL&amp;district = 17 [ govtrack.us ] and http : //www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd ? state = IL&amp;district = 4 [ govtrack.us ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address [...] gerrymanderingIn case anyone doubts gerrymandering still happens: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&amp;district=17 [govtrack.us] and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&amp;district=4 [govtrack.us].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29935799</id>
	<title>Pehaps it's worse in America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257015840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electronic voting seems to be a success in India (simple electronic box) in Brazil and in other places.</p><p>I suspect the machines are popular and corrupt because of the people in power when they were implemented.</p><p>I can't say much more because this site does not allow politics.</p><p>thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electronic voting seems to be a success in India ( simple electronic box ) in Brazil and in other places.I suspect the machines are popular and corrupt because of the people in power when they were implemented.I ca n't say much more because this site does not allow politics.thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electronic voting seems to be a success in India (simple electronic box) in Brazil and in other places.I suspect the machines are popular and corrupt because of the people in power when they were implemented.I can't say much more because this site does not allow politics.thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932265</id>
	<title>Really quite an accomplishment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256925300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously one of the ten teams who figured they could hack a 'brazilian' voting machines in 'one hour', kudos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously one of the ten teams who figured they could hack a 'brazilian ' voting machines in 'one hour ' , kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously one of the ten teams who figured they could hack a 'brazilian' voting machines in 'one hour', kudos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471</id>
	<title>Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256929080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?</p><p>Most electronic voting systems are bad at a very important requirement:</p><p>Convincing the loser (and enough of his supporters) that he lost.</p><p>The system doesn't just have to work correctly, it has to be accepted as working correctly (enough).</p><p>With various fancy cryptography and systems it is possible to have an electronic system that is anonymous, verifiable and reasonably secure (see: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s</a> [youtube.com] for ideas on how this could be done), but as far as I can tell, they're not going for such systems.</p><p>So why not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open? That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote. It's simple enough to understand. While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.</p><p>That paper based system may take a bit more time, but it scales reasonably well - the more voters there are, the more volunteers there should be for counting. I'm assuming that it's not a case where too many of the citizens either can't count or are too lazy to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so " popular " .
Why do the people in charge keep promoting it ? Most electronic voting systems are bad at a very important requirement : Convincing the loser ( and enough of his supporters ) that he lost.The system does n't just have to work correctly , it has to be accepted as working correctly ( enough ) .With various fancy cryptography and systems it is possible to have an electronic system that is anonymous , verifiable and reasonably secure ( see : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ZDnShu5V99s [ youtube.com ] for ideas on how this could be done ) , but as far as I can tell , they 're not going for such systems.So why not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open ?
That way the eventual loser 's representatives , 3rd party observers , various other people can observe every count of each vote .
It 's simple enough to understand .
While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff , most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.That paper based system may take a bit more time , but it scales reasonably well - the more voters there are , the more volunteers there should be for counting .
I 'm assuming that it 's not a case where too many of the citizens either ca n't count or are too lazy to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular".
Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?Most electronic voting systems are bad at a very important requirement:Convincing the loser (and enough of his supporters) that he lost.The system doesn't just have to work correctly, it has to be accepted as working correctly (enough).With various fancy cryptography and systems it is possible to have an electronic system that is anonymous, verifiable and reasonably secure (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s [youtube.com] for ideas on how this could be done), but as far as I can tell, they're not going for such systems.So why not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open?
That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote.
It's simple enough to understand.
While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.That paper based system may take a bit more time, but it scales reasonably well - the more voters there are, the more volunteers there should be for counting.
I'm assuming that it's not a case where too many of the citizens either can't count or are too lazy to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938325</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256997720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ATMs aren't secret ballots. You know what money comes out, and you see your bank statement afterwards. With any electronic device, you have no idea what happens to your vote. Even a small alteration in the chip or a couple of characters in the code could change everything, and no-one would know about it.</p><p>Paper ballots placed into clear boxes is the simplest and best way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ATMs are n't secret ballots .
You know what money comes out , and you see your bank statement afterwards .
With any electronic device , you have no idea what happens to your vote .
Even a small alteration in the chip or a couple of characters in the code could change everything , and no-one would know about it.Paper ballots placed into clear boxes is the simplest and best way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATMs aren't secret ballots.
You know what money comes out, and you see your bank statement afterwards.
With any electronic device, you have no idea what happens to your vote.
Even a small alteration in the chip or a couple of characters in the code could change everything, and no-one would know about it.Paper ballots placed into clear boxes is the simplest and best way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933675</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is complete missing the point. Sure, if they are cracked, there is a problem. But if they aren't, they will be labelled as some kind of secure system. Which they aren't.</p><p>Why? Because the team that poses the largest risk won't be participating. That is, the team that has the CEO of the company making the machines, and at least one of the developers. Can they change the results? Definitely. Without their work, the results would be zero. Do we trust them? Absolutely not. People are susceptible to at least one major attack. It's called "money".</p><p>That's the biggest risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is complete missing the point .
Sure , if they are cracked , there is a problem .
But if they are n't , they will be labelled as some kind of secure system .
Which they are n't.Why ?
Because the team that poses the largest risk wo n't be participating .
That is , the team that has the CEO of the company making the machines , and at least one of the developers .
Can they change the results ?
Definitely. Without their work , the results would be zero .
Do we trust them ?
Absolutely not .
People are susceptible to at least one major attack .
It 's called " money " .That 's the biggest risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is complete missing the point.
Sure, if they are cracked, there is a problem.
But if they aren't, they will be labelled as some kind of secure system.
Which they aren't.Why?
Because the team that poses the largest risk won't be participating.
That is, the team that has the CEO of the company making the machines, and at least one of the developers.
Can they change the results?
Definitely. Without their work, the results would be zero.
Do we trust them?
Absolutely not.
People are susceptible to at least one major attack.
It's called "money".That's the biggest risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938981</id>
	<title>Re:Why is electronic voting so "popular"?</title>
	<author>Velex</author>
	<datestamp>1257005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods, can be summed in two words: hanging chad.</p></div><p>
I can't stand this false dilemma.  I rather prefer a certain optical scanner method.  There are several pairs of triangles, one pair for each candidate.  You take a black, permanent marker (not a No. 2 pencil, mind you) and connect the pair of triangles next to the candidate you want.  It doesn't get simpler.  The optical scanner provides a real-time tally, and the votes are trivially recounted.
</p><p>
Now, granted, there will always be people who screw it up.  If you figured out how to solve PEBKAC, let me know.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods , can be summed in two words : hanging chad .
I ca n't stand this false dilemma .
I rather prefer a certain optical scanner method .
There are several pairs of triangles , one pair for each candidate .
You take a black , permanent marker ( not a No .
2 pencil , mind you ) and connect the pair of triangles next to the candidate you want .
It does n't get simpler .
The optical scanner provides a real-time tally , and the votes are trivially recounted .
Now , granted , there will always be people who screw it up .
If you figured out how to solve PEBKAC , let me know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods, can be summed in two words: hanging chad.
I can't stand this false dilemma.
I rather prefer a certain optical scanner method.
There are several pairs of triangles, one pair for each candidate.
You take a black, permanent marker (not a No.
2 pencil, mind you) and connect the pair of triangles next to the candidate you want.
It doesn't get simpler.
The optical scanner provides a real-time tally, and the votes are trivially recounted.
Now, granted, there will always be people who screw it up.
If you figured out how to solve PEBKAC, let me know.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934661</id>
	<title>Why we generally trust the electronic voting</title>
	<author>jsveiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- You OUGHT to vote if you are a Brazilian citizen between 18 and 70, and is not illiterate. You get in a lot of trouble if you don't.<br>- You don't register for avery election; you have a "voting ID" valid for every public election.<br>- You have to vote in a specific designated place (noted in your "voting ID"), generally the closest voting section from the address you provided when getting your "voting ID". If you are away, you have to justify the absence (preferably on a mail office, at the election day)<br>- Election happens in one day, throughout the country (there may be 2-phase elections, for example for mayor, governor or president, when in the 1st phase the winner does not get more than 50\% of the votes - oh, yes, we DIRECTLY vote for president - every citizen's vote has the same "weight").<br>- Although the voting machine is electronic, when you get to the voting section there are PAPER books with all voters for that section listed, and your ID is checked against that. You sign the book and get a "receipt" detached from it (you have to prove you voted, as it is a legal obligation).</p><p>Soo, the electoral authority "knows" how many votes should appear in the results. Generally we do not have Disney characters, dead people, etc. voting, nor people voting in several electoral sections.</p><p>As far as I can remember, results have matched the pre-election polls (from multiple sources) quite well. Generally people know in advance what the result will be from each city or even city area, and that can be seen in real time as the electronic counting unfolds at election night (yes, we generally get most results in the night of the election day). I can't recall results being seriously contested by the losing parties  (we have MANY parties).</p><p>Results are manipulated by "social engineering": Sending buses/boats to collect people from remote locations for voting in "exchange" for voting, trading dental treatment promises, money, death threats, etc. Illegal too, but easier and more difficult to trace than manipulating after the votes were cast.</p><p>I trust that there are so many crooks in politics in my country that if a party found a way to manipulate the results after elections, there would be so many me-too-or-else-I'll-tell that it would spread like a wildfire and the results would be awkward enough to be laughable. It is a self-regulating system. If a hacker found a way to manipulate the results, he would not stop at selling the method to one single candidate. I believe the same applies for other voting methods (except the ones which allow Mickey Mouse to register, of course) - it is not the system itself that prevents fraud, but the fact that fraud works both ways, and that the result is not a complete surprise.</p><p>In recent international elections you can see in the news that if the results do not match what the population though it would be, it is noticed at once, and people get to the streets (sometimes there wasn't even a fraud, it's just that some people won't accept the losing). It hasn't happened here so far, so we still trust the way it's been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- You OUGHT to vote if you are a Brazilian citizen between 18 and 70 , and is not illiterate .
You get in a lot of trouble if you do n't.- You do n't register for avery election ; you have a " voting ID " valid for every public election.- You have to vote in a specific designated place ( noted in your " voting ID " ) , generally the closest voting section from the address you provided when getting your " voting ID " .
If you are away , you have to justify the absence ( preferably on a mail office , at the election day ) - Election happens in one day , throughout the country ( there may be 2-phase elections , for example for mayor , governor or president , when in the 1st phase the winner does not get more than 50 \ % of the votes - oh , yes , we DIRECTLY vote for president - every citizen 's vote has the same " weight " ) .- Although the voting machine is electronic , when you get to the voting section there are PAPER books with all voters for that section listed , and your ID is checked against that .
You sign the book and get a " receipt " detached from it ( you have to prove you voted , as it is a legal obligation ) .Soo , the electoral authority " knows " how many votes should appear in the results .
Generally we do not have Disney characters , dead people , etc .
voting , nor people voting in several electoral sections.As far as I can remember , results have matched the pre-election polls ( from multiple sources ) quite well .
Generally people know in advance what the result will be from each city or even city area , and that can be seen in real time as the electronic counting unfolds at election night ( yes , we generally get most results in the night of the election day ) .
I ca n't recall results being seriously contested by the losing parties ( we have MANY parties ) .Results are manipulated by " social engineering " : Sending buses/boats to collect people from remote locations for voting in " exchange " for voting , trading dental treatment promises , money , death threats , etc .
Illegal too , but easier and more difficult to trace than manipulating after the votes were cast.I trust that there are so many crooks in politics in my country that if a party found a way to manipulate the results after elections , there would be so many me-too-or-else-I 'll-tell that it would spread like a wildfire and the results would be awkward enough to be laughable .
It is a self-regulating system .
If a hacker found a way to manipulate the results , he would not stop at selling the method to one single candidate .
I believe the same applies for other voting methods ( except the ones which allow Mickey Mouse to register , of course ) - it is not the system itself that prevents fraud , but the fact that fraud works both ways , and that the result is not a complete surprise.In recent international elections you can see in the news that if the results do not match what the population though it would be , it is noticed at once , and people get to the streets ( sometimes there was n't even a fraud , it 's just that some people wo n't accept the losing ) .
It has n't happened here so far , so we still trust the way it 's been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- You OUGHT to vote if you are a Brazilian citizen between 18 and 70, and is not illiterate.
You get in a lot of trouble if you don't.- You don't register for avery election; you have a "voting ID" valid for every public election.- You have to vote in a specific designated place (noted in your "voting ID"), generally the closest voting section from the address you provided when getting your "voting ID".
If you are away, you have to justify the absence (preferably on a mail office, at the election day)- Election happens in one day, throughout the country (there may be 2-phase elections, for example for mayor, governor or president, when in the 1st phase the winner does not get more than 50\% of the votes - oh, yes, we DIRECTLY vote for president - every citizen's vote has the same "weight").- Although the voting machine is electronic, when you get to the voting section there are PAPER books with all voters for that section listed, and your ID is checked against that.
You sign the book and get a "receipt" detached from it (you have to prove you voted, as it is a legal obligation).Soo, the electoral authority "knows" how many votes should appear in the results.
Generally we do not have Disney characters, dead people, etc.
voting, nor people voting in several electoral sections.As far as I can remember, results have matched the pre-election polls (from multiple sources) quite well.
Generally people know in advance what the result will be from each city or even city area, and that can be seen in real time as the electronic counting unfolds at election night (yes, we generally get most results in the night of the election day).
I can't recall results being seriously contested by the losing parties  (we have MANY parties).Results are manipulated by "social engineering": Sending buses/boats to collect people from remote locations for voting in "exchange" for voting, trading dental treatment promises, money, death threats, etc.
Illegal too, but easier and more difficult to trace than manipulating after the votes were cast.I trust that there are so many crooks in politics in my country that if a party found a way to manipulate the results after elections, there would be so many me-too-or-else-I'll-tell that it would spread like a wildfire and the results would be awkward enough to be laughable.
It is a self-regulating system.
If a hacker found a way to manipulate the results, he would not stop at selling the method to one single candidate.
I believe the same applies for other voting methods (except the ones which allow Mickey Mouse to register, of course) - it is not the system itself that prevents fraud, but the fact that fraud works both ways, and that the result is not a complete surprise.In recent international elections you can see in the news that if the results do not match what the population though it would be, it is noticed at once, and people get to the streets (sometimes there wasn't even a fraud, it's just that some people won't accept the losing).
It hasn't happened here so far, so we still trust the way it's been done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932997</id>
	<title>Re:Possible false sense of security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shush. Making the system appear secure is the point of the contest. Not finding a flaw does not mean there is no flaw, or we would all ship flawless systems. The purpose of hacking contests is therefore marketing and marketing alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shush .
Making the system appear secure is the point of the contest .
Not finding a flaw does not mean there is no flaw , or we would all ship flawless systems .
The purpose of hacking contests is therefore marketing and marketing alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shush.
Making the system appear secure is the point of the contest.
Not finding a flaw does not mean there is no flaw, or we would all ship flawless systems.
The purpose of hacking contests is therefore marketing and marketing alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938079</id>
	<title>Inner enemy / Stalin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The major point is that the hackers dont know the inner details, so the worst enemy is someone from inside that could sell this kind of information. If all the source and hardware specs are public in the internet, ok. But it isnt, so....<br>Another point. Stalin said: "t is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything". Go after the counting software. The software that receives all the information and consolidate maybe more crucial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The major point is that the hackers dont know the inner details , so the worst enemy is someone from inside that could sell this kind of information .
If all the source and hardware specs are public in the internet , ok. But it isnt , so....Another point .
Stalin said : " t is enough that the people know there was an election .
The people who cast the votes decide nothing .
The people who count the votes decide everything " .
Go after the counting software .
The software that receives all the information and consolidate maybe more crucial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major point is that the hackers dont know the inner details, so the worst enemy is someone from inside that could sell this kind of information.
If all the source and hardware specs are public in the internet, ok. But it isnt, so....Another point.
Stalin said: "t is enough that the people know there was an election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything".
Go after the counting software.
The software that receives all the information and consolidate maybe more crucial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932581</id>
	<title>Lets do it here, too.</title>
	<author>SeaFox</author>
	<datestamp>1256931240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like this idea. Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure, let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it. If their machine's security depends on nobody being allowed to even try then it's all theater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this idea .
Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure , let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it .
If their machine 's security depends on nobody being allowed to even try then it 's all theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this idea.
Voting systems corporations claim their solution is accurate and secure, let them put their money where their mouth is and let people try and crack it.
If their machine's security depends on nobody being allowed to even try then it's all theater.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932559</id>
	<title>Possible false sense of security</title>
	<author>Beryllium Sphere(tm)</author>
	<datestamp>1256930820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the machines "pass" this contest?</p><p>A real attack would likely involve more than a few days of effort, and might well have access to inside information not available to the red teams in the contest.</p><p>If nobody breaks in, that will prove very little about the security of the machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the machines " pass " this contest ? A real attack would likely involve more than a few days of effort , and might well have access to inside information not available to the red teams in the contest.If nobody breaks in , that will prove very little about the security of the machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the machines "pass" this contest?A real attack would likely involve more than a few days of effort, and might well have access to inside information not available to the red teams in the contest.If nobody breaks in, that will prove very little about the security of the machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932259</id>
	<title>This makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256925240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't something like this happen in the States?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't something like this happen in the States ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't something like this happen in the States?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932281</id>
	<title>Re:Little bit more info...</title>
	<author>korogorov</author>
	<datestamp>1256925660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And there is even a bounty of a little more than USD$2000,00 paid by the government to the team that gets closer to the goal.</p></div><p>$800 is barely a little</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there is even a bounty of a little more than USD $ 2000,00 paid by the government to the team that gets closer to the goal. $ 800 is barely a little</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there is even a bounty of a little more than USD$2000,00 paid by the government to the team that gets closer to the goal.$800 is barely a little
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933097</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1256985780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These errors wouldn't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason...</p></div><p>When an ATM machine makes a mistake they very quickly see the result of it on their bank statement. So yes, they then get upset.

</p><p>When a voting machine makes a mistake, someone still gets elected with no one the wiser (unless the error was huge like more votes than voters). So since nobody knows the machines made a mistake (or were hacked) nobody cares or is upset.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These errors would n't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason...When an ATM machine makes a mistake they very quickly see the result of it on their bank statement .
So yes , they then get upset .
When a voting machine makes a mistake , someone still gets elected with no one the wiser ( unless the error was huge like more votes than voters ) .
So since nobody knows the machines made a mistake ( or were hacked ) nobody cares or is upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These errors wouldn't be tolerated with ATM machines because the public seems to care a lot more if their bank account is fraked with but not so much their vote for some reason...When an ATM machine makes a mistake they very quickly see the result of it on their bank statement.
So yes, they then get upset.
When a voting machine makes a mistake, someone still gets elected with no one the wiser (unless the error was huge like more votes than voters).
So since nobody knows the machines made a mistake (or were hacked) nobody cares or is upset.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932339</id>
	<title>Re:why is electronic voting so hard?</title>
	<author>pengin9</author>
	<datestamp>1256926620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

The problem is of course that people don't trust that the code will work.

I get asked all the time, "how do you know it will work" because I freaking wrote it to work. Humans may have issues counting, but computers got that down pretty well. I think we can trust them to do a simple calculation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is of course that people do n't trust that the code will work .
I get asked all the time , " how do you know it will work " because I freaking wrote it to work .
Humans may have issues counting , but computers got that down pretty well .
I think we can trust them to do a simple calculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

The problem is of course that people don't trust that the code will work.
I get asked all the time, "how do you know it will work" because I freaking wrote it to work.
Humans may have issues counting, but computers got that down pretty well.
I think we can trust them to do a simple calculation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932849</id>
	<title>Re:Little bit more info...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are plenty of programmers in the U.S. who know how to write secure code. The "security faults" of U.S. voting machines are apparently there to hide the fact that elections are being manipulated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of programmers in the U.S. who know how to write secure code .
The " security faults " of U.S. voting machines are apparently there to hide the fact that elections are being manipulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of programmers in the U.S. who know how to write secure code.
The "security faults" of U.S. voting machines are apparently there to hide the fact that elections are being manipulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29939893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29935539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29941359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29937199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_0120223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29972000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29935539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29939893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29972000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29937199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932619
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29938981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933021
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933715
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29941359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29932957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29933073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_0120223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_0120223.29934661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
