4 ms·

Everyone who is in cybersecurity or computer science says no, this is a terrible idea. The primary reason for not having a paper trail is so you or someone else

Everyone who is in cybersecurity or computer science says no, this is a terrible idea. The primary reason for not having a paper trail is so you or someone else can change results and not be caught. Cf. Georgia clearing its election server and degaussing its backups 3 times each when subpoenaed. [0] [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/days-after-activists-sued-georgias-election-server-was-wiped-clean/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/days-after-activ...

SkyMarshal 8y ago
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with OP? Sounds like you're disagreeing at first, but your example seems to agree.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago
  He is corroborating and elaborating. All agreement. The example fits the thesis.
ComputerGuru 8y ago
I don’t think your referenced case has anything to do with the technology. That is clear and obvious subversion of the law and destruction of evidence. If it were paper ballots instead, they could put in place “safety” and “privacy” “environmentally friendly” procedures to shred all paper trails just as easily. Laws aren’t worth a damn if you’re not willing to enforce them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 8y ago
  If I may, I'd like to offer a different perspective. In my job as a prosecutor, something I see over and over again is juries wanting to believe the defendant, even when their story isn't credible. If you have a likeable defendant and there's any doubt, reasonable or not, juries will acquit. So when the little old lady government worker who could be your grandmother says that she was just doing what she thought she was supposed to and golly gee she doesn't understand this whiz-bang computer stuff ("They keep talking about digital evidence, and I just feel hopeless putting up my defense... I don't even know what digital evidence is!")... it's very hard to convince a jury it was intentional. Shredding paper ballots is a lot more of a compelling narrative to put in front of a panel.
  - ynniv 8y ago
    Exactly. Destroying those drives was spun as "oops we made a mistake". It's a lot easier to believe that someone accidentally erased a drive, even three times, than that someone accidentally destroyed millions of sheets of paper.
    - acct1771 8y ago
      Yet another example of how we've become enslaved by letting people wander around without understanding technology that makes their world run daily.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Shredded paper can't be recycled - at least around the Seattle region. But it makes great compost.

SkyMarshal 8y ago

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with OP? Sounds like you're disagreeing at first, but your example seems to agree.

nothrabannosir 8y ago
He is corroborating and elaborating. All agreement. The example fits the thesis.

ComputerGuru 8y ago

I don’t think your referenced case has anything to do with the technology. That is clear and obvious subversion of the law and destruction of evidence. If it were paper ballots instead, they could put in place “safety” and “privacy” “environmentally friendly” procedures to shred all paper trails just as easily. Laws aren’t worth a damn if you’re not willing to enforce them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 8y ago
If I may, I'd like to offer a different perspective. In my job as a prosecutor, something I see over and over again is juries wanting to believe the defendant, even when their story isn't credible. If you have a likeable defendant and there's any doubt, reasonable or not, juries will acquit. So when the little old lady government worker who could be your grandmother says that she was just doing what she thought she was supposed to and golly gee she doesn't understand this whiz-bang computer stuff ("They keep talking about digital evidence, and I just feel hopeless putting up my defense... I don't even know what digital evidence is!")... it's very hard to convince a jury it was intentional. Shredding paper ballots is a lot more of a compelling narrative to put in front of a panel.
- ynniv 8y ago
  Exactly. Destroying those drives was spun as "oops we made a mistake". It's a lot easier to believe that someone accidentally erased a drive, even three times, than that someone accidentally destroyed millions of sheets of paper.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Yet another example of how we've become enslaved by letting people wander around without understanding technology that makes their world run daily.
stephengillie 8y ago
Shredded paper can't be recycled - at least around the Seattle region. But it makes great compost.