5 ms·
In your example it worked: a volunteer pointed it out. The volunteer probably would not have been able to with e-vote. Who has the skill to be able to assess s
by sametmax 8y ago
In your example it worked: a volunteer pointed it out. The volunteer probably would not have been able to with e-vote.
Who has the skill to be able to assess such a system ? And among those, who has the time ?
I've been a programmer for 15 years and I'm pretty sure I would not be able to look at such a system and feel confident there is no error. And definitly not in the reasonable time period required for voting.
- paulhilbert 8y agoThis exactly - complete recountability and the fact that there actually are independent volunteers recounting are the only assurances of a transparent, legitimate voting system. Black boxes (and computer systems by their nature are black boxes) introduced into this system will always void its transparency.
- godelski 8y ago> In your example it worked: a volunteer pointed it out. The volunteer probably would not have been able to with e-vote. I believe the parent's example was to show that it was missed by the system that was intended to catch it. That the catch in itself was a fluke, lucky. It should bring into question "How many times have we missed and not caught it?" not "Well it worked this time, it must always work." In fact, we can only recognize cases if we catch them. Therefore it is confirmation bias to use this example as a "proof of it working". It can only serve as an example of "We have caught failures in the system" and suggest that we should be wary of others existing (neither proving nor disproving fault in the system).
- sametmax 8y agoWe can't know how many, but we know it's possible. For e-vote, i'm not sure it's possible. Hell, i can't tell with certainty my own laptop is clean.