I'd prob vote for Trump too if I were a voter

[hide][/hide]

Just for the lulz

 

I'm glad you're not a voter.

I'll start following politics when I want to start getting outraged about things which I have no control over :P

Regarding online voting, here in Estonia pretty much everyone has 256-bit encrypted physical ID-cards that have to be inserted to a card reader connected to the computer you are voting from.

For outside attacks, there ain't powerful machines yet to decrypt the data and it is absolutely anonymous for everyone.

 

The system has been compromised since it's beginning in 2008, but subsequent releases of higher encryption and bug fixes have made the system pretty freaking reliable. The software looks shitty as hell, since it has been the same thing already from like 2005 earliest versions, but it works.

 

I'd prob vote for Trump too if I were a voter

^

In a Hillary vs Trump battle I absolutely prefer Trump. Trump is scum don't get me wrong but so is Hillary and at least Goldman Sachs can't count on deals from him.

 

But I don't think the person who plays the role of president matters much.

 

Most domestic policies happen when the overwhelming majority of people support it and it sticks around until the overwhelming majority don't support it.

Most of foreign policy is explainable by state behavior instead of specific actors

And the president really does have minimal impact on the economy

 

The president has quite a bit more power than you seem to think. He is literally the highest authority in the most powerful military in the world (by orders of magnitude) as commander-in-chief. He has a major role in the legislation process (because of vetoes), which includes the budget and other important issues. The ability to appoint justices to the Supreme Court shapes policy for decades. There are also many of the executive agencies under direct control of the president, from the EPA to the NSA. A president that has no legislative successes could still push through immense improvements across the board as a result.

 

Hillary Clinton would be a far more stable president than Trump. Although I disagree with her politicking and her character, she is a safe bet at the end of the day to at least continue the slow regressive policies. She would be no worse (and no better) than Obama, Bush, or most any of the last other few presidents. There is no guarantee with Trump. What he will do, what he believes--they're all completely unknown.

 

To be precise, I support Sanders. But there is little further to the left than my (idealistic) views when it comes to a worldview or set of policies or ethics or so on. For example, individual responsibility is an illusion--we are all subjects to uncontrollable processes (external and internal) and are little better thank thinking machines. As a result, even the most horrible criminals are also victims of the cause-and-effect natural, social, economic, political, etc forces. We should then look to remedy the influences that resulted in criminal behavior and not punish--rather rehabilitate. Or the idea that commodized knowledge in the form of patents and copyrights (and trademarks, due to the interesting abuses trademarks have) is immoral since it deprives the greater humanity more than it rewards the individual. And while capitialism is currently the only realistic economic system, it creates a web of suffering and necessitates evil at a distance, resulting in the most otherwise innocent individuals (i.e., all of us) to enable incredible atrocities across the world with no ability to single-handedly prevent it. And on and on...

 

Regarding online voting, here in Estonia pretty much everyone has 256-bit encrypted physical ID-cards that have to be inserted to a card reader connected to the computer you are voting from.

For outside attacks, there ain't powerful machines yet to decrypt the data and it is absolutely anonymous for everyone.

 

The system has been compromised since it's beginning in 2008, but subsequent releases of higher encryption and bug fixes have made the system pretty freaking reliable. The software looks shitty as hell, since it has been the same thing already from like 2005 earliest versions, but it works.

It's a bit more than encryption. For example, here is a message encoded in base64 with "256-bit" encryption:

 

U2FsdGVkX19t/RLxDa2pmcx3EdBqAaWYXyZ4H7YiU2GSssatR+64j9tc/IHI2DOA

 

However, only I know the contents of the message. As a result, it's pointless. There has to be a central authority to count and verify votes.

 

And regarding Estonia, its electronic voting system seems to be incredibly flawed. Can you dismiss any claims made here?

That report is from 2011. We've had major re-organizations of the system, whole new versions of ID-cards and a government agency now working separately with the ID-system.

Some issues may still persist, but there haven't been any major hacks or data leaks from the system for over the 10+ years it has been available.

But I don't think the person who plays the role of president matters much.

He might be the biggest comedy goldmine since Bush though!

 

...Wait, the Bush era brought us Family Guy. Never mind.

 

But I don't think the person who plays the role of president matters much.

He might be the biggest comedy punk rock goldmine since Bush though!

 

 

 

But I don't think the person who plays the role of president matters much.

He might be the biggest comedy goldmine since Bush though!

 

...Wait, the Bush era brought us Family Guy. Never mind.

 

But Family Guy came out when Clinton was still in office.

Is Osmium the densest stable material? If so, the max weight of a small flat rate box for USPS priority mail would be just around 50 lbs.

 

It is a terrible day. Combination of extremely bored and rather tired.

Gonna be fun today and tonight.

 

And Estonia's system is using the ID card as a key. Can't vote or sign or do anything without it.

I still think e voting is fundamentally flawed because of auditing. You can't verify that the machine you are voting on is running the software people say it is running, and the same problem exists with the system that ultimately tallies the votes. You are replacing the massive oversight that exists for a paper election with a single entity that totally promises to count the votes accurately, scouts honour. I also find the idea of inserting something like a voter ID card to be absolutely terrifying, because you could very easily use a system like that tie votes to people's identities, and it is crucial that votes be anonymous (if you can verify how someone has cast their vote, you can threaten or bribe them). Yes, a properly implemented system would be able to verify eligibility and prevent double voting without verifying identity. The problem, as always, is knowing that the voting machines actually use such a system.

 

Also, keep in mind just how much incentive there is to manipulate the national elections of the major world powers. The financial stakes of elections in countries like the USA can climb into the Trillions, and the people who would be trying to manipulate them are government agencies. We've seen what governments can do when they put their mind to cyberwarfare already.

Saying that the thing is fundamentally flawed is wrong.

 

It works.

 

It has worked for multiple national elections now.

 

Last time over half of the votes were made electronically, afaik.

There still is the issue that there ain't that much to gain from hacking our votes, but still, it is a whole country in EU. There is the incentive.

 

I still think that the person is easier to manipulate than a computer. How can you verify that everyone who votes for the "right" candidate on paper isn't getting $100 just around the corner from the ballot station? Ok, well it is a bit extreme example, but still, the point remains.

And I do know of cases where homeless fellas have been bought off to vote for a bottle of vodka.

 

 

Regarding online voting, here in Estonia pretty much everyone has 256-bit encrypted physical ID-cards that have to be inserted to a card reader connected to the computer you are voting from.

For outside attacks, there ain't powerful machines yet to decrypt the data and it is absolutely anonymous for everyone.

 

The system has been compromised since it's beginning in 2008, but subsequent releases of higher encryption and bug fixes have made the system pretty freaking reliable. The software looks shitty as hell, since it has been the same thing already from like 2005 earliest versions, but it works.

It's a bit more than encryption. For example, here is a message encoded in base64 with "256-bit" encryption:

 

U2FsdGVkX19t/RLxDa2pmcx3EdBqAaWYXyZ4H7YiU2GSssatR+64j9tc/IHI2DOA

 

However, only I know the contents of the message. As a result, it's pointless. There has to be a central authority to count and verify votes.

 

And regarding Estonia, its electronic voting system seems to be incredibly flawed. Can you dismiss any claims made here?

 

 

I mean some encryption algorithms are set up to handle a digital signature. Whats wrong with using those?

 

 

All voting would require is verification of the identity of the sender and that the message isn't tampered with by a man in the middle attack

 

Well, in that case, Diffie-Hellman itself is way outdated and it isn't hard at all to find the discrete logarithm in a decent amount of time (still NP, but not too bad).

 

But yeah, that's what SSL/TSL is. Each website you visit that uses SSL has a public key and you use that to encrypt your data.

 

As great as SSL is (and you should absolutely use it whenever you can), it only secures the communication. It doesn't secure the client, it doesn't secure the server, and it definitely doesn't secure the user. You still have to worry about phishing, CSRF, database breaches, malicious browser extensions, and cards literally being lost, stolen, or destroyed.

 

You can secure the server pretty well, and you can secure the communication, but you will never be able to secure the client.

Saying that the thing is fundamentally flawed is wrong.

 

It works.

 

It has worked for multiple national elections now.

 

Last time over half of the votes were made electronically, afaik.

There still is the issue that there ain't that much to gain from hacking our votes, but still, it is a whole country in EU. There is the incentive.

 

I still think that the person is easier to manipulate than a computer. How can you verify that everyone who votes for the "right" candidate on paper isn't getting $100 just around the corner from the ballot station? Ok, well it is a bit extreme example, but still, the point remains.

And I do know of cases where homeless fellas have been bought off to vote for a bottle of vodka.

Estonia is a forum of 10 users using phpBB with plain-text passwords. It's not secure, but no one bothers because the potential is useless.

 

The United States is... PayPal. A prime target with an immense amount of potential. Targeting an individual PayPal account is worth it, just like targeting PayPal itself.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

(Also, "homeless fellas" can't show who they voted for in the USA. Buying votes is very difficult because the buyer does not know. I could take $100 and vote for the opposite, and it's simply my word.)

To be fair the biggest violators of voters fraud are in the Senate and Congress. They vote for each other during bathroom breaks and shit it's silly.

Saying that the thing is fundamentally flawed is wrong.

 

It works.

 

It has worked for multiple national elections now.

 

Last time over half of the votes were made electronically, afaik.

There still is the issue that there ain't that much to gain from hacking our votes, but still, it is a whole country in EU. There is the incentive.

 

I still think that the person is easier to manipulate than a computer. How can you verify that everyone who votes for the "right" candidate on paper isn't getting $100 just around the corner from the ballot station? Ok, well it is a bit extreme example, but still, the point remains.

And I do know of cases where homeless fellas have been bought off to vote for a bottle of vodka.

Because it only matters if you pay tens of thousands of people $100, and none of those tens of thousands of people tell someone that you're doing it or even that you offered. You can get some anonymity with the internet and like bitcoin, but nothing like the anonymity of malware on people's machines. Especially public machines, like those at a public library, where probably lots of people are going to go to vote.

 

I mean, you can get other governments involved in the malware and then it's really trouble. Better hope Estonia doesn't piss another country off enough to pay for malware creation.

 

 

But I don't think the person who plays the role of president matters much.

He might be the biggest comedy goldmine since Bush though!

 

...Wait, the Bush era brought us Family Guy. Never mind.

 

But Family Guy came out when Clinton was still in office.

 

 

Nothing like a failed pop culture reference. 

Wish me luck with my homework lol

 

Do you want my fast powering code lol

 

 

 

But I don't think the person who plays the role of president matters much.

He might be the biggest comedy goldmine since Bush though!

 

...Wait, the Bush era brought us Family Guy. Never mind.

But Family Guy came out when Clinton was still in office.

Nothing like a failed pop culture reference. 

Post-cancellation, though? I don't really keep track please just let me have this dumb pop culture reference, shitty jokes are all I have left

 

Saying that the thing is fundamentally flawed is wrong.

 

It works.

 

It has worked for multiple national elections now.

 

Last time over half of the votes were made electronically, afaik.

There still is the issue that there ain't that much to gain from hacking our votes, but still, it is a whole country in EU. There is the incentive.

 

I still think that the person is easier to manipulate than a computer. How can you verify that everyone who votes for the "right" candidate on paper isn't getting $100 just around the corner from the ballot station? Ok, well it is a bit extreme example, but still, the point remains.

And I do know of cases where homeless fellas have been bought off to vote for a bottle of vodka.

Because it only matters if you pay tens of thousands of people $100, and none of those tens of thousands of people tell someone that you're doing it or even that you offered. You can get some anonymity with the internet and like bitcoin, but nothing like the anonymity of malware on people's machines. Especially public machines, like those at a public library, where probably lots of people are going to go to vote.

 

I mean, you can get other governments involved in the malware and then it's really trouble. Better hope Estonia doesn't piss another country off enough to pay for malware creation.

Serious question, but would you consider online/electronic voting at polling stations. I've been assuming that was what was meant but it seems like you are talking about just voting from any internet accessible computer and not a controlled machine at a polling station.

I have to poop

Guy on friends list is creationist and constantly hates on Bernie. After a couple beers last night I finally challenged him. It's still going on, and I have to try SUPER hard to dodge all the petty religion crap he keeps tossing at me to derail me. Now he's going for the soldier sympathy card, but he's already used the classic "its laziness thats the problem" theory in like every post...

Was this on social media?

What better place to pick a drunk argument then facebook?

I'm in an ethics class atm and its always funny to see how many people react that way.

 

Where they feel strongly about something and haven't really thought about why yet and are giving their gut reactions to explain it. :lol:

Aka most people on all sides of the political spectrum