Saturday, July 17, 1999, 4:28:55 PM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Kent noted, there are some operational aspects to IDNO which should
> cause any reasonable evaluator to question its legitimacy as a
> representative body for the constituency it claims.
Please, point them out. I have yet to see ANY such claims that have
any basis whatsoever on FACTS.
>> >Password protection is amazingly naive.
>>
>>You haven't done your homework. Memebers are assigned a password by the
>>system, not the other way around. You can set up as many e-mail address as
>>you want, but you'd only have one that was issued a password.
> Your statement means that "email address" is not the "identifier" for
> distinguishing between people. What is? What prevents one person from
> having/using multiple such ID's?
>
> The reality is almost certain to prove to be that a serious security audit
> to the desig the design to be massively laced with holes and poor assumptions.
Wrong again. The Email address is merely used to authenticate the
user while voting, much like US Voters carry ID and a voter
registration card.
The verification of their membership and addition to the voters role
is done by the Membership committee, who researched and approved EVERY
voting member, and indeed removed some current members from the voting
roles for insufficient information to prove they were elegible under
our membership rules.
And Dave, YOU KNOW ALL OF THIS. You are on this list, as is Kent. To
continue to MISREPRESENT the facts to the public about the IDNO speaks
volumes about your agenda and your intent.
> 1. Getting this sort of system design right is really a remarkably
> difficult technical task, particularly for large scale use. Even if you
> can fully prove the legitimacy of your 21-person system, it will be quite
> another task to prove it for 21,000-person use, never mind the fact that
> anything like this on the real Internet had better be design to work for
> 21,000,000, at least.
The IDNO is not made up of 21 people. We currently have well over 100
members at this point, and more are signing up every day. I was
contacted myself yesterday by 3 new members who just joined the
IDNO-Discuss list and had questions about some of the statements being
made on the list.
> 2. Ultimately this sort of voting needs to stand up under scrutiny of
> legal review and I believe there is, as of yet, no case law to support it.
That remains to be seen. Seeing as your comments up until now in this
email are based on falsehoods, I seriously doubt this one also.
>>Stick to your day job.
> It happens that Kent's day job IS network security and he's quite good at
> it. I have to work with experts in security and most of them are only good
> at highly focused issues, rather than at looking at system-wide
> concerns. Kent happens to be good at systems issues. Care to reconsider
> you overly-quick dismissal of the issues he raised?
I dismiss them NOT because of his job, because they are based on
falsehoods and have NO Basis in FACT.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
