RE: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds?
J.A. Terranson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, when I brought back the returns, they wanted a drivers license. Odd, considering it was a cash sale and I was holding the receipt. It's required by the Homeland Security Department says the kid behind the register. Sorry. I need ID, and I have to enter it into the computer and forward it to the Homeland Security Office. The Terrorists are using this kind of thing to wash money. I strongly suspect that this is not DHS policy - it would have to apply to *every* cash refund, regardless as to whether the underlying purchase was weapon related or not. We'd have heard a lot more about it if this were the case. For more gubmint nonsense on things that go bang, take at look at: http://www.premierreticles.com/ Effective immediatly, US State Dept. regulations prohibit the export of any riflescope with a mil-dot reticle outside the United States. Peter Trei
Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?
Major Variola (ret) wrote: Currently voting is trusted because political adversaries supervise the process. Previously the mechanics were, well, mechanical, ie, open for inspection. That really is worth saying more often. If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting both robust and private, then EVEN IF A PERFECT SYSTEM COULD BE DESIGNED it is extremely unlikely that a large number of people could be persuaded that it /was/ perfect. So if public confidence in the mechanisms of voting is considered desirable, no electronic or digital system is viable. You can run an algorithm on any subset of codes, including just your own, [...] you already lost 94% of the electorate. They are saying huh? and going back to whatever they were doing before the election rudely interrupted them. Current electoral systems work - where they do - because the officials keep their hands above the table, and because members of opposing political parties co-operate in snooping on each other, because it is in their interest to do so. This adversarial system not only works (sort of, most of the time, in jurisdictions where the local law enforcement isn't entirely in the hands of one sector of society) but it can be made to appear to work (well enough to satisfy that minority of voters who seem to care) And leaving aside the ritual invokation of gas ovens and 747s, this nasty socialist agrees with the burden of Tim's rant - if people don't want to vote what business is it of government to force them to vote? If someone doesn't want to vote, that's their choice, and a tiny increment to the tiny portion of influence possessed by those of us who do vote. So no skin of our noses. If all of you zombies give up voting than the rest of us get to choose the government, for what its worth. As for lotteries - you want to encourage stupid people to vote? Public holidays for voting are as bad - they are likely to lead fewer people to vote of course - just as in every other public holiday those who get off work will head for the hills or the beaches or the bars or the sports stadiums (and why not if they want to?) and those who have to work anyway will be even busier than normal. It is enough if registration is simple and open, if there are sanctions against employers/landlords/unions/political parties/thugs in general preventing people voting, and if there is a postal vote scheme for people who really can't make it on the day. Most countries don't even have all that yet (big chunks of the USA didn't not that long ago), why complicate things unnecessarily? Ken Brown (resident evil lefty)
Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?
The Soviet Union and Pre-Invasion II Iraq had voter turnouts of 98+%. If voter turnout were important the same could be done here. What is wanted is a high turnout of INTERESTED voters. Only ballot choices produce that. Nevada has consistently higher voter turnout at all levels than any other state. Nevada also is the only state with No Of The Above (NOTA) as a pre-printed ballot option which must be included in all elections; even the uncontested races. I do not think this is a coincidence. Unfortunately the NOTA votes are non-binding as is the case in Australia. With binding NOTA, if NOTA with there is a new race with new candidates; none of whom can have appeared on the ballot where NOTA won. In Nevada, you have the ignominy of being listed as coming in second behind NOTA. But, you still get to exercise the levers of political power. Still, even Nevada's miniscule expansion of ballot options demonstrated my point. Interesting ballots (more candidates or more options) draw more voters because the pool of interested voters is larger. Another simple option I would like to see is a star next to the current office holder. This would slightly offset the staggering advantages of incumbency. After binding NOTA and incumbency identification, then you can begin to work on the rigged ballot access game create by the Democrat/Republican hegemony. -Original Message- From: Neil Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:18 PM To: Major Variola (ret); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chaumian blinding public voting? On Friday 31 October 2003 12:10 pm, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Is is possible to use blinding (or other protocols) so that all votes are published, you can check that your vote is in there, and you (or anyone) can run the maths and verify the vote? Without being able to link people to votes without their consent. Doing this would allow vote buyers to verify a voter voted the way they wanted. That is one of the main reasons you can't take a copy of your paper ballot home with you now. One option might be to give the voter a MAC of their ballot and then print the MAC's in the paper. The voter could check to see if their vote had been altered. I still think far better methods for improving voter turn out other than Internet voting are: 1. A National Election Holiday (but in the middle of the work week so people can't use it to extend a vacation). 2. Couple the Election with a National Lottery with local, state, and national prizes. With appropriate delink of voter's identity from the way they voted of course. (I'm not claiming that this would actually improve things overall, just increase voter turnout). -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 02:44 AM, ken wrote: Major Variola (ret) wrote: Currently voting is trusted because political adversaries supervise the process. Previously the mechanics were, well, mechanical, ie, open for inspection. That really is worth saying more often. If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting both robust and private, then EVEN IF A PERFECT SYSTEM COULD BE DESIGNED it is extremely unlikely that a large number of people could be persuaded that it /was/ perfect. There are already people who are confused by, and in some cases afraid of, computer touch screen voting. Some of these people are the ones who refuse to use automated teller machines and insist on deal with real bank tellers. Some of them think the government is watching. Some of them are just weird. Trying to educate these people about Chaumian blinding is pointless. (And don't count on the younger generation...they are often less-educated than their parents and grandparents, and in the ghettoes, than their 60-year-old great grandparents.) I can see the PR campaign on WWF wrestling: Using a combination of Diffie-Hellman and holographic mark inspection, Alice is assured that Vinnie the Votebuyer cannot interfere, by means of a standard ANDO protocol... Those who propose sophisticated voting systems are sentenced to reread Clarke's Superiority. --Tim May Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. --Robert A. Heinlein
Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 02:44 AM, ken wrote: If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting both robust and private, then EVEN IF A PERFECT SYSTEM COULD BE DESIGNED it is extremely unlikely that a large number of people could be persuaded that it /was/ perfect. So if public confidence in the mechanisms of voting is considered desirable, no electronic or digital system is viable. You can run an algorithm on any subset of codes, including just your own, [...] you already lost 94% of the electorate. They are saying huh? and going back to whatever they were doing before the election rudely interrupted them. I should have mentioned in my last response that there have already been cases where the electronic vote results were accidentally posted before the election polls had closed. This did wonders for belief in the system. One of the reported cases was somewhat understandable, not that this affected overall suspicion of the system: some or most of the absentee ballots had already been counted and recorded into the electronic system. They were of course not supposed to be agglomerated with the other electronic vote totals until after the polls closed. Someone made a typical computer error and the partial totals were released ahead of the polls closing. Apparently some number of voters planning to vote thought the election was over and didn't vote. Now with conventional, slow, paper-based systems of the sort we mostly still use in the U.S., there are various ontological safeguards, or speed bumps, which make this kind of computer error less of an issue. Any computerized system is likely to have glitches like the above, each of which will cause some fraction of the electorate to think things are rigged. As they probably will be. (By the way, there are some possible crypto fixes, such as timed-release crypto. A beacon could broadcast an unlocking key at some time well after the polls had closed, simultaneously unlocking the many sealed ballot messages. Of course, Joe Sixpack will not understand or trust this kind of complexity, either.) SSL works because it is transparent (hidden from) to the user. Likewise, the crypto used in lottery tickets (e.g., the Scientific Games model) is transparent to the user and he doesn't have to pore over crypto explanations before buying a ticket. (I bought _one_ lottery ticket, for $1, just to see how the numbers were done. Lotteries are of course a tax on the gullible and stupid.) I see less chance that a crypto-based electronic voting system will be adopted in the U.S. than that Robin Hanson's and John Poindexter's let CIA gamble on who gets assassinated betting pool will rise from the dead. --Tim May
Re: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds?
At 06:11 PM 11/1/2003 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: Well, when I brought back the returns, they wanted a drivers license. Odd, considering it was a cash sale and I was holding the receipt. It's required by the Homeland Security Department says the kid behind the register. Sorry. I need ID, and I have to enter it into the computer and forward it to the Homeland Security Office. The Terrorists are using this kind of thing to wash money. I must have looked pretty stupid with my jaw hanging down like that. I made a scene of course. A *big* scene. Lots of loud argument, pointing out all the obvious things: as a cash sale, the money did not need washing. Cash sales are inherently ID agnostic. Etc., etc., etc. No dice. They want ID, and they are not going to budge. Was this information prominently displayed either behind the register or on the sales receipt prior to purchase? Most state laws require this. steve
RE: [AntiSocial] Re: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds?
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Keller, Nick wrote: Thst is BS - Exactly my point! I just received cash back from my Grocery Store (Giant) - No ID asked... What was the amount? $19.99 plus tax. -Nicolas -Original Message- From: Steve Schear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [AntiSocial] Re: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds? At 06:11 PM 11/1/2003 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: Well, when I brought back the returns, they wanted a drivers license. Odd, considering it was a cash sale and I was holding the receipt. It's required by the Homeland Security Department says the kid behind the register. Sorry. I need ID, and I have to enter it into the computer and forward it to the Homeland Security Office. The Terrorists are using this kind of thing to wash money. I must have looked pretty stupid with my jaw hanging down like that. I made a scene of course. A *big* scene. Lots of loud argument, pointing out all the obvious things: as a cash sale, the money did not need washing. Cash sales are inherently ID agnostic. Etc., etc., etc. No dice. They want ID, and they are not going to budge. Was this information prominently displayed either behind the register or on the sales receipt prior to purchase? Most state laws require this. steve --- To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe antisocial as the entire message. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Every living thing dies alone. Donnie Darko
RE: [AntiSocial] Re: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds?
Thst is BS - I just received cash back from my Grocery Store (Giant) - No ID asked... What was the amount? -Nicolas -Original Message- From: Steve Schear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [AntiSocial] Re: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds? At 06:11 PM 11/1/2003 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: Well, when I brought back the returns, they wanted a drivers license. Odd, considering it was a cash sale and I was holding the receipt. It's required by the Homeland Security Department says the kid behind the register. Sorry. I need ID, and I have to enter it into the computer and forward it to the Homeland Security Office. The Terrorists are using this kind of thing to wash money. I must have looked pretty stupid with my jaw hanging down like that. I made a scene of course. A *big* scene. Lots of loud argument, pointing out all the obvious things: as a cash sale, the money did not need washing. Cash sales are inherently ID agnostic. Etc., etc., etc. No dice. They want ID, and they are not going to budge. Was this information prominently displayed either behind the register or on the sales receipt prior to purchase? Most state laws require this. steve --- To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe antisocial as the entire message.
Freenet and DHCP
In looking over the Freenet FAQ (specifically the Firewall/NAT stuff), it looks like a static public IP address is assumed/needed. My DSL connection is DHCP, so my visible IP changes periodically. Even more fun, the visible IP isn't visible from my side. (I get a 10.x.x.x address from my DSL modem) I can do some sneaky stuff to recover the visible IP, but can Freenet work under these conditions?
