jsaxon@cs.tamu.edu (James B Saxon) (08/24/90)
Consider the power of an overnight call to rally, e-mail style... Consider voting directly through the computer at all levels of government... (what electorate?) Consider signing and sending petitions through the network... (digital signatures) Consider people carrying "dynabooks" or "tablets" around... Consider looking at links rather than data... On your marks, get set... get modern!!!! -- ---- \ / ---- /--------------------------------------------\ James Bennett Saxon | O| | O| | "I aught to join the club and beat you | Visualization Laboratory | | | | | over the head with it." -- Groucho Marx | Texas A&M University ---- ---- <---------------------------------------------/ jsaxon@cssun.tamu.edu
milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) (08/25/90)
In article <7686@helios.TAMU.EDU>, jsaxon@cs.tamu.edu (James B Saxon) writes: |>Consider the power of an overnight call to rally, e-mail style... |> |>Consider voting directly through the computer at all levels of |> government... (what electorate?) |> Most people have neither the interest not the inclination to do the research for every vote carried out at the federal and state levels. However, this might be a good alternative method for writing one's representatives in congress, thereby expanding the mediums by which one can communicate with congress. |>Consider signing and sending petitions through the network... |> (digital signatures) |> People keep bringing up the point that it is too easy forging signatures through email. I see major problems if electronic petitions were allowed for federal and state political purposes. (I guess that people can still forge signatures using pen and ink, but it is not as easy). |>Consider people carrying "dynabooks" or "tablets" around... |> |>Consider looking at links rather than data... Do you mean for tracing criminals? It has been done. |> |>On your marks, get set... get modern!!!! |> |>-- |> ---- \ / ---- /--------------------------------------------\ James Bennett Saxon |>| O| | O| | "I aught to join the club and beat you | Visualization Laboratory |>| | | | | over the head with it." -- Groucho Marx | Texas A&M University |> ---- ---- <---------------------------------------------/ jsaxon@cssun.tamu.edu Marc Milgram milgr@teapot.prime.com
tomten@netcom.UUCP (Greg Broiles) (08/25/90)
In article <737@primerd.PRIME.COM> milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) writes: >In article <7686@helios.TAMU.EDU>, jsaxon@cs.tamu.edu (James B Saxon) writes: >|>Consider the power of an overnight call to rally, e-mail style... >|> >|>Consider voting directly through the computer at all levels of >|> government... (what electorate?) >|> >Most people have neither the interest not the inclination to do the research >for every vote carried out at the federal and state levels. However, this >Including< our elected representatives. >|>Consider signing and sending petitions through the network... >|> (digital signatures) >|> >People keep bringing up the point that it is too easy forging signatures >through email. I see major problems if electronic petitions were allowed >for federal and state political purposes. (I guess that people can still >forge signatures using pen and ink, but it is not as easy). It is my understanding that through the use of public-key cryptography, it is possible to create (at the moment, with today's hardware, yeah yeah yeah) pretty-much unforgable digital signatures, by encoding text with one's private key, that can then be decoded with one's public key, authenticating that the person sending the message had possession of the private key paired with the public key. > >|>Consider people carrying "dynabooks" or "tablets" around... >|> >|>Consider looking at links rather than data... > >Do you mean for tracing criminals? It has been done. I suspect he means that we can look at interesting correlations and patterns difficult to spot without brute-force searches that humans have little patience for - as well as stuff like text-in-context searches such as those used in legal databases. >|> >|>On your marks, get set... get modern!!!! >|> >|>-- >|> ---- \ / ---- /--------------------------------------------\ James >Bennett Saxon >|>| O| | O| | "I aught to join the club and beat you | >Visualization Laboratory >|>| | | | | over the head with it." -- Groucho Marx | >Texas A&M University >|> ---- ---- <---------------------------------------------/ >jsaxon@cssun.tamu.edu > > >Marc Milgram >milgr@teapot.prime.com -- Greg Broiles tomten@well.sf.ca.us tomten@netcom.uucp 3105 Pine St. greg@agora.hf.intel.com MCIMail: gbroiles Riverside, CA 92501 CI$: 74017,3623 Peacenet: gbroiles "Organized crime is the price we pay for organization." -- Raymond Chandler
tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) (08/27/90)
milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) writes: >In article <7686@helios.TAMU.EDU>, jsaxon@cs.tamu.edu (James B Saxon) writes: >|>Consider the power of an overnight call to rally, e-mail style... >|> >|>Consider voting directly through the computer at all levels of >|> government... (what electorate?) >|> >Most people have neither the interest not the inclination to do the research >for every vote carried out at the federal and state levels. However, this >might be a good alternative method for writing one's representatives in >congress, thereby expanding the mediums by which one can communicate with >congress. True, most people don't have the inclination to do the research, however, just because someone isn't willing to become informed, should we restrict them from voting? Hardly. There is an alternative, which I think should be built into any system expecting to handle a large number of people voting, and that is an option to allow a person to register a vote that is the same as someone elses. For example, I highly respect the views and opinions of a colleague who I feel is informed on a certain subject that will be voted on. If his ID allows slaving, then I can just key in that my vote is slaved to his ID. There are numerous ooptions to be taken into account also, such as being able to setup your ID so only certain people can slave to you. Also, if a person is going to allow slaving, then his/her vote should be made known to the slavee. If you don't want your vote to be public, then don't allow people to slave to you. I may want to slave my vote to a respected ecologist, or a noted phsysicist regarding various fundings of certain projects. Why should my vote not count just because I don't have the time to decide an issue for myself, but I know someone who I am willing to let decide the issue for me? That is basically what we do with elected officials, just this way you can unslave as soon as someone pisses you off or as soon as your opinions change. -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irkunsel@ecuvm1.bitnet East Carolina University internet:tek@ms.uky.edu Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)
daven@svc.portal.com (08/27/90)
In article <737@primerd.PRIME.COM> milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) writes: >|>Consider signing and sending petitions through the network... >|> (digital signatures) >|> >People keep bringing up the point that it is too easy forging signatures >through email. I see major problems if electronic petitions were allowed >for federal and state political purposes. (I guess that people can still >forge signatures using pen and ink, but it is not as easy). If and when the public key cryptosystem becomes widely used, digital signa- tures should be harder to forge than pen and paper signatures. So if anything a digital signature should be easier to verify and more secure. >|>Consider people carrying "dynabooks" or "tablets" around... >|> >|>Consider looking at links rather than data... > >Do you mean for tracing criminals? It has been done. I think what was meant was linked-data items so that one would not have to wade through megabytes of raw data to remain informed of govt/social issues and pending legislation. Dave Newman -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Newman - Sofware Ventures | daven@svc.portal.com | AppleLink: D0025 Berkeley, CA (415) 644-3232 | AOL: MicroPhone | CIS: 76004,2161 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sprouse@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Sprouse) (08/27/90)
In article <1990Aug27.013401.16422@svc.portal.com> daven@svc.portal.com writes: >In article <737@primerd.PRIME.COM> milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) writes: >>|>Consider signing and sending petitions through the network... >>|> (digital signatures) >>|> >>People keep bringing up the point that it is too easy forging signatures >>through email. I see major problems if electronic petitions were allowed >>for federal and state political purposes. (I guess that people can still >>forge signatures using pen and ink, but it is not as easy). > >If and when the public key cryptosystem becomes widely used, digital signa- >tures should be harder to forge than pen and paper signatures. So if anything >a digital signature should be easier to verify and more secure. > One drawback to digital signatures (at least as I understand them) is the fact that they rely on fact that the signer wants his signature to be a secret. What happens if I digitally sign a contract and then want out? What keeps me from leaking my secret codes (signature) to the world and then claiming that my signature was forged? The only ways around this that I see are : 1) Use digital signatures as token signatures to carry out business immediately, and verify real signatures on paper at a later date to confirm "the meeting of the minds". 2) Don't let users know their own secret keys. This is done usually with some sort of physical security and may involve 3rd parties. Once you allow 3rd parties into the picture you open a whole new can of worms as whether you trust the 3rd party to exercise control over the entire system! -Steve Sprouse
oberman@amazon.llnl.gov (08/27/90)
In article <38374@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, sprouse@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Sprouse) writes: > > One drawback to digital signatures (at least as I understand them) > is the fact that they rely on fact that the signer wants his signature > to be a secret. What happens if I digitally sign a contract and then > want out? What keeps me from leaking my secret codes (signature) to the > world and then claiming that my signature was forged? You misunderstand the function and operation of public key encryption. A digital signature is not in any way secret. The signature provides two functions. 1) Assures that the message is really from the purported author, and 2) assures that the contents ov the message have not been tampered with. Any person who receives a "signed" message, even second or third hand, will be able to confirm these things. They do this using the user's PUBLIC key. The private key is never disclosed to anyone for any purpose. Note that a digital signature does not imply that the the message itself is encrypted. Since the message is encrypted using the recipient's public key and the signature using the senders private key. The recipient then uses his private key to decrypt the message (if encrypted) and the senders pulic key to confirm the signature. And public keys are just that, public. Ideally they should be available by X.500 or some similar mechanism. You need to have access to the public key of any person you communicate with and it should not be confidential or controlled in any way. Better to shout it from the rooftops as that is the best assurance that the system works. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
oberman@amazon.llnl.gov (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug27.155515.22537@athena.mit.edu>, jik@pit-manager.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > Actually, Mr. Oberman, *you* are the one who is missing the point > made by Mr. Sprouse. I plead Monday morning! You are, of course, correct. I managed to completely misunderstand a perfectly clear posting. Sorry to all. Note disclaimer. Maybe I need a stronger one for Mondays. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
jik@pit-manager.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug27.082030.1@amazon.llnl.gov> oberman@amazon.llnl.gov writes: >In article <38374@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, sprouse@oahu.cs.ucla.edu >(Steven Sprouse) writes: >> >> One drawback to digital signatures (at least as I understand them) >> is the fact that they rely on fact that the signer wants his signature >> to be a secret. What happens if I digitally sign a contract and then >> want out? What keeps me from leaking my secret codes (signature) to the >> world and then claiming that my signature was forged? > >You misunderstand the function and operation of public key encryption. A >digital signature is not in any way secret. Actually, Mr. Oberman, *you* are the one who is missing the point made by Mr. Sprouse. Sprouse did not ask what would happen if the signer's public key were made public. He asked what would happen if the signer's *private* key were to be leaked to the world. As Sprouse points out, the viability of digital signatures depends on the signer *wanting* his signature to remain authentic, and therefore doing everything he can to protect his private key. If an individual provides a signature encrypted in his private key in order to validate a contract or other document, and then decides that he no longer wishes to be bound by that document, he can simply find a way to "leak" his private key in a way that does not look intentional, and then announce, "Oh, well, I didn't sign that document, and look, my private key has been compromised, so someone else must have forged my digital signature using it." Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (08/29/90)
In article <737@primerd.PRIME.COM>, milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) writes: > In article <7686@helios.TAMU.EDU>, jsaxon@cs.tamu.edu (James B Saxon) writes: > |>Consider the power of an overnight call to rally, e-mail style... > |> > |>Consider voting directly through the computer at all levels of > |> government... (what electorate?) > |> > Most people have neither the interest not the inclination to do the research > for every vote carried out at the federal and state levels. However, this > might be a good alternative method for writing one's representatives in > congress, thereby expanding the mediums by which one can communicate with > congress. > Just an aside, but _Hyperion_ by Dan Simmons suggests a merged media/electronic electorate that has one vote in the senate, which is aparently composed of one house (US Senate-like). This entity, the AllThing, has voluntary membership. If you are interested in voting, you spend time listening, arguing with other `tuned-in' members, and voting. If you don't care, you ignore what goes on and rely on your elected senator's vote. The feeling that someone is making decisions without you having a say compells people to voluntarily enroll in the AllThing. Imagine `In response to the distinguished Usenet Senator, I have no recollection of such a meeting...' > |>-- > |> ---- \ / ---- /--------------------------------------------\ James > Bennett Saxon > |>| O| | O| | "I aught to join the club and beat you | > Visualization Laboratory > |>| | | | | over the head with it." -- Groucho Marx | > Texas A&M University > |> ---- ---- <---------------------------------------------/ > jsaxon@cssun.tamu.edu > > > Marc Milgram > milgr@teapot.prime.com ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Bachelor tip #48: used gym socks make great no-pest strips!
milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug28.195810.22359@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: |>Just an aside, but _Hyperion_ by Dan Simmons suggests a merged media/electronic |>electorate that has one vote in the senate, which is aparently composed of one |>house (US Senate-like). This entity, the AllThing, has voluntary |>membership. If |>you are interested in voting, you spend time listening, arguing with other |>`tuned-in' members, and voting. If you don't care, you ignore what goes on |>and rely on your elected senator's vote. The feeling that someone is making |>decisions without you having a say compells people to voluntarily enroll in the |>AllThing. |> |>Imagine `In response to the distinguished Usenet Senator, I have no |>recollection |>of such a meeting...' I am a little confused with how this either fits in with the current US governmental structure. Currently there are two branches of the US Congress. In the Senate, each state has two senators -- each of whom has 1 vote in the Senate. If Mr. Simmons is suggesting creating a new "Electronic State", how would people become members of this new electorate -- as they would still supposedly reside within another state. I assume if this was what Mr. Simmons suggested, the "Electronic State" would still have just two votes, but each of the members of this state would cast a fraction of a vote, or vote on the vote. In the House of representatives, each representative represents approxamitely the same number of constituents. This branch of the congress sounds a little more similar to Dan Simmons' suggestion. Or was he suggesting a new branch of congress, or a replacement for all or part of the congress? Changing the constitution to allow an Electronic House of congress would be real tough. Getting a Senator or Representative to vote according to how an electronic electorate wishes him to vote sounds much simpler. |>------ |>Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing |> conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois |> Bachelor tip #48: used gym socks make great no-pest strips! Marc Milgram Software Engineer, Product Integrity Group, Prime Computer milgr@teapot.prime.com My views are my own.
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (08/30/90)
In article <739@primerd.PRIME.COM>, milgr@teapot.prime.COM (Marc Milgram) writes: > In article <1990Aug28.195810.22359@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, > conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: > |>Just an aside, but _Hyperion_ by Dan Simmons suggests a merged > media/electronic > |>electorate that has one vote in the senate, which is aparently > composed of one ... > I am a little confused with how this either fits in with the current US > governmental > structure. > > [Then lots of stuff describing the US Congress to me- thanks.] First off, Simmons' _Hyperion_ is a novel and not a political science treatment of technology applied to the US. The government he describes is in no way related to the US'. It is semi-corporate (the head is the `CEO') and has one house in its congress a'la parliamentary systems. The members of this `senate' are geographically and not population-based (hence my comparision to the US Senate). > ... creating a new "Electronic State", how would people become members of > this new electorate > -- as they would still supposedly reside within another state. I assume > if this > was what Mr. Simmons suggested, the "Electronic State" would still have > just two votes, > but each of the members of this state would cast a fraction of a vote, > or vote on the vote. Pretty close. One can have some sway in the government my participating in the AllThing. Otherwise, the elected officials still represent you. This is a `representation for the lazy' hybrid approach. > > In the House of representatives, each representative represents > approxamitely the same > number of constituents. This branch of the congress sounds a little > more similar to > Dan Simmons' suggestion. > No, the AllThing wouldn't work in the House because the weight of its vote would not be fixed but rather dependent on how many individuals are currently `tuned in' to it. How could one pedal influence when the leverage voting power of every member can be reduced or eliminated if the number of individuals who chose to tune in this week increases the AllThing's weight? Then again, reducing leveraging and influence bartering might be a *good* thing. > Or was he suggesting a new branch of congress, or a replacement for all > or part of the > congress? Changing the constitution to allow an Electronic House of > congress would > be real tough. Getting a Senator or Representative to vote according to how an > electronic electorate wishes him to vote sounds much simpler. Again, it was a *novel*. He didn't even mention the US, it was all fiction. Interesting mind candy, however. > > |>------ > |>Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing > |> conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois > |> Bachelor tip #48: used gym socks make great no-pest strips! > > > Marc Milgram Software Engineer, Product Integrity Group, Prime Computer > milgr@teapot.prime.com > My views are my own. ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Bachelor tip #48: used gym socks make great no-pest strips!
karn@envy..bellcore.com (Phil Karn) (09/03/90)
Some time ago, I too had the naive notion that we could create a political utopia by simply using technology to take every issue directly to the people for a vote. Since then I've realized that there are some damn good reasons for having certain mechanisms in our government even though they may seem clumsy or needlessly indirect given modern technological developments. Many people seem to think that our tradition of individual rights and freedoms springs automatically from having a democratically elected government. A good illustration of this belief could be seen in some public service spots on TV shortly before the 1988 election. One showed slow-motion footage of Adolph Hitler addressing a Nazi rally and commented "Two hundred years ago, our founders came up with a way to keep clowns like these out of our government." The screen then faded to black, and the word VOTE came on the screen. There's only one problem with this commercial: Hitler came to power in Germany through the democratic process (although he certainly bent the rules). And he certainly had the support of the majority of the German people. You see, it's actually quite easy to set up a government that does the will of the majority. Lots of countries do that. The ones that don't eventually have revolutions. The problem with "pure democracy" is that the majority is not always right. Consider the flap over flag burning. In my opinion, it was an absolutely perfect illustration of our system doing exactly what it was designed to do - resisting the gratuitous will of the majority when the fundamental rights of an unpopular minority are at stake. That's why we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, and judicial review of laws. I know of no better way to protect against the "tyranny of the majority". I think it was Justice Douglas who said that the majority already has two branches of government; the Judiciary is there for the minority. So a fundamental irony of our system is that the rights and freedoms that so many erroneously assume are inherent in any democracy in fact depend most heavily on the LEAST democratic branch of government, the courts. Our system goes out of its way to isolate judges from the effects of public opinion, and for good reason. Unfortunately, the courts cannot be relied on to protect minority rights forever; as with any government, ours too would become unstable if it ignored the will of the majority for too long, even if for good reason. In many cases, public passions eventually fade and the majority eventually comes to support, at least implicitly, an initially unpopular ruling; this *seems* to have finally been the case with flag burning (unless the Republicans decide to open it up again as a campaign issue this year.) But in other cases it becomes very important to educate and persuade people to support a more enlightened view. This is what the First Amendment is all about, and *this* is where computer networks have their enormous potential. No longer is the average person limited to seeing the views of a few select newspaper editors or superstar TV anchors. Anyone who can write coherently can sit down at a computer keyboard, express his views and have them seen in a day or two by many thousands of people all over the country and the world, without censorship of any kind. The pen is mightier than the sword, and the computer may well prove to be mightier than the pen. Phil
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (09/03/90)
In article <1990Sep2.201229.24182@bellcore-2.bellcore.com> karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes: > >There's only one problem with this commercial: Hitler came to power in >Germany through the democratic process (although he certainly bent the >rules). And he certainly had the support of the majority of the German >people. With respect to bending the rules, look at what happens every four years in the major political parties. The delegate selection rules, among other, get changed to make it easier for whoever has the most clout within the party. Once the rules are changed and the delegate selection process is completed, the candidate in favor usually end up being nominated for president. From then on, it is a race between campaign marketing agencies. I believe that the rules for both major parties for 1992 have already been changed. > ... democracy and the Judicial Branch ... > >This is what the First Amendment is all about, and *this* is where >computer networks have their enormous potential. No longer is the >average person limited to seeing the views of a few select newspaper >editors or superstar TV anchors. Anyone who can write coherently >can sit down at a computer keyboard, express his views and have them >seen in a day or two by many thousands of people all over the country >and the world, without censorship of any kind. >Phil And the result we get is..... the Usenet! Only much bigger. I recently read a statistic that said that only about 1/3 of the population under 35 in the U.S. regularly reads a newspaper. And newspapers are easy to read compared to an electronic network. They also are a lot less expensive. These two items, amount of work and cost, cut your population significantly. And, of course, there is still the problem of noise. Noise in general and noise in the form of flames and garbage directed at particular persons because of what they have written. The noise factor will also reduce your population because, just as we have seen on the Usenet, many will not post or respond when they feel that their message will just be lost in the flood, or they have a fear of the response. Others post just to provoke flames and angry responses. So, these and other factors have reduced the population to a small minority of those in the general population. The question then becomes, "How important is the network, and how much protection should it be given?" When the electronic networks become cheap and easy to participate in, with adequate noise filters, the population will flock to them. Or should I say "have flocked to them", since television meets those criteria if you consider passive viewing as participation. Now, for some semi-random questions: Are the electronic networks closer to television than newspapers? What happens to the computer systems at newspapers and television stations when a law enforcement agency wants the information a reporter may have have acquired in the course of investigating a story? Do they confiscate just the reporter's notes? Or do they take the whole system? How long did it take (is it taking) for the law to come up to speed with respect to television? /craig