[pp.int.general] Online voting versus online discussion

[Thomas Bruderer]

Am 13.12.2012 19:16, schrieb Richard Stallman:
> There might be a flaw in the mathematics of the supposedly
> auditable system.
It's opensource, auditable and end to end verifiable. Definitly my last
comment on this.
> Your argument is that if I can't present a specific attack that WILL
> work, based on the very abstract description given, then the system
> must be secure.  That argument is not valid.

As an ex-student of the MIT I am pretty sure you are aware how
mathematical proves work - the cryptography behind homomorphic
encryption is of course mathematically proven to be computationally
secure (which is in contrast to the perfect security which in
cryptography is only proven for OTP) - the other parts of the system are
obviously attackable in other ways, however if you doubt the mathematics
behind it I don't really see a point in discussion this at all.

> You also make the argument that because paper-based voting systems are
> not perfect, they must be equally flawed.  That argument is not valid.
Have you forgotten the rest of your Argument? Seem like you argument is
missing an explaination. I already made a proof in the last mail of an
important feature which is missing in paper based voting, which makes
the whole encrypted system more secure. On the other hand you are
insisting on all the attack vectory in fact you only pointed out two:
the vote++ and the bot-net. First one is non-argument because it cannot
happen in end to end auditable systems and I gave a solution to argument
two.

I understand: you are deep in your dogmatic world view, and it is hard
to understand different especially things as complex as e-Voting. You
should just for a moment try to get the idea behind end-to-end auditable
systems - it is indeed very enlighting!

Regards,
Thomas