Re: The Next Generation

shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx Thu, 12 September 2019 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D247120113 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HfBmRlQOJ6pp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sleekfreak.ath.cx (sleekfreak.ath.cx [IPv6:2602:fdf2:bee:feed::1999]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F5212010D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shogunx (helo=localhost) by sleekfreak.ath.cx with local-esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx>) id 1i8R9V-00020m-8i; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:36:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: The Next Generation
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi2CDBCDUhMG7Z487G-BYVp4rRJ=YG73Z=M=TkZ=jaAbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909121135080.32554@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
References: <CAChr6Sz3j0iLGsB2bGvfitPzCkiTCJYHfmUF5S-8zPYMt1r+3A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190911094010.0c933fa8@elandnews.com> <20190911194723.GC18811@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190911131143.11401cb8@elandnews.com> <CAMm+Lwi2CDBCDUhMG7Z487G-BYVp4rRJ=YG73Z=M=TkZ=jaAbQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RDV4vKpYkrydVJ6WnWrjRiymhOc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:36:48 -0000

Phillip,

> So here is the curious thing, each one of the groups contacted so far has
> had the same response: This is something we should do but we should make our
> rivals aware of it as well because the end goal here is protecting the
> democratic process, not just winning an election.

IMHO, if the interest is in protecting the democratic process, the first 
place we should look is the digital voting infrastructure, as that is the 
vector most abused.  Knowing what I do about network and computer security 
in general, I have come to the conclusion that hand counted paper ballots 
with a strong chain of custody are the only way to ensure a free and fair 
election.

Scott

> 
> 
> 
>