IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The Next Generation

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 12 September 2019 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 56292120837 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.915
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 q9F3qQWdIb9v for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f48.google.com (mail-ot1-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9AE1200F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id g25so25851149otl.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RTwRpIgqrUMr6Dsq76W9AaIjIKhxoo+ikGA0ADrou9U=; b=sDJ4m2ZSEh55VRCt4+sHzGtjgmirx4i4Nq3qFpOgPRLsf5ecchg+zCKGXb8rqoA/h8 jHYRMG8YbdH+Lf4qT5/XZcc7+KLPuq0I2+/ftJiFTTUHN8n7Cr16rt6rNw0VRY0l1dtz 6VToR+4eKXodx7jFYZTnhoDIgL+DyVhfjCmBCCQ68ow/yvPYyL5n85mxjKYyuTG2Q4L1 MotWWFe7izXWWwNDEEr0H4G2edPGFCriJ4aoy2QNjQPbjus9b0d3Q07XxTgAzzPBb/nC HvK6jlE40sIwgT1j4M0evSKxmlez37wZWKo5OSJAcdhybmpwDhkqUzc3SjpSrAJJ1waq Pz1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXJkijnNG68K5HWy6j7H86/5QGY6KKEZBI2Ex9m4onV+7/A75pj VDuW1BZGkKHFXgDtJbpEg/IeJPB6YZG3bPJL5j4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzPRYATTlpVvPS9Q7HLaF+Pzki2mqGPZCMbP4WgfDd0LlXW0tIpViP8rDXpRbTcxsgpbCVZTT093WpuBnrC/yI=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4786:: with SMTP id b6mr31720429otf.112.1568314374562; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909121135080.32554@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909121135080.32554@sleekfreak.ath.cx>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:52:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwjc3i0Sd7T6vRGsaMk2Sq-73NR62Jw6U9YEdJ5=7j51oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Next Generation
To: shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000031341d05925fa523"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WvcSW275QBquEBofvoGlFQGt-IA>
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 18:52:57 -0000

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:36 AM <shogunx@sleekfreak.ath.cx> wrote:

> 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.
>

This did not come up in the country concerned since all their elections are
by paper ballots counted by hand. The confidentiality concerns are around
securing demographics, campaign plans, schedules, strategy, etc. There are
also authenticity concerns which are rather broader.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email