31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for November 6, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 259 : "text" Format
====== 31 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
|
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using any name or email address
included herein for any reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk
are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:33:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Internet Voting in the U.S.
Message-ID: <p06240854ccbc9ea2a6dc@[10.0.1.11]>
Internet Voting in the U.S.
By Barbara Simons, Douglas W. Jones
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55 No. 10, Pages 68-77
10.1145/2347736.2347754
October 2012
The assertion that Internet voting is the wave of the future has
become commonplace. We frequently are asked, "If I can bank online,
why can't I vote online?" The question assumes that online banking is
safe and secure. However, banks routinely and quietly replenish funds
lost to online fraud in order to maintain public confidence.
We are told Internet voting would help citizens living abroad or in
the military who currently have difficulty voting. Recent federal
legislation to improve the voting process for overseas citizens is a
response to that problem. The legislation, which has eliminated most
delays, requires states to provide downloadable blank ballots but
does not require the insecure return of voted ballots.
Yet another claim is that email voting is safer than Web-based
voting, but no email program in widespread use today provides direct
support for encrypted email. As a result, attachments are generally
sent in the clear, and email ballots are easy to intercept and
inspect, violating voters' right to a secret ballot. Intercepted
ballots may be modified or discarded without forwarding. Moreover,
the ease with which a From header can be forged means it is
relatively simple to produce large numbers of forged ballots. These
special risks faced by email ballots are in addition to the general
risks posed by all Internet-based voting schemes.17
Many advocates also maintain that Internet voting will increase voter
participation, save money, and is safe. We find the safety argument
surprising in light of frequent government warnings of cybersecurity
threats and news of powerful government-developed viruses. We see
little benefit in measures that might improve voter turnout while
casting doubt on the integrity of the results.
Almost all the arguments on behalf of Internet voting ignore a
critical risk Internet-based voting shares with all computerized
voting-wholesale theft. In the days of hand-counted paper ballots,
election theft was conducted at the retail level by operatives at
polling places and local election offices. By contrast, introduction
of computers into the voting process created the threat that
elections can be stolen by inserting malware into code on large
numbers of machines. The situation is even more dangerous with
Internet voting, since both the central servers and the voters'
computers are potentially under attack from everywhere.
Despite the serious threats it poses to election integrity, Internet
voting is being used in several countries and U.S. states, and there
is increasing public pressure to adopt it elsewhere. We examine some
of these threats, in the hope of encouraging the technical community
to oppose Internet voting unless and until the threats are eliminated
...
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/10/155536-internet-voting-in-the-us/fulltext
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/10/155536-internet-voting-in-the-us/pdf
***** Moderator's Note *****
When the authors say "no email program in widespread use today
provides direct support for encrypted email", I think they're
wrong. Thunderbird, just as one example, requires only an X.509
certificate to send encrypted email. Mutt, an email client popular on
Unix and Linux systems, has PGP support built-in.
BTW, I oppose any kind of "distance" voting when not absolutely
necessary. If people can't be bothered going to the polls, then they
don't deserve to cast a vote.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:38:09 -0500
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Internet Voting in the U.S.
Message-ID: <barmar-1333D6.10380905112012@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240854ccbc9ea2a6dc@[10.0.1.11]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> When the authors say "no email program in widespread use today
> provides direct support for encrypted email", I think they're
> wrong. Thunderbird, just as one example, requires only an X.509
> certificate to send encrypted email. Mutt, an email client popular on
> Unix and Linux systems, has PGP support built-in.
According to this site:
http://litmus.com/blog/email-client-market-share-stats-infographic-june-2
012/email-client-market-share-june-2012
Thunderbird is not in the top 11 of mail clients; it's just mixed in the
"Other" category that counts for 3% of all uses. So it's arguable
whether it would count as widespread enough to be relevant for something
like this.
>
> BTW, I oppose any kind of "distance" voting when not absolutely
> necessary. If people can't be bothered going to the polls, then they
> don't deserve to cast a vote.
How about this analogy:
"I oppose any kind of distance banking when not absolutely necessary. If
people can't be bothered going to a bank branch, then they don't deserve
access to their money."
I have no problem going to the polls myself; my polling place is only a
couple of blocks from home, and there's never been a line of more than 2
people when I've gone. But I've heard of people waiting in long lines at
the polls -- why should we have to do that if other technologies can
make things more convenient?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't care about anyone's bank account but mine, whether accessed at
a distance or otherwise. I care a LOT about the verifiability of the
voting process, and my comment stands.
We should have to wait in long lines because that's the price of
Democracy. It doesn't happen often enough to change anyone's lives,
and there are already provisions to bypass lines if you're crippled.
Convenience has its place: I print out my bording pass at home when
I'm going to fly somewhere, and I have an online banking account that
allows me to schedule regular utility payments in advance, or to pay a
bill electronically on the due date and thus avoid a late fee. Those
are things that affect only me, not my neighbors or government.
The voting process has to be believable and secure. If the electorate
doesn't believe that all-those-other-fools voted the current
officeholder in of their own free will, then we cease to have a
democracy.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 5 Nov 2012 23:01:51 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Internet Voting in the U.S.
Message-ID: <20121105230151.55307.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> When the authors say "no email program in widespread use today
>> provides direct support for encrypted email", I think they're
>> wrong. ...
Outlook and Outlook Express support S/MIME, but I would estimate that
0.001% of users actually have a certificate configured, so in practice
the other 99.999% don't do encrypted mail.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: 05 Nov 2012 06:02:55 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Minneapolis police pushing for more license plate data privacy
Message-ID: <5097568f$0$95324$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>Minneapolis police pushing for more license plate data privacy
>Under Minnesota state law, all license plate reader data is public by default.
>by Cyrus Farivar
>Nov 1 2012
>Ars Technica
>...
>
>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/minneapolis-police-pushing-for-more-license-plate-data-privacy/
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Information about which license plate was seen where should be
>public: it shows where the police were at that time, and thus gives
>citizens information about which areas the police are patrolling.
Although the Minneapolis police (probably the same as many other cities')
has license place readers attached to fixed structures (ie. bridges,
key intersections, etc) as well as patrol cars.
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:36:02 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When Hacking Was in Its Infancy
Message-ID: <8f4afab2-1359-4ade-bf5e-ec7ef5b58d2e@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 2, 1:39 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/science/peter-g-neumann-and-the-hac
> ...
> -or-
>
> http://goo.gl/OsSAA
>
Richard Feynman in "Surely You're Joking", wrote of the desire to
experiment with computing equipment (IBM tabulating machines) while at
Los Alamos during WW II.
After the war, Northrup engineers hooked up various IBM tab machines
to create a crude computer to order to get desperately needed number
crunching power. Their experimentation became the basis of the IBM
CPC, which was a poor man's computer of the late 1940s and 1950s. IBM
sold about a thousand of those at a time when there was only a handful
of real computers. (Pugh, "Building IBM", Bashe, "IBM's Early
Computers).
As to malicious hacking, kids in high school were breaking into master
accounts on time sharing systems in 1970.
***** Moderator's Note *****
If kids in high school were "breaking into master accounts" in 1970,
I'd like to see the news reports and/or court records that show
it. These vague claims don't cut it.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:40:17 -0600
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When Hacking Was in Its Infancy
Message-ID: <w9-dnXTosPBsdgrNnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@supernews.com>
HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> writes:
>As to malicious hacking, kids in high school were breaking into master
>accounts on time sharing systems in 1970.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>If kids in high school were "breaking into master accounts" in 1970,
>I'd like to see the news reports and/or court records that show
>it. These vague claims don't cut it.
I don't know about 1970, but in 1977 or so, I was one of those kids. Our
teachers were incredibly stupid with password security (one teacher kept
a copy of the password written on a piece of paper stuck under her coffee
cup with a piece of tape), and the students had the run of the
timesharing system. We wrote some great games!
As for news reports and court records - that stuff simply did not apply
in the 70s. You had to something really outrageous to even get caught,
let alone prosecuted in those days - some of the dumber phreakers got in
trouble, but hackers, in the original sense of the word (you did NOT
break stuff), no way. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:08:31 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When Hacking Was in Its Infancy
Message-ID: <6518f9ff-32f2-47dc-a433-2b51872a5243@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> If kids in high school were "breaking into master accounts" in 1970,
> I'd like to see the news reports and/or court records that show
> it. These vague claims don't cut it.
This involved the time sharing systems of a school district where I
was employed. The time sharing system of the time had a "chief
executive account" which had the ability to create new signons,
library size, and other maintenance and supervisory functions that
regular users were not allowed to do. The kids involved were caught
and punished; but there was no news reports nor court records as it
was handled internally.
Also, kids would find the logon of commercial accounts and use them to
access other time sharing systems and snoop around libraries. The
kids were curious about working with advanced functions other time
sharing systems might offer.
A year or so later the school district got an HP-2000 machine for
BASIC timesharing which was supposedly hacker proof since chief
executive functions were performed only by the computer's console, not
by any account. However, the kids discovered a glitch in the software
in which they could cause the computer to crash and shut down, and
crashed it from time to time. The school district was not amused
because service was disrupted. The kids were caught and punished, but
again it was handled internally.
I guess by today's standards it all doesn't seem like very much, but
back then it was a big deal.
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:59:23 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Did anyone else get a call from the Mitt Romney campaign?
Message-ID: <efhf98dqjmb37vouphs0mphe96fcmmoqin@4ax.com>
Per Pete Cresswell:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Oh, please don't do that: if you don't like the calls, then all you
>need to do is listen to the whole message. No matter how many trunks
>they buy, their capacity is limited, and that means that if you tie
>up a trunk and enough other voters do the same, then the system will
>fail.
>
>Plus, hanging up quickly marks you as "already decided", and that fact
>goes into a database which is used to decide how assets will be
>allocated to the "not yet committed" voters. By listening to the
>entire message, you divert resources away from others, and so dilute
>the efforts directed at undecided votes.
>
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
Thanks for that insight. I've heard the same thing a few times
before, but it never really sunk in.
Now I'm a believer.
- -
Pete Cresswell
***** Moderator's Note *****
Hey, it's a game: I think we should show them the same civility and
concern that they have for us!
Bill Horne
Moderator
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2012 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues