SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Michigan Votes to Require Warrants for Police to Seize and Search Digital Devices
Michigan votes to require warrants for police to seize and search digital devices:
Voters in the US state of Michigan have decided that searches of laptop, phones, and associated electronic data will require a search warrant going forward.
Michigan Proposal 20-2 to require a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications passed overwhelmingly, with 88.7 percent (nearly four million people) voting "yes," and only 11.3 percent voting "no."
At the same time, the proposal amends the Michigan Constitution to bring the existing protections from unlawful and unreasonable searches of homes, documents, and other personal possessions up to date, and include electronic data and communications on people's devices.
The goal of Proposal 2 was to make sure the new rules explicitly state a private citizen's electronic data is equally protected, thus removing any vagueness and various interpretations. Currently, law enforcement must have a warrant before searching a home and somebody's personal belongings, including papers and other items, but electronic versions of these stored on devices like phones and laptops are not mentioned in the language of the legal solutions that far predate the technological transformation of society.
Massachusetts Voters Approve Ballot Expanding Open Repair Data in Blow to Auto Industry
Massachusetts voters approve ballot expanding open repair data in blow to auto industry:
(Reuters) - Voters in Massachusetts on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure forcing automakers to provide expanded access to mechanical and electronic repair data and allow independent shops to repair increasingly sophisticated technology.
The decision delivers the first significant win in a fight over who will control the $390 billion U.S. auto data aftermarket in the digital age.
[...] "This referendum...means that despite advances in technology, owners will be able to have their repair data shared directly with their trusted independent shops," Bill Hanvey, president and CEO of the Auto Care Association said in a statement, adding the group worked with cybersecurity experts to ensure privacy during data transfers.
Under the state's ballot measure, approved by 75% of voters, on-board diagnostic and mechanical data will have to be made available via an open-platform app for 2022 vehicle models and beyond.
Four states vote to legalize marijuana.
Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana all passed legislation Tuesday permitting the possession of weed by adults, which means 15 states have legalized recreational weed or voted to legalize it.
See more on the story here.
As a life long resident of the red state of South Dakota, I'm glad to see people who need this for medical purposes can have access and the police can spend their time on serious crimes instead of wasting it on recreational marijuana users.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @06:03PM (8 children)
Why bother with pseudonyms and all the security issues associated, when you could have a "ballot stub" or receipt which would allow checking your vote against a database while preserving anonymity?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @07:36PM (7 children)
"all the security issues associated"
Can you be more specific? Read what I typed and explain the security issues and how they compare with our current system where ballots are mailed in. With a mail in ballot I can still prove to someone how I voted by simply showing them my ballot before mailing it in.
"when you could have a "ballot stub" or receipt which would allow checking your vote against a database while preserving anonymity"
A pseudonym system also preserves anonymity no worse than what we currently have. My employer won't know my pseudonym to be able to know who I voted for. Sure I can show them but I can just as easily show them my ballot before mailing it. Be specific, elaborate. I want details. Look how detailed my post is.
Sure there are better crypto systems but based on how much difficulty I had explaining basic cryptography to relatively tech savvy people on this blog in the past trying to convince the average person/the general public that such crypto systems are better is an impractical challenge. The general public doesn't understand cryptography whatsoever and trying to get them to understand this relatively simple pseudonym system above would be challenging enough.
If you can elaborate on a better voting system that doesn't involve crypto please enlighten us. It needs to be able to allow me to tally the votes myself with my vote included or somehow provide proof (and not faith) that my vote was tallied.
The ballot stub would have what on it? Information that lets me look up my vote (ie: that information is basically a pseudonym ... duh)? Is the information associated with everyone else's vote also listed so I can tally my vote with everyone else's and know my vote was counted in the total? Or am I supposed to have faith that it was added into the total? I don't want a faith based system. I want a proof based system. A faith based system is nothing short of fraud.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @09:10PM (6 children)
Because someone needs to maintain a database linking pseudonym to real human, and they can track your vote too. And knock you off if you vote wrong, which is the entire point of anonymous voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:16PM (5 children)
I don't think that's necessarily different than our current system. IIRC, the ballot that I received in the mail and submit back has identifying information on it. If the current system is supposed to prevent me from voting twice then it has to.
So someone could take that information and use it to identify me. Also there is a way to see if your vote was counted.
"Under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, every voter who casts a provisional ballot is entitled to find out from his/her county elections official if the ballot was counted and if not, the reason why it was not counted."
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/ [ca.gov]
I believe, at least in some states, you can check online if your vote was counted (but there is still no proof to you that it was actually tallied and which candidate it was counted for. It's still faith based). So your point is moot regardless.
Which means they can just as easily identify who you voted for.
Which leaves us to the question, how is it worse than the current system.
Also why does there need to be a database linking a pseudonym to a human. There doesn't have to be one and the assumption above is that no such database exists because there is no need for it. Sure you may not trust them not to make one but with the current system they can just as easily make a database tracking which mail in ballots voted for which candidate. So this is no worse than the current system and that's the key point here. It's still better than the current system.
Alternatively if you don't trust that they aren't secretly making such a database without your knowledge then you can go to the voting station, show your ID, they cross your name off a list, and when you go on the computer you make or get your pseudonym there. Then you vote on the computer and submit your vote. After you leave the election guards will then enter a password on the computer for the next voter and they will tell the computer system you voted. So there is no way that they can be secretly associating your pseudonym with your real identity. Such a measure would not include turning in a prefilled ballot but the option to turn in a prefilled ballot using a system similar to the ones I mentioned in my prior post could still be available.
There is no need to maintain a database linking the voter to the pseudonym. There are workarounds in the event you don't trust that such a database isn't being secretly kept. and it's still better than the current mail in ballot system where they can still keep track of who voted for what candidate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:42PM (4 children)
Anyways to elaborate here we go
"Voting Q&A: What prevents me or anyone from voting twice — in person and by mail?
First, ballots have barcodes unique to the individual. When ballots are received by clerks, they are scanned in and poll books are updated to show that the person has voted. So if someone sent in their mail ballot and it was processed, and then they showed up to vote at a polling place, the poll worker checking them in would be able to see that they had already voted."
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/voting-qa-what-prevents-me-or-anyone-from-voting-twice-in-person-and-by-mail/ [summitdaily.com]
So under our current faith based voting system they can link your ballot to you personally and they can secretly keep track of who you voted for once you submit your ballot by mail. You take it on faith they aren't doing so. So my above proof based system assumes that they aren't keeping track of which pseudonym is associated with which voter and that no such database exists (because there is no need to have such a database) but if your argument is that they can secretly make such a database under a proof based voting system then the counterargument is that they can secretly create one just as easily with the current faith based system and that it's possible to create a proof based voting system that gives the voter the option of voting in a way that makes it impossible to allow such a database to secretly be associating your pseudonym with your identity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:47PM
Our current faith based voting system contains absolutely all of the disadvantages of a proof based system with absolutely none of the advantages. We need to transition to a proof based voting system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:51PM (2 children)
If the system wants me to reasonably believe that my vote counted then I DEMAND a proof based voting system where I can tally my vote with the rest. Otherwise I will reasonably conclude that they aren't providing me one because they have something to hide. If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. They won't give me a proof based voting system because they have something to fear. GIVE ME A PROOF BASED RANKED VOTING SYSTEM!!! I DEMAND IT!!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @10:54PM
(and I have the right to demand it because I pay taxes. This faith based voting garbage is nonsense. It's not acceptable whatsoever).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @11:22PM
err ... the quote should be that they fear giving me a proof based voting system because they have something to hide.