iGovt/ RealMe

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

Do we have a policy/ position on the iGovt/RealMe ID system?
https://www.realme.govt.nz/

On the face of it, it's just a digital signature, but something about
it makes my tin foil hat itchy (anyone remember when the Community
Service Card was going to be a "smart card" called the "KiwiCard"?).
I'm keen to learn more about it, and whether it is something we should
be supporting and using, or opposing and boycotting.

Hei kōnā
Strypey
--
Danyl Strype
Communications Manager
Pirate Party NZ
021 11 77 578

"Uncomfortable alliances are not just necessary; they reflect and
speak to the tremendous possibility of our political moment."
- Harmony Goldberg and Joshua Kahn Russell
http://www.nationofchange.org/new-radical-alliances-new-era-1337004193

"Both Marxists and Chicago-school libertarian economists can agree
that free software is the best model."
- Keith C Curtis
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=407

[Andrew McPherson]

On it's own without a passport, it seems to be an way to get people down to the post office for a photo.

With the passport photo, it seems to be useful for ordering things online such as with banks.

However, it is advisable to always deal with banks online, as callcentre staff can't be trusted to get simple calculations right.

(I got cold-called on my cellphone this afternoon by an auckland based kiwibank callcentre worker who couldn't even do basic sums right, or follow basic english. I've decided to wait until I receive my old holiday pay before I consider any changes to my personal banking.)

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to
ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Nick Taylor]

If this is linking biometric data with online identity/data, it's
extremely dangerous.

It's basically a tool for a government to monitor and control the
citizens they're supposed to be serving - and assumes that the
(relatively) benign government we have at the moment won't be replaced
by authoritarian fascists somewhere down the track (although to be fair,
the National government appear to be trying to achieve this
transformation during their own tenure)

There was a massive fuss/protest/eventual-scrapping of a similar scheme
in the UK about 7 years ago. It was going to cost billions, and
achieve... what exactly?

The Brit scheme was progressively softened, eg: it would be
"optional"... but the fact remains that there was nothing to say that
future govts wouldn't turn it into a way of "stopping you and asking you
for your papers"... and be able to read (on the spot) everything about
you, going back decades.


To quote someone far wiser and more knowledgeable than myself, "anyone
advocating linking biometric data with online databases, Just. Isn't.
Thinking".




Nick

[Bruce Kingsbury]

I don't actually see why anyone is happy with the current card but wouldn't have been happy with a 'smart card'. The card I have right now contains in human-readable form my unique 9 digit client number. From that WINZ can instantly find my entire payment history, all of the documents I've ever sent or shown them (they copy and scan everything, I think they even have my birth certificate and drivers license on file), everything I've ever claimed an advance or special grant for, all the subsidised doctors appointments and prescriptions I've ever had, etc.

Having the same number on a smart card wouldn't make a heck of a lot of difference.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew McPherson]

As I have recently applied for the online passport / Real Me ID, I can confirm the process only involves a digital photo.

It is possible that in several years time, they could divorce Real Me from the Passport in order to add biometrics.

However, as the online passport doesn't even require a current signature, then 

there is slim chance that the passport will require a biometric obtained at the post office.

As for being stopped and asked for your papers, that happens to anyone who drives...

So I would be more concerned about biometrics on drivers licenses, unless it was blood type / donor status.

However, as I do not drive due to medical condition, that is unlikely to ever affect me personally.

The only smart card that really concerns me is the Touch to Pay credit cards.

I don't like how there is no authentication, no ability to verify amounts first.

I really don't like it how if you lose your card(s), someone can just go out and get anything under $80.

ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Philip Dowie]

> The only smart card that really concerns me is the Touch to Pay credit cards.

> I don't like how there is no authentication, no ability to verify amounts first.
> I really don't like it how if you lose your card(s), someone can just go out and get anything under $80.

These cards are somewhat concerning, however, keep in mind the backers have stated that in cases of fraud involving contactless cards, the liability to the user is $0.

I think what is concerning is the possibility of getting enough data about the card to use it - in a non-contactless context - ie, creating a plain old mag-stripe only card.  The card companies claim the cards don't transmit the name on the card, nor the 3-digit code - but if you've got the card number & its expiry date, and a mag-strip encoder, there's nothing to stop you making your own non-chip card.  (Unless they use a different CVV1 code for contactless transactions, in which case the cloned card isn't really that much use).

It's debit cards (contactless ones especially) that really scare me.  With a credit card, you're spending the bank's money.  If the card is stolen, it's in their interests to stop the fraud - after all, you may not pay them, & a judge would back you up (credit contracts and all).  On the other hand, with a debit card, the shoe is on the other foot - it's your money that gets spent, and in case of fraud, you're out of pocket, and now, also, have no money to spend on a lawyer to get the bank to actually cough up.
 

Ok, I'll take the tin-hat off now.

[mathmo]

There is a difference between extra surveillance/openness of those who live on taxpayer's money (be that beneficiaries or MPs!) and the government spying on *all* citizenry without exception!

 

 

Philip Dowie, I much more prefer a debit card over a credit card for ease of budgeting purposes, but your later comment in this thread gives me pause for thought! Yikes. But hmmm.... I suppose it still won't be such a big deal, if I instead link the debit card to a special spending account which I don't allow to rise above a certain level. Thus should be easy enough to build in a certain amount of protection for myself.

ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

Following that logic taxpayers should be spied on to make sure they are paying the correct amount of tax!

[Bruce Kingsbury]

The only difference is time. "First they came" etc...

[Philip Dowie]

Keeping records is not the same as spying.  WINZ keeps records that they come across in legitimate carrying out of their function, and records generated during the carrying out of said function.  They've even got some controls on what data they cannot request.

Just because my bank has my bank records, doesn't mean they are spying on me, or even spying on my bank account.

If WINZ had unfettered access to my bank records, then that would be a different story. (They don't, and don't have any need to - even if I were a beneficiary (I'm not)). 

For those they feel they do need to "spy" on (to keep with the phraseology of the thread), they have a solution - http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/payment-card/youth-service-payment-card.html - they seem to only do this for youths, but I see no technical reason why it couldn't be extended to anyone who they pay money to.

--

[mathmo]

 

No, only if you believe tax is money owned by the government???? I certainly don't!

[Bruce Kingsbury]

I think my real point is that there's no real difference between the originally proposed "kiwicard" that everyone freaked out about (a unique ID on a smartcard, readable by a smart card reader) and the current Community Services Card (a unique ID printed on the card and readable by a human) .. both versions store a unique ID linked to one or more databases containing information about the cardholder but people seem a lot more paranoid when there's a computer chip involved.

 

[Philip Dowie]

> people seem a lot more paranoid when there's a computer chip involved.

That is certainly true.  But let's examine some possibilities as to why:

1. machine readable implies the information is on the card (it isn't but to the ignorant, it seems that way, due to the machines doing the reading being networked to the database(s) the card provides the key to)

2. machine readable implies (to the ignorant, which = most of the population) that the card can be read remotely, by anyone with hardware, which, in concert with (1) implies big threat from afar/unknown/at any time tin hat! tin hat! tin hat!

So, to re-examine RealMe vs. existing CSC - at a push, and on the surface, I'd say that RealMe appears to be less of a threat, as unlike the CSC, which to have one, you basically must be a beneficiary - student allowances count, as do those who are only receiving the accommodation supplement - so if you have one, then reasonably reliably, one can come to the unfair conclusion that you are a bludger.  RealMe, on the other hand, can be used for more things, not benefit related - I've got one - for filing my annual Company Return.  (That doesn't mean I actually want one - I don't, but I've no choice, and that's a different, but related matter).

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

Tax revenues belong to the nation and in the current system the administration controls how it is disbursed. The administration must be transparent in that disbursement. The argument is specious - Taxes are paid in return for services the money belongs to the nation as a whole not those who paid it. As real wages continue to fall, especially in comparison to corporate profit the number of taxpayers will continue to fall. You are, in effect, calling for spying to be permitted for an increasing number of New Zealanders. As being spied on is a impediment to being able to participate in the democratic process this will degrade democracy within the nation.

But lets assume that the taxes paid belong to the taxpayer then every taxpayer has the right to know what the other taxpayers are paying in the interest of fairness. Also each taxpayer should be able to directly control how his taxes are spent since they belong to him. Unworkable.

The solution to the problem, for many Pirate Parties around the world, is Unconditional Basic Income. That is the resources of the country belong to all and should be equitably shared.

[Philip Dowie]

> being spied on is a impediment to being able to participate in the democratic process

That's a leap of faith.  Can you explain how you start at a) "being spied upon" and arrive at b) "impediment to participation in the democratic process"?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'd just like to know your reasoning

For instance, spying on citizens and citizens right to privacy are mutually exclusive, through the following arguments

1) every citizen has the right to privacy

2) spying breaches privacy

3) those citizens spied upon have their right to privacy breached (denied)
...

4) spying on citizens is illegal

if you accept (1) & (2), (3) follows, and (4) is the inescapable conclusion

If (4) is to not be the conclusion, then either (1) has to change (remove citizens rights), or (2) has to change (somehow spy without breaching privacy?  I guess you could redefine privacy, or what constitutes a breach).

[Philip Dowie]

(just to be pedantic, there should be another argument between (1) and (2), let us call it (1.5)

1.5) to breach a citizen's rights is illegal.

[Bruce Kingsbury]

There is a balance of rights between the public's right to privacy, and the need of a state or business to be able to properly confirm the identity of a person and keep records of transactions with them in order to provide services or conduct business.

An identity card of any sort isn't necessarily evil unless it's being abused.

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

A leap of faith - have you never whispered in your life?

The ability to communicate in private in order to discuss and develop political ideas, that may be objected to by the authorities or any section of society, is a human right.  United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The fact that the authorities are or may be eavesdropping may well influence the desire and ability of people to express themselves openly - even in small groups. Especially when, despite being legal, there may be adverse consequences from the current or future governments. Also the chance that the intelligence gathered may be leaked to an opposing group can be intimidating.

A climate of fear or intimidation is not conducive to an open democratic process.

in 2007 Privacy International rated New Zealand as "Systemic failure to uphold safeguards" - by now we must be on the cusp of being an endemic surveillance society like the UK and the US.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Privacy_International_2007_privacy_ranking_map.png

[Philip Dowie]

Thanks, you've cleared that up.  As I said before - I was not saying you were wrong, it just wasn't clear as to how you arrived at your conclusion from your arguments.

PS: "leap of faith" is a term used in logical discussion where the conclusion has not been shown to follow from the argument.  Best to not assume everyone thinks the same way as you (else what's the point of all this anyway? If we all think alike, there's nothing to discuss.)

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Philip Dowie <phi...@jnawk.net.nz> wrote:
>> So, to re-examine RealMe vs. existing CSC - at a push, and on the surface, I'd say that RealMe appears to be less of a threat, as unlike the CSC, which to have one, you basically must be a beneficiary - student allowances count, as do those who are only receiving the accommodation supplement <<

No. Anyone who earns under a certain amount (about $1000 a week for a
childless couple) is entitled to a community services card, which
allows access to publicly-funded services like cheaper doctors visits.

Getting back to the point of this thread:

>> RealMe, on the other hand, can be used for more things, not benefit related - I've got one - for filing my annual Company Return. (That doesn't mean I actually want one - I don't, but I've no choice, and that's a different, but related matter). <<

This is one aspect of what concerns me about this RealMe business. The
fact that it's nominally voluntary, but in practice, for many people,
it's compulsory. It's analogous to the DIA web filter - theoretically
we can choose an ISP that isn't using it, so it's "voluntary", but
there's no obligation on the ISP to reveal whether or not they are
using it, so for many people, it's effectively compulsory.

[Philip Dowie]

When does it stop?  There are so many things in society that are voluntarily in theory, but in practice are compulsory.

Like having a photo ID - in theory, voluntary, however, everyone with a driver's license, most, if not all secondary students, passport.

If I want a bank account, I have to fork over personal details to the bank.   Technically, I don't need one, but that's not practical.

We need to take a step back and ask:  Is this actually an issue?  I'm sure it's a wonderful discussion, but the value of the discussion is nil. 

This is a non-issue due to it actually being nothing new. 

In theory, all this is a big deal, and all of the other non-voluntary stuff is also a big deal, but in practice, who (other than those who have contributed to this discussion) gives a rat's?

[mathmo]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:20:39 AM UTC+13, Andrew Reitemeyer wrote:

Tax revenues belong to the nation and in the current system the administration controls how it is disbursed.

 

So if there is 100% tax rate then everything is "owned by the nation"?? And we're 100% slaves?? 

[mathmo]

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:20:49 PM UTC+13, strypey wrote:

Kia ora koutou

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Philip Dowie <phi...@jnawk.net.nz> wrote:
>> So, to re-examine RealMe vs. existing CSC - at a push, and on the surface, I'd say that RealMe appears to be less of a threat, as unlike the CSC, which to have one, you basically must be a beneficiary - student allowances count, as do those who are only receiving the accommodation supplement <<

No. Anyone who earns under a certain amount (about $1000 a week for a
childless couple) is entitled to a community services card, which
allows access to publicly-funded services like cheaper doctors visits.

 

At that level you're almost certain to be getting more out of the government than you're putting in. 

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

reductio ad absurdum is not a valid argument. 

What I am stating is the current situation. But you point out an interesting fact . At the moment everything  belongs to the Crown. As we have seen in Christchurch - the state can compulsorily buy anything it wants and pay any price it sees fit.   I like your thinking. Perhaps we should abolish private ownership of land and replace it with the right of all citizens to have free tenure of a set parcel of land or its equivalent and set up a free market to let tenants swap land and pay for any improvements made.

--

[M.Rausch]

Volunteer crime fighters wanted in Wellington?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11135327

Why do they need/want volunteers for this?

[Nick Taylor]

On 06/10/13 10:42, Andrew Reitemeyer wrote:
> reductio ad absurdum is not a valid argument.
>
> What I am stating is the current situation. But you point out an
> interesting fact . At the moment everything belongs to the Crown. As we
> have seen in Christchurch - the state can compulsorily buy anything it
> wants and pay any price it sees fit. I like your thinking. Perhaps we
> should abolish private ownership of land and replace it with the right
> of all citizens to have free tenure of a set parcel of land or its
> equivalent and set up a free market to let tenants swap land and pay for
> any improvements made.

+1

Or at least I think this is a conversation that we (as a society) need
to have, because as far as I can see, nothing really gets solved without
land-reform.

I'm not sure about abolishing private ownership... and I'm not even sure
about hereditary rights... we (westerners) have 1000s of years of
history of being territorial animals... and while some societies don't,
"territorialism" as a human instinct is something that I'd hesitate at
getting into a fight with.

It's negative effects (derivative slavery (it is that simple)) can be
mitigated though, without attacking something that people will literally
fight to the death to defend. "A place to live". "A place to grow food".
There is no reason whatever that we can't organise ourselves in such a
way that having these as basic (free) human rights, should cost you the
best part of your life.


That said, this probably can't be achieved without impinging on the
territoriality of some... and (as was the case in the UK, 100 years
ago), people's lives are being made gratuitously difficult (with really
serious consequences), simply because To Few People Own Too Much Land.


So as a starting point, if this is something worth looking at, then we
possibly ought to get a handle on who owns what exactly. Faith in numbers.




This (I suspect) is outside what Pirates traditionally concern
themselves with... but we are (in large part) programmers... systems
designers. Because of the internet, we 'get' ecosystems, and we get that
operating systems are not a permanent fact of life, and sometimes need
to be reworked. The way we're currently managing land, is the
fundamental basis of our societal operating-system... and it was written
by (and for) people who have long since left the building. Not us.





Nick


PS: The Chinese just bought an area of Europe the size of Belgium.

[Nick Taylor]

> Volunteer crime fighters wanted in Wellington?
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11135327
>
> Why do they need/want volunteers for this?

I increasingly can't tell the difference between NZ news and satire.


CCTV cameras don't prevent crime... according to the UK experience, and
the UK is absolutely bristling with the things. Last time I was in a
London Bus, I counted 20 cameras in the downstairs area alone. The
one-man coffee kiosks at the railway stations have 3 cameras each... all
pointed at the barrista.

They've been found not to prevent crime.

And Wellington Police think they're going to reduce crime with 13
cameras? That they can't afford to monitor without getting people to
work for free?

Nah... this has got to be satire. Someone's having a laugh.





Nick

[Ben Vidulich]

They probably don't want to allocate resources to something that they know won't be that effective.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to
ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Ben Vidulich

M: +64 27 381 1294

E: b...@vidulich.co.nz

W: http://www.vidulich.co.nz

[Nick Taylor]

> They probably don't want to allocate resources to something that they
> know won't be that effective.

Or if it takes 20 people to monitor 13 cameras, they only need to
install about 3 million more, to have the entire population of New
Zealand montitoring each other... cutting crime to zero at a stroke,
because everyone is too busy watching everyone else.

They wouldn't even have to buy the cameras - just use the ones already
in phones/laptops... which everyone will be sat in front of anyway,
because they're all monitoring each other.

A bit like facebook in fact, but with video.



I was on an airoplane a couple of days ago, and if you stand up at the
back, the most noticable thing you see is hundreds of screens... on the
back of seats, playing movies, games, music, TV... anything, anything,
anything to stop people getting bored for more than 5 seconds at a time.
The entire thing is a Stopping People Getting Bored Machine that flies
(through the silver-blue sky). A 200 tentacled hydra, with a polp
stopping directly before the face of each human occupant.

It's a bit like the global info-sphere as a whole in fact - we're flying
through space on a giant watery ball, all hooked into this machine we've
made to stop us getting bored... but ignore that for the mo.

It'd be quite creepy/cool instead of people watching movies on the
plane, each screen simply displayed the feeds from the cameras showing
the faces of the other passengers. Like compulsory chat-roulette, but
without any user-control. It'd be hard to watch and riveting at the same
time.


It's all art man, it's all metaphor. It's the limit-case of
crowd-sourced surveillance. The Universal Panopticon. The Blue Spaghetti
Monster.





Nick


PS: I'm supposed to be doing my accounts.

[mathmo]

Because there is a very very large number of CCTV cameras in the city, some of which are run by the police. And obviously enough, they don't just want to record it, but also be able to respond to it in real time.

 

I wonder if one day in the future we might see large scale (more than merely local volunteers could handle) real time monitoring of cameras being outsourced to elsewhere with very wages (such as India), and when they see something "suspicious" they'd notify their NZ supervisor. You'd be able to have surveillance on a huge scale then :-/

[M.Rausch]

On 06/10/13 17:30, mathmo wrote:
> I wonder if one day in the future we might see large scale (more than
> merely local volunteers could handle) real time monitoring of cameras being
> outsourced to elsewhere with very wages (such as India), and when they see
> something "suspicious" they'd notify their NZ supervisor.

...

That day has already been, it happened some months ago.

"... a video camera, which transmits its images halfway around the
world to India, where workers are checking ..."

http://nyti.ms/13YxeC7

or the full length link to The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/nyregion/hospitals-struggle-to-get-workers-to-wash-their-hands.html?_r=0


Matt

...

[Andrew McPherson]

I disagree with the notion of abolishing private property with collective state ownership, 

the main problems with which have already been debated and found to fail in the Soviet Union, China prior to 1980, East Germany & still the case in Cuba and Venezuela .

I don't think that even if : we were the majority political party in a coalition government of New Zealand, and all the PPNZ MPs were capable of producing Doctorate level political solutions to social problems; that we would even be able to make communism work as an economic solution to asset inequality.

I do believe that an UBI is the best way to mitigate income inequality, as the swiss are voting on a binding referendum currently. 

(However, at a more modest proposal than what I believe can be done with a flat transactions tax on everything.)

[Nick Taylor]

> I disagree with the notion of abolishing private property with
> collective state ownership,
> the main problems with which have already been debated and found to fail
> in the Soviet Union, China prior to 1980, East Germany & still the case
> in Cuba and Venezuela .

And you own property.

On the other hand, pretty much anywhere in the pre-European New World
while territorial, did not have what we consider "ownership" in the
West, and those of those of The New World that survived, could point to
us and say "look, private ownership is failing worse than communism
did", and they'd be right. The Amazon is not surviving "private
ownwership", and if it goes, we go.

And say what you like about the Soviet Union - when they finally got
capitalism the ruble crashed so hard that their life-expectancy dropped
by 20 years... but they had state-housing that they could not be thrown
out of. If/when America crashes, you're going to see mass homlessness
(in fact you already are), which you simply didn't see in Russia.


So attempting to raise the bogey of totalitarian communism doesn't
really wash I'm afraid - as you say, "this has been debated".

...


However as I said in a prev email, "human terrirorialism" is not an
instinct I'd want to get into a fight with. The only way of going up
against it is to (somehow) do a Napster of Land, and find a way of
giving it away. That would work, and you'd get to keep your house(s).
You just wouldn't be able to charge tenants 1/2 their income.

> I don't think that even if : we were the majority political party in a
> coalition government of New Zealand, and all the PPNZ MPs were capable
> of producing Doctorate level political solutions to social problems;
> that we would even be able to make communism work as an economic
> solution to asset inequality.
>
> I do believe that an UBI is the best way to mitigate income inequality,
> as the swiss are voting on a binding referendum currently.

Be interesting to see how that turns out - something fundamental to what
we're going through right now is a transition from scarcity based
economics, to abundance-based. The web is kindof forcing it, because
anything that be converted to information becomes easier to replicate
than Galileean loaves and fishes. Add biotech to the brew and you're
turning that tendency from hortizontal to vertical...

... but...

> (However, at a more modest proposal than what I believe can be done with
> a flat transactions tax on everything.)

... the trouble with that is (as Winston Churchill pointed out), if you
increase "the wealth" of a population, the property market will skim it.
As he pointed out is his now famous "rare" speech, when the tolls were
lifted from the London Bridge, the money people on the "poor" side of
the river saved, automatically went into a south-side rent increase.
Landlords took it all.

Likewise women's lib as I might have mentioned earlier. If you make the
people richer, banks and landlords (eventually) take it all.

Meantime, the taxes we pay (and if it's a flat transaction tax, then
it's paid disproportionately by the poor), goes into infrastructure
increasing the value of the property of landowners... which leads to a
situation that in real terms, landowners aren't paying any tax at all.
See Winston Churchill again. This is not a Communist observation.


This is why I say I don't think anything gets fixed without land-reform.
Land is the ultimate artificial scarcity. It's the one thing that
underpins all the others.

May look like an absolute scarcity, but that isn't (and never has been)
the dynamic that drives the mass migration of rural-poor to urban-poor.
The problem is that too few people own too much property... which
they're then charging monopoly rents on.


I agree about UBI, but it's meaningless (or at least of temporary value)
if the property market and landlords are just going to take it.






Nick

[Andrew McPherson]

I disagree with the notion of abolishing private property with
collective state ownership,
the main problems with which have already been debated and found to fail
in the Soviet Union, China prior to 1980, East Germany & still the case
in Cuba and Venezuela .

> And you own property.

Yes, I own a few computers, some worthless shares in Air New Zealand which pay dividends of $3 or $4 every six months, and I will eventually inherit a house when my parents pass it on. 

I don't own a car, nor do I have any desire to waste money on owning one.

I also own enough books to fill a few bookshelves, which I value more than my tertiary education in computer science among other courses at VUW.

> On the other hand, pretty much anywhere in the pre-European New World while territorial, did not have what we consider "ownership" in the West, and those of those of The New World that survived, could point to us and say "look, private ownership is failing worse than communism did", and they'd be right. The Amazon is not surviving "private ownwership", and if it goes, we go.

I agree broadly with the problems with the amazon under threat from hyper-capitalism.

I am not in favour of hyper-capitalism, what I believe works best is a mixed-model economy.

I believe that a certain amount of capitalism moderated by social economics and peer economics would work.

What I disagree with is the notion that the economy should be solely state run in an attempt to totally eliminate inequality. 

What I think will work is network based economies such as electricity, cable and fibre optic internet, etc. being run along peer economics, which will not work for scarce monopoly resources such as land. 

> And say what you like about the Soviet Union - when they finally got capitalism the ruble crashed so hard that their life-expectancy dropped by 20 years... but they had state-housing that they could not be thrown out of. If/when America crashes, you're going to see mass homlessness (in fact you already are), which you simply didn't see in Russia.

I fully agree with that, and you already see extreme homelessness in america as is. 

I think that the demographic slide towards an extended reign of the democrats for the next 20 years is probably going to be bad for what little balance they have already in american politics.

So I think that hollywood will continue to try impose it's influence if the TPPA is imposed on us by our american masters and their puppet John Key.

> So attempting to raise the bogey of totalitarian communism doesn't really wash I'm afraid - as you say, "this has been debated".

====
It is a valid critique of the economic fallacy of the state takes all approach.

...


> However as I said in a prev email, "human terrirorialism" is not an instinct I'd want to get into a fight with. The only way of going up against it is to (somehow) do a Napster of Land, and find a way of giving it away. That would work, and you'd get to keep your house(s). You just wouldn't be able to charge tenants 1/2 their income.

That sounds like either the libertarian fantasy of sea-steading, or colonising the moon and mars.
However, private landlords should not be forced to accept maximum ratios of income as rent like housing NZ is.

Because you could then have people working 3 hours per week on minimum wage demanding a house for $15 and the landlord would have to accept an unrealistic expectation of paying to house the people who applied first.

I don't think that even if : we were the majority political party in a
coalition government of New Zealand, and all the PPNZ MPs were capable
of producing Doctorate level political solutions to social problems;
that we would even be able to make communism work as an economic
solution to asset inequality.

I do believe that an UBI is the best way to mitigate income inequality,
as the swiss are voting on a binding referendum currently.

Be interesting to see how that turns out - something fundamental to what we're going through right now is a transition from scarcity based economics, to abundance-based. The web is kindof forcing it, because anything that be converted to information becomes easier to replicate than Galileean loaves and fishes. Add biotech to the brew and you're turning that tendency from hortizontal to vertical...

... but...

(However, at a more modest proposal than what I believe can be done with
a flat transactions tax on everything.)

>... the trouble with that is (as Winston Churchill pointed out), if you increase "the wealth" of a population, the property market will skim it. As he pointed out is his now famous "rare" speech, when the tolls were lifted from the London Bridge, the money people on the "poor" side of the river saved, automatically went into a south-side rent increase. Landlords took it all.

> Likewise women's lib as I might have mentioned earlier. If you make the people richer, banks and landlords (eventually) take it all.

> Meantime, the taxes we pay (and if it's a flat transaction tax, then it's paid disproportionately by the poor), goes into infrastructure increasing the value of the property of landowners... which leads to a situation that in real terms, landowners aren't paying any tax at all. See Winston Churchill again. This is not a Communist observation.

If it's flat, then it applies evenly to all but those who insist on paying a penalty for cash transactions.

Second of all, false ideology about taxation doesn't make a fact. Landowners pay tax, unless you are the Queen.

> This is why I say I don't think anything gets fixed without land-reform. Land is the ultimate artificial scarcity. It's the one thing that underpins all the others.
> May look like an absolute scarcity, but that isn't (and never has been) the dynamic that drives the mass migration of rural-poor to urban-poor. The problem is that too few people own too much property... which they're then charging monopoly rents on.

I personally do not believe that lack of land is the cause of urbanisation, the excessive population is the cause of urbanisation as people look for jobs to feed themselves. 

You only need look at auckland to see excessive population in an urban area.

> I agree about UBI, but it's meaningless (or at least of temporary value) if the property market and landlords are just going to take it.

Everyone will take it who is entitled to it, but it does not change the fact that some people live in private houses which may be owned by other people. 

Smarter people would be better off investing in small businesses of their own, which can provide a better yield in profit than the uncertainties of dealing with tenants.

Cheers.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Danyl Strype]

kia ora koutou

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> It'd be quite creepy/cool instead of people watching movies on the plane, each screen simply displayed the feeds from the cameras showing the faces of the other passengers. Like compulsory chat-roulette, but without any user-control. It'd be hard to watch and riveting at the same time. <<

Have you seen the documentary We Live in Public? This is exactly what
the guy it's about sets up for a month, except in a basement instead
of one a plane. We showed the doco last week as part of our 3 week
series on Surveillance. Showing 'Free the Network' next week.

Ma te wā

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

It appears that RealMe logins will be the authentication system for
people who want to use online voting in the next local body election:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/10/premature_success.html

Although there will be other voting options, it's another nail in the
coffin of 'impractical really not to have a RealMe'. If we are going
to put out a press release about online voting (saying all software
involved should be free code, available for auditing etc), and I think
we should, we need to say something about the involvement of RealMe.
Should people be allowed to verify a Mozilla Persona instead? Do we
even think online voting is a good idea? If people are going to
participate in democracy online, couldn't they do much more than just
vote for representatives? Should we be advocating a trial of Liquid
Democracy for local body decisions?

My understanding of the Pirate Party is that we are not populists. If
we were, we would call ourselves the Teddy Bear party, and have
policies like free birthday parties at McDonalds for every child. We
are about principles, and evidence-based policy. I agree that we don't
really have all the information we need to come up with an informed
party position on this. However, it's *totally* within our field of
interest, so how are we doing to get the research done, and come up
with an informed position? Same is true of the CloudCode issue, and a
number of others.

Ma te wā
Strypey

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Philip Dowie <phi...@jnawk.net.nz> wrote:
> When does it stop? There are so many things in society that are voluntarily
> in theory, but in practice are compulsory.
> Like having a photo ID - in theory, voluntary, however, everyone with a
> driver's license, most, if not all secondary students, passport.
> If I want a bank account, I have to fork over personal details to the bank.
> Technically, I don't need one, but that's not practical.
>
> We need to take a step back and ask: Is this actually an issue? I'm sure
> it's a wonderful discussion, but the value of the discussion is nil.
> This is a non-issue due to it actually being nothing new.
> In theory, all this is a big deal, and all of the other non-voluntary stuff
> is also a big deal, but in practice, who (other than those who have
> contributed to this discussion) gives a rat's?

[Nick Taylor]

How did the Estonians get on with electronic voting?

I think they've been doing it for > 10 years now. As a starting point,
I'd talk to the Estonian Pirate Party about what they think.

The American experience speaks loud and clear for the need for open,
non-privatised systems... theirs being plagued by corruption and errors
right from the get-go... so blatant that they actually got parodied by
The Simpsons.

I think we should be advocating for a trial of liquid democracy... and
personally, I think that electronic voting is a good idea, because it
will make this possible.


As to RealMe... I'm not sure what the long-term ramifications of that
will be. I am absolutely opposed to the need to carry biometrically
identifying "papers" (aka: cards) that link you to online databases, but
the ability to identify oneself online is probably fairly important in
many respects - so long as it doesn't somehow force out the right to
anonymity in certain spheres as well.





Nick

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

Contact Märt Põder - He was very helpfull in writing an article in the
Pirate Times
http://piratetimes.net/pirates-fighting-estonian-municipal-elections/

His Facebook account is
https://www.facebook.com/boamaod?fref=ts

Andrew R

[your...@inbox.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

1. German Federal Court decided electronic voting is unconstitutional.
2. Current NZ election procedures are not up to international standards.
3. Current election software is not Open Source and cannot be audited.
4. Rop Gonggrijp work and talks on the subject of electronic voting.
5. Some examples of end-to-end-verifyable voting schemes.

...

1.
The German Federal Constitutional Court decided that electronic voting
is unconstitutional. The court ruled that the use of the electronic
machines contradicts the public nature of elections. Unfortunately I
am not sure if the principle of the public nature of elections can be
applied in New Zealand.

The use of e-voting was challenged because the voter could not check
what actually happened to his vote, being actually asked to blindly
trust the technology.

The court also considered that, differently from the traditional
voting system where manipulations and frauds are much more difficult
involving a high degree of effort and a high risk of detection,
"programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud
committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines
can be recognised only with difficulty." Also, in the court's opinion,
the electors should be able to verify how their vote is recorded
without having to possess detailed computer knowledge. "If the
election result is determined through computer-controlled processing
of the votes stored in an electronic memory, it is not sufficient if
merely the result of the calculation process carried out in the voting
machine can be taken note of by means of a summarising printout or an
electronic display."

2.
To come up with an informed position about internet voting the
research also has to include a reasonable assessment of our current
New Zealand Local and General Election procedures that are not up to
international standards or international treaties anyway.

All ballots in New Zealand have unique identifiers but the integrity
of any democratic election depends on the secrecy of the vote.

The attached OSCE Election Observation Handbook states on page 19:
"Voting by secret ballot necessitates that ... the marked ballot
cannot ... later be identified with a particular voter."

I understand that New Zealand is not a member of the OSCE but the
underlying framework of the Human Rights were agreed upon by New
Zealand's ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. This covenant guarantees the right to vote by secret
ballot.

3.
Dale, the currently privatized Electoral Officer proudly announced
last Saturday that the computer equipment of his for-profit enterprise
called Independent Election Services (company number 643347) that is
used for processing the ballots in the current Local Elections is not
linked to the internet as a safety mechanism. By definition that
safety mechanism won't be available for internet voting. Furthermore,
the software that is currently used by his corporation is not Open
Source and cannot be independently audited.

Processing the ballots of the current Local Elections includes
digitizing the unique identifying electors barcode together with the
vote cast by scanning the whole ballot. In order to prevent
unauthorised use or unauthorised disclosure of that highly sensitive
information it should be argued that it is unreasonable to digitize
this information together.

4.
Proper research on the subject of electronic voting should also
include the work and talks by Rop Gonggrijp.
http://rop.gonggri.jp

For example Rop Gonggrijp on internet voting:
Election results need to come about in a transparent manner with
sufficient democratic hygiene, which is paramount. Internet voting
carries different risks that are badly understood. A lot of technology
has already been introduced in the voting processes around the world
and has generated ten times as many problems as it has solved. We have
already had huge problems and will still be having more huge problems
just with the technology that is already fielded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF3WEaurz4#t=04m59s

5.
Technologists have and still will come up with a lot of fancy crypto
tools for voting. For example Rop also mentioned the promising systems
of end to end verifiability. But most voters will likely abstain from
reliably participating in these highly dependable mechanisms.

Please check his talk at 24c3 about the "The demise of electronic
voting in The Netherlands" and the end-to-end-verifyable schemes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIvqyviuJXc#t=48m40s

Prêt à Voter
http://www.pretavoter.com/

Punchscan
http://www.punchscan.org/

Scantegrity
http://www.scantegrity.org/

Scratch-and-Vote
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/406241/scratch-and-vote-system-could-help-eliminate-election-fraud/

ThreeBallot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreeBallot

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=jhfi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

____________________________________________________________
GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and most webmails

[Nick Taylor]

The Estonians just open-sourced theirs

http://gigaom.com/2013/07/12/estonia-releases-e-voting-system-to-open-source-community/




Nick

[Philip Dowie]

> Furthermore, the software that is currently used by his corporation is not Open Source
> and
> cannot be independently audited.

I hope these are two independent statements - just because something hasn't been open sourced, doesn't mean it cannot be independently audited.

> The use of e-voting was challenged because the voter could not check what actually happened to his vote, being actually asked to blindly trust the technology.

> Also, in the court's opinion, the electors should be able to verify how their vote is recorded without having to possess detailed computer knowledge

So, on the one hand, the voter CAN'T check what happens to their vote, and on the other hand, they CAN, but they need to be computer geeks.  Which is it?   Or is there a very deliberate subtle difference in wording (... check what actually happened to ...  vs.  ... verify how their vote is recorded ...)?  Translation being that you're expected to trust what happens with it after it's recorded, but you can verify (with difficulty) that it was recorded.  That doesn't really sound too different to what we've got, to me.  After I've marked my ballot, and shoved it in the box (or envelope), I wouldn't have a clue what later happens with it. 

So, firstly, is the e-voter actually asked to blindly trust what happens to the vote, after he's reviewed the module that records the vote?  Are they saying "no, sorry, this bit of the system you can't see, but all the rest, that's fine"?  Seems a little preposterous.  If the statement is "no, sorry, we purchased binaries only for this bit of the system, but wrote the rest ourselves", well, that's believable, but they are idiots (also not unbelievable).  In either case, there's no reason (in principal) WHY the voter cannot check what happens with their vote, no need for them to be asked to blindly trust the technology.

As for the whole not having to be a computer geek thing, well, currently if I want to verify how my vote is recorded, I have to learn all about our voting system.  (Unless you subscribe to the narrow view that my vote is "recorded" when I mark the ballot paper, in which case, I have no counter argument).

Still, what's wrong with being able to trust independent folk who do understand?  There's IT geeks from all walks of life (excepting those walks of life that actively eschew IT)  If you're going to be so paranoid that you trust nobody, then why should you trust that what you've been shown about the voting process is actually what happens?  And what's wrong with expecting those who are so paranoid that they trust nobody to actually learn about those things they don't trust?  This sounds like bending over backwards to pander to people who actually don't want to participate in society in a meaningful way.

> All ballots in New Zealand have unique identifiers but the integrity of any democratic election depends on the secrecy of the vote.

The two aren't mutually exclusive unless you also record what voter got what ballot.  All the unique ID does is prevent some dickhead from photocopying his ballot and sending it in twice.

You can even record what voter got what ballot and retain secrecy if you don't also record any of the voter's actual details (i.e. you give each voter a unique ID not used elsewhere (ie, not IRD number, real-me account, etc), and record the mapping of ballots to IDs, whilst not recording any mappings of voter details to voter ID. (therefore, you generate the IDs each time).  That would protect against surplus ballots being used, since a ballot could only be used if it's assigned to a voter.

Whether we do things this way or not is an argument against implementation, not concept.

If the Germans want to be all backwards about voting and disallow electronic, well, I guess they'll just have to find another solution to the low voter turnout problem.  I don't see why that means we should too.  We don't have a constitution, so nothing can be declared unconstitutional.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Tommy Fergusson]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Philip Dowie <phi...@jnawk.net.nz> wrote:

> The use of e-voting was challenged because the voter could not check what actually happened to his vote, being actually asked to blindly trust the technology.

> Also, in the court's opinion, the electors should be able to verify how their vote is recorded without having to possess detailed computer knowledge

So, on the one hand, the voter CAN'T check what happens to their vote, and on the other hand, they CAN, but they need to be computer geeks.  Which is it?   Or is there a very deliberate subtle difference in wording (... check what actually happened to ...  vs.  ... verify how their vote is recorded ...)?

My understanding of this:

First one: Describing the actual situation

Second one: Pointing out that a hypothetical improved system that did allow for verification, but where verification required computer skills, would also not be acceptable.

 

That doesn't really sound too different to what we've got, to me.  After I've marked my ballot, and shoved it in the box (or envelope), I wouldn't have a clue what later happens with it.

As for the whole not having to be a computer geek thing, well, currently if I want to verify how my vote is recorded, I have to learn all about our voting system.  (Unless you subscribe to the narrow view that my vote is "recorded" when I mark the ballot paper, in which case, I have no counter argument).

Yeah, at the moment in parliamentary elections, only candidates' chosen representatives are given access to scrutineer. All the public gets to know is whether any scrutineers made complaints, though that is still a hell of a lot closer to trustworthy oversight ("trust any one scrutineer for any one candidate, they all watched") than just "trust us, we're honest people *cough*".

To be fair, candidate-appointed people will always be the main line of defence re actually *doing* the verification, even if that process will need to involve a follow-up with randomly selected voters. Even if having the process open to NGOs and/or media would increase the public's confidence in the system.

Still, what's wrong with being able to trust independent folk who do understand?  There's IT geeks from all walks of life (excepting those walks of life that actively eschew IT)  If you're going to be so paranoid that you trust nobody, then why should you trust that what you've been shown about the voting process is actually what happens?  And what's wrong with expecting those who are so paranoid that they trust nobody to actually learn about those things they don't trust?  This sounds like bending over backwards to pander to people who actually don't want to participate in society in a meaningful way.

This is a feature of needing both transparency and privacy, and the fact that people want everyone else's votes verified as well as their own. The only person who can verify that 'X's vote is recorded as intended without breaching privacy is 'X' eirself. From there, you can "trust independent folk" to verify that votes are counted as recorded if the system is built for that.

One think I haven't heard anything about is, if a voter verifies their vote was recorded as intended, and finds out that it wasn't - what do they do about it? and that process needs to maintain privacy too, or there's a risk people will be intimidated into accepting a vote that they don't agree with.

To verify the whole election, "independent folk" will imo unavoidably need to get feedback from (an appropriate random sample or whatever system they want to use) 'X' that the votes were recorded as intended. (in a way where X only gives a yes or no to maintain privacy). You have to assume X does not "possess detailed computer knowledge"

 

> All ballots in New Zealand have unique identifiers but the integrity of any democratic election depends on the secrecy of the vote.

The two aren't mutually exclusive unless you also record what voter got what ballot.  All the unique ID does is prevent some dickhead from photocopying his ballot and sending it in twice.

You can even record what voter got what ballot and retain secrecy if you don't also record any of the voter's actual details (i.e. you give each voter a unique ID not used elsewhere (ie, not IRD number, real-me account, etc), and record the mapping of ballots to IDs, whilst not recording any mappings of voter details to voter ID. (therefore, you generate the IDs each time).  That would protect against surplus ballots being used, since a ballot could only be used if it's assigned to a voter.

That is key as well. The voter needs to be able to identify their vote to verify it, but that identification needs to work for them and no one else.

 

Whether we do things this way or not is an argument against implementation, not concept.

And that I agree with. We just need to be aware that the specific systems being discussed by basically everyone except us, do not meet the requirements. Imo our message needs to be optimistic, constructive, and primarily about the requirements. It's easy for people to dismiss those requirements as excuses by people who already decided against the concept if we take a pessimistic tone.

Having said that, 2016 is unrealistic.

Also note there was a poll in Feb-Apr on e-voting in Porirua, and the median response was
"Online voting would be great, and current local and national governments are capable of an acceptable implimentation, but it will take more than 1 year to prove the system"

but merely 2 votes away from the median was
"Online voting would be great, and an acceptable implementation exists in theory, but will never be achieved by current local and national governments"

Pervach

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

On 19.10.2013 05:43, your...@inbox.com wrote:
> 1. German Federal Court decided electronic voting is unconstitutional.

New Zealand does not have a written constitution and is not subject to
the German one. The Members of the Bundesverfassungsgericht are not
experts in programming or cryptography. This is cherry picking.

> 2. Current NZ election procedures are not up to international standards.

As New Zealand paper ballots can be traced this is surely an argument
for e-voting

> 3. Current election software is not Open Source and cannot be audited.

There are plenty of organisations (Pirates included) working on just
such software

> 4. Rop Gonggrijp work and talks on the subject of electronic voting.

You cherry pick your expert - I will cherry pick mine
Smàri McCarthy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A1ri_McCarthy

> 5. Some examples of end-to-end-verifyable voting schemes.

Most Pirate Parties, that have a policy, are looking at liquid
democracy as an enhancement of or a replacement representational
governments and their various electoral systems.

[Nick Taylor]

>> 5. Some examples of end-to-end-verifyable voting schemes.
> Most Pirate Parties, that have a policy, are looking at liquid
> democracy as an enhancement of or a replacement representational
> governments and their various electoral systems.

The fact that Pirates are using e-voting for their internal systems
kindof makes it a viable, demonstratable, relatively low-stakes example
of how this can actually work.

So when someone says "okay, we can trial this in Wanganui", we can say
"sure, no problem, we've been using this system ourself for years now".

Assuming of course the system we are using is the one that's applicable
to the electorate at large... which I don't think it is... but it could be.

Sorry... a bit scatterbrained at the mo. I think what I'm trying to say
is that "a way of demonstrating that secure, open-source e-voting is
viable, is to use it ourselves".


Personally, if we (as societies) are ever going to evolve beyond
Representational Democracy (which is increasingly inadequate), we'll
need far greater engagement by the electorate, which means less
friction, which means via the web.

[Bruce Kingsbury]

I hope these are two independent statements - just because something hasn't been open sourced, doesn't mean it cannot be independently audited.

Conversely, just because something is open source doesn't mean it is transparent. What proof do we have that the compiled code running in locked e-voting terminals is the same code

 

we have sources to?

There needs to be some audit trail such as a voter-visible paper printout which can be used to verify the electronic vote.

There should be a random selection of machines audited as a matter of routine on voting day (an OCR reading of the paper tape using machines provided by an independent vendor, if you think hand counts are too slow and unreliable) and an automatic recheck and system-wide recount if any machine is so much as a single vote out. Because these things are digital; there is no reason why any machine's internal record of votes should differ from the paper printout by even one solitary vote.

And once you have that in place, it doesn't really even matter that any of the software is Open Source. As long as the "process" is still open and transparent.

The issue of Pirates already using electronic voting is moot; we trust each other because the decisions we're making at the party level are not the same league as decisions that directly influence laws and governments. I don't think we should run electoral voting and national referendums on the same kind of trust system and I don't think there's a way to do online voting that doesn't come back to trust.. or a system of cryptography that can't be understood by the average voter so is effectively just trust anyhow.

[mathmo]

I feel any e-voting system should be totally separate from all other government IT systems?

As I don't feel comfortable with the idea of them being able to connect the data between (as then you're moving half a step closer to knowing how individual people voted for... I feel the anonymity of voting being maintained is rather important).

[your...@inbox.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce's trust issue and mathmo's importance of anonymity resonate with me.

Could we have a separate thread under "Policy Committee Activities"
for formulating and discussing proposals for PPNZ's official policy on
voting (for General or Local Elections)?

I would like to suggest PPNZ's official policy on voting to be (for
General or Local Elections):

Internet voting should only be introduced if no(!) trust is required.
Any other General or Local Election should not require trust either.

What do you think?
What are your suggestions?

If you suggest a voting policy that somehow requires a component of
trust please also indicate why electors should put up with this.

...
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=trAJ

[Andrew McPherson]

From my forum post :

I will state my thoughts on this, as I have previously worked as an election day worker and I have considerable experience with cryptography relating to trust, 
(mainly around a social network which provides for feedback on posts and pages by voting along a range of values, which is similar to local elections with STV).

I would say that the main provision of an election is that it needs to be free, fair and secret to work.
Free: it needs to have no other forms of identification other than matching your name on the electoral roll and (given) occupation to hand out a voter paper, 

which has a UUID to prevent duplication of votes.
The electoral officers then check you haven't gone around every voting station in your electorate to vote multiple times to finalise results. 

{Electoral fraud was a policy of McGillicuddy Serious Party apparently}
Fair: there needs to be no undue influence on the voter, which is why voting is done in private booths.
Secret: You shouldn't have your employer explain to you which party you will vote for if you want to have a job next week, 

nor should you give in to peer pressure about voting for a major party.

Basically, I think that online voting needs to be free, open source, locally developed, voter and party reviewed, 

with software that works with all internet capable computers, tablets and phones.
For this reason, I would argue that there needs to be a plain html site, with a secure connection to a p2p platform 

that can handle the load and the security is not designed or approved by the GCSB.
This should be run from an unhackable neural network that provides no way to alter the contents of the voting log once the vote has been uniquely cast.

I believe that with sufficient local talent and time until the 2016 local elections, this could be done and reverse the voting decline, 

right where the demographics indicate we can pick up a lot of support amongst the mainly young non-voters (roughly 50% of local council voters don't vote)
The figures for general elections suggest that 20% of voters don't vote in general elections, if we can pick up enough of these voters, then we will get elected.

[Nick Taylor]

"neural"?

How do you do that then? (actual curiosity etc)



It's just crossed my mind that we could probably do all this via the
bitcoin block-chain... though I'd leave the job of explaining this to
the electorate to someone with far better access to valium etc than myself.


Is there not something to do this already on github or something? Surely
PPNZ can't be the first. (suddenly remembers that the Estonian system
is). Why do we need to develop this ourselves?


I think getting the other parties to agree to using web-voting would be
incredibly difficult - especially National, who rely heavily on the
elderly, set-in-their-ways, sub-80-IQ vote.





Nick

> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand
> Pirate Party mailing list.
> To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to

> ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit us at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew McPherson]

Limited agent software running on each node constituting a neural network along the lines of statistical processing of weights.

Basically around the complexity of a beehive, where the swarm processes information individually and each passes along the swarm.

Technically, this offloads some processing in an analogue [statistical] network (as opposed to strictly binary digital) to the peers.

The information is then triple preserved within the network from hacking if it uses : a one-time-pad, a UUID signature and a network reliability feedback method.

[The UUID could easily be thought of as a form of two-factor authentication, it does not necessarily need to be RealMe.

I would prefer that the UUID would be a memorable short phrase, used with the existing occupation entry on the electoral roll.

However, I would want the short phrase to be not publicly available, just as an authentication phrase for online voting.]

Then the swarm reports to the server grid, which triple checks all three factors are in concurrence and that the vote has happened uniquely.

Then it's a simple matter of tallying the ID-stripped votes into results, and combining with the existing paper votes.

In other words, just like the foundation of the social network I'm coding.

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew McPherson]

> especially National, who rely heavily on the elderly, set-in-their-ways, sub-80-IQ vote.

You forgot to mention the Aotearoa Legalise Sheep Shagging wing :-)

On 24 October 2013 17:48, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nick Taylor]

Cool.

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

Good point Mathmo, I agree.

Na
S

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

On 05.12.2013 23:26, Danyl Strype wrote:
> Kia ora koutou
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 5:37 PM, mathmo <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I feel any e-voting system should be totally separate from all other
>> government IT systems?
>>
>> As I don't feel comfortable with the idea of them being able to connect the
>> data between (as then you're moving half a step closer to knowing how
>> individual people voted for... I feel the anonymity of voting being
>> maintained is rather important).
> Good point Mathmo, I agree.
>
> Na
> S
>
>

In PPDE if 20% of a meeting e.g. a General Assembly ask for a secret
ballot then it must be held - this is to protect minorities

if this is following a full discussion about a policy then it should be
pretty obvious which way people will vote on an issue as we are such a
small group for now - later this will be important

AndrewR

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Andrew Reitemeyer <pir...@cleopolis.com> wrote:

>> In PPDE if 20% of a meeting e.g. a General Assembly ask for a secret ballot then it must be held - this is to protect minorities <<

Let's not get confused between the requirements which apply to
electing representatives and the (very different) requirements which
apply to voting directly on policy. Secret ballots are important when
electing representatives, to prevent undue influence or punishment of
voters, but I don't think they are necessary in participatory
democracy - as Andrew says people's contribution to the dialogue
preceding any vote will make it fairly clear what they position is
regardless of whether any formal voting procedure is secret or not.

Ma te wā
Strypey

[Tommy Fergusson]

I agree with Andrew on this, once we're at a scale where it's workable/practical, secret ballots are safer even on policy decisions and anything else where it's possible for people to be under real or perceived pressure to vote a certain way, rather than deciding for themselves.

Or Danyl do you think it would be acceptable to have everyone's votes in the asset sales referendum published?

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Nick Taylor]

I think delegative democracy delegations need to be secret as well, for
the same reason.

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Tommy Fergusson <t.w.fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or Danyl do you think it would be acceptable to have everyone's votes in the asset sales referendum published? <<

Actually I don't think it would give anybody information they can't
already access by reading a person's blog, FB page etc etc. Anyway,
you are arguing from an edge case. Since the referendum is non-binding
it's actually just a glorified opinion poll, not an example of
democratic decision-making.

Besides, I think democracy means 'the best idea wins', not 'the most
popular idea wins'. I think voting is a really good tool for judging
popularity contests, but a blunt instrument for democratic
decision-making. Let me turn the question back on you. Do you think
it's unacceptable that Loomio allows everyone to see what position
everyone else has taken on a proposal, and why?

Hei kōnā

[Nick Taylor]

> Besides, I think democracy means 'the best idea wins', not 'the most
> popular idea wins'. I think voting is a really good tool for judging
> popularity contests, but a blunt instrument for democratic
> decision-making. Let me turn the question back on you. Do you think
> it's unacceptable that Loomio allows everyone to see what position
> everyone else has taken on a proposal, and why?

Nope - because instead of voting purely on the quality of the idea,
people also need to take into account the relationship with the person
who's idea it was.

[Andrew McPherson]

I agree that there is some confusion between democracy and meritocracy here on strypeys part.
For example, nobody could argue that the current government was elected on a meritorious record of best ideas.

[Danyl Strype]

Kia ora koutou

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Andrew McPherson <and...@neural.net.nz> wrote:
>> I agree that there is some confusion between democracy and meritocracy here on strypeys part. For example, nobody could argue that the current government was elected on a meritorious record of best ideas. <<

Well, it all depends on how you define "democracy". I recommend David
Graeber's "The Democracy Project" for a good summary of the various
things people mean when they use this word, and how these different
definitions confuse us all when we assume the word has a single, fixed
meaning. He argues there are basically two definitions:

* democracy = any process where everyone gets to participate as equals
in the making of decisions which affect their lives, which case its
effectively the same thing as "meritocracy" as I think Andrew is using
it here, and the anthropological literature is full of examples of
democracy in most parts of the world where states have not managed to
assert full control

* democracy = a method of government invented in Athens in which the
majority rules, part of a package of "western" inventions (Graeber's
essay "There Never Was a West" is well worth a look) which was passed
down to modern Europeans via the Enlightenment and the Renaissance,
and is spreading to the world via the erection of "nation-states",
ruled by majority-elected representatives.

Obviously when the USA talk about bringing democracy to the
"developing world" via armed invasion, they are using the second
definition. However, Graeber presents historical evidence that when
the US Constitution was being written, "democracy" was synonymous with
"anarchy", and that founding fathers created the US republic
specifically (in their own words) to prevent democracy breaking out.
It would be easy to find historical evidence that westminster-style
parliaments like the UK and NZ ones were also created to protect the
monarchy, and prevent democracy (by the first definition above)
breaking out.

All of which suggests that the first definition is the original and
more meaningful one, despite being the less common (in the mass media
anyway). It's certainly what I mean when I talk about "internal
democracy" in the party.

Ma te wā

[mathmo]

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:05:36 PM UTC+13, Andrew McPherson wrote:

I agree that there is some confusion between democracy and meritocracy here on strypeys part.
For example, nobody could argue that the current government was elected on a meritorious record of best ideas.

If viewed as a binary choice (which it is sadly) between a National government vs the multi headed beast of the left, then yes I'd happily argue National got elected on the basis of meritocracy and their record.

[M.Rausch]

It was a bad idea anyway ... :
https://estoniaevoting.org/findings/

...

On 19/10/13 22:36, Nick Taylor wrote:
>
> The Estonians just open-sourced theirs
>
> http://gigaom.com/2013/07/12/estonia-releases-e-voting-system-to-open-source-community/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Andrew Reitemeyer]

The security has not been updated and in the light of the Snowden
revelations, inadequate at the time of implementation. This means either
state and corporate intelligence agencies should be openly regulated and
voters given the ability to track their votes and to be able to flag any
changes.