Kaspersky Calls For Cyber Weapons Convention 166
judgecorp writes with a synopsis of talk given by Kaspersky at CeBit "Cyber weapons are so dangerous, they should be limited by a treaty like those restricting chemical and nuclear arms, Russian security expert Eugene Kaspersky has told a conference. He also warned that online voting was essential or democracy will die out in 20 years."
I'd just like to say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because I buy Kaspersky's anti-virus doesn't mean I support what that man stands for.
Die out in 20 years? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope they will be! (Score:4, Interesting)
"conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades"
At present "conventional democracy" has a vote every 4-5 years (perhaps with mid-term or local elections halfway) in which your bit of information (if that!) ends upo with a single bit of who leads for the next 4-5 years, during which politicians tend to drop their campaign promises.
Internet technology allows for finer-tuned democracy, yes, but if anything "election day" should be an annual day on which everybody does physically go to the polls and cast a secret ballot. Because although technology does allow secrecy (not necessary for all votes, but essential for some), the risk of back doors will always be greater than when a simpler and less technological procedure is used.
I'm in my forties now and want to be able to vote issues, not parties. I'd also like to be able to vote for individuals who have proven leadership qualities without them being beholden to a party. Not that I could vote Perot - being European - nor that I would want his finger on the button anymore than anybody else, and at least Obama comes across as somewhat statesmanlike even if his mantra of "Change" never really happened, but you should see the bunch of twits in Europe nowadays (on all sides of the political spectrum).
Almost as if we are forgetting what populism brought in the 1930s.
Re:Online voting (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly happened to literal electronic voting? You don't need a processor, memory, storage, an OS, code, and all that other crap to count freaking numbers. You ever try to hack into and change the results of a free calculator you got at the bank for opening a checking account? Spoiler, it's a machine that doesn't have the capability to allow that. How about they develop an electronic machine instead of a computer for voting? Number +1 is not that hard to do without an operating system.
How does he propose regulating CODE? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would he suggest regulating programming languages, compilers, etc. as "cyber weapons precursors"? After all, certain chemicals and nuclear materials are strictly watched because they can be used to create chemical or nuclear weapons, right?
Make the House a true People's branch (Score:2, Interesting)
More democracy Mr. Kaspersky? Okay. Keep the representatives, allowing them to craft laws and write bills, but when it's time for the "ayes and nays" have the reps stand-aside and submit the bill to the People for a direct referendum.
Also keep the Senate as is (a house representing the 50 Member States). If we had such a system the TARP Bailout Bill never would have passed the House, and 1 trillion not transferred to the top 0.1% as corporate welfare.
I think they should adapt ATM machines for voting (Score:5, Interesting)
1. You get a print-out of your vote.
2. You can optionally get a print-out that says whatever you want in case you are under duress.
3. There is a picture record of who voted for your ID in case of a question of voter fraud.
4. The machines are already everywhere, wired and secure enough to handle money.
5. You dont have to congregate at a place away from your work.
6. Your vote is filed under a random number, so you can call your vote back up if you are concerned about tampering
Im sure threre are other good reasons
Re:Kaspersky on online voting (Score:4, Interesting)
It is entirely absurd to expect a majority of the population to invest the time and effort required to understand enough about politics, economics, international relations, etc. to make anything approaching intelligent decisions on most legislation.
Hell, people can't even be bothered to understand how existing legislation affects them, even when it's something as direct and quantifiable as how much money they pay on their taxes.
Choosing representatives to do it for us is far simpler, and we're not even good at that. Direct voting on bills would be a disaster.