![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regarding this column in today's post, I replied back:
Faith is not the same thing as trust. Faith is granted. Trust is earned.
Paperless voting has not earned our trust.
The ATM machine has earned our trust, and continues to do so, because it can be audited.
The consequences of faulty financial transactions are more readily noticed, because the other side of the transaction also has to account for it. So, yes, maybe its pulling some money from some other fund, but that other fund also has to notice the discrepancy and as such, the transaction remains auditable and verifiable.
In addition, even if you don't ask for a receipt at an ATM machine, the ATM IS printing a paper copy of that transaction internally. Listen close, you'll hear the paper shuffle inside it even when you hit "no". In fact, even if you cancel the transaction without even entering your PIN number, its logged ON PAPER. Every transaction it makes is logged.
No, I don't need to have my own copy of it, but I trust the system enough to know that if I see a problem, it would be so unusual that the banks would notice and I would eventually get my money back (provided I complain long enough, depending on the customer service record of the institutions in question).
Our trust in paperless money comes from the fact that after so many *decades* in service, the kinks are worked out. Add that aspect I mentioned already -- if a discrepancy occurs, it can be noticed because the other end of it will be wrong. If I pull 60, the bank says I pulled 80, then that extra 20 can be traced. It either is sitting as $20 extra in the ATM, or it was siphoned off down a wire (also logged) to some other destination.
Every physical paper dollar in this country that sits in a cashier's till, a company safe, a bank vault, or the US mint is accounted for. Every "virtual" dollar that sits in bank accounts, shares, or the U.S. treasury is accounted for. If a dollar vanishes, something notices. If enough dollars vanish, someone notices.
This is not the same in votes, and its ridiculous for a society to have such a fine control over the dollar can't manage to attribute the same level of accuracy as a vote. In particular, its unbelievable that this is the case considering how many millions more dollars there are in circulation and/or in banks as there are people who can vote.
But the system to support that much money without incredible losses didn't come about instantly. It certainly didn't come about by any company bidding to the government to say "we have a better way". It evolved slowly, painstakingly, and with many bugs and mistakes in the early days.
And to watch for those mistakes, every transaction that happened electronically also happened on paper.
EVERY transaction.
Scientifically verifiable results are the only way to prove that something is reliable, and things are scientifically verifiable only when they are openly analyzed, repeatedly demonstrated in blind studies, and all results subject to inspection and audit. An ATM design goes through *years* of paper-supported verification before going into production for sale, and any company interested in purchasing such a machine has the rights to view all of the data collected during that reliability study. And as I noted, there's still paper.
The "faith" in the paperless financial world was earned trust, not merely granted. Trust was gained by repeated verifiability and the knowledge that we CAN question the system and get a validated result. For that matter, we've often had to.
As the people who are technically the customers of these new voting machines, we have the right to view that same type of data in these new voting machines and most of us have decided that it isn't enough. "Paperless" voting machines simply have not gone through that process to any degree to meet the terms. The necessary amount of public study and public data simply doesn't exist. They have not earned our trust or our faith, and they will not as long as they remain totally paperless.
Meanwhile, the company that makes them simply says "trust us". I don't trust them. I trust publically available independent studies and I trust that independent investigators have verified that the machines in production at the polls and the software inside them are the exact same machines and software that was tested.
I don't care if no piece of paper is handed to the voter carrying a record of their vote. That's useless information anyways because it can be tampered with outside of the voting room (and in an audit/recount, you'd never get them all back to make such a count acceptable).
I don't care if the first stab at counting happens without someone or something physically counting pieces of paper.
I do care that there are currently "black boxes" where the only trust you have that the count is accurate is because the company who makes them says so.
NO bank would trust their money to such a corporation, so why should we trust our vote, infinitely more important than a dollar, to such a company?
Especially when that company's own president has already declared a preference for seeing one side win over another...
Joe Shelby
45533 Stablemates Ct.
Sterling, VA 20164
Senior Software Developer.
Faith is not the same thing as trust. Faith is granted. Trust is earned.
Paperless voting has not earned our trust.
The ATM machine has earned our trust, and continues to do so, because it can be audited.
The consequences of faulty financial transactions are more readily noticed, because the other side of the transaction also has to account for it. So, yes, maybe its pulling some money from some other fund, but that other fund also has to notice the discrepancy and as such, the transaction remains auditable and verifiable.
In addition, even if you don't ask for a receipt at an ATM machine, the ATM IS printing a paper copy of that transaction internally. Listen close, you'll hear the paper shuffle inside it even when you hit "no". In fact, even if you cancel the transaction without even entering your PIN number, its logged ON PAPER. Every transaction it makes is logged.
No, I don't need to have my own copy of it, but I trust the system enough to know that if I see a problem, it would be so unusual that the banks would notice and I would eventually get my money back (provided I complain long enough, depending on the customer service record of the institutions in question).
Our trust in paperless money comes from the fact that after so many *decades* in service, the kinks are worked out. Add that aspect I mentioned already -- if a discrepancy occurs, it can be noticed because the other end of it will be wrong. If I pull 60, the bank says I pulled 80, then that extra 20 can be traced. It either is sitting as $20 extra in the ATM, or it was siphoned off down a wire (also logged) to some other destination.
Every physical paper dollar in this country that sits in a cashier's till, a company safe, a bank vault, or the US mint is accounted for. Every "virtual" dollar that sits in bank accounts, shares, or the U.S. treasury is accounted for. If a dollar vanishes, something notices. If enough dollars vanish, someone notices.
This is not the same in votes, and its ridiculous for a society to have such a fine control over the dollar can't manage to attribute the same level of accuracy as a vote. In particular, its unbelievable that this is the case considering how many millions more dollars there are in circulation and/or in banks as there are people who can vote.
But the system to support that much money without incredible losses didn't come about instantly. It certainly didn't come about by any company bidding to the government to say "we have a better way". It evolved slowly, painstakingly, and with many bugs and mistakes in the early days.
And to watch for those mistakes, every transaction that happened electronically also happened on paper.
EVERY transaction.
Scientifically verifiable results are the only way to prove that something is reliable, and things are scientifically verifiable only when they are openly analyzed, repeatedly demonstrated in blind studies, and all results subject to inspection and audit. An ATM design goes through *years* of paper-supported verification before going into production for sale, and any company interested in purchasing such a machine has the rights to view all of the data collected during that reliability study. And as I noted, there's still paper.
The "faith" in the paperless financial world was earned trust, not merely granted. Trust was gained by repeated verifiability and the knowledge that we CAN question the system and get a validated result. For that matter, we've often had to.
As the people who are technically the customers of these new voting machines, we have the right to view that same type of data in these new voting machines and most of us have decided that it isn't enough. "Paperless" voting machines simply have not gone through that process to any degree to meet the terms. The necessary amount of public study and public data simply doesn't exist. They have not earned our trust or our faith, and they will not as long as they remain totally paperless.
Meanwhile, the company that makes them simply says "trust us". I don't trust them. I trust publically available independent studies and I trust that independent investigators have verified that the machines in production at the polls and the software inside them are the exact same machines and software that was tested.
I don't care if no piece of paper is handed to the voter carrying a record of their vote. That's useless information anyways because it can be tampered with outside of the voting room (and in an audit/recount, you'd never get them all back to make such a count acceptable).
I don't care if the first stab at counting happens without someone or something physically counting pieces of paper.
I do care that there are currently "black boxes" where the only trust you have that the count is accurate is because the company who makes them says so.
NO bank would trust their money to such a corporation, so why should we trust our vote, infinitely more important than a dollar, to such a company?
Especially when that company's own president has already declared a preference for seeing one side win over another...
Joe Shelby
45533 Stablemates Ct.
Sterling, VA 20164
Senior Software Developer.
