Oh, so David Farrar, the Government’s mouthpiece online, the one who has justified all of John Key’s actions on expanding the GCSB mass surveillance laws, the one who didn’t call for a halt on the TICS Bill and the one whose side would ultimately benefit from the NSA hacking any online voting system is the one leading this charge for online voting?
Why wasn’t this pointed out before? Why wasn’t Farrar’s involvement in trying to open our electoral system up for manipulation the lead part of the news focus? I’ve pointed out why online voting is a bad idea, knowing the Bore of Babylon is the one leading it is the final reason why online voting will be a mechanism open for exploitation and manipulation.
Allowing a voice who has been so pathetic in his criticism of the Government’s largest erosion of online civil liberties this country has ever seen lead a new debate about opening our democracy up to online cheating is the point in the debate that I am out.
If someone as compromised as Farrar is leading the online voting debate, it’s a debate I want nothing to do with. Allowing David Farrar to lead online voting is like putting a hate speech merchant like Cameron Slater on the Broadcasting Complaints Authority.
Let me go one step further, I will boycott and lead boycotts against any election using online voting because the ease with which the USA could manipulate the results via NSA means participation in such a manipulated process would ultimately be an unethical thing to do.
A glance at the latest revelations from The Intercept suggests onling voting would be a fools mission in this day and age:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/
Here’s a list of how JTRIG describes its capabilities:
• “Change outcome of online polls” (UNDERPASS)
Of course online polls and online voting are different things, but it seems clear that with the standards covering banking security, etc. hacked then the latter could be manipulating just as effectively.
And, as I explained, you’re wrong on all this.
I will boycott and lead any boycott to not vote if online voting comes in.
So you won’t vote removing your voice from society?
Who do you really think that will benefit?
Not only would I remove my vote, I’d implore others do as well. To participate in an online democratic process in the post Snowden world would be giving a system totally open to abuse the veneer of credibility. If online voting comes in I will boycott.
I tried to send my GST return in online once and the receipt disappeared but I managed to save the form I had filled in. A few days later I received a call from someone saying I hadn’t paid my GST for that month. I said yes I did. The receipt disappeared but I managed to save the form. He then hung up. This happened to me on the supposedly safe IRD website, it can happen anywhere.
Barton Gellman; ‘strong indication NSA deliberately introduced weaknesses in encryption that protects our financial..info on internet” If they can do this they can mess up an online voting system. (Snowden docs.)
Comments are closed.