Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
The mail-in vote is simply unreliable and unsecure.
These two things will be used to batter the f. out of each other, no matter what the result will be.
If this is a correct assumption:
"Each citizen of the USA of a voting age has a right to one and only one vote"
Then how do you make sure of that?
1) Did you make sure that each citizen got the one and only one ballot? How did you confirm that?
2) Is the ballot secured, i.e. has enough protection to make it secure from forgery attempts?
3) How do you make sure, that the person filling the ballot is the one, who should be filling it, in other words, how in a building of many residents, you assure that each person eligble to vote, marked their vote only on a one ballot?
4) How do you make sure, that you've collected all the properly filled ballots?
5) Are the filled ballots secure from being viewed and or altered by unauthorized individuals?
6) How do you prevent someone from casting a vote at a localle and sending the mail-in ballot? Which one do you count if both happened? Which one is more important and why?
7) How do you decide that the absence of a mail-in vote was a result of the voters decision and not bad actor or mafunction of the delivery/collection system?
The point is, can you prove beyond any doubt, that such form of voting is at least equally accurate and secure as the in person voting at a specific location?
1, 2) It doesn't matter how many ballots citizen gets, as checking is done when election office receives the ballot. Ballots are sealed in secure envelopes, which contains voters identification information and signature which are compared to voter registry. Ballot inside of the envelope is counted only if information and signature in the envelope matches information and signature in registry. If information matches then election office will mark that person as voted and no other votes from that person will be counted, meaning other mail-ballots or in person vote. So forging somebody's vote you need official mail-in secure envelope, ballot used in the state where person lives and person information from voter registry (same information is used to open bank accounts, getting loans, buying houses etc. things, meaning that it is sensitive and secure information which can used by criminals much more effectively in some other places than forging single vote in election).
3) You need that voter registry information about the person, so people that live in same apartment building would have quite hard time to get that information. This question is more relevant when it comes to spouses, parents and children voting for their 'loved' one, which is reason why mail-in voting is not used in Finland.
4) Ballots are mailed and they need to be in election office in certain day in order to be 'properly filled' , in some states and some cases ballots that come after election day are also counted mainly to ensure that votes from members of military that are deployed over seas will be counted. But making sure that all the ballots are collected and dropped to election office is responsibility of USPS and therefore sitting president.
5) Ballots are in sealed envelopes and envelopes aren't valid if seal has been broken
6) Voter registry is used to prevent multiple votes from same person. Same way as it is used to prevent people voting in multiple location in person.
7) Same way as you decide that people not voting in person was persons decision and not fault of poorly organized voting locations and not working voting machines and long queues
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
Oh, 2020 election will be so much fun.
If you don't have reliable methods of voting remotely, you just should nit do that...
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1529924/mail-in-ballots-trump-trashed-pennsylvania/
Things like this, will only give fuel for both sides to toss more **** at each other and push polarization to a breaking point.
You have big tech located in US, yet you cannot get something simple as online voting, where post service reps could walk house to house and collect votes via a remote pad after verification of the voter. And this could also be tracked as each voter would have their own profile (name/address/id) and they could check if they are marked as "voted" or not, to control if they are the ones who gave a vote.
Considering that USPS and therefore handling of mail-in-ballots is responsibility of executive branch or government and therefore ultimately it is sitting president whose job it is to ensure that all the ballots go in right place. Which makes it bit funny when Trump accuses that you can't trust in the vote by mail system.
-
One would thing that having no-knock warrant and stand your ground laws has obvious consequences that will endanger both police and and public and lead needless deaths as both parties have legal right to use lethal force against each other.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/
"A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms."
It is good that decisions made by Congress matter
-
1
-
1
-
-
What I have gathered in past 8 years is that Bruce supports western nations regardless of who is currently in power and what they do.
If western nations disagree with each other his priority seems to be USA > UK > EU > Germany > Northern Europe > Southern Europe
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
No not at all, this is not about punishment ....forget Trumps comments. Dont think this is about Trump, he is just the one raising the one issue which is just about Tiktok but Tittok is about the overall serious security risk,,,,but yes its the principle of the data being accessed unlawfully that should concern you
Does it not concern you that China has unrestricted access to your Tiktok data?
But Elerond this is exactly what is happening in places like the UK and other countries that are banning Huawei and this will continue in countries and most institutions that require security which is all banks and majority of listed companies globally
Huawei will still be sold in China and other companies where this type of security risk is not a business concern. For example the company I worked for last year there was a product manager I worked with who was responsible for the Huawei and he had a very good relationship with Huawei in South Africa, he closed a Huawei sales deal with one of the SA mines and he won the deal because Huawei went in with 3 % margin and there engineers did an excellent job at installing the network infrastructure
But they will lose lots of business and Tiktok has the same risk but the data is not that important but as I mentioned most people are very concerned with the idea of illegal data access
It is absolutely seems to be more about punishment and trying to prevent competition on market than anything else.
Of course it is concern that foreign government has unrestricted access to my data, which is why I support EU's privacy and data protection efforts which are designed to prevent such access by limiting where, when, how long, what companies can store about me if they want to operate in EU.
Banning singular company that doesn't break any laws (at least it has not convicted for such) is not about protecting user data, because you would do that with by creating privacy and data protection laws that would make it illegal for company to give your data to Chinese government. But for some reason USA doesn't want to create such privacy and data protection laws, but instead they are aiming to kill non-US competition.
Huawei is not best example as lots of bans against it are because of US trade war efforts against China. Also UK isn't best example of country that follows international laws if it doesn't fit in their governments agenda.
-
4 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
Okay but Elerond these developments are not the same degrees of risk and dont have the same intent
Yes Facebook was accused of companies getting access to peoples data, it was acknowledged it was wrong and Facebook has made several apologies and changes to there data privacy ?
But the Tiktok risk is completely different, the Chinese government can at any time with no legal way to stop it gain access to all user data ....and this is the same risk there other software products and devices can pose. You cannot really compare a country that is known for cyber -espionage with the reality of Facebooks mistakes ?
What I am concerned about is after this discussion you may be chatting to friends about how Tiktok is a real risk and they will say its the same as Facebook,,,,now you can explain the difference
Remember this is about a very serious situation where China has been silently stealing some IP from companies for years. I am sure you are critical of any kind of theft of IP
And we still like China, it has a very important role around the global economy but there ability to sell Huawei and other software products to countries that dont want to be professionally hackd has to addressed and stopped
US government can do same, which why EU insist that all user data about EU citizens needs to be stored in servers in EU in order for big companies to be allowed to operate in EU. EU and USA had agreement called EU-US Privacy Shield (which replaced ) which allowed companies to store EU citizen data to USA, but that was invalidated because Court of Justice of the European Union come in conclusion that it can't be sure that companies don't share EU citizens data to US government.
So question is more of punishing singular company in order to gain advantage in trade talks with company's home country and force said company to sell its operations to US owners instead of ensuring that said company follows US privacy and data protection laws in US .
-
30 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
Elerond I respect your opinion on these discussions because you have a very reasonable and understandable view of privacy and peoples right. Plus you live in Finland which means you respect the EU and the positive things it brings to all countries. You also a software developer, which I never knew, so you understand how most software components work so I can get straight to the technical point....but reading your post I need to explain it differently
But can we first agree on where the issue lies, the link below is what Facebook is accused of , Is the same thing you are talking about ?
Facebook shared at least for 10 years user data of people who were friends of users of Facebook applications to companies that developed those applications without asking permission to share such information or informing people whose date they shared.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/28/facebook-api-shut-down/
Also even this year Facebook still shared userdata to app delevopers long after their permission to share that data was ended.
-
12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
On a serious note TikTok should be banned because it is definitely a security risk around data protection. I am not joking, part of my work is we have to be updated on real and potential new ways of hacking and how data can be comprised. Now TIikTok by itself is a very clever and well design application but what Trump is suggesting does have a valid point even if he just making this announcement as part of his " distraction to somehow blame China for the virus " .
TikTok may give user data to Chinese government, but if you ban TikTok because of that, you definitely should ban at least Facebook, but probably also Instagram, Whatsapp, Twitter, YouTube and Discord. As they give their user data to US government and also sell it to other companies and political institutions. And at least Facebook was caught sharing data which they didn't have users permission to share.
-
Genocide is new form of freedom
-
Here leftist again blaming police even though this incident was fault of dog's owners
"Despite a 6-foot high metal fence and signs that say “Beware of the Dog,” the officer’s police commander is blaming the dog’s owner and is warning other Detroit dog owners to keep their dogs “in their backyards and this won’t be an issue.”"
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 213374U said:
Well, duckduckgo tells me that a Class E felony carries a maximum fine of $3,000 USD in TN. So, again, no. Neither for "their entire lives" nor for "the next decade or two".
It's hilarious because it almost looks like I'm defending this POS governor, when all I'm doing is adding some context to the latest instance of Outrage From Twitter.
This is a forum, not a court of law or a peer-review journal. When people post stuff, you can expect that there will be irrelevant details left out because people rarely want be hit with walls of text for 999 damage. For instance, I also omitted the fact that in order to regain the right to vote a convicted felon needs to be current on all their child support obligations. Because I judged that it would merit at most an asterisk next to the "automatic" regaining of rights that I didn't say happens, rather than a full bullet point in a list of immaterial facts.
Jury can't give higher fine than $3000 and not less than 1 year in prison or nor more than 6 year in prison, but prosecutors can offer punishments that differ from jury instructions, including suspended sentences with higher fines or mandatory anger council etc.. Although all plea bargains in Tennessee needs to be approved by court and judges need to inform person pleading guilty of minimum and maximum sentences of crimes they are accused of and court can reject any plea bargain.
-
2 hours ago, 213374U said:
Did I say it was automatic? Convicted felons do need to go through an administrative process whereby it is checked whether restitution and/or court costs have been paid in addition to having served the sentence. It is a detail which I omitted because it is immaterial to the point I was making -- that except in the case of serious crimes, disenfranchisement is not permanent, as you stated.
You said "the felon can vote again after doing their time", which gives impression that felon could vote right after getting out from prison, which is why I posted that information that they don't get automatically get their right to vote back. Also it is important to point out that felons need to pay all their court costs and fines before they can vote and as those may rise to tens of thousands dollars which felons pay often decade or two, which means that many felons who have served their time can't vote even decade after they have served their time. Which is important factor when you look felony charges that are meant to prevent people voting, as over 90% cases are settled out of court so if state wants to use felony charge to prevent people from voting, they just threaten person with 6 years in prison and then offer them 20k-40k fine which makes them felon who can't vote until they pay that 20k-40k and as the idea is to prevent people voting state will offer person payment plan where they pay that fine for next decade or two.
-
1 hour ago, 213374U said:
Felons losing their right to vote while serving their sentences is a fairly common punishment, and it was a thing also in Europe until relatively recently -- when it was ruled that automatic disenfranchisement of offenders was a human rights violation. The loss usually isn't permanent and a quick duckduckgo search tells me that in TN, the felon can vote again after doing their time, except if the conviction is for serious stuff like murder or rape.
Not cool that just camping on state property can land anyone in jail, though, but unsurprising that governments turn to harsher measures to crack down on unrest.
Restoration of voting rights isn't automatic in TN
https://sos.tn.gov/products/elections/restoration-voting-rights
-
"Among other things, the new law stipulates that people who illegally camp on state property will face a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison. People found guilty of a felony in Tennessee lose the right to vote. "
At least there is second amendment to defend people's liberties to create such nice new felonies to trip other people's right to vote for their entire lives. Thanks god for these freedom loving people, who don't let anything to prevent them to take away other people's freedoms.
-
Late deliveries, lost/stolen items, deliveries to wrong address (some times even wrong country) plague all mail carriers delivery services and courier services all over the world. But cases where such problems occur are less than one of ten thousand at least if service is actually able to continue business for decades.
As USPS handles almost 500 million deliveries per day, there are late deliveries, lost/stolen deliveries, and deliveries to wrong addresses each day, as it is absolute impossibility not have human errors, broken systems, computer/database errors or just bad luck in that amount deliveries.
I have done software for Finnish postal service and even though they aren't even near the traffic that USPS has, they still handle unfathomable amount deliveries each day and you don't need big glitch in the system in order to cause major problems, like just failure of certificate update may cause hour or two delay in shipment deliveries, as suddenly everything needs to be done manually. And when shipments are delayed by hour or two it is almost certainty that some shipments needs to be moved to next day, which may cause delays to that days deliveries. And it may take couple days over time from tens of thousands people in order to fix problem caused by some one failing to test that certificate update succeeded and systems are still able to communicate with each other and everybody can still access them.
Minor issues like that don't cause massive problems to delivery services that handle much less traffic, but in this age of digitization no one is safe from service outage in their computer systems or worst in someone else's computer system.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, BruceVC said:
But Elerond lets not try to justify attempted murder on anyone ...it undermines the reasonable objective of where we are suppose to live in a society where we absolutely support the rule of law and order
Any attempt to attack and or use violence against police needs to be condemned in the same way we criticize any police officer breaking the law, this is the same reason you may support BLM
So maybe they need to be suspended from their jobs, if they are found guilty of the charges against them
EDIT: It seems that suspension isn't every where same level punishment as it here.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Volourn said:
If your suspended you still have your job. Just like if youa re suspended from school you are still a student. You seem desperate to justify attempted murder. I bet you would be dancing if he was murdered. This makes you a racist since you don't think a black life matters.
You don't have job when you have been suspended which is why they don't need to pay suspended people their salaries.
Also if you are suspended from school you aren't student any more which is why they can deny your access to the campus.
Suspension as punishment usually come with time limit and after which you get your status/job back.
-
Can it be described as attempted murder of police officer if target is suspended from their post because they killed three people in under 5 years, as they aren't currently police officer and may or may not be related to job they had before they were forced to take break because they did such bad job.
Headline could as well be "Protesters assault and attempt to murder a murder" and it would be as accurate as current one.
-
55 minutes ago, Malcador said:
Baby steps to legalizing that scary drug I guess. Really bizarre weed is seen that way when booze is probably a lot worse socially
It is not like they haven't tried to make booze illegal.
It looks like that anti-weed people are fighting losing fight, as they are minority in many countries but as long as there is not strong demand for legalization, minority is able to stop/hinder legalization for worst cases decades.
-
1
-
-
Aren't half of world already eligible to vote in French elections, considering how they give citizenship to everybody from their old colonies
-
1
-
-
Democrats are very much split to different camps when it comes to defund police, universal health care, UBI, etc. issues and Biden is pretty much conservative when it comes to these issues, meaning that he opposes them. But he is political animal, who does not want to alienate big sunk of democratic base by openly opposing those issues.
Green new deal, would most likely create jobs in swing states, because green tech new mines for minerals which mining needs higher level technology and therefore would pay and mining companies would prefer to have their expansive mining equipment in safer countries. Green tech demands high quality level manufacturing plants which is one of the segments in which USA is able to compete with China and other cheap labor countries. Government forced green tech would also ensure better profits for companies who make the infrastructure. Moving to green tech would actually hurt more democratic main areas like California and New York, which have have high energy consuming data centers, but also heavy industry plants would face higher running costs, but that doesn't necessary mean that their competitiveness decline as green tech initiatives usually include so called green taxes that targets products and services with high carbon foot print which hurts quite lot products coming from cheap labor countries.
So in other words green new deal is different way to do what Trump's government is currently doing, meaning supporting domestic industries and taxing foreign products. Biggest difference is that Trump government's policies give money to industries which currently have difficulties to be profitable and green new deal would give money to companies to innovate something new although it would need to accomplish government's goals.
-
Seems fine, not anyway worrisome
-
6 hours ago, BruceVC said:
Elerond I know how much you hate disappointing me so I must give you chance to clarify , are you saying Finland has mishandled the virus spread due to not making masks mandatory and now there are mask shortages. You guys must be ordering the hospital required masks and this is not necessary....you just need a normal mask
The mask you need just stops spread.....it is considered unethical for civilians to be ordering the masks\PPE that are needed for hospital front-line staff
In a sense yes. Wasn't it major misstep, considering how things went
Reasons to say it was mishandling things
- It lead workers in elderly care centers not use masks, which has caused most of the covid caused deaths in Finland
- They focused in their decision making to hospital quality masks and it wasn't until end of May when they started to look if home made masks etc. would work to prevent spread.
- Their inability to explain their decision making early on lead to unnecessary panic about sufficiency of mask storages
And why it was not major misstep
- Our hospitals never actually run out of mask, even though they used about million in day in worst weeks (in normal year our hospitals don't use million mask in a year)
- Total death toll is quite low 329 (from which bit over half has been in elderly care centers) and it is not certain that mandatory masks would have saved those elderly care centers, as they happened early on and centers had masks in their hospital quality masks in their storages, but their leadership keep them for some reason behind lock even with government recommendations to use masks in any interaction with elders.
- Infection rate never rose high as people just stayed home, so not using mask never ended to matter
-
1
Politics 2020
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
People who think that the mural in the question should be reserved should offer to buy and reserve it.