Techdirt
Easily digestible tech news...
- Your Encryption Key Is Protected By The Constitution?
In an interesting case up in Vermont, a federal judge has ruled that someone accused of a crime cannot be forced to reveal his or her encryption key, as it would be a violation of the Constitution's 5th Amendment, saying that an individual cannot be forced to self-incriminate. In an age where encryption is becoming increasingly popular, expect to see other cases of this nature. It seems likely that a case like this one (if not this one itself) will eventually wind up before the Supreme Court to determine whether or not someone can be forced to give up his own encryption key. Where it gets tricky is the question of whether or not the key itself incriminates the person. As the article notes, a person can be forced to give up a key to a safe that contains incriminating evidence, which many say is analogous to this situation. In the meantime, though, we've already seen cases where people are presumed guilty just because their computers have encryption software installed -- so, it may not matter whether or not the key is provided when the presence of PGP alone is viewed as incriminating.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story - Ohio Finds All E-Voting Machines In The State Had Serious Flaws
Earlier this year, California found all sorts of problems with e-voting machines used in the state. Now, Ohio, home to some of the more controversial stories surrounding presidential elections, has also found serious flaws in every e-voting machine used in the state. It's the usual stuff that has been pointed out for years: it was easy to pick locks on the machines, introduce fake votes, and load up dangerous unauthorized software onto the machines. Not much new there -- just another confirmation. What's much more interesting is the reaction of the firms involved.
First up is "Premier Election Solution," who you probably would recognize better under its old name: Diebold. The company changed its name a few months ago, hoping people would no longer associate Premier with all of the ridiculously bad history associated with Diebold. A Premier official said that all of the problems noted in the report have been fixed in its new machines. While that's a better response than Diebold's typical response of trashing any researcher who points out a flaw or cracking jokes about the flaws, it's one of the few times we've ever seen Diebold/Premier admit that older machines actually did have significant flaws. Of course, the few times that's happened in the past, it's always come with the same sort of "but everything is fixed now!" clause. And... every time a Diebold/Premier representative says something along those lines, it's only a matter of months until new flaws are announced. So, given Diebold's history, it's pretty difficult to take the company's word that all the flaws have now been fixed.
Even worse, though, is the response of ES&S, who has become even more Diebold-like in its responses to various problems found in its machines. On the Ohio report, ES&S responded: "We can also tell you that our 35 years in the field of elections has demonstrated that Election Systems and Software voting technology is accurate, reliable and secure." Note that this doesn't actually respond to any of the specific criticisms in the report. As for that history, let's take you back to a few of ES&S's greatest hits: this is the company that was caught providing uncertified software to California, while also failing to disclose foreign manufacturing partners (as required by federal law). It's also the company responsible for the well-known case in Florida where thousands of votes went missing and the election in Texas where votes were counted three times. And, of course, let's not forget the internal memos at ES&S which showed the company knew about problems with its software, while publicly stating that the machines were perfectly fine. So, sorry, ES&S, you can try to pretend those things didn't happen, but the history you point to hardly shows that your machines are "accurate, reliable and secure." It shows a company that will say anything to avoid admitting that its machines have problems.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story - Anything Goes Wrong Online? Yell 'Net Neutrality' As Loud As Possible!
Before we get accused of all sorts of incorrect things (as per usual when we post about network neutrality), let's start off with a few clear points: I think that the concept of network neutrality is important for creating conditions that enhance innovation. However, I don't think that means we should mandate network neutrality through legislation. I think what it means is that we should look for ways to increase competition in the connectivity space, as that would make network neutrality a non-issue. Anyone who violated network neutrality would pay for it in lost customers. Unfortunately, with many people having very few connectivity choices, companies can get away with things. However, these firms aren't stupid. They're not randomly blocking stuff just for the hell of it. And, yet, every time a minor technical problem pops up -- such as T-Mobile having problems delivering SMS to Twitter, suddenly everyone makes it out to be a net neutrality violation. Unfortunately, it appears that the phrase "network neutrality" has now become a catch-all for any connectivity provider that has trouble delivering any particular service. While that generates headlines for advocates and politicians who want to keep "network neutrality" in the headlines, it actually does a great disservice to the actual concept of network neutrality. It changes the debate away from one that concerns the actual issues (competition and what is best for innovation) to one that involves lots of needless finger-pointing and blind accusations. So, next time there's a problem on the network, before shouting "network neutrality," at least wait until the details come out.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story - Journalism Professor Says Citizen Journalists Should Be Regulated
There's just something about the idea a lack of "elite" gatekeepers that upsets some people. It's why you hear complaints about Wikipedia or blogs or home videos on YouTube. For some reason, there are a group of folks (often the former elitist gatekeepers) who feel that since not all of the content is great, useful or interesting, it all is problematic in some way or another. The latest to express this type of viewpoint is David Hazinski, a journalism professor and former NBC correspondent, claiming that "unfettered" citizen journalism is "too risky" and that it needs to be regulated (via Romenesko) by "official" media companies, handing out "certificates" to citizen journalists. Unfortunately, his basic premise seems to be incorrect. He states: "Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide." That's not quite true. While some supporters may claim that, in general the benefits of the idea that anyone can be a reporter isn't necessarily about reliable information, but about providing additional viewpoints and information to try to make sure