RE: Anonymity, Secrecy, Privacy

[Kevin Broadfoot <KBroadfoot@baltimore.com>]

Hi Michael,

>Privacy:
>Obviously privacy is a critical issue to consider when talking about
election process in general, as Kevin rightly noted. >But I don't think that
privacy issues should have any implication to the tokens.

I'm not so sure.  In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with privacy and data
protection legislation would kick in as soon as the voted ballot document
was transmitted irrespective of whether it was encrypted or not.  Of course
the legislation could be amended but as it presently stands....  

Also, in the US, in some jurisdictions I've been looking at the election
administrators keep digital voting history records, ie. whether a voter
turned up at the polling place or not.  In those cases it is possible to say
who voted but not how they voted.

regards,

Kevin.
  








> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thom Wysong [mailto:wysong@technodemocracy.org]
> Sent: Monday, 25 June 2001 23:56
> To: 
> Subject: Anonymity, Secrecy, Privacy
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> This is interesting. I don't think I've heard this 
> distinction before, so 
> let's see if I correctly understand what you are saying 
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services/200106
/msg00042.html).

(+) For anonymity, there is no link between voter and ballot. Or, if there 
is one at some point in the voting process, it is destroyed before the 
voting process is concluded.

(+) For secrecy, there may or may not be a voter/ballot link. If that link 
exists, however, it is not revealed - thus the ballot remains secret.

(+) For privacy, at a polling place, *who* is voting may be known, but 
*how* they vote is kept private.

You seem to be saying that the important thing is that ballots be kept 
*secret*, regardless of whether or not they are *anonymous*.

IMO, *secrecy* and *privacy* are more or less synonymous when it comes to 
how they're used with regards to electronic voting (ignoring what *privacy* 
means in a physical polling place, since that's beyond our scope).

However, as you seem to suggest, *anonymity* is only one way to implement 
secrecy/privacy.

Any thoughts?

-Thom



This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended 
for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in error or 
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.  The 
unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is 
strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for
direct, 
special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the 
contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being 
passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to 
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or 
appearance at trade shows and conferences.
 
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by 
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.