[governance] Issues concerning standing IGC members

[William Drake]

Hi Carlos,

Just a clarification.  CPSR agreed to host the list in 2003 and still does.
That is the only connection between CPSR and anything going on here.  I'm
the former president and Robert is a current board member, but neither of us
has been speaking here for CPSR. Yehuda might be a CPSR member, I don't know
(there were about 800 + when I stepped down), but he is not speaking for the
organization and there's really no particular reason to be invoking it in
this discussion.

Cheers,

Bill


On 7/29/08 3:08 PM, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> Amazing... OK, let us be logical, like the numerical analysys textbooks.
> 
> Someone please tell CPSR (I understand Katz is talking in their name)
> that people have not enrolled using completely verified identities of
> real people, like banks do when issuing us a credit card or certifying
> companies do when issuing us an e-certificate. All we have to identify
> the people on this list is an email associated with the name the email
> holder has given us. There is no documentary evidence on record even to
> prove the name is the real name of the real person reading that email.
> This is the universe of ID information we are dealing with and against
> which we have to proceed with authentication.
> 
> I understand computer professionals should be able to understand basic
> theory which says a logical construct is based on hypotheses, on
> "givens" which are set by common sense or arbitrarily etc. Our "given"
> is this: we have a list of names and uni-univocally associated emails.
> We do not know the associated person's address, we do not know ifjust
> one person uses a given email or several persons take turns to
> participate with the same email, or even if the person represents what
> s/he says s/he represents. All we have as formal "given" is that a pair
> (email,name) posts messages in an electronic list (by the way, running
> *insecurely* by CPSR -- so much for coherence).
> 
> In this logical scenario, printing a paper confirming an email has
> arrived to a destination and sending it through the post office network
> is a trivial lemma...
> 
> It is really amazing: we (CPSR included) take for granted everything the
> pair (email,name) (the only identification info we formally have) writes
> in this insecure list, but it seems CPSR does not take for granted the
> message this pair sends to a secure e-voting system.
> 
> Shoddy logic...
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> On the contrary Rony,
>> 
>> I look at a 'verified-by-post' Membership, as strengthening this
>> organization.
>> Because its Populous has been verified.
>> It is quintessential, because a valid Vote ... is a central key to democracy.
>> 
>> I am somewhat applauded at the opinion of my Countertarians.
>> According to them, all that is required is an email-address, essentially.
>> 
>> To my way of thinking it creates a false-sense-of-security,
>> and for an organization that bills itself as "Computer Professionals for
>> Social
>> Responsibility" it makes the motto into a oxymoronic hypocrisy.
>> 
>> I only set-out to strengthen this organization,
>> Be that as it may, the path is chosen by You.
>> 
>> So the question is:
>> 
>> What can be done to strengthen this Organization?
 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance