On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:05:21 +0000, "Paul Stimpson"
<paul@???> wrote:
> I do believe that the security deployed should be appropriate for what is
> being protected in that it shouldn't be an unnecessary burden on the user
> and should reflect the value of what is being protected. For example I
> think it would be just as inappropriate to purchase a £2000 safe to stop
> the guy at the next desk stealing my lunchtime Jaffa Cakes as it would to
> use a garden shed and a £4.99 padlock from B&Q to keep gold bars.
The use of Free and free software like GnuPG seems sensible for something
with no financial value then. ;)
> Unless I'm mistaken, the votes at meetings would not give someone
massive
> financial or other personal gain
Really not, although the LUG does have a bank account and there's cash in
it.
> were they to be manipulated and getting
> your own vote is easy and cheap. Has there ever been a suspicion that
> someone has tried to vote illegitimately? Is there an organised plot to
> embrace and extend us to love Vista? ;) I don't see a massive problem
> unless large scale vote rigging was being alleged or a vote was very
close
> on a contentious issue.
There hasn't, to my knowledge, been such an issue but one could argue
that's because the rules have been shaped to prevent one occuring. ;)
> I would propose that someone be appointed to keep emails expressing a
vote
> including the headers. If there was a dispute the email could be produced
> along with the headers showing the IP address it was posted from and
other
> headers were consistent with other messages from the person.
We've never made votes anonymous so that could work.
Tony
