Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

User Profile Image William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Member since : May-30-2009 (Verified)
3 Ideas, 22 Comments, 66 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted


Don’t be fooled by the self-styled "experts on security." They are just playing on people's fear for their own self-promotion. They claim that their expertise in reading programming codes makes them Oracles on Internet voting security. In fact, they are engaging in very amateurish social science analysis of cyber crime.

Their arguments, and a list of who they are, can be found at:
www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/InternetVotingStatement.pdf


Mature social science thinking about the issues they raise shows that they are fear mongers, bereft of rationality.

The paper is available for free viewing or download at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1420344


Internet voting has the power to make all public officials directly dependent upon the voters. The days of Superrich Domination in US elections are numbered. Internet voting in all US elections is as inevitable today as the rise of the automobile was 100 years ago.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Bing me!


Hi All!

I have just posted a draft of my essay on the security of Internet voting. It can be secure! Here is the Abstract:

"This paper will present a social science paradigm for critically evaluating the security concerns most often expressed by opponents of Internet voting. In 2003, these concerns were so effectively expressed that they resulted in the US government ceasing all efforts to even experiment with voting from overseas via the new technology. However, when examined within a context of social scientific reasoning, the arguments that stopped the progress of Internet voting in the US appear as mere appeals to fear, bereft of rationality.

First, the problem of how to think about e-crime in general will be discussed. Secondly, the framework that emerges from that discussion will be applied to the arguments against Internet voting. The conclusion will suggest that Internet voting can be conducted with a degree of security similar to an online purchase, a million dollar bank transfer, or a secret military communication. As shown in the essay, the technology already exists, and has been honed over many years of use. While there are differences between the military uses of the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet voting, this paper will argue that the degree of security for each need not vary significantly.

SSRN has proven to be an excellent source for feedback. This paper is being submitted in the hopes of continuing that process."

Can anyone suggest an appropriate journal to which I can submit this paper? The paper will soon become a chapter in a book on the subject of reforming presidential elections in the US by basing them on Internet voting. Can anyone suggest an agent or publisher that would be interested in a book that favors Internet voting for such elections?

All comments welcome! The paper is available for free viewing or download at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1420344

Yours,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
E-Verify is a people-hating rightist torture tool.

E-Verify would immediately deprive an innocent Hispanic person, or other human being, who wants to work, from getting hired because of a non-verification of legal residency on a government web site. A person who was born here, and so has no papers, could be refused a job!

Even a person with papers, who did not get “verified” by the government web site could be denied employment. It could take months to correct any mistakes on the government web site.

Claims of “99.6%” accuracy are BS! Sleepy, drunk, stoned, or incompetent government bureaucrats put in the data. They make lots of errors!

E-Verify is guaranteed to cause needless hardship and injustice to the innocent. That is why non-people-hating Congresspersons rejected it today!

Call the following Members of Congress who spoke
against E-Verify today, and THANK THEM!

Rep. David Price: (202) 225-1784
Rep. David Obey: (202) 225-3365
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: (202) 225-7931

Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

All the hackers listed above got caught. Why? Because law enforcement is alert and smarter than them. Read my paper to learn more.

Kiosk voting is no more convenient than the 18th century trek to the polls we now take on election day.

wjk
There is another way to keep elections free of special interest domination.

See my posts on Internet voting.

wjk
Hi rejean!

Thanks for your comment. But, have you considered both sides of the issue? If you would check out my non-government funded paper, you might learn to see the issues in a new light.

wjk
INTERNET VOTING IS COMING!

Don’t be fooled by the self-styled "experts on security." They are just playing on people's fear for their own self-promotion. They claim that their expertise in reading programming codes makes them Oracles on Internet voting security. In fact, they are engaging in very amateurish social science analysis of cyber crime.

Their arguments, and a list of who they are, can be found at:
www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/InternetVotingStatement.pdf


Mature social science thinking about the issues they raise shows that they are fear mongers, bereft of rationality.

The paper is available for free viewing or download at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1420344


Internet voting has the power to make all public officials directly dependent upon the voters. The days of Superrich Domination in US elections are numbered. Internet voting in all US elections is as inevitable today as the rise of the automobile was 100 years ago.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Click on my name, and check out my other posts for more info.
Rebecca states ONE SIDE of the issue, as if it were the only possible point of view.

See my new post.

wjk
Your anti-democratic temparment shows clearly in your writing.
Hi jmc27106!

Thanks for your comments. You certainly show strong feelings about the subject of Internet voting. And, that’s quite an impressive reading list you offer.

If you would take the time to read my essay, you would find that I directly engage some of the folks on your list. I also address all of the issues you mention.

Do you think that your strong feelings prevent you from being open minded about my essay?

As a progressive, I want to change the Big Money dominated election system.

Internet voting can be used to filter out the influence of rich contributors. It can make the elected representatives directly dependent upon the voters for their job.

Everyone who wants the US to have a more democratic election system should read this essay.

All comments welcome! The paper is available for free viewing or download at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1420344

wjk
DON’T BE FOOLED!

“Federation for American Immigration Reform” is a people hating rightist organization.

E-Verify would immediately deprive an innocent Hispanic person, or other human being, who wants to work from getting hired because of a non-verification of legal residency on a government web site. A person who was born here, and so has no papers, could be refused a job!

Even a person with papers, who did not get “verified” by the government web site could be denied employment. It could take months to correct any mistakes on the government web site.

"99.6%" accuracy is BS! Government bureaucrats put in the data. They makes lots of errors!

E-Verify is guaranteed to cause needless hardship and injustice to the innocent. That is why non-people hating Congresspersons rejected it!
I half agree with the enabler idea. Very bad idea to leave social work up to private business. The homeless will get unequal and unprofessional treatment, and maybe abuse.

But the rightist revision of history has to be corrected. In CA it was Ronny Reagan whose Republican “cost saving” policies turned the mentally ill out on to the streets.

This is a complex problem. Studies in LA, where I live, show the homeless to be about 1/3 mentally ill, 1/3 drug addicts, and 1/3 down on their luck and poor managers of their lives. Each group deserves a different policy. Only the addicts are homeless by choice. They choose to put their money in their arms. Gov can offer them rehab, but they have to want it. The mentally ill need institutionalization, or out patient treatment. The mis-managers of their lives need a work/study program.
Come on, America! Let’s get real, for once. Our criminal justice system is a festival for our sadistic pleasure. This is an excellent idea. It would put a mirror right in front of our real selves. TV already feeds our desire for the vicarious thrill we get from the destruction of stuff, and brutality to others.

They were honest about it in the middle ages, with family picnics at public burnings, whippings, hangings, etc.

We are not any more civilized, just more dishonest about the thrill we as a society get from punishing, and especially executing, our brothers and sisters.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the sex profession. The US can have clean clinics for desperate, or lonely, or just horny men (or women) to go to. Like nursing, sex work can be an honorable calling. Escort services can be a dignified line of work, paid for by the well-off. Bars offering sex can be zoned away from residential areas, schools, and churches. Licensing can require regular check-ups for STDs. The women (or men) workers would be far safer than they now are. White slavery would disappear, because all the workers would be licensed. Each transaction can be taxed. Competition would keep the price down for the middle class patrons. Patrons and workers could be required to be 18 or older. “Hands on” sex education programs could be provided for youths whose school or parents couldn’t bear to talk about it. Date rapes would decline and possibly so would other types of rape and sex crimes. Marriages would be saved from divorce, as men (and women) would have a legitimate release for any sexual frustration that might build up at home.

Aside from Bible pounding, are there any reasonable arguments against this excellent idea?
Right on, izzymunkey

Small fine. Freeze ICE raids. Offer a waiver of fines for those who learn English.
ms_dbl_click, adirondack_1
I agree

All persons always deserve positive regard.
How do you reconcile these two statements by you?
1. "I'm not saying that we do something to the immigrants.”
2. “As for those already here, they have broken our laws and must be returned to their homes to make application to the USA via legal channels, at the end of the line, behind all those who have been waiting patiently, and legally.”

Do you or don’t you want to bus, or otherwise herd, 12,000,000 of our brothers and sisters without a file folder full of papers back to TJ?
Read the Preamble.

"... in order to form a more Perfect Union, .. promote the General Welfare...secure the Blessings of Liberty..."
One more time:

Is that what you really believe to be AMERICAN JUSTICE?
Is that what you really believe to be AMRICAN JUSTICE?
Do you REALLY want to force at gun point 12,000,000 human beings with their all their children who were born here, go to school here, have friends and family here, across the border into TJ and make them fill out papers and wait for two or three years?

Is that you you really believe to be AMERICAN JUSTICE?
“we people of the world”
It seems to me that you suffer from multiple personality disorder, paranoia, and delusions of grandeur, as if you think you are Sigmund Freud reincarnated!

All persons always deserve positive regard.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Excellent Statement! I agree 100%. Esp: “In our horribly misused economy, one would think that the best way to get people off of government funded supplemental programs would be to take care of their physical and mental needs so they can rejoin the workforce.”

All persons always deserve positive regard.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
"We should streamline the paperwork to hire foreign people legally."

I agree 100% But this is too vague as is. And you are too draconian on employeers of humans without papers.

We should start processing all humans without papers now. Small fine. Freeze ICE raids. Offer a waiver of fines for those who learn English.

All persons always deserve positive regard.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
what's this "webcam voting"?