[hackerspaces] A call to all hackerspaces

[Russ Ryba]

Vote wirelessly locally using Bluetooth. One vote per Mac Id. Spoofable but
with registration and a few trusted nodes and hashes it should be reasonably
secure.  Voting is per registered device.

Not sure how to roll it out or do initial registration but it gets around
pure web based methods. IPhones won't work easily because apple blocks
spp(?) protocol but Android app should be easy enough.
On Oct 18, 2011 12:03 PM, "Jesse Sanford" <jessesanford at gmail.com> wrote:

> very interesting... albeit only in low light circumstances. Anything
> with a high enough contrast could work though. I imagine false
> positives are a bit of an issue.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Yves Quemener <quemener.yves at free.fr>
> wrote:
> > You could be interested by this
> >
> http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/10/noisebridges-3rd-birthday-party-end.html
> >
> > On 10/18/2011 05:45 PM, Jesse Sanford wrote:
> >> I personally am interested in this project as well as "localized"
> >> voting possibly only allowing those physically present within a
> >> certain square footage to vote on a topic. Using the gps on devices (*
> >> which could also be spoofed) or using access points with limited
> >> wireless range and requiring users to be paired with them in order to
> >> vote might work.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Jesse Sanford <jessesanford at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> If you are already thinking of collecting faces you are basically
> >>> asking people to give up their anonymity (a whole different issue all
> >>> together) why not just collect phone numbers or serial numbers from
> >>> the devices being used to vote with. User who own multiple devices
> >>> could obviously vote twice or more but within any voting system there
> >>> will always be a certain percentage able to game it. You have to build
> >>> your algo with that in mind.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Yves Quemener <quemener.yves at free.fr>
> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/18/2011 05:10 PM, Dan Wobser wrote:
> >>>>> Although with a high end software like the
> >>>>> one I worked on, we were dealing with databases of hundreds of
> thousands of
> >>>>> poor quality images and still getting over 90% accuracy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wow, when was that ? I did not think you could have such a big
> database
> >>>> nowadays with a reasonable error rate
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Discuss mailing list
> >>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> >>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20111018/63f4a256/attachment.html>