Techdirt. Stories filed under "votes" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "votes"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:27:01 PST Hivemind Elects Dictator! 4chan Pushes Kim Jong-Un To Top Of TIME 'Person Of The Year' Poll Tim Cushing http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16473921382/hivemind-elects-dictator-4chan-pushes-kim-jong-un-to-top-time-person-year-poll.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16473921382/hivemind-elects-dictator-4chan-pushes-kim-jong-un-to-top-time-person-year-poll.shtml stormed the Person of the Year poll a few years back, battling a belated and hastily instituted CAPTCHA system in order to place its father figure, moot, at the top of the chart. Motivated by streaming porn and its pure love for trolling, 4chan went above and beyond, reordering the selections to spell out "MARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME."

Emerging into the sunlight, bleary-eyed, triumphant, and jaded to all but the most deviant porn, 4chan soon returned to its normal mode of being highly inscrutable and incredibly frightening, resurfacing occasionally to perform such minor miracles as sending Taylor Swift off to perform a concert at a school for the deaf.

4chan has returned to the limelight once again to torment reluctant sidekick TIME by voting early and often in its own particular idiom (read: bots, prolly) for Person of the Year. And the winner is none other than North Korean dictator and poster boy for evil, nepotism and ill-fitting grey smocks, Kim Jong-un. Here' a portion of Time's statement on the poll results, which is good naturedly resigned, much in the way parents raising child 7+ are more concerned with keeping the cleaning products, bandages and fire extinguisher close at hand than preventing the feat of daredevilry that is currently being performed using Sharpies, a purloined Zippo and the second floor bannister.
Kim Jong Un is having a good year. After taking over the leadership of North Korea from his late father Kim Jong Il, at the end of 2011, he's solidified his control over the country, appeared on TIME's cover and he was even named "Sexiest Man Alive." (OK, that honor was actually bestowed as a spoof in the satirical newspaper, The Onion, but a Chinese news service mistook the Onion piece for real news and the story went global.)

Now, he's gotten the most votes in TIME's completely unscientific reader Person of the Year Poll with 5.6 million votes. Not bad for a man who didn't make an official public appearance until 2010.
Sharp-eyed readers will notice that TIME takes time to point out the "unscientificness" of an easily gamed polling system. This is another sign of resignation, as the lesson learned from 4chan's first chart coup was that a determined band of anonymous users can easily defeat CAPTCHA systems, especially those as weak as the one deployed by TIME only after it realized that installing nothing at all was a bit like doxxing yourself in a 4chan thread: ill-advised to say the least.

TIME also points out that The Editors will be picking the correct Person of the Year, thank you very much. But the note does go out of its way to acknowledge the hive mind behind the dictator at the top of the list.
"The Daily Show" funny man Jon Stewart, Undocumented Immigrants, Olympic gold medalist Gabby Douglas and Burmese leaders Aung San Suu Kyi and Thein Sein, Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi and New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, all made it into the top ten. However, some of the highest vote tallies got a boost from members of Internet forums like 4Chan who launched a campaign to manipulate the results pushing North Korea's supreme leader to the top of the list.
If the names listed seem like a rather strange group to be reaching the upper echelon of TIME's poll, it's because simply pushing Kim Jr. to the top is TOO EASY. The secondary objective was another phrase -- KJU GAS CHAMBERS-- using the initial letter of the nominees' names. Yes, 4chan is all about the inappropriate humor. And anagrams.

So, as TIME prepares to put this year "to bed," its readers can rest well knowing the benevolent smile (and collectivist haircut) of Kim Jong-un will be shining down upon them.

[Jong-un could not be reached for comment, but a spokesman who wished to remain anonymous, alive and un-re-educated stated that the world's most popular dictator was so pleased with the results that he launched a celebratory missile before returning solemnly to his desk to file away the latest UN resolution condemning his actions. The spokesman noted that he did catch a small hint of a smile tugging at the corners of Kim Jong-un's perfect and infallible mouth.]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> when-a-system-comes-along,-you-must-game-it http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121213/16473921382 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:15:00 PST ITU Goes Back On Multiple Promises: Makes Play For Internet Governance With Sneaky Surprise Vote Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-goes-back-multiple-promises-makes-play-internet-governance-with-sneaky-surprise-vote.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-goes-back-multiple-promises-makes-play-internet-governance-with-sneaky-surprise-vote.shtml stave off ongoing criticism, ITU officials had made a few promises leading up to the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT). Among them: (1) changes to International Telecom Regulations (ITRs) would be done via consensus, rather than simple majority vote and (2) that the whole thing was not about internet governance. In one move, the ITU appears to have proved both of those claims to be blatantly false. Late into the night in Dubai, as there was continuing "negotiations" over whether or not any new regulations would cover internet communications, Mohamed Nasser al Ghanim, the ITU summit's chairman, claiming he wanted to get "a feel for the room" took what initially looked like an informal vote on whether or not the ITRs would cover the internet, backing a proposal brought forth by Algeria (and backed by Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Nigeria). After the vote showed a majority agreed to expand the ITRs to cover the internet, al Ghanim announced:
"The majority is with having the resolution in...The majority agreed to adopt the resolution as amended."
This took a lot of people in the room by complete surprise, given that there was repeated insistence that the focus was on consensus, and not a simple majority vote. This clearly went against promises by ITU boss Hamadoun Toure. As Declan McCullagh summarizes in the article linked above:
"In the true tradition of the ITU, we will not vote on any issues," Toure told reporters over the summer. "Voting means winners and losers, and this is not simply acceptable. And we believe that we'll come to an agreement on all of the issues." Toure had said last week that the summit "is not about Internet governance."
As the reality of what al Ghanim did began to set in, some delegates began to protest. Spain, in particular, noted "had we known that it was a vote, we might very well have acted differently." al Ghanim then, ridiculously, tried to pretend the vote was not a vote:
But after Spain objected, al Ghanim responded by saying, "no, it was not a vote," and that he had instead been looking for a "feel of the room."
That, obviously, is completely ridiculous, since he then used "the feel of the room" to say that the resolution was adopted, despite significant concerns about it.

The folks at the Internet Society are, quite reasonably, not at all happy about the situation, and called out not just the sudden and unexpected vote, but the secrecy surrounding it as well:
The Internet Society came to this meeting in the hopes that revisions to the treaty would focus on competition, liberalization, free flow of information and independent regulation - things that have clearly worked in the field of telecommunications. Instead, these concepts seem to have been largely struck from the treaty text. Additionally, and contrary to assurances that this treaty is not about the Internet, the conference appears to have adopted, by majority, a resolution on the Internet. Amendments were apparently made to the text but were not published prior to agreement.
Given that the ITU's moves here more or less confirm many of the fears that have been raised about the whole WCIT process all along, and show that Toure's statements were simply untrue, why is it that anyone believes that the ITU has any credibility on this subject any more? The whole idea that we're now allowing countries with horrid human rights records, and with little to no experience in supporting innovation-enabling technologies, to control direction of these discussions suggests that the entire ITU process is broken beyond belief.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> shameful http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121212/23365121371 Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:25:43 PDT Your Cynicism About Lobbyists Only Helps The Lobbyists Win Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/08153820301/your-cynicism-about-lobbyists-only-helps-lobbyists-win.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/08153820301/your-cynicism-about-lobbyists-only-helps-lobbyists-win.shtml posted the letter I helped put together from a bunch of entrepreneurs to the US's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, as a part of the open comment period on the most effective forms of copyright enforcement. One of the most frustrating responses I heard was "it doesn't matter, the law is bought and paid for already." I can understand why many people feel that way, and it's absolutely undeniable that the entrenched entertainment industry interests have a very successful lobbying program that has a long history of success in getting the laws they want. But such things are not set in stone, and can absolutely be overcome.

Earlier this year, when This American Life did an hourlong episode on lobbying, there was one message that has really stuck with me: yes, lobbying has tremendous power in terms of its impact on Congress and the White House, but votes will trump lobbying every single time. I can't remember which politician said it during the episode, but it was made clear: in the absence of the public speaking out on an issue, yes, the lobbyists will likely win. But if the public is interested, no matter how much money is spent, the public will win, because the votes matter more than the lobbyists. Always.

I'd been meaning to write about this in response to the defeatism I saw after that letter, but Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy beat me to it (and did it much better, since he's got a hell of a lot more experience on this front), pointing out that the best way to fight big money politics is to speak out and take part. Yes, it may seem like the deck is stacked, and yes, the lobbyists have plenty of power -- but that power only works if the voting public stays quiet.

In other words: your cynicism only helps the lobbyists.

Trust me, I understand where that cynicism comes from, and there are significant problems with the way money works in politics today and just how corrupt the system often appears. But, as Siy notes, all that money is a means to an end, and the end is to get re-elected (or elected in the first place). And that means that votes -- and the people behind the votes -- can trump money in politics. The larger problem is that we can't do that for any and every issue. But saying that you shouldn't even bother to speak out at all is self-defeating. It's automatically handing victory to the lobbyists.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> too-much-cynicism http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120906/08153820301 Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:45:31 PDT 14,000 'Unsaved' Votes Suddenly 'Found' In Wisconsin? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/01441913818/14000-unsaved-votes-suddenly-found-wisconsin.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/01441913818/14000-unsaved-votes-suddenly-found-wisconsin.shtml
The original results showed a very slight victory for Kloppenburg. Now, I generally avoid mentioning political parties of politicians entirely, because I find that it leads to partisan debates, which are effectively religious debates, rather than debates on the actual issues. But, here, the parties become a bit more important. Because of the highly partisan battle in Wisconsin involving a Republican Governor and Democratic elected officials, many people viewed this election as something of a proxy, with Prosser representing the "Republican" viewpoint and Kloppenburg being the hope of the "Democrats." That's a bit of a simplification, but to get to the point we're talking about here, it's enough.

With the voting results being incredibly close -- the original count had Kloppenburg with a 204 vote margin of victory, out of over 1.4 million votes cast -- it's no surprise that a "recount" has been underway, with small numbers of votes turning up here or there. However, what's turning some heads is the fact that the County Clerk in Waukesha County, Kathy Nickolaus, suddenly found 14,315 votes, with the vast majority (by a margin of 7,582) that didn't make the initial count. She claims that they weren't counted because she "failed to save the results" in the computer system. She also said that this kind of "human error" is "common in this process."

Assuming this is actually true, it seems like a pretty clear case that Nickolaus should not be in the job any more, as that's a pretty clear case of incompetence in a rather important job. Assuming it's not true... well... that's a whole different story. Of course, complicating matters is the fact that Nickolaus is apparently an active Republican and was at the center of a few former controversies, including one about election data and how Nickolaus would collect election results -- with people raising concerns months ago about "the integrity of the system." It seems that she decided "to take the election data collection and storage system off the county's computer network - and keep it on stand-alone personal computers accessible only in her office." Now, her argument, which is not entirely unreasonable, is that it's better to keep such data off the network, but given the specific concerns raised, the story is raising eyebrows.

Obviously, for folks who are die-hard supporters of either party, they can spin the story in either direction. But, if we just take a step back, and look at it from the standpoint of wanting to believe in the concepts of basic democracy, shouldn't we all be pretty concerned that any voting system, no matter how it's set up or maintained, could lead to this sort of situation where 14,000 potentially crucial votes could go completely missing without notice... and then magically turn up just as they're needed?

Even if everything is legit, and there's no compelling reason not to assume that's the case at this point, it certainly hurts the basic integrity of the election system. And that's pretty important if you want people to actually believe in the basic principles of democracy. And, honestly, why do we let any single person, especially one with a clear party affiliation, control such data? At the very least, it should be in the hands of either neutral parties, or multiple people who can see each other's actions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> funny-how-that-works http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110408/01441913818 Tue, 5 May 2009 17:11:00 PDT Senate Opening Up? Offers Up Vote Data In XML Format Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090505/1217474755.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090505/1217474755.shtml that data is available. This is absolutely a good thing, but the real test will be seeing what people do with this and other open government data sources. It's nice to report on the government doing something right every once in a while....

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> fun-to-watch http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090505/1217474755