Do we need to regulate edemocracy

1
Do we need to regulate e-democracy?

• Lasse Berntzen
• Vestfold University College
• lasse.berntzen_at_hive.no

2
Introduction

• This position paper aims to identify the legal
  interest of stakeholders in e-democracy.
• The discussion is based on my own involvement in
  a number of e-government and e-democracy
  applications.
• This is only an initial exploration, and debates
  should follow.
• I do not provide the answer, only some opinions.

3
Why regulate e-democracy?

• Secure the interests of the different
  stakeholders
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What are their interests?

4
Stakeholders

• Citizens
• Decision makers
• Administrators
• Politicians

5
Stakeholders

• Citizens
• Individuals
• Organizations and movements
• Decision makers
• Administrators
• Politicians

• Media
• Business
• Lobbyists
• Government institutions

6
The OECD model
7
Citizens

• Accessibility
• Access for everyone (computer access and
  competence)
• Web site accessibility (24x7 reliable, platform
  independent)
• Web page accesibility (Visual impairments,
  cognitive problems)

• Security
• Can I trust the government to not use information
  for other purposes.
• Lack of privacy statements
• Anonymity

8
Government

• How to safeguard against unintended use? (because
  of possible consequences)
• Authentication
• None
• Registration/username/password
• E-Signature

9
Webcasting political meetings

• Low cost webcasting of political meetings
• Started as scientific project, now commercialized
• Goals Better possibilities to follow political
  processes (increased transparency)
• Stakeholders Politicians, viewers

10
Webcasting political meetings

• Legal Municipal Acts says that meetings are
  open to public and that broadcasting and
  recording is permited.
• No need for authentication. No need for web site
  verification (no risk). Accessibility is an
  issue.
• Suspected some impact on behavior of politicians,
  research showed no indications.

11
Common Portal Information Structure

• 11 municipalities developed a commom portal
  infrastructure
• Built on WAI-criterias, norge.no criterias
• Field testing with blind, vision-impaired and
  citizens with other problems
• Provision for multichannel communication with
  municipality

12
Common Portal Information Infrastructure

• Steps were taken to meet possible future legal
  requirements.
• But the ambition to improve rating was probably
  more visible
• Authentication may become a future issue

13
E-petitions

• Currently trial project in 14 municipalities
• Increase citizen influence between elections
• Municipalities debated the need for
  authentication. One municipality wanted strong
  authentication (validation)
• Data Inspectorate did not like this idea
• Ended up with very loose authentication
• Administrators are involved in the submission
  process, and check signatures

14
E-petitions

• Ended up with very loose authentication
• Administrators are involved in the submission
  process, and check signatures
• One example Whole family signs at same time.
• But e-petitions are not decision making, it is
  input to decision making.
• Politicians still bear the responsibility of the
  decision making.

15
Digital Planning Dialog

• Project goals
• More effective government, less paper
• Improved participation on planning issues
• All informat
• Stakeholders
• Local government, regional government, county
  governor, public road administration, but also
  landowners, citizens, civic organizations
• Problems
• Accessibility, Authentication
• Administrators will always have to evaluate
  responses and check if in doubt

16
Digital Planning Dialog

• Stakeholders
• Local government, regional government, county
  governor, public road administration, but also
  landowners, citizens, civic organizations
• Problems
• Accessibility, Authentication
• Administrators will always have to evaluate
  responses and check if in doubt

17

• Tønsberg
• kommune

Planinformasjon
Reguleringsplan Kaldnes industriområde Status i
saksbehandling Offentlig ettersyn Frist for
uttalelser 10.12.2006
Reg. bestemmelser Plankart (PDF) Illustrasjoner Sa
ksframlegg
18
Authentication vs. anonymity

• We, as researchers, want to build systems with
  the intention of improving democracy
• What if the e- is used in a different way?
• Some examples
• Blog-spamming
• More subtle use
• Authentication and anonymity can co-exist. In
  the e-ombudsman application, the person had to
  identify him/herself, but the identity was kept
  secret by the system for the government
  representatives.

19
Authentication

• Sometimes government needs authentication
• But it is important to see authentication as a
  possible constraint
• Authentication can coexist with anonymity
• Policy of operation should be clearly explained
  to users

20
Regulating e-democracy

• e-Democracy is not a goal in itself.
• Existing acts could be amended to include
  dimensions of e-democracy
• Some examples
• Accessibility
• Freedom of Information
• Regulations followed by guidelines, handbooks,
  training etc.

21
What would be the topics

• Accessibility
• Authentication
• Multiple channels
• Privacy
• Transparency
• Trust