> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Networking Democracy - Ensuring Security - URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ensuring-security/ - Published: 2008-03-17T15:03:51.000Z - Updated: 2019-02-14T22:44:04.000Z - Author: openDemocracy Supporters - Tags: #en, #Migrated, #Import 2026-04-09 18:59 **Opening Statements** - [**The rationale**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/michael-wills-anthony-barnett-exchange) **\- Michael Wills and Anthony Barnett** - [**The "National Conversation" Conversation**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/national-conversation-conversation) **\- Tony Curzon Price** - [**Values and Virtual Debates**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/values-and-virtual-debates) **\- Bill Thompson** - [**Online Engagement in a National Debate**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/online-engagement-in-a-national-debate) **\- Steve Clift** - [**Building Online Participation into a National Citizens Summit**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/building-online-participation-into-a-national-citizens-summit) **\- Suw Charman** **Discussion threads** - [**Networking Democracy** ](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/networking-democracy)**(43 responses)** - [**Ensuring Security** ](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/ensuring-security)**(5 responses)**[](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/ensuring-security) - [**Asking Difficult Questions** ](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/asking-difficult-questions)**(3 responses)** - [**How do online and offline interact?**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/online-offline-interact) **(3 responses)** - [**Building Participation**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/building-participation) **(7 responses)** - [**Final thoughts**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/final-thoughts) **(7 responses)** \--------------------------------- ## **Ensuring Security** This page contains the archive of the thread "Ensuring Security." \--------------------------------- In this thread we want to consider issues of security. There are three sub questions here, though people may want to raise others. o How do we ensure people are who they say they are? How do we revent the creation of multiple identities, etc.? o How do we prevent capture of the process by small but well organised groups? o How do we do both of the above, while retaining an open, inclusive process? **From: Ella** **Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:41:31 -0800 (PST)** **Local: Wed, Feb 27 2008 1:41 pm** **Subject: Re: Ensuring Security** Hi, 1 - Anonymity: This post assumes that anonymity should be the exception. I think I should add that, while this seems to have worked well for e- democracy.org lists, not everyone agrees that it is the best way forward. In designing registration and terms of use codes for an e- participation initiative in the Western Balkans, I asked people on the UK and Ireland e-democracy exchange lists about their policies and a lively discussion on this issue emerged. Some people feel strongly that asking participants to post using their real names is the best way to ensure honesty and civility in a discussion. Others (with equal logic and evidence) are adamant that a level of anonymity (e.g. pseudonyms) frees users to be more honest with their opinions, but does not impact on their manners. This discussion is available here: [http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7zsBjIQUYAroVaJu31ye71](http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7zsBjIQUYAroVaJu31ye71?ref=opendemocracy.net) The partners in the e-participation project I'm working on felt strongly that anonymity should be the default option, basing their conviction on the recent histories of their countries. I think that we should take both a broader cultural outlook on this question. Personal, I'm finding this discussion difficult, due the presumption that it will be published later and the subject of the possible online discussions. I'm worried that my taking part will look like some sort of tacit approval of something I feel is distasteful /inadvisable. 2 -Trust While I understand that traditional democratic mechanisms like voting require identity to be authenticated and I understand that voices can be drowned out by pressure groups, we should also remember that a good way to begin quality deliberation is by using mechanisms that imply trust and respect in contributors. People's first encounters with the system should feel like being welcomed by a host, rather than checked by a security guard. \-Ella **From: Fergusao** **Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:09:56 -0800 (PST)** **Local: Wed, Feb 27 2008 3:09 pm** **Subject: Re: Ensuring Security** Every method of communication, consultation and deliberation has its advantages and limits. Some of the limits are unavoidable and that is why a combination of methods is better than one. Some of the 'limiting issues' underpinning your questions will not be overcome in the time that this exercise will be run and closed. So a 'mixed creative economy' is called for. My approach would be to offer a range of ways for people to contribute to a GoB consultation - each requiring a different level of involvement with a corresponding level of return. For example, if I register with a forum I should be encouraged to use a proportionate level of genuine personal data and build a profile, so that the admins and other users can contextualise what I say. As a result I should, therefore, be 'rewarded' with more substantial conversations and follow-up from the consultation team, which is able to place more merit in my contributions. And besides, my data is secure because the exercise will conform to data protection legislation. Will it not? There are no guaranteed ways of preventing capture by lobbyists - but I have evaluated over 20 government online consultations and none have ever been overrun, despite the suspicion that they would. In fact, I have fields placed in registration forms that ask people to say if they are representing any interest or organisation - people did. Attentive chairing by moderators is also a big help. I think it would be worth splitting these three questions into separate threads so that we can get down into detail, without getting swamped by it. **From: "David R. Newman"** **Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:51:29 +0000** **Local: Wed, Feb 27 2008 6:51 pm** **Subject: Re: \[Networking Democracy\] Re: Ensuring Security** On lobbyists: it isn't the on-line fora that attract professional lobbying. The lobbyists try to speak directly to the Minister, rather than via the discussion forum. This happened during the Oireachtas's e-consultation on the Broadcasting Bill. Meanwhile, every stakeholder submitted through the on-line system, making clear what their interests are, and the potential effects upon them of the bill. On identification: Where identification of people is important, is when people get to vote on alternative options, normally towards the end of deliberation. Then it is important that the people voting are (at least) a representative sample of the affected population, are alive and only voted once. Ideally it helps if they are informed and don't have a gun poked in their back. It is also important to use a sufficiently subtle consensus voting system, so that we can find out what people will settle for. In the early stages, you are trying to get a feel for the important issues, and the needs of different groups. At that stage, some ideas of what group someone belongs to helps understand needs, but you don't need to positively identify everyone, it isn't a vote. In the middle, when exploring problems and possible solutions, it is more important to get creative input, rather than representative ones. At this stage it might help if politicians and public officials could hide behind pseudonyms, so they don't have to parrot the party line. I remember a discussion run by Edward de Bono where admission to the closed inner circle of a discussion was contingent on coming up with a number of new, creative, ideas in the open discussion. It was what you said that qualified you, not who you are. Now if a participant wanted to argue that he knew better than anyone in Whitehall about the risks of bombs because he used to make them, then he should be allowed to do so anonymously, as should the relatives of victims (but not get an amnesty from a truth and reconciliation commission without publicly revealing his identity). \-- Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Management School **From: "Suw Charman-Anderson"** **Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:02:20 +0000** **Local: Tues, Mar 4 2008 10:02 pm** **Subject: Re: \[Networking Democracy\] Ensuring Security** I shall try to keep today's contributions brief, as I'm still in catch-up mode, and time is short. \> o How do we ensure people are who they say they are? How do we prevent the creation of multiple identities, etc.? Why do you need to? Identities to not need to be verified to promote civil and valuable discussion - that comes from having really good facilitators, and having the involvement of the right people from government. Names are a red herring - they neither stop incivility, nor encourage quality discussion. Anonymity, equally, is not a cause of bad behaviour. Why try to prevent multiple identities? Few people will bother to create multiple identities, and those who do can be dealt with on a case by case basis. You have to ask why you are asking the questions before you ask for answers. These questions smack of a need to control, and lesson no. 1 of social media is that you have no control... \> o How do we prevent capture of the process by small but well organised groups? Again, never seen this happen, and if it does, then a good group of facilitators can solve the problem by spotting potential hijacks and taking the appropriate action. The community can also help - generally, people don't like their conversation being hijacked by anyone, whether marketeers or lobbyists. \> o How do we do both of the above, while retaining an open, inclusive process? Do you need to do both of the above? I would suggest that this is more about people than technology. If you want people to behave in a civil manner, then treat them civilly, and have the community enforce civility rules. If you want to ensure the process isn't hijacked, makes sure that the community has the power to deal with hijackers, and that your facilitators have the tools they need to deal with hijacking. We need a bit more interrogation of the questions that are being asked, as I think these are going in the wrong direction. Suw \-- \----------------------------------------------- **From: "Steven Clift"** **Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:38:45 -0500** **Local: Wed, Mar 5 2008 11:38 pm** **Subject: Re: \[Networking Democracy\] Re: Ensuring Security** \> From Suw Charmand \> Names are a red herring - they neither stop incivility, \> nor encourage quality discussion. Anonymity, equally, is not a cause of bad behaviour. Quick Response: This is completely opposite from over a decade of experience with E-Democracy.Org's Issues Forums. Real names promote civility and greater substance through both accountability and the real world reality that politician represent specific voters from specific places ... and words with names more often have far more credibility and agenda-setting power. However, we are non-governmental and take this approach voluntarily. While I highly recommend a default toward presenting real names and place IF you are talking about a two-way public interactive exchange among people, assuming this on a .Gov.Uk domain you'd need a channel for anonymity/use of an alias. Also, this approach is not appropriate to highly sensitive or personal policy topics (like bankruptcy laws) nor places where physical or legal retribution is likely. I don't buy the fear of accountability or being criticized as a reason to promote anonymous participation As preferred over real names. Finland had to shut down their e-consultation platform after the attacks on the Swedish speaking minority began to appear and they did not have the capacity to deal with it. It has taken them three years to recover and re-emerge with a system that uses real names, etc. Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org \-------------------------------------- *Comment and discussion on Networking Democracy is taking place on OurKingdom -* [*click here*](http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/03/24/networking-democracy/?ref=opendemocracy.net#comments) *to join in.* \--------------------------------- **Opening Statements** - [**The rationale**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/michael-wills-anthony-barnett-exchange) **\- Michael Wills and Anthony Barnett** - [**The "National Conversation" Conversation**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/national-conversation-conversation) **\- Tony Curzon Price** - [**Values and Virtual Debates**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/values-and-virtual-debates) **\- Bill Thompson** - [**Online Engagement in a National Debate**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/online-engagement-in-a-national-debate) **\- Steve Clift** - [**Building Online Participation into a National Citizens Summit**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/building-online-participation-into-a-national-citizens-summit) **\- Suw Charman** **Discussion threads** - [**Networking Democracy** ](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/networking-democracy)**(43 responses)** - [**Ensuring Security** ](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/ensuring-security)**(5 responses)**[](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/ensuring-security) - [**Asking Difficult Questions** ](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/asking-difficult-questions)**(3 responses)** - [**How do online and offline interact?**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/online-offline-interact) **(3 responses)** - [**Building Participation**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/building-participation) **(7 responses)** - [**Final thoughts**](https://www.opendemocracy.net/networking-democracy/final-thoughts) **(7 responses)** \---------------------------------