Skip to content
openDemocracy
Subscribe

Networking Democracy - Ensuring Security

By openDemocracy Supporters
Published:
|
Share to X Share to Bluesky Share to Facebook Share to LinkedIn Share by email

Opening Statements

Discussion threads

---------------------------------

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

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 to join in.

---------------------------------

Opening Statements

Discussion threads

---------------------------------

openDemocracy Author

openDemocracy Supporters

All articles
Tags:

More from openDemocracy Supporters

See all