Do we need to regulate e-democracy? Lasse Berntzen Vestfold University College lasse.berntzen@hive.no

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.

Why regulate e-democracy? Secure the interests of the different stakeholders Who are the stakeholders? What are their interests?

Stakeholders Citizens Decision makers Administrators Politicians

Stakeholders Citizens Decision makers Media Business Individuals Organizations and movements Decision makers Administrators Politicians Media Business Lobbyists Government institutions

The OECD model

Citizens Accessibility Security 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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Tønsberg kommune Plandialog Tønsberg Standard Planinformasjon Verktøy: Tema: Planinformasjon Reguleringsplan Kaldnes industriområde Status i saksbehandling: Offentlig ettersyn Frist for uttalelser 10.12.2006 Gjennomskinnelig plan 0% 100% Reg. bestemmelser Plankart (PDF) Illustrasjoner Saksframlegg Andre Saksdokumenter Innkomne uttalelser - Nabo 1 Statens vegvesen Fylkesmannen + Tidligere saksdokumenter planinitiativ uttalelser ved varsel utarbeide planforslag off.ettersyn Saksforberedelse Varsel - planstart 1.gangs behandling 2. gangs behandling Planvedtak Ev. klagebehandling 10/11/2006 07/06/2006 10/12/2006 klageadgang Send uttalelse

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.

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

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.

What would be the topics Accessibility Authentication Multiple channels Privacy Transparency Trust