1. Do we need to regulate e-democracy?
Lasse Berntzen
Vestfold University College

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

6. The OECD model

7. 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

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 Plandialog Tønsberg Standard Planinformasjon Verktøy:
Tema:
Planinformasjon
Reguleringsplan
Kaldnes industriområde
Status i saksbehandling:
Offentlig ettersyn
Frist for uttalelser
Gjennomskinnelig plan
0% %
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

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