Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Software initiatives
-
Why the added complexity of trustees, tokens, anonymity and whatever else? Not to mention linking one’s public statements to their actual vote doesn’t seem possible anymore in this setup (goodbye transparency).
Most agree that having someone’s real ID being linked to their voting record and posts etc would be a real danger to the openness of any debate. If everyone first weighs their contribution on the scale of how much trouble they can land themselves in, you can kiss whistleblowers and advocates of controversial causes goodbye. Which would be a terrible thing for any meaningful democratic debate to happen.
The only apparent alternative to secret voting imo is moving the secrecy onto one’s real ID. Going to full anonymity brings right back the problem of having a trail for trust-building so the logical solution would be in my opinion a unique and authenticated online ID. This way there is a clear trail of votes and opinions for everyone, which actually allows one to choose and change delegates – this is not possible with secret voting if we are talking of large scale system, in which it is assumed a large majority of participants will have the votes of others delegated to them for some issues so that saying that delegates’ records have to be public and not voters is saying that maybe 20% of all voters might enjoy a measure of anonymity (and these 20% will be the ones probably delegating everything and participate very little in the debates in the first place).
This seems far simpler and actually is transparent (which anonymity is not – by definition it’s a cloak). Also this discussion has been active in 3 threads (among which leparlement and security) so apologies if I’ve repeated some previously stated things.
Serge
+2
-
> Why the added complexity of trustees, tokens, anonymity and whatever > else?
It is an added complexity and a security risk. Which is why it is up to each participant to choose his trustee or just to remain public.
Tokens are just one way to manage the technicality of it. What is important if the handshake between an electoral list and a trustee.
And again, an anonymous pseudo is just an option.
> Not to mention linking one’s public statements to their actual vote > doesn’t seem possible anymore in this setup (goodbye transparency).
This is the choice of each electoral list manager and each participant.
No obligation there.
> Most agree that having someone’s real ID being linked to their voting > record and posts etc would be a real danger to the openness of any > debate. If everyone first weighs their contribution on the scale of how > much trouble they can land themselves in, you can kiss whistleblowers > and advocates of controversial causes goodbye. Which would be a > terrible thing for any meaningful democratic debate to happen.
Very valid argument.
> The only apparent alternative to secret voting imo is moving the > secrecy onto one’s real ID. Going to full anonymity brings right back > the problem of having a trail for trust-building so the logical > solution would be in my opinion a unique and authenticated online ID.
+1
> This way there is a clear trail of votes and opinions for everyone, > which actually allows one to choose and change delegates – this is not > possible with secret voting if we are talking of large scale system, in > which it is assumed a large majority of participants will have the > votes of others delegated to them for some issues so that saying that > delegates’ records have to be public and not voters is saying that > maybe 20% of all voters might enjoy a measure of anonymity (and these > 20% will be the ones probably delegating everything and participate > very little in the debates in the first place). > > This seems far simpler and actually is transparent (which anonymity is > not – by definition it’s a cloak).
I fear it is still a kind of opacity: the relationship between an identity and a persona is hidden.
But is it so different to the authentication mechanism used? You know, the login and password most online systems will require of you. Or even the private PGP key you can use to sign your actions.
> Also this discussion has been active in 3 threads (among which > leparlement and security) so apologies if I’ve repeated some > previously stated things.
No problem for me. You want to continue on http://leparlement.org/security ? ;)
echarp
+1
-
