mails

[top-politics] Re: Leparlement and security

Serge — 2006-10-23 17:53:12+0200

Hi Magnus,

Your vision of how delegation will evolve is very pragmatic and I would tend to agree with it, with the one reserve that I think some areas of public debate will be occupied very quickly by citizen delegates as opposed to previously-politican delegates that will on the other hand probably be much more present on issues that are more obscure/specific (take adaptation of EU directives into national law for example). I also wish to make perfectly clear that I understand delegates as being issue-specific and not as people receiving a blank check to vote on anything and everything in my name but only on the category of issue I choose to assign them.

Other than that I have to say I am slightly confused as to what remains secret in a secret account where all pre and post-votings (what do you mean to include by that?) are know by the public.

The whole idea of joining public real-life debate with online workings is very valid for these with a visibility in public debate (which I think you will agree are very few). As a result one should be free and able to assert his real identity, but should also be given a unique virtual ID as a default in order to preserve the dissociation between real ID and voting records (which you address with the method of secret voting, which in my opinion isn’t beyond debate as it is only a method). Furthermore, this would be a very autopoietic mechanism as one being ready to put not only his online political reputation but also real-life name on the line would gain in credibility, thereby creating an incentive for such a disclosure. But disclosure should remain voluntary, and voting records of everyone should be public and transparent for widespread citizen-level delegation to be possible (do you agree that secret voting and as a consequence secret voting records would prevent one from choosing a delegate with full knowledge and responsability?).

Read more… / Lire plus…

Regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Leparlement and security

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-10-20 14:10:21+0200

echarp wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:46:26PM -0700, Gordan Ponjavic wrote: > > >The relationship between a real person and a pseudo could be secret. > > > > If it is “secret”, than in TOP system it is not existent. > > As you know, I’m currently designing a system where, by default, > everything is transparent.

Yes. I support that system completely.

> But I also know that many many people consider that anonymity is a > required feature in a democracy! Thus I’m allowing it in my system. > > It will be up to each electoral list manager to allow it or not. He will > manage identities and eventual pseudos.

Read more… / Lire plus…

No problem with it.
ATB,
Gale

PS. In Requirements Definition of the Forum Information System v.0.02 we do not force anyone to be public, that is only an option. So, after all, seems we do not have collision as I really assumed in the first moment.

The only thing that it seems to be important to acklaim is that what is not TOP is not part of TOP system. TOP system does not care about it.

For an example, if Magnus is going to enable completely annonymus system and if people of Sweden do not find accountability be usefull part in a process of decsion making, that is their right indeed.

> echarp – http://leparlement.org

Re: comment on repond???

echarp — 2007-03-06 00:53:43+0100

Coucou, c’est manu

c’est gentil d’écrire

Car en fait, tu viens tout juste d’écrire sur parlement, si si. On peut le faire soit par le web (les icônes en bas à droite des textes), soit par mail (il faut alors juste faire “répondre” aux messages qui t’intéressent, comme un mail normal).

A samedi!

echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr

comment on repond???

linda — 2007-03-06 00:22:46+0100

salut mag c linda : je voudrais savoir comment on repond sur le site car je ni arrive pas je clique sur parlement et ca tombe pas dessus automatiquement! je suis en retard et veut le faire mardi matin et jai 40 reponses a faire, alors… si tu peux me repondre cest gentil
bisous
a samedi!

————————————————- DÃ©couvrez une nouvelle faÃ§on d’obtenir des rÃ©ponses Ã toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expÃ©riences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/RÃ©ponses.

[top-politics] Re: Leparlement and security

Serge — 2006-11-19 16:50:01+0100

Hey,

Seems we’ve about been around the topic of security. I propose we now refocus on defining the system. I have posted a list of current, upcoming and proposed features in this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/d9718345de8bec04

Serge

Read more… / Lire plus…

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

Discussion: citizens-initiative.eu from ECINITIATIVE-L@aegee.org

our-constitution — 2006-11-16 14:37:09+0100

Dear all, In these minutes, we are reaching the number of 100 online signatures; a good start for the online collection, but only a first small step. In the coming weeks, it will be crucial to motivate as many citizens as possible to sign the Initiativ

[Join this discussion]¹.

¹: http://federaleuro.meetup.com/15/boards/view/viewthread?thread=2418984

URL: http://federaleuro.meetup.com/15/boards/view/viewthread?thread=2418984

Re: Bugs sur leparlement.org

Serge — 2006-11-07 15:58:48+0100

Aucun probleme, ne sois pas desole pour moi, c’est bien tout le but du testing que d’identifier les failles et bugs. j’espere que tu arriveras a trouver la faille en question sans trop de prise de tete.

On 11/7/06, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:

> > Merci beaucoup Serge > > C’est vrai que là j’ai éteint apache, un peu de rage mais surtout pour > me protéger contre un spammer étranger et étrange. > > Je n’y comprends rien, une centaine de messages sur le porc et autre > bacon. Je suis perdu, où est l’intérêt? Est-ce un bug qq part? Une > faille utilisée sur parlement? > > Bref, bien embêté (et désolé serge, pour tout le spam que ça a envoyé de > ton côté, je vais essayer des filtres, c tout). >

Bugs sur leparlement.org

Serge — 2006-11-07 14:35:42+0100

Salut Emmanuel,

Juste pour te signaler que j’ai eu plusieurs messages d’erreurs type “rail application failed to start properly” (ou qqchose de proche) – enfin si tu jettes un coup d’oeil a ton log tu verras sans doute ca entre 12.30 et 13.30GMT. D’ailleurs a
13.30 GMT je n’ai plus pu acceder au site. Et pour reference je n’avais pas ces bugs quand j’ai mis les premiers posts il y a quelques semaines. Voila j’espere que ca aide que je te signale ca.

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Leparlement and security

Serge — 2006-11-01 18:42:29+0100

Agreed let’s do pros and cons. Of course we need to agree on the terms and context.

secret votes: votes made anonymously which as a result cannot be traced to their author

public votes: votes made by someone whose identity is publicly connected to their voting record

Context: an online system allowing deliberation, voting, and delegation of voting power, with TOP as its guiding principles (definition available on: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP)

Read more… / Lire plus…

So, secret votes:
pros: physical integrity of the voter is protected, applying a pressure on a person to control their expression or vote becomes close to impossible
cons: no voting record for users, meaning no transparent track record, and making dynamic delegation of voting a very tricky thing indeed. Increased difficulty in preventing fraud against the 1 person 1 vote principle.

Public votes:
Pros: transparent voting records for users (ie you know the positions of anyone you’re engaging in debate with, or decide to delegate your vote to), public scrutiny of voting results is easy, transparent data, easy to replicate on different servers and keep a record of. Cons: risks associated with the notion that was is scandalous and might deserve punishment for one person is good and ethical for another person. Risks of pressures or even assault on voters and degradation of public debate as a result (I detailled this in previous post in this thread, dated Oct 31).

So it’s really two sides of a coin. And we want the advantages of both… This is why I have been saying that there is a need for a consistent ID so as to allow for all the pros of public voting records, while this consistent ID needs to be kept separate from the actual ID of a person therefore granting to this person the pros of secret voting

ie protection. A short overview of this proposed system can be found (and edited of course) on the TOP wiki: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Indentity_Protection_Method

Hope this helps,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Leparlement and security

Magnus — 2006-11-01 17:39:16+0100

>You are talking about current political system, not a model we are developing. You are talking about castes. I am talking about system based on true equality.

You can not base you assumptions on current stage as long as we are not

doing mere face lifting of currnt system, but rather deep structural change. We are basing new system on true informational equality, something that hasnt exist before.

-These thing are not so easy, Gordan! Just because we agree on the shortcomings of todays political system, it doesn’t neccessary means that 100% of the principles used today are wrong.
For instance, we should be lucky that there is no dictatorship in many countires, no despotes or kings deciding everything. You don’t find that bad do you?
We are designing something new, yes, and therefore we can’t be sure of anything, not even this principle of open votes.
But by discussing it, I convinced that we finally will reach an acceptable soultuion to all.
One way of doing it is to list the pros and the cons. One way of not dooing it is to state: This is not TOP! Which way do we prefer?

Read more… / Lire plus…

>> By saying that all sorts of “more traditional” politicians can’t and > should not be protecting itself and their opinions, you really say that > the state should not, which leads to anarchy.

>I do not understand your argument. Can you explain it to me more precisely?

-My argument is that if we acknowledge the need for protection of some politicians for the sake of their right of expressing their thoughts and votes and for the democary, we should also acknowledge the rigth for all participating in political decisions.
And what protecion is there for the man on the street participating in decisions about his neighbours (as in the example mentioned by Serge about Iraq soldiers from USA)
We can’t excpect the same protections level from police as todays politicians have, so there must be something else.
This is the reason for secret votes.
Tha backside you have indentified.
The lead question is if you backside is bigger than the need for protection.
And if your backside is a significant problem on the citizen level just as it would be on the upper politicians level.

>> I think anarchy is very far from democracy. > 2: ..the question of protectingthe single voter is a much more deep > consensus, sprung out from the very start ofthe modern democracy. They > didn’t have in antique Greece and maybe this was one of the > shortcomings, that they “squeezed out” an answer from every person on > the electors list. That’s populism really. Mob rule.

We are talking about deliberation thanks to IT. Deliberation and mob are far from same thing. They are actually oposite.

-Well, my parallell is that they didn’t have secret votes on antique Greece. That’s why it developed to a mob rule when it came to certain decisions, like the one over Socrates life. With secret votes in place, the history could have been completely different afterwards.

>There is some book from some author who wrote pros and cons for secretvs public voting. I will look for it to see what arguments have people who spend some time in understanding this problem more thouroughly.

-Looking forward to it.

>Yet, if we are talking from principle, then we can not state that secret vote cares accountability, nor clearness of political process, two things that are strong base of TOP. I do understand you are strongly for secret votes, yet your opinion does not have to be in favour of TOP.

-I see the need but would be one of the first to take it away the day we could.

>And what I do not understand is why you are so keen for full TOP acknowledgment if you are not ready to work fully TOP. It is not right.

If you want to protect your political base from bullies by secrecy, all

right. If you are not ready to start deliberative process based on TOP right now from the base of common people, all right. I do want it.

-I see the need that you don’t see, I’m affraid. We need it in a working party in an open country as Sweden even, that’s for sure, you chooses to close your eyes for this need. And we still are very keen on acknowledge TOP since we see it as a cornerstone(milestone) which all our competing parties will have to be measued against.
But a milestone has to be based on realism also, in order to be relevant.

>> 3: ..you are even forgetting that there is a law for secret votes in > almost all civilized contries, not ringing any bell?

If we are going to acknowledge such arguments, it would be the best thing to let things go on as they are right now.

-As I said above, there are some good things that we wan’t to keep.

>I can not dissallow you to challenge anything, right?

-Great, so meet my arguments!

>> Things are not easy in theory, and they really aren’t simpler in real > life. > I wan’t to build a solid, fair and publically accepted system, not a > bible 2.0 .

Just do it.

-I wan’t you on the train!

>I can notice that is not true. Even in rather undeveloped country such as Croatia is, I have no problems with showing my opinion publicly. Of course, I can not be non fair, I can not be bad, I can not call for lynch or anything like that, because such things could legitimaze lynch

from the other side. And I find these obstacles be fair and just. I feel good about the thing that promotion of bad things goes against me directly and in the same time that pormotion of good things goes for me

directly.

-You feel strong. Good. Mee too. Maybe all should, and not just us?

>> I don’t think even in fake > democracies such as Cuba USSR or China or dictatorships like Iraq, > there ever where secret votes by top politics. > Instead they tend to use this a sign of big unity which looks real > ridiculus. > (Maybe these undemocratic countries even would have gained a shorter > time with the mess if some votes in the top where secret…)

For a start, dictatorships can not even afford to themselves free Internet and you are trying to attach top to them.

-No, my connection is that if despotes, criminals and other fake democrats, where thinking that they where gaining anything by using secret votes, thay would do it.
So why don’t they do it?

>Exception. The fact you need this words tells me that you understand this goes against TOP. That is good.

-There’s no rule without exception, you know…

>All in all. The fact you understand you talk about EXCEPTIONS, that much that you want to change basic definitions in order of apologising your EXCEPTIONS makes me thing you are not ready to accept TOP in whole. That is all right, but it is not all right to change meaning of definitions in order of calling yourself promotor of TOP politics. You can not say, I am fully top if you are talking about exceptions.

-I thought we where here to discuss, not to throw shit like this? I’m pointing at a problem here, you refuse to see it or even discuss it?

>So, what is the point to do so? I do not see it. Yet. As long as we can notice that different organisaitons will be ready for different levels of TOP, that we might develop different grades of TOP. For an example, if you allow public participation in your deliberation process, it makes some sense that you be distinct to those who do not allow it. But

I repeat, you can not state that you are FULLY TOP, as long as you need

exceptions

As long as I do not need exceptions, it is not fair to me that You and I belong to the same level of TOP. I am fully top, you are not.

-We have already discussed earlier that there might be different levels and applications of all or parts of the result of TOP. As you know, I’m also have a big problem with RD-only ideas. This doesn’t stop me from participating in TOP despite some words here written about DD, and I don’t see why you should react differently on the fact that some organizations see’s; and will see!; a need for limitation of transparency on the citizen level.