uni/mk/bib.bib

% This file was created with JabRef 2.10b2.
% Encoding: UTF-8


@Article{Aagren2001,
  Title                    = {Is online democracy in the EU for professionals only?},
  Author                   = {Ågren, Per-Olof},
  Journal                  = {Communications of the ACM},
  Year                     = {2001},

  Month                    = {January},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {36-38},
  Volume                   = {44},

  Abstract                 = {A directive of the EU protects the privacy very harsh. This directive forbids mentioning anything privacy related of any person without their declared consent. This makes e-democracy in the form of e.g. bulletin boards close to impossible as it isn't really possible to discuss a statement of a person without identifying the person.

As it is a directive the EU member states have to interpret the directive into national law. Sweden has made a law that follows the directive to the letter. That resulted in 296 reports of violation of this law between October 1998 and August 2000. Another law in Sweden restricts e-democracy in another way. The person who initiates a bulletin board is responsible for all its content. This constraint leads to a situation where fear stops people from engaging in e-democracy. Fear to violate such rules.

The EU directive allows processing of personal data only for journalistic, artistic and literary purposes which results in the opinion of the EU parliament that enough freedom of expression in virtual forums is achieved when authors, journalists and artists are free to engage in political discussions. That way democratic debate becomes a purely professional activity and thereby reflects a very thin democracy model.},
  Issue                    = {1},
  Journaltitle             = {Communications of the ACM},
  Owner                    = {jim},
  Quality                  = {1},
  Timestamp                = {2013.10.28}
}

@Article{Mohen2001,
  Title                    = {The case for internet voting},
  Author                   = {Mohen, Joe and Glidden, Julia},
  Journal                  = {Communications of the ACM},
  Year                     = {2001},

  Month                    = {January},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {72-85},
  Volume                   = {44},

  Abstract                 = {The internet voting is explored with the example of the Arizona presidential preference elections. That election allowed for the first time ever to vote from every place around the world (as long as you were a registered Democrat in Arizona). It also included the option to vote by mail, offering the same convenience as voting by Internet. But you were able to vote traditionally in a polling station either.

A massive campaign was started to increase the awareness of the election. Many third parties were invited to monitor the voting process.

To authenticate the voters each registered Democrat received a randomly generated seven digit PIN. In addition they were given two challenge questions (date of birth or last four digits of a social security number) which were randomly selected from a strictly confidential field of five. To prevent overvoting, the system voided ballots from reuse once they were cast. They were also voided when a voter requested a mail-in ballot or disclosed that his/her name or address was incorrect. In the latter case the voter had to vote in person in one of the polling stations.

Moreover voters had to explicetly state their voting eligibility. A false information is a 6 class felony, worthy of jail time. Digital signature were used to identify the specific voting servers being used.

The votes were encrypted and then saved encrypted in a database of election.com. But election.com didn't have the private key. Only once election was over, the encrypted set of data was given to the third party that was able to decrypt the votes. A single bit of error in the encrypted data would have led to not accepting that vote. It is remarkable that no single vote has been rejected.

Internet voting can only be one element of a legally binding election. To give everyone the same opportunity to vote, the Internet voting took place four days prior to Election Day. On the Election Day itself Internet voting was not allowed. The goal was to prevent anyone from waiting till the last second to vote via computer.

Internet voting is most useful on the small level where people able to sabotage the electronic voting process mostly don't bother. Still the PC from which the voting is performed is a security risk. Of the whole 96 hours available for Internet voting, the site wasn't available for one hour only due to a router problem. For each server there were backups to prevent data loss.

Learned lessions:

Many voters have an around-the-clock lifestyle and want to be among the first to vote online. Therefore even more servers are required to process the peak at the beginning.

Current browsers are required.

Internet voting at polling stations offers no extra value and increases the cost of elections.

When should Internet voting be used? In what manner and at what cost? These questions should be answered by politicians and the people who vote them, not technology developers and vendors.},
  Issue                    = {1},
  Journaltitle             = {Communications of the ACM},
  Owner                    = {jim},
  Quality                  = {1},
  Timestamp                = {2013.10.28}
}

@Article{Spirakis2010,
  Title                    = {The impact of electronic government on democracy: e-democracy through e-participation},
  Author                   = {Spirakis, Grigorios and Spiraki, Christina and Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos},
  Journal                  = {Electronic Government, An International Journey},
  Year                     = {2010},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {75-88},
  Volume                   = {7},

  Owner                    = {jim},
  Timestamp                = {2013.12.30}
}

@Article{Watson2001,
  Title                    = {A strategic perspective of electronic democracy},
  Author                   = {Watson, Richard T. and Mundy, Bryan},
  Journal                  = {Communications of the ACM},
  Year                     = {2001},

  Month                    = {January},
  Number                   = {1},
  Pages                    = {27-30},
  Volume                   = {44},

  Abstract                 = {E-Democracy can be introduced via a three phase structure. During initiation the citizens must get one portal that gives them access to all levels of government (from local residence to U.S. president or alike in other countries). This portal would give them all relevant info based upon their postal code. All they need to remember is the URL of the portal and their postal code which reduces searching effort significantly.

Another important aspect is web-based payment. Around $3 trillion exchanges hands between governments and U.S. citizens each year. But the overwhelming majority happens via traditional checks, cash and money orders. Less than 0.5% are web-enabled. Web-bases payment allows for reduced travel to all the different agencies as many actions require physical presence nowadays. By reducing this travel the environment can profit from e-payment as well.

In the second phase most governments adopt to the principles of e-government. Most payments are handled via the Web and governments become more efficient via two approaches. Small governments opt for an application service provider (ASP) solution whereas large governments implement in-house systems.

Political decision making becomes more and more transparent. Citizens can find out what steps a certain peace of legislation takes from the first thoughts to signing the bill by the president. They can find out about all stakeholders of the process and who is involved. This gives citizens an inside perspective about the law making process and allows for increased citizen influence over the politicians.

The final third phase is the customization and creates a one-to-one relation between government and citizen. Via a personal profile a citizen can manage all financial transactions with every government level. A change of address will be one transaction that notifies everyone involved. Even further it is possible to show the citizen how much of the paid taxes are used e.g. for education or national parks.

This involvement into the process creates a much bigger attachment for democracy and the decision making process and abstracts away everything that one doesn't have to know.},
  Issue                    = {1},
  Journaltitle             = {Communications of the ACM},
  Owner                    = {jim},
  Quality                  = {1},
  Timestamp                = {2013.10.28}
}