uni/mk/bib.bib

% This file was created with JabRef 2.9b2.
% Encoding: UTF-8

@ARTICLE{Aagren2001,
  author = {Ågren, Per-Olof},
  title = {Is online democracy in the EU for professionals only?},
  journal = {Communications of the ACM},
  year = {2001},
  volume = {44},
  pages = {36-38},
  number = {1},
  month = {January},
  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,
  author = {Mohen, Joe and Glidden, Julia},
  title = {The case for internet voting},
  journal = {Communications of the ACM},
  year = {2001},
  volume = {44},
  pages = {72-85},
  number = {1},
  month = {January},
  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{Watson2001,
  author = {Watson, Richard T. and Mundy, Bryan},
  title = {A strategic perspective of electronic democracy},
  journal = {Communications of the ACM},
  year = {2001},
  volume = {44},
  pages = {27-30},
  number = {1},
  month = {January},
  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}
}