Abstract
Information and communications technology (ICT) plays a major role in modern society. The Internet has certain unique factors which make eParticipation and eGovernance particularly appealing, namely the size and extent of the Internet, which enables it to be a medium whereby information can be very widely dispersed. This in turn has made political participation easy online. However, there is also a propensity of ICT to be used to interfere with our right to privacy. There is a need to factor in present and future requirements in the scope of eDemocracy and eGovernance generally, and one of the key issues is the devising of methods to narrow the prevailing digital divide. There is also more need for creation of adequate support tools to enable the user to navigate through vast contents, while also engaging and interacting in a meaningful manner with others. For eDemocracy to flourish, what is needed are newer versions of ICT, interest in eDemocracy (both by the government and public), suitable legislation, financing, and a generally conducive environment for enhancement of democratic ideals. However, by its very nature, technology is not inherently democratic. To indulge in eParticipation, we need to understand the concept of ePersonality. This in turn leads us to the question of what is an ePerson? In order to enable the ePersonality to flourish, the authors propose the need to create a parallel online universe, where rights and liabilities mirror those found in our various earthly conventions and declarations related to human, cultural and political rights, but where the distinction between the real world and the online world persists—thereby creating a situation wherein the twain shall coexist but never meet. This is the cloned heaven specially made for Trishanku, a concept taken from Hindu mythology in an attempt to find the answer for the future from our past.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Hood and Margetts (2007), p. 202.
- 2.
- 3.
Id 43, where in footnotes 173 and 174 the role of annoymity vis-a-vis public exercise in the legislative process as ruled in the US Supreme Court case John Doe (2010) is discussed.
- 4.
Howes (2001), p. 41.
- 5.
- 6.
Howes (2001), p. 39.
- 7.
Acemoglu and Robinson (2013), pp. 213–216.
- 8.
Duvivier (2013), p. 55.
- 9.
Cynthia et al. (2012), pp. 132–133.
- 10.
Duvivier (2013), p. 76.
- 11.
See Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Risks to Fundamental Rights stemming from Digital Tracking and other Surveillance Technologies (2013), para 1.
- 12.
Id at para 2.
- 13.
Id at paras 3 and 4.
- 14.
Id at para 5.
- 15.
Id at para 6. Also see Walker and Grytsenko (2014).
- 16.
Kerikmäe (2014).
- 17.
Id at paras 7 and 8.
- 18.
Kerikmäe and Nyman-Metcalf (2012).
- 19.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-2.
- 20.
See Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 para 6.
- 21.
See id, Appendix thereto, Principle of eDemocracy 52.
- 22.
See id, Principle 50.
- 23.
See id, Principle 53.
- 24.
See id, Principles 54–57.
- 25.
Duvivier (2013), p. 51.
- 26.
Feezell et al. (2009), pp. 9, 16.
- 27.
Sherman (2011), p. 102.
- 28.
Dutton and Peltu (2007), p. 21.
- 29.
Duvivier (2013), p. 54.
- 30.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Guideline on eDemocracy 57.
- 31.
See id, Guideline 58.
- 32.
See id, Guideline 59.
- 33.
See id, Guideline 60.
- 34.
See id, Guideline 71.
- 35.
See id, Guideline 74.
- 36.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-7.
- 37.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 59.
- 38.
See id, Principles pp. 63, 64.
- 39.
See id, Principle 68.
- 40.
See id, Principle 70.
- 41.
See id, Principle 71.
- 42.
See id, Principle 72.
- 43.
See id, Principle 78.
- 44.
- 45.
See id, p. A7.
- 46.
See id, p. A7 where in footnote 2, Mendez (2007) is quoted.
- 47.
See id, p. A8 where the NGO access2democracy is quoted.
- 48.
Perez (2013), p. 67.
- 49.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-8.
- 50.
See id at p. A8 where in footnote 5, Barney (2000), is quoted.
- 51.
Perez (2013), p. 68.
- 52.
See id, p. 70 where in footnote 23, Plato. The Republic, is discussed.
- 53.
See id, p. 72.
- 54.
See id, p. 74 where in footnote 36, Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies is discussed.
- 55.
See id, p. 68.
- 56.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-9.
- 57.
See id, p. A12 and also see footnote 16, where the researcher Macintosh (2003) is quoted.
- 58.
See id, p. A12.
- 59.
See id, pp. A13–A14.
- 60.
See Clift (2003).
- 61.
Duvivier (2013), p. 18.
- 62.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 36.
- 63.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-9.
- 64.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Guideline on eDemocracy 43.
- 65.
See id, Principle on eDemocracy 37.
- 66.
See id, Principle 38.
- 67.
See id, Guidelines on eDemocracy 46 and 48.
- 68.
For example, see Sacks (2012).
- 69.
Duvivier (2013), p. 20.
- 70.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 39.
- 71.
See id, Principle 40.
- 72.
See id, Principle 41.
- 73.
See also Macnamara and Kenning (2010) for an interesting insight into e-electioneering.
- 74.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 42.
- 75.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-9.
- 76.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 43.
- 77.
Duvivier (2013), p. 19 at footnote 47, where Assateague Island National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use (2003) is quoted as an example. This case is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-05-30/html/03-13578.htm. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 78.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 44.
- 79.
See id, Principle 45.
- 80.
Duvivier (2013), p. 22.
- 81.
See Borough of Duryea et al. (2011) at page 2495. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14079373987044019788&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 82.
See Magna Carta (1215), para 61. http://www.nationalcenter.org/MagnaCarta.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 83.
See English Bill of Rights (1689) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 84.
See U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 85.
See http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 86.
See Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principle of eDemocracy 46.
- 87.
See id, Principle 47.
- 88.
Chadwick (2003), pp. 9, 13, 14.
- 89.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A9.
- 90.
Meier (2012), pp. 2–3.
- 91.
See id, p. 160.
- 92.
Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Principles of eDemocracy 1–34.
- 93.
Recommendation Rec(2004)11of the Committee of Ministers to member states on legal, operational and technical standards for evoting. Appendix I, Legal Standards, Principles.
- 94.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-27.
- 95.
Recommendation Rec(2004)11. Appendix I, Legal Standards, Procedural Safeguards.
- 96.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-10.
- 97.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-10.
- 98.
See also Recommendation Rec(2004)11, where concepts such as operational standards for eVoting (Appendix II), Technical requirements (Appendix III) and security issues in the pre-voting, voting and post-voting stages (para.77 onwards) are considered in detail.
- 99.
Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 Guideline on eDemocracy 79.
- 100.
See id, Guideline 80.
- 101.
See id, Guideline 81.
- 102.
See id, Guideline 83.
- 103.
See id, Guideline 84.
- 104.
See id, Guideline 85.
- 105.
See id, Guideline 87.
- 106.
See id, Guideline 92.
- 107.
See id, Guideline 96.
- 108.
See id, Guideline 97.
- 109.
See id, Guideline 98.
- 110.
Ehringfeld et al. (2010), pp. 228–230.
- 111.
See id, pp. 230–232.
- 112.
See id, pp. 232–233.
- 113.
See id, pp. 234–235.
- 114.
Gerlach and Gasser (2009), pp. 3–4.
- 115.
See id, p. 4.
- 116.
See id, p. 5.
- 117.
See id, p. 7.
- 118.
See id, p. 9.
- 119.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), pp. A-24–A-27.
- 120.
Peart (2007), p. 8, where this is attributed to prevailing American political culture.
- 121.
See Kotsiopoulos (2009), pp. A-25–A-26, where examples like those of Virginia’s Governor Kaine’s two call-in radio shows monthly and the discussion forum (http://gov.ca.gov/ask) which was used by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was in power in California, are provided.
- 122.
Perez (2013), p. 63.
- 123.
Shane (2012), p. 3.
- 124.
Ostling (2010), p. 4.
- 125.
Dahlberg (2011), p. 866.
- 126.
Perez (2013), p. 65.
- 127.
Orszag (2009) Memorandum from the Director for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Executive Office of the President of USA. p. 1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 128.
Perez (2013), p. 66.
- 129.
See for Canada—http://data.gc.ca/eng. Accessed 2 Apr 2014. United Kingdom—http://data.gov.uk/ Accessed 2 Apr 2014. Australia—http://www.finance.gov.au/blog/2010/07/16/declaration-open-government/ Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 130.
See The Open Government Partnership comprising of over 60 countries. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 131.
See The World Bank ICT Sector Strategy at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/0,,contentMDK:23118048~menuPK:8432091~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:282823,00.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 132.
Perez (2013), p. 86.
- 133.
See id, p. 87.
- 134.
See id, p. 87.
- 135.
See id, pp. 116–117.
- 136.
See id, p. 118.
- 137.
See id, p. 119.
- 138.
Stromer-Galley et al. (2012), p. 93.
- 139.
Perez (2013), p. 122.
- 140.
See id, pp. 127–128.
- 141.
Perez (2006), p. 122.
- 142.
Duvivier (2013), pp. 10–11.
- 143.
Sherman (2011), p. 96.
- 144.
Duvivier (2013), p. 17. Also note pp. 11–12 where the influence of social media in political transition is discussed. For example, the Facebook Webpage dedicated to Mr. Khaled Said who had died allegedly at the hands of Egypt’s secret police in 2010 led to a revolution on the streets of Egypt leading to the overthrow of the Egyptian government. Another stark example is the clever use of an online, state of the art electioneering campaign named Project Narwhal by Mr. Obama for the elections in 2012 to the office of the President of USA. This was more successful than the Website launched by his rival Mr. Romney, which performed unsatisfactorily.
- 145.
See id, p. 26. Although there are historic reasons for their declining power at the Federal level, [in 1844, a rule was passed in USA whereby petitions would be referred to committees instead of being brought to the attention of the whole House of Representatives. This in effect meant that they could now be conveniently ignored under the guise of action by the committee (See p. 28)]. It should be noted that in 2012, 186 initiatives and referendums at the state level were voted for by citizens in 39 states of USA. (See p. 32).
- 146.
See id, p. 28.
- 147.
See id, p. 37.
- 148.
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/22/petition-white-house-we-people. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 149.
Thus, in response to a petition to secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016, which crossed the required threshold of signatures, a Government response was guaranteed. For the response, please see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 150.
Duvivier (2013), p. 39.
- 151.
Karpf (2010), p. 9.
- 152.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-71.
- 153.
Kuzelewska and Krasnicka (2013), p. 353.
- 154.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A 14, where in footnote 21, Rilley CG is quoted.
- 155.
See id, pp. A-14–A-15.
- 156.
Perez (2009), p. 47.
- 157.
Perez (2013), p. 76.
- 158.
See id, p. 80.
- 159.
See id, p. 122–123.
- 160.
See id, p. 124.
- 161.
Muller (2011), p. 3.
- 162.
Perez (2013), p. 125.
- 163.
Please see this press release from IBM (2012).
- 164.
Please see an online version of the Ramayana, along with its English translation here: http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/index.php?id=translation. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 165.
Please see another English version of the story of Trishanku here: http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga60/bala_60_prose.htm. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
- 166.
Calamur (2012).
- 167.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-15.
- 168.
See id, p. A-53.
- 169.
Alvarez et al. (2008), p. 3.
- 170.
Clift (2004), p. 5.
- 171.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-53.
- 172.
Beckert (2011), p. 4.
- 173.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-54.
- 174.
UK Government (2002), p. 8.
- 175.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-55.
- 176.
UK Government (2002), pp. 1–2.
- 177.
Peart and Diaz (2007), p. 13.
- 178.
Beckert (2011), p. 1.
- 179.
See id, p. 22.
- 180.
Mendez (2007), p. 15.
- 181.
Welp (2007), p. 16.
- 182.
- 183.
Clift (2004), pp. 37–38.
- 184.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-68.
- 185.
Macintosh (2003), pp. 24–25.
- 186.
- 187.
Oostveen and Van den Besselaar (2007), pp. 2–5.
- 188.
Beckert (2011), p. 3.
- 189.
See id, pp. 2–3.
- 190.
Kotsiopoulos (2009), p. A-71.
References
Books
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. London: Profile books.
Barney, D. (2000). Prometheus wired. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Ghonim, W. (2012). Revolution 2.0: The power of the people is greater than the people in power: A memoir (pp. 84–85). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kerikmäe, T. (2014). EU Charter as a dynamic instrument. In T. Kerikmäe (Ed.), Protecting human rights in EU: Controversies and challenges of the charter of fundamental rights (pp. 1–4). Berlin: Springer.
Kuzelewska, E., & Krasnicka, I. (2013). E-voting to the European Parliament and United States Congress. An attempt of comparison. In E. Kuzelewska & D. Kloza (Eds.), Elections to the European Parliament as a challenge for democracy (pp. 335–358). Warsaw: Aspra.
Macintosh, A. (2003). Using information and communication technologies to enhance citizen engagement. In J. Caddy, & C. Vergez (eds.) Promise and problems of E-democracy, challenges of online citizen engagement (pp. 19–142). France: OECD Publications Service. http://www.oecd.org/governance/public-innovation/35176328.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Meier, A. (2012). eDemocracy and eGovernment. Stages of a democratic knowledge society. Berlin: Springer.
Perez, O. (2006). The Institutionalization of Inconsistency: from fluid concepts to random walk. In O. Perez & G. Teubner (Eds), Paradoxes and inconsistencies in law (pp. 119–144). Oregon: Hart Publishing. http://upecen.edu.pe/ebooks/Derecho/Teor%C3%ADa%20del%20Derecho/Paradoxes%20and%20Inconsistencies%20in%20the%20Law.%20Oren%20Perez%20and%20Gunther%20Teubner.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Shane, P. M. (2012). Online consultation and political communication in the era of Obama: An introduction. In S. Coleman & P. M. Shane (Eds.), Connecting democracy: Online consultation and the flow of political communication (pp. 1–20). The MIT Press. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262516464_sch_0001.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Articles
Alvarez, R. M., Hall, E. T., & Trechsel, A. H. (2008). Internet voting in Estonia. Resource document. VTP working paper #60. http://vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/vtp_wp60.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Beckert, B. (2011). Evoting in Europe: Why we should look at it, which arguments we should consider and what to expect in the future. European Parliament workshop. http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-media/docs/t/de/veranstaltungen/E-voting_arguments_Summary_March_2011.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Chadwick, A. (2003). E-government and E-democracy: A case for convergence? Paper presented at the Political Studies Association annual conference, University of Leicester. http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/964/1/E-government%20and%20e-democracy%20a%20case%20for%20convergence.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Clift, S. (2003). E-democracy, e-governance and public net-work. http://www.publicus.net/articles/edempublicnetwork.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Clift, S. L. (2004). E-government and democracy—representation and citizen engagement in the information age. http://www.publicus.net/articles/cliftegovdemocracy.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Cynthia, R. F., Newhart, M., & Heidt, J. (2012). Rulemaking vs. democracy: Judging and nudging public participation that counts. Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law, 2, 1. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=ceri. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media and Society, 13, 855–872. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/13/6/855.full.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Dutton, W. H., & Peltu, M. (2007). Reconfiguring government-public engagements: Enhancing the communicative power of citizens. Oxford Internet Institute forum discussion paper No. 9. http://www.cyberinet02.inet-tr.org.tr/oii/FD9.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Duvivier, K. K. (2013). E-Legislating. Oregon Law Review, 92(9).
Ehringfeld, A., Naber, L., Grechenig, T., Krimmer, R., & Traxl, M., et al. (2010). Analysis of recommendation Rec(2004)11 based on the experiences of specific attacks against the first legally binding implementation of E-voting in Austria. In R. Krimmer & R. Grimm (Eds.), Electronic voting 2010 (EVOTE2010) conference proceeding (Austria) (pp. 225–237). http://www.e-voting.cc/wp-content/uploads/Proceedings%202010/EVOTE2010_finals.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Feezell, J. T., Conroy, M., & Guerrero, M. (2009). Facebook is… fostering political engagement: A study of online social networking groups and offline participation. Presentation at the American Political Science Association meeting http://irevolution.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/apsa-feezell-2009.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Gerlach, J., & Gasser, U. (2009). Three case studies from Switzerland: E-voting. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2009-03.1. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Howes, D. (2001). e-Legislation: Law-making in the digital age. McGill Law Journal, 47(39). http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/7513733-47.1.Howes.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization from the Advocacy Group’s perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy and Internet, 2(4). Article 2. http://davekarpf.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/online-political-mobilization-from-the-advocacy-groups-perspective-1.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Kerikmäe, T., & Nyman-Metcalf, K. (2012). Less is more or more is more? Revisiting universality of human rights. International and Comparative Law Review, 12(1), 35–51.
Kotsiopoulos, I. (2009). Bringing together and accelerating eGovernment research in the EU. DG Information Society and Media, European Commission. http://www.epractice.eu/files/edemocracy.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Macnamara, J., & Kenning, G. (2010). E-electioneering 2010: Trends in social media use in Australian political communication. http://www.academia.edu/830297/E-electioneering_2010_Trends_in_Social_Media_Use_in_Australian_Political_Communication. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Mendez, F. (2007). e-democratic experimentation in Europe: The case of e-voting. e-Working papers 2007/02. E-Democracy Centre, University of Zürich, Switzerland. http://www.edemocracycentre.ch/files/WP2007-2%20-%20Mendez%20-%20eDemocracy%20Experiences%20in%20Europe.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Muller, M. (2011). Lurking as personal trait or situational disposition? Lurking and contributing in enterprise social media. Resource document. IBM research report. http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/1357B36CA5B3C630852579480052500C/$File/rc25221.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Oostveen, A. M., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2007). Non-technical risks of remote electronic voting. Resource document. Idea Group Inc. http://www.social-informatics.net/Encyclopedia_Oostveen2006.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Ostling, A. (2010). ICT in politics: from peaks of inflated expectations to voids of disillusionment. European Journal of ePractice, 9. http://epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epractice%20Volume%209.4.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Peart, M. (2007). Local e-Democracy initiatives in the United States. e-working papers 2007/03 for the e-Democracy Centre, University of Zurich, Switzerland. http://www.edemocracycentre.ch/files/WP2007-3-Peart-%20Local%20e-Democracy%20in%20the%20US.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Peart, M. N., & Diaz, J. R. (2007). Comparative project on local e-Democracy initiatives in Europe and North America. Resource document. e-Democracy Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.edemocracycentre.ch/files/ESF%20-%20Local%20E-Democracy.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Perez, O. (2009). Complexity, information overload, and online deliberation. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. Volume, 5(1), 43–86. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/is/files/2012/02/Perez_Formatted_02_09.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Perez, O. (2013). Open government, technological innovation, and the politics of democratic disillusionment: (E-)Democracy from socrates to Obama. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 9. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/is/files/2013/08/7-Perez.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Sherman, B. (2011). Your mayor, your “Friend”: Public officials, social networking, and the unmapped new public square. Pace Law Review, 31(1). http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1767&context=plr. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., & Muhlberger, P. (2012). Deliberative E-rulemaking project: Challenges to enacting real world deliberation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9, 82–96. http://www.academia.edu/2497482/Deliberative_E-Rulemaking_Project_Challenges_to_enacting_real-world_deliberation. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Welp, Y. (2007). Democracy and digital divide in Latin America. e-working papers 2007/01. E-Democracy Centre, University of Geneva, Switzerland. http://research.altec.gr/Ariadne/ariadne8/Democracy_and_Digital_Divide_in_Latin_America.pdf.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Cases
John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010).
Assateague Island National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use, 68 Fed. Reg. 32,371, 32,372 (May 30, 2003).
Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Charles J. Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. 2488 (2011).
Legislative Acts and Legal Documents
Magna Carta (1215) paragraph 61. http://www.nationalcenter.org/MagnaCarta.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
English Bill of Rights (1689) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
U.S. Constitution, First amendment. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment. Accessed 2 April, 2014
UK Government. (2002). In the service of democracy: A consultation paper on a policy for e-democracy. http://www.basiccraft.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/in-the-service-of-democracy-2002.pdf. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
Recommendation Rec(2004)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on legal, operational and technical standards for e-voting (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 September 2004 at the 898th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
Orszag, P. R. (2009) Memorandum from the Director for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Executive Office of the President of USA (p. 1). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on electronic democracy (e-democracy) (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 February 2009 at the 1049th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
CM(2011)175 dated 15 March 2012, being the Internet Governance—Council of Europe Strategy 2012-2015.
Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Risks to Fundamental Rights stemming from Digital Tracking and other Surveillance Technologies (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 June 2013 at the 1173rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2074317&Site=CM. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
News articles
Calamur, H. (2012). The Trishanku problem. Resource document. Pragati the Indian National Interest Review. http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2012/01/the-trishanku-problem/. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
IBM Survey. (2012). IBM survey reveals digital behavioral trends for consumers: What is your digital personality? http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/37423.wss. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Sacks, M. (2012). Clarence Thomas petitioned by 100,000 progressives to recuse himself from health care cases. Huffington post newspaper. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/clarence-thomas-petition-recuse-health-care_n_1284610.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Walker, S., & Grytsenko, O. (2014). Text messages warn Ukraine protesters they are ‘participants in mass riot’. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/21/ukraine-unrest-text-messages-protesters-mass-riot. Accessed 2 Apr 2014. It reported that mobile phones of protestors in Kiev were used to locate and pinpoint users by the government.
Related websites
Australia—http://www.finance.gov.au/blog/2010/07/16/declaration-open-government/. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
Canada—http://data.gc.ca/eng. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
United Kingdom—http://data.gov.uk/. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
The Open Government Partnership comprising of over 60 countries. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
The World Bank ICT Sector Strategy at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/0,,contentMDK:23118048~menuPK:8432091~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:282823,00.html. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/22/petition-white-house-we-people. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
An online version of the Ramayana, along with its English translation: http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/index.php?id=translation. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
Another English version of the story of Trishanku here: http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga60/bala_60_prose.htm. Accessed 2 April, 2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dutt, P.K., Kerikmäe, T. (2014). Concepts and Problems Associated with eDemocracy. In: Kerikmäe, T. (eds) Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08117-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08117-5_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08116-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08117-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)