Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Another model to consider

[Karl Auerbach]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-08-18 18:08:56 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >This aspect is of sufficient importance that it transcends the
> >right of electors to remain private.
>
> Not at all.
>
> However, there is no reason why electors shouldn't have the choice
> to keep their e-mail addresses and names private, or to be part of a
> published electors' list.  I don't think anyone should force either
> confidentiality or publication of addresses upon voters.

Well, here in California, and as we have seen, in Canada.  That choice is
not open - if one wants to vote then one has to give up privacy to that
limited extent needed to ensure that other electors can contact you.

There are protections.  For example, here in California the law requires
that the lists be used only for purposes associated with the election and,
in the case of public-benefit/non-profit corporations such as ICANN, the
law gives the corporation the specific right to step in an take action to
prevent inappropriate uses.

The ability for some electors to be invisible damages the ability of those
electors that want to discuss issues from being fully empowered from doing
so.  It is also an invitation to manipulation in that one faction could
run a voter registration drive of voters leaning in their direction in
which they promote the "privacy" option, thus capturing the communications
channels to those voters.

I'd follow the wisdom found in existing voting laws - make the *full*
lists available.

		--karl--