A. Swartz rightly points out that: The way a typical US transparency project works is pretty simple. You find a government database, work hard to get or parse a copy, and then put it online with some nice visualizations. The problem is that reality doesn’t live in the databases. Right. So we need more information. Why give up? Then he says: For too long we’ve been funding transparency projects on the model of if-we-build-it-they-will-come: that we don’t know what transparency will be useful for, but once it’s done it will lead to all sorts of exciting possibilities.
- In general, I agree that humans aren’t ready for total transparency yet and that what is called the “space to think” in the article I quote below is necessary. But I also think we need an equilibrium betwen that and the de-facto total lack of transparency we have today, and I’m pretty sure that many average EU citizens think the same. However, if we are to judge from some recent news, EU governments seem to think that they’ll take such demands seriously… and then just merrily walk around them.
- Two of the three urgent pleas from Sheila Parks of the Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots in Down the Rabbit Hole With Democracy are against e-voting: SECOND URGENT PLEA: Please pay attention to those of us who educate, write, investigate, litigate, legislate and talk about the rigging of our elections by all electronic voting machines. The putsch with electronic voting machines is a more devious way of murdering us. THIRD URGENT PLEA: We need secure hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) elections now.