This is a follow-up to my conversation on Muhammad Saleem’s recent post Should Social News Be a Republic Rather Than a Democracy?
Picture this: the citizens of New Oceania live happy and fulfilling lives. New Oceania is a proud democratic state - in fact, a direct democracy - and as such holds regular referendums. Lively debates surround the election process. When the time comes, citizens go to the polls and enter their votes into New Oceania’s advanced computerized voting systems.
But, something is amiss in New Oceania. The computerized voting system has been designed to prevent abuse of the state’s direct democracy. Some voters are blacklisted, others are counted twice or even more. Sometimes, bills are discarded altogether after just a handful of opponents leave the polling stations. All of this should be fine as it serves the goal of preserving the state’s voting system. The problem is, nobody knows how it works.
In a blog post over a year ago Scott Karp wrote, “A “democracy” that has to forgo transparency in order to avoid becoming undemocratic has already ceded its democratic ideals.”. This holds for the fictional New Oceania and it also holds for the subject of Scott’s piece and of my own allegory. Don’t get me wrong, I love Digg. Like many other Diggers, I would love to understand how I am being measured! Participating in one of the most exciting and enjoyable social experiments on the web could be made better if it was a little less shrouded by obscurity.
In the computer security field there is a concept called Security by Obscurity. Any security expert will tell you that if this is your only defense - if the secrecy of your algorithm is all that protects it - your time will eventually run out. The bad guys will steal it and exploit its weaknesses instead of the good guys analyzing it and ensuring, in a community-wide effort, that it is inherently secure. I believe that social media security should not be based on obscurity either.