Hi Pegasus, I have done a bit of work on the registration process. I wonder if you could have a look at the new form here (when you're not signed in already), and make comment on whether you feel the explanation and warning is reasonable.

Members who signed on early, especially if they felt pressured to use their real name when they would have preferred not to, may wish to go to 'my account' in the left hand column and change their user name. If you do so please also go into 'personal information' and enter a full name - it will not be public.

If you do so you will also notice other optional information. We are now asking for a phone number on registration. It is not compulsory, will never be public, and will be used only if we wish to verify someone's identification. If you really want to be controversial on this site, or if you just want us to be able to contact you, feel free to fill it in.

Not on the registration form, but available to those who wish to add to their public account, are fields for entering a home page (or favourite webpage for that matter) and something about yourselves. For people who wish to contribute regularly this may be a good place to make disclosures about political affiliations or just to make a comment about what you feel you have to contribute to the site.

Finally, under the 'electoral information' part of your account there is added facility to enter your state and local electorates. These electorates are not functional fields like the federal electorates as yet. If you click on your federal electorate you will get a list of all the members in that electorate.

Hey all, I am very concerned for the safety of my (and others) real information for many reasons.

Firstly it is quite normal to require such info before joining many web forums etc and I am used to providing such when I want to join something. However, those sites tell you that up front and explain why which allows you to make a decision. I realise you are still in the throes of setting up etc but it is difficult to accept if you are let in to a site without that requirement only to find both that it is going to be required and that those using real data are using that fact to deride the anonymous. Consistency is the key and those sites that I have joined and provided real data have also strongly urged all users to NOT use their real names and emails on the site for safety.

A political site is different from most others as simply by creating your site you have enemies watching, wanting you to fail, or make you fail if you do get a decent response.

Most sites require member logon but that level of security only discourages the average bear. Any so minded hacker would get through that relatively easily. So all that actually achieves is to discourage those that want the normal net anonymity thus minimising your audience. Many will not provide real data and will back off as soon as they realise a site is not only requesting such information but also insisting on your name being used on the site. It simply defeats the purpose of your site at all Hamish. You don't want to make it hard to get in or apply the opposite of normal web security as people know it is not safe to do so.

Of course people with a profile, such as Margo, need to use their real names to get the benefit of that profile but such people are not likely to be the subject of either identity theft or stalking as they have that profile and some sway in relevant circles and are recognised. The average person is who the nasties seek, not the well known.

Secondly, the many risks that are present on the web. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing web crimes and it starts with small bits of data, such as email address and name whereby they can send you the phishing type emails to try and extract your passwords and user ID's for financial institutions. Identity theft is only just starting on the web as there is so much money in it for those that can and want to do it. It could also be used maliciously, eg to cancel electricity, gas, phone etc etc if some nasties really wanted to. Do you doubt that either Libs or Labor are above hacking your site for email addresses and names if the group becomes a problem for them. Remember One Nation, Abbott, slush funds, Beattie and the law in QLD where I am.

They would not hesitate for a second to attack if the Yourdemocracy movement started to get support and I think you know that.

No data bank on the web is safe from the hackers who specialise in that activity. Even if you keep the list off the web it is prone to misuse. For example, Hamish acquires a new volunteer assistant who maintains the membership list. Is that person not likely to be offered a few bucks from Tony's slush fund for a copy?

Then there is the issue of site responsibility. Banks and like institutions did not ask us if we wanted our data on the web. They just did it, in our interests so they said. They did it to save themselves money and now charge fees for using the very service they sold as being free and time saving. These sites are the ones where phishing is the biggest worry. You know, the fake emails that look like a real bank with a fake link to a page that looks exactly like a real bank site. If you respond to those emails as the unwary regularly do the people that sent you such fake emails can record every key stroke you make online thus picking up your ID and password for such banks, as well as everything else you do online.

The big difference with bank sites though Hamish is that they know they are responsible for any losses incurred through such activity and actually pay you back what you have lost in money. They take some time to do that but they legally cannot avoid it. Your site cannot give that guarantee legally. If your membership list is hacked or sold and people suffer either identity theft or stalking or malicious harassment you cannot make any guarantees to protect or repair the damage. Of course you can't, it would be impossible to expect you to.

Just imagine how you would feel if only one of the members from Yourdemocracy suffered identity theft as a result of either your real name policy or misuse of your membership list. You couldn't justify the policy to that person and I'm sure your conscience would also not allow you to simply brush it off. What if female members are stalked both on the web and physically as does happen? You wouldn't want to be responsible for that either mate.

It's simply not a safe practice to try forcing people using real names online. As I said, sites like the depression one actually insist on anonymity once you join and take responsibility for the real data. It's the opposite of what you are proposing.

The other issue is the battle between those that think they are being " honest and open " by using their real names and the anonymous. I actually think those people are simply uneducated re the web and naive but they like to use their " honesty " as a bullying tactic as you have seen already. It also defeats the purpose of your site.

What if Hamish or one of his helpers (assuming you have one, if not now, but in the future) picks up a trojan or some new virus which does the same thing before virus protection builds a defence against it? All such viruses hurt somebody before the security functions like virus checkers and firewalls are aware of them. In other words there is always a period of time where anyone is open to a new strain. The hackers and nasties are always ahead of the defenders as they can't defend against something until they know about it.

It's a subject I have spent a lot of time learning about the hard way and I can see no reason why others have to suffer the same if it can be avoided.

So what would I suggest as a policy on names? As I said, Margo has no choice, nor do you as you want the site to attract attention and site owners must show faith in their product. For the rest of us unknowns though I would agree that real names and emails are necessary for you both legally and as a normal courtesy. On the actual site I would strongly discourage the use of any real data. Some people will insist and they are welcome to do so provided you make them aware of the risks they may be taking. Many are unaware of the risks and may well change their mind once they are educated. Some will still ignore the advice and that's OK provided they don't use that ignorance to put down those that know the risks and won't take them. I would suggest nom de plumes are the best option as they allow safety and the person to express some of their personality simply by the name they select. But the moderator(s) must nip any misuse of the real name bravery to deride others views and postings. Some might suggest first names only. Good idea escept there is more than one Dave out there and the confusion of Dave and Dave1 etc would quickly become impossible.

So how would you protect the membership list? Frankly I don't know enough to offer valid comments on that issue. I assume you may have sufficient knowledge to allow you to be confident that your membership details are safe. If you don't have that knowledge and protection there are many other site owners who would help you out readily and freely, being part of the brotherhood of site owners. I intend no offence here as in all I have written. I just don't know what your knowledge level is therefore I have concerns.

Hamish, don't think for a second I underestimate your workload. I stupidly volunteered to moderate a depression site a few years back and was snowed under and attacked on all fronts by the members. I didn't do it for long because of that and also the fact that I could no longer contribute to the decisions as I was " the boss " so to speak and as such the others wou

ld believe anything I wrote or the opposite. It just made my contribution to that site useless and put me off the web for a fair while. I won't mention my emotional state as you are probably feeling like that right now anyway.

So I do understand how hard it is for you to restrain yourself from just screaming " **** off " to people like myself who persist when you may have already decided. You just have to hold your tongue/finger instead and the anger builds up inside you, not being directed where it belongs. If you do respond publicly to any of us as the moderator in other than a bland, peace making role you would be quickly seen as petulant and explosive and minimise the input from others who won't risk your wrath.

Apologies for the stress I have added to your role and the aggression I may have displayed. It's not intended as I admire so much you actually taking on the role for Margo. Obviously you believe in the project as well and will protect it as best you can. I am actually on your side Hamish, that's why I am persisting with this topic. I want your site to grow, expand and have a real effect on our society. I have hopes for your project and get frustrated by those that bicker and debate bullshit while you are trying to get some actual ideas out of us. I easily get distracted by those issues as you have seen.

There are so many sites that do only that, record arguments, cause friction and achieve nothing. I don't want that to happen to your site and will assist in any way I can as I have wanted to do exactly the same thing myself for some time now.

Sorry about the length but I am passionate about the aims of your site and have so much to offer.

I'm with ya John, and I've sweated a little blood over this one. I'm going to start emailing people who post contributions requesting a real name or a non de plume and a reason. You're right that if the horse bolts there'll be no harnessing it afterward.

But two more have given me real names. Nolly did so some time ago I realised, and still prefers to keep her identity private for personal reasons. Noisyjazzman has also given his real identity, but not for publication. He hinted in his email that he might come out in time.

At this stage there's no simple way for me to write, 'real name supplied' next to the usernames on the posts and comments, but that will be the assumption eventually.

Hamish, you write, "It is customary in a democratic space, like a town-hall meeting, for people to identify themselves when they speak."

Are you sure that is 'customary?' Have you ever heard any Politician say, "My name is Downer (for instance) and I'd like to say (this)?"

Guess not (Just food for thought.)

I agree with you on the importance to a traditionally democratic forum of people standing publicy behind what they state (you could argue that it's not really a 'statement' unless the speaker is identified).

I'm still a bit concerned about the search engine/spider issue though. It might be worth the technical guys looking when time allows at some of the mechanical possibilities. You can exclude whole areas of a site from being spidered (at least by reputable engines) by naming their directories in a 'robots.txt' file in the root of the site.

But then you might actually want the discussions to be indexed so they have a chance of being found serendipitously. In that case another option might be to have posters' names only displayed to a logged-in user (spiders won't log in). Would this be a possibility?

(on a side issue I note that the WSIWYG editor isn't honouring my paragraph breaks, hence everything I write makes it look like I'm a CEO or other linguistically disordered type).