Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: Initiative backers to fight exclusion of electronic signatures’

The on-line process designed for use by Fair Boundaries and Utahns for Ethical Government is in full compliance with Utah law and today’s Attorney General’s opinion. While the government could be provided with electronic records and electronic signatures, if they are not willing to accept it in an electronic form then the petitions will be provided in the paper format as required by today’s opinion. The government will not be a party to the electronic transaction. Registered voters of Utah should still be encouraged to go to sign the petitions on-line and in-person.

This is just an easy way for dirty politicians to get their way. Of course they will feel threatened by online signatures now that more people have access to the internet. They feel threatened because we the ordinary people are becoming empowered by fast information.

We pay taxes, register to vote, sign up for government services, apply for Medicaid, renew car licenses, all on line. As a matter of fact, it's encouraged by the state.

This feels like China, as the oppressors try to stop change through the Internet.

I don't think any election or legal document should have the use of electronic signatures, not even by our legislators.

It is common for state and federal representatives to sign documents electronically from their comfort of their home, office, or car. I think any vote by legislators should require their physical presence on the floor of the chambers and in public view. You can't have responsible government and accountability if voting and debate is done out of sight.

For this reason, I think all petitions, bills, and laws require physical presence of any one signing or casting a vote.

The petitioners do have a valid argument though, if our legislators can vote out of sight with electronic signatures or votes, then it opens the door to other types of document signing and endorsements without accountability. The actions of our legislators is more critical than petition signatures. This decision of incumbent office holders is politically motivated to encumber and limit the voice of the people with contradictory government policy.

It's like sending a jury home or work to watch a trial and phone in a vote while multitasking on other chores with no debating.

This tactic by the government does resemble the chineese political attitude. However, we have been able to deport one Utah politician to China, maybe Shurtleff will follow . The he can legislate his opinions where they will be fully appreciated.

I agree. Majority of transactions are perfectly legal through electronic means. Taxes, unemployment, etc.

But when facing petitions Utah suddenly dosen't want to acknowledge them?

Dirty Pool.

For Utah to try and justify the denial of online petitions they must show (or create) other examples of online transactions beind denied on the same premise.

As none exist, there is no support for denying Utah citizens the ability, ocnvienence, and validity of online petitions.

One wonders to what lengths our "public servants" will go to to thwart the public's desire for an honest government. Every day, in every newspaper is another example of elected officials who are concerned solely with protecting their positions and profiting from them. Where is public virtue? Why must the citizens jump through hoops to control these parasites. As MikeH said we do everything online, but the elected officials in Utah are so afraid that their power will be curtailed by the voters that they will find every method possible of prevent public governmental action.

Didn't Shurtleff say the same about a second voucher bill standing alone only to be embarrassed by the Supreme Court?

They want legal notices on the Internet instead of in the papers, but allow citizens access to the Internet to voice their free speech and that just ain't gonna happen.

Shame on Bell and Shurtleff. They are not looking out for the public good.

How many people understand how easy it is to fake information on the Internet? As a computer consultant, I'm often called to 'fix' false Internet I.D. problems where people have had their personal and business computer accounts hijacked.

On any particular day, in the course of my business I may be remotely controlling fifty or more computers. When I am remotely logged in, I appear as the local user of that computer. If you understand what I'm saying, you will realize that I could add fifty different signatures to a petition and no one would know that all of those signatures were entered my one person.

There are ways to require a secure a transaction with a secure certificate (like you use when you do your banking online), but until those gathering signatures can prove that everyone who electronically signed used the proper secure certificate, don't even think about allowing electronic signatures.

If there is so little support that going door to door cannot raise the required signatures, then that initiative is not wanted by the people.

How would online signatures be verified? There is a huge incentive for fraud with online signatures.

Yes, we can pay taxes and fees, but there is very little incentive for fraud since each transaction involves money. Even with online registration for voting, the actual voting is done in person.

I'm certainly not defending the legislature with online voting during session, but with a small number of legislators, it's easy to validate and verify. Validating and verifying from a pool of millions is very different.

Until or unless it can be absolutely secure, as secure as voting, online petition signatures are a bad idea. Too many ways to introduce fraud into the system.

Power to the People!!!! Signatures over the internet from your iphone is where it is going.

The good ol' boy club of government redtape is going to be cut by modern technology.

Anyone who is scared of technology is part of the problem!!! Time for you to go.

Bye bye now.

Have you signed the petition to check it's verification? The county checks each, just like paper petitions. Which can also be forged.

Gotta agree with the 9:58 poster. If you are going to wait for absolutely secure system, your going to wait a long, long time.
As fraud can, and does happen anywhere.

@Mike Richards and Brutally Honest

These places ask for you First and Last names, address and the last four of your drivers license number. There are checks to verify your identity, unless your routinely give out the last four of your drivers license (which is dumb since every agency tracks your by social security number) it is secure.

The legislature doesn't vote electronically...

In order for their vote to count, they have to physically push the button or give a thumbs up or down to the docket clerk.

If they are absent, then they are counted as abstaining from the vote. There is no way that they can vote remotely.

This is an unfair comparison that was cooked up by the crook lobbyists from the UEG, who are in charge of the teachers unions.

I thought Bill Clinton signed into law allowing the use of digital signatures over the internet. Wouldn't that apply here? Federal law trumps State law.

You'd think the legislators would be embarrassed to be so openly defiant of the citizens' call for ethics reform. But nooooo. Those guys have no shame.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that legislators haven't attempted to hamper the initiative process by requiring photo identification in order to sign. You know, to protect against "initiative fraud by illegal aliens," or whatever the Republicans' latest imaginary knicker-twist is.