Definition: Social participation refers to Promoting Civic Participation and Transparency of Government Decision-Making Processes covering policies concerning ICT. The usage of digital environments can promote new kinds of sociability, support, and usability or revive certainly lost facets of social ties.The construction of more effective public services, as well as new kinds of communication and interaction between citizens and the various levels of government, can all be facilitated by the use of digital tools. Even more public involvement in various levels of local management processes is possible with their use. These fresh working alliances also contribute to the legitimacy and increased transparency of public activity. Some examples of social participation are:• E-democracy• E-participation• Government-to-citizen (G2C)• Citizen-to-government (C2G)• Citizen-to-citizen (C2C)• Open governance partnership• Grass-root activism and social networking• Political campaigns• Online media• I-voting• Mechanisms: e-petitions, online consultation and crowd-sourcing platforms etc. The implications of social participation are related to the creation and implementation of policies that include as the backbone, the citizens and businesses. Additionally, to policies that govern, it is relevant that public administrations implement tools that foster, enable and ensure stakeholders participation. ""
Source: Digital Democracy of European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
Source reference: https://ecas.org/digital-democracy/
Last modification: 2024-01-17
Identifier: http://data.europa.eu/2sa/elap/social-participation
EIRA concept: eira:ArchitectureBuildingBlock
ABB name: elap:SocialParticipationPrinciple
Title: Social participation
EIF Layer: N/A
ABB Specialised: eira:EuropeanLibraryofArchitecturePrinciplesPrinciple
|
|
| elap:PURI | http://data.europa.eu/2sa/elap/non-repudiation |
| dct:title | Non repudiation |
| dct:description | (Statement) Non repudiation ensures that a user or entity cannot deny having performed a specific action, such as creating, sending, receiving, or approving information, by providing undeniable proof of their involvement. |
| dct:description | (Rationale) Non repudiation provides significant security benefits. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of digital transactions and communications by preventing individuals or entities from denying their actions. This principle is crucial for maintaining trust and accountability in digital interactions, as it provides verifiable evidence that can be used to resolve disputes and enforce legal agreements. Non-repudiation is particularly important in contexts where sensitive data is exchanged, such as financial transactions, legal contracts, and public administration services. By implementing non-repudiation mechanisms, organisations can enhance the security and reliability of their digital services, fostering trust among users and stakeholders. |
| dct:description | (Implications) Public bodies and administrations must establish policies and procedures to ensure that all digital transactions and communications are verifiable and traceable. This involves using digital signatures, cryptographic techniques, and secure logging mechanisms to provide undeniable proof of actions. Technically, systems must be designed to support non-repudiation by incorporating robust authentication and encryption methods. Digital signatures should be used to sign documents and messages, ensuring that the origin and integrity of the data can be verified. Additionally, public administrations must ensure that these mechanisms comply with relevant legal frameworks and standards, such as the eIDAS Regulation in the EU, which provides a legal basis for electronic identification and trust services. By following these guidelines, organisations can create secure and trustworthy digital environments that prevent repudiation and enhance accountability. |
| elap:scope | Business agnostic |
| elap:Category | Digital Public Service Governance |
| dct:source | Towards Detecting and Mitigating Conflicts for Privacy and Security Requirements |
| dct:source | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333808388_Towards_Detecting_and_Mitigating_Conflicts_for_Privacy_and_Security_Requirements |
| rdfs:comment | The article "Towards Detecting and Mitigating Conflicts for Privacy and Security Requirements" by Duaa Alkubaisy, Karl Cox, and Haralambos Mouratidis explores the identification and resolution of conflicts between privacy and security requirements in software systems. |
| dcat:theme | Organisational IoP, Technical IoP |
| elap:paGovernance | Common |
| elap:influenceInDPSLifecycle | Obligation |
| elap:influenceInDPSAttribute | Obligation |