BC FIPA Submits to the Open Gov
Locked
BC FIPA Submits to the Open Gov
 
|
Following from Tracey's link to the the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association's submission: "Without the ability to pull information from government vaults [via a robust freedom of information legislation regime], be they paper or electronic, an open data system that allows the government to push the information it deems suitable for public consumption will be a Trojan horse for those who prefer that information stay within the control of the bureaucracy.... However, this consultation shows that the government has decided on the Trojan horse model, ignoring the right of Canadians to demand information from government and producing a number of shiny technological variations of the push model instead. Information will be made
available, but only the information deemed suitable for release by the political leadership and the bureaucracy." http://www.fipa.bc.ca/library/Reports_and_Submissions/FIPA_Submission--Open_Govt--Jan_16_2012.pdf |
Re: BC FIPA Submits to the Open Gov
|
|
I've only read this brief snippet, but it sounds like they are complaining that the open data portal isn't an access to information portal... The open data portal isn't meant to replace access to information laws. So, I think the argument isn't well-targeted.
On 2012-01-23, at 1:23 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
|
Re: BC FIPA Submits to the Open Gov
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
I think there is some truth in this argument. Though they are two separate things, it's easy to collapse them.
Open data is still very limited in scope. Very little data gets released compared to what we have a right to access.
On the other hand, it allows for more uses. We need to be diligent in the distinctions so the open data initiatives don't result in a step backwards for access to information in general.
I would like to see an increased scope of open data, so that we approach a place where whatever data we are allowed to request, is released proactively. What we have to be careful of is the scope of what we have a right to access via FOI, being reduced to what's in the open data catalogue.
This is why I think it's much better to define criteria for what data should remain "closed", with associated reasons, rather than to define criteria for what data should be "opened".
I wrote something related in my submission: "I think there is an unintended side effect of the way open data is being rolled out in some jurisdictions. Public data that was once generally considered usable ( financials, stats, directories, registries, codes, inspection data, schedules ) are now considered not usable because they don't have explicit permissions associated with them. When they do get an official license applied to them, their new explicit "open" status can be significantly more restrictive than the implicit understanding prior to the movement.
Also, governments often set up a new agency that identifies data citizens can use and place it in a catalogue, and anything that's not in the catalogue then has a mysterious cloud over it by contrast, even if it was formerly considered public. Depending on how fast this new group can get through the relevant data to catalogue it, citizens could feel they have significantly less data than they had before the official process. Everything already on the internet should just be open licensed." On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Herb Lainchbury Dynamic Solutions Inc. www.dynamic-solutions.com http://twitter.com/herblainchbury |
Re: BC FIPA Submits to the Open Gov
|
|
I think the tone of the submission isn't particularly helpful, and
their claim that the government hasn't adhered to the OGP
requirements is problematic (the only piece I think is true is that
the government hasn't done any in person consultations).
However, the main thrust of their complaint is sound and should be repeated. ATIP is totally broken and it has gotten worse under this government (even this ridiculous of government scientists are not being allowed to talk directly to the media is an example - not of ATIP directly - but of the control being exerted over info.). I touch on this somewhat in my submission but I too could have been more forceful. Ultimately there were no requests for thoughts around ATIP in the consultation. Herb, I also think that your point about the default should be open is right as well. I think the important thing is not to see this as an attack on open data, but an attack on the ATIP system, which frankly, is valid. On 12-01-23 1:17 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote: I think there is some truth in this argument. Though they are two separate things, it's easy to collapse them. |
Re: BC FIPA Submits to the Open Gov
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
What I see the FIPA submission as pointing out is that it's difficult to believe
the Federal government's open data initiative is about transparency, accountability, or civic participation while the faults of an existing statute that provides individuals with a right (and
method) to access info is not acknowledged. I disagree with claims that that the Access to Information Act is categorically broken. People may say it's broken to gain political capital to renew it or abandon it. But it comes at the expense of discouraging people from using an existing avenue of access. The Access to Information Act has areas for improvement but the fact remains people are putting it to use and we can see how. For example, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atipo-baiprp/req/2011k-eng.asp Mark |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |