City list of provider: should it be open?
Locked
City list of provider: should it be open?
 
|
Hi there, I would like to submit a case to the wisdom of the list here :) As you probably know, Montreal (and Québec in general) is struggling with some corruption issue. As an effort to push govs to be more "agressive" on the topic, Quebec Ouvert organized a hackathon about corruption few months ago, asking govs to open data that can help find corruption cases: contract attributions, etc. One of the request for the City of Montreal was the list of the registered providers. I guess it is the same in other place, but in order to get some business from the city, you have to be registered as a provider. When the City is doing some invitation-based call for tender (between 25 and 100 k$ I think), they do the invitation based on this list. For open call for tenders (100k$+), you have to be registered to submit. The request to publish this registry was rejected recently. Reason: it would ease collusion. If, as a mafiosi-sidewalk builder I can see who else is registered in the same category as me, it eases my work to reach out all the other providers and set up a collusion/cartel schema. Do you agree with this reason? Does anybody knows some cities that provider registered provider list? Comments? Stéphane _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
Wow, I was considering sending an ATI request to get the list of providers. I guess I can expect a "No"? However, the reason you explain below doesn't fall into any of the standard exemptions to ATI requests, so it may still be possible to get the list. Frankly, I think the reason isn't a good one - the construction companies already know each other. I think publishing the list would make it easier for watchdogs (who are less familiar with those companies) to more effectively research potential collusion.
Canada provides a list on its data catalog: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/standing-offers-and-supply-arrangements James On 2013-05-09, at 12:45 PM, Stéphane Guidoin wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Guidoin
Le 9 mai 2013 à 12:45, Stéphane Guidoin a écrit : > it eases my work to reach out all the other providers and set up a collusion/cartel schema. Creating a barrier or removing it will have consequences on the flow of information, on rules, on social behaviors, etc. 1. Here, in your example, the city is arguing that opacity is a tool used to ensure that there will be no collusion schema. 2. The next question could be, if the opacity tool is removed, what are the other mechanisms that the city can use to make the right decision. 3. Extending higher, if collusion is bad, in which ways it is bad for the city? How can it be demonstrated? What are the data which helps verify it is bad. PS: not questioning if the answer you got was justified or not. :) And we all know with the recent events that corruption happens anyway. It has also an interesting twist on the "window without curtains" ethics of life. -- Karl Dubost http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
During a meeting yesterday where we
discussed this point, the head of the "greffe" (who is in charge
of the ATI request) said that an ATI request would be refused for
the same reasons. However, with ATI requests, it is always
possible to appeal where the reason of refusal might be rejected.
Yeah, GC publishes some data, but some might argue that the risk of collusion is lower because of the larger geographical coverage. Collusion is easier to setup locally although wide cartel systems exist. Steph Le 13-05-09 13:47, James McKinney a écrit : Wow, I was considering sending an ATI request to get the list of providers. I guess I can expect a "No"? However, the reason you explain below doesn't fall into any of the standard exemptions to ATI requests, so it may still be possible to get the list. Frankly, I think the reason isn't a good one - the construction companies already know each other. I think publishing the list would make it easier for watchdogs (who are less familiar with those companies) to more effectively research potential collusion. _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
Criminals can get the information with respect to the other players by
various means (if they don't know already), whereas normal people cannot. Bribes, prostitutes, drugs, threats and extortion have opened up more information to the bad guys than ATI has done for the rest of us (so far!). The argument is vacuous. If the criminals want to know, they will find out. Open it up for all to (equally) see and collusion should be harder. - make sure when someone opens up a new construction company and is harassed/threatened/murdered by their criminal competitors, that the police et al. take it seriously. - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada - make it easier to see how many companies a person has created over time (Industry Canada), to see patterns of abuse. It matters little that there has been a "healthy" ecosystem of 200+ construction companies over the last 40 years, if 90% of them have been owned by the same 4 people or families. -Glen On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Stéphane Guidoin <[hidden email]> wrote: > During a meeting yesterday where we discussed this point, the head of the > "greffe" (who is in charge of the ATI request) said that an ATI request > would be refused for the same reasons. However, with ATI requests, it is > always possible to appeal where the reason of refusal might be rejected. > > Yeah, GC publishes some data, but some might argue that the risk of > collusion is lower because of the larger geographical coverage. Collusion is > easier to setup locally although wide cartel systems exist. > > Steph > > > Le 13-05-09 13:47, James McKinney a écrit : > > Wow, I was considering sending an ATI request to get the list of providers. > I guess I can expect a "No"? However, the reason you explain below doesn't > fall into any of the standard exemptions to ATI requests, so it may still be > possible to get the list. Frankly, I think the reason isn't a good one - the > construction companies already know each other. I think publishing the list > would make it easier for watchdogs (who are less familiar with those > companies) to more effectively research potential collusion. > > Canada provides a list on its data catalog: > https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/standing-offers-and-supply-arrangements > > James > > > On 2013-05-09, at 12:45 PM, Stéphane Guidoin wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > I would like to submit a case to the wisdom of the list here :) > > As you probably know, Montreal (and Québec in general) is struggling > with some corruption issue. As an effort to push govs to be more > "agressive" on the topic, Quebec Ouvert organized a hackathon about > corruption few months ago, asking govs to open data that can help find > corruption cases: contract attributions, etc. > > One of the request for the City of Montreal was the list of the > registered providers. I guess it is the same in other place, but in > order to get some business from the city, you have to be registered as a > provider. When the City is doing some invitation-based call for tender > (between 25 and 100 k$ I think), they do the invitation based on this > list. For open call for tenders (100k$+), you have to be registered to > submit. > > The request to publish this registry was rejected recently. Reason: it > would ease collusion. If, as a mafiosi-sidewalk builder I can see who > else is registered in the same category as me, it eases my work to reach > out all the other providers and set up a collusion/cartel schema. > > Do you agree with this reason? Does anybody knows some cities that > provider registered provider list? Comments? > > Stéphane > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
Le 9 mai 2013 à 14:27, Glen Newton a écrit : > The argument is vacuous. If the criminals want to know, they > will find out. Probably, they have the network, the tools, the power and maybe a higher flexibility in their social infrastructure. (not sure about that, just guessing) > Open it up for all to (equally) see and collusion should be harder. > - make sure when someone opens up a new construction company and is > harassed/threatened/murdered by their criminal competitors, that the > police et al. take it seriously. Hmm consequences. The "make sure" implies "human resources", "capacity of processing", etc. :) I say hurrah for the idea, but I also think not that easy to put in place. Civil society is less flexible than its competitor, the mafia society. > - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada how? :) > - make it easier to see how many companies a person has created over > time (Industry Canada), to see patterns of abuse. Could help to reveal bad patterns. Would it destroy things that are reachable but not necessary exposed. I don't know, just wondering again. > It matters little > that there has been a "healthy" ecosystem of 200+ construction > companies over the last 40 years, if 90% of them have been owned by > the same 4 people or families. hehe. yes. Note that there is a wealth of information (social graph) that could be expressed just by analyzing the newspaper data (RDF graphs?). Just for the fun of it, that could be nice. On the other hand I always wonder about the danger of doing so when living at the same place than the said social graph. :) -- Karl Dubost http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
>> - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada
> >how? :) I want this data to be open, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/Home either as an API (not really) or a database dump download. Then anyone can analyse patterns of ownership among individuals, families, addresses and build the social network of the companies/people/families, apps, etc. -glen On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Karl Dubost <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Le 9 mai 2013 à 14:27, Glen Newton a écrit : >> The argument is vacuous. If the criminals want to know, they >> will find out. > > Probably, they have the network, the tools, the power and maybe a higher flexibility in their social infrastructure. (not sure about that, just guessing) > > >> Open it up for all to (equally) see and collusion should be harder. >> - make sure when someone opens up a new construction company and is >> harassed/threatened/murdered by their criminal competitors, that the >> police et al. take it seriously. > > > Hmm consequences. The "make sure" implies "human resources", "capacity of processing", etc. :) I say hurrah for the idea, but I also think not that easy to put in place. Civil society is less flexible than its competitor, the mafia society. > > >> - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada > > how? :) > > >> - make it easier to see how many companies a person has created over >> time (Industry Canada), to see patterns of abuse. > > > Could help to reveal bad patterns. Would it destroy things that are reachable but not necessary exposed. I don't know, just wondering again. > > >> It matters little >> that there has been a "healthy" ecosystem of 200+ construction >> companies over the last 40 years, if 90% of them have been owned by >> the same 4 people or families. > > hehe. yes. > Note that there is a wealth of information (social graph) that could be expressed just by analyzing the newspaper data (RDF graphs?). Just for the fun of it, that could be nice. On the other hand I always wonder about the danger of doing so when living at the same place than the said social graph. :) > > -- > Karl Dubost > http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
I think the "how" sounded more like "how do you bring the government to
open this data" (and if it was not Karl's real intent, that's my question ;) The gov of Canada (like some others) provides the same privacy protection as citizens which is something I never understood. Steph Le 13-05-09 15:04, Glen Newton a écrit : >>> - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada >> how? :) > I want this data to be open, > http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/Home either as an API (not > really) or a database dump download. > > Then anyone can analyse patterns of ownership among individuals, > families, addresses and build the social network of the > companies/people/families, apps, etc. > > -glen > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Karl Dubost <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Le 9 mai 2013 à 14:27, Glen Newton a écrit : >>> The argument is vacuous. If the criminals want to know, they >>> will find out. >> Probably, they have the network, the tools, the power and maybe a higher flexibility in their social infrastructure. (not sure about that, just guessing) >> >> >>> Open it up for all to (equally) see and collusion should be harder. >>> - make sure when someone opens up a new construction company and is >>> harassed/threatened/murdered by their criminal competitors, that the >>> police et al. take it seriously. >> >> Hmm consequences. The "make sure" implies "human resources", "capacity of processing", etc. :) I say hurrah for the idea, but I also think not that easy to put in place. Civil society is less flexible than its competitor, the mafia society. >> >> >>> - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada >> how? :) >> >> >>> - make it easier to see how many companies a person has created over >>> time (Industry Canada), to see patterns of abuse. >> >> Could help to reveal bad patterns. Would it destroy things that are reachable but not necessary exposed. I don't know, just wondering again. >> >> >>> It matters little >>> that there has been a "healthy" ecosystem of 200+ construction >>> companies over the last 40 years, if 90% of them have been owned by >>> the same 4 people or families. >> hehe. yes. >> Note that there is a wealth of information (social graph) that could be expressed just by analyzing the newspaper data (RDF graphs?). Just for the fun of it, that could be nice. On the other hand I always wonder about the danger of doing so when living at the same place than the said social graph. :) >> >> -- >> Karl Dubost >> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
Scrape project?
"Unless otherwise specified, you may reproduce the materials in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes, and in any format, without charge or further permission..." https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_07033.html -glen On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Stéphane Guidoin <[hidden email]> wrote: > I think the "how" sounded more like "how do you bring the government to open > this data" (and if it was not Karl's real intent, that's my question ;) > > The gov of Canada (like some others) provides the same privacy protection as > citizens which is something I never understood. > > Steph > > Le 13-05-09 15:04, Glen Newton a écrit : > >>>> - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada >>> >>> how? :) >> >> I want this data to be open, >> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/Home either as an API (not >> really) or a database dump download. >> >> Then anyone can analyse patterns of ownership among individuals, >> families, addresses and build the social network of the >> companies/people/families, apps, etc. >> >> -glen >> >> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Karl Dubost <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Le 9 mai 2013 à 14:27, Glen Newton a écrit : >>>> >>>> The argument is vacuous. If the criminals want to know, they >>>> will find out. >>> >>> Probably, they have the network, the tools, the power and maybe a higher >>> flexibility in their social infrastructure. (not sure about that, just >>> guessing) >>> >>> >>>> Open it up for all to (equally) see and collusion should be harder. >>>> - make sure when someone opens up a new construction company and is >>>> harassed/threatened/murdered by their criminal competitors, that the >>>> police et al. take it seriously. >>> >>> >>> Hmm consequences. The "make sure" implies "human resources", "capacity of >>> processing", etc. :) I say hurrah for the idea, but I also think not that >>> easy to put in place. Civil society is less flexible than its competitor, >>> the mafia society. >>> >>> >>>> - make it easier to dig through shell companies at Industry Canada >>> >>> how? :) >>> >>> >>>> - make it easier to see how many companies a person has created over >>>> time (Industry Canada), to see patterns of abuse. >>> >>> >>> Could help to reveal bad patterns. Would it destroy things that are >>> reachable but not necessary exposed. I don't know, just wondering again. >>> >>> >>>> It matters little >>>> that there has been a "healthy" ecosystem of 200+ construction >>>> companies over the last 40 years, if 90% of them have been owned by >>>> the same 4 people or families. >>> >>> hehe. yes. >>> Note that there is a wealth of information (social graph) that could be >>> expressed just by analyzing the newspaper data (RDF graphs?). Just for the >>> fun of it, that could be nice. On the other hand I always wonder about the >>> danger of doing so when living at the same place than the said social graph. >>> :) >>> >>> -- >>> Karl Dubost >>> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
In reply to this post by Glen Newton
That data is scraped by OpenCorporates: http://opencorporates.com/companies/ca
For example, for Open North: http://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/7863063 OpenCorporates has an API: http://api.opencorporates.com/documentation/Home Obviously, it would be better if this didn't require scraping. James On 2013-05-09, at 3:04 PM, Glen Newton wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: City list of provider: should it be open?
|
|
Back to the original subject, yes, we should do an ATI and their excuse is absurd. What evidence is there it helped reduce corruption in Montreal in the past!
On 2013-05-09, at 3:25 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |