Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
Locked
123
123
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
 
|
On 2012-05-15, at 8:35 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
I think Kent knows of the existence of the Access to Information Act, and I think most of us know of the significant barriers to making effective use of that Act: articulating the request, paying request and processing fees, getting the data sent to you in a reasonable time for your purposes, getting it in a digital format rather than paper printouts, getting it in a format that you are familiar with, etc. |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
And how much does persuasion cost? From: James McKinney <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:03:47 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 2012-05-15, at 8:35 PM,
Mark Weiler wrote:
I think Kent knows of the existence of the Access to Information Act, and I think most of us know of the significant barriers to making effective use of that Act: articulating the request, paying request and processing fees, getting the data sent to you in a reasonable time for your purposes, getting it in a digital format rather than paper printouts, getting it in a format that you are familiar with,
etc. _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
On 2012-05-16, at 12:47 AM, Mark Weiler wrote:
Are you suggesting Kent go into government offices and *persuade* them to give him the data? It helps if you flesh out your ideas more.
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
No. I'm just saying that persuading governments to provide access to datasets outside of a legislative framework that provides individuals a right of access also has barriers. Theses barriers and costs can appear and accrue in hours in meetings, phone calls, writing letters/emails, city council meetings, building up a reputation, etc. From: James McKinney <[hidden email]> To: Mark Weiler <[hidden email]>; civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:51:37 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 2012-05-16, at 12:47 AM, Mark Weiler wrote:
Are you suggesting Kent go into government offices and *persuade* them to give him the data? It helps if you flesh out your ideas more.
|
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
Mark, it didn't come through very well if your comment on a "Freedom
of Data Sets Act" was tongue-in-cheek or serious, but yes -- I would
argue we do need such an act for the very reasons you outline.
Persuading governments to provide access to datasets takes
considerable resources and, at the of the day, isn't a guaranteed
success. Likewise, an ATI request takes considerable resources and
isn't a guaranteed success. Moreover, an ATI only gives the
information to one person: if the information is covered by
copyright, you arguably cannot even redistribute it (save if the
copying falls under fair dealing).
A "Freedom of Data Sets Act" would require government departments to OPENLY release their data by default, barring only a justifiable reason not to. Thus, the government would release data to the public at large -- not just to one individual requestor. The only resources going into persuasion would be at the government's end when a government body wishes to persuade the case that a dataset should NOT be released. Obviously we're a long ways from this right now. Kent On 12-05-16 02:15 AM, Mark Weiler wrote: No. I'm just saying that persuading governments to provide access to datasets outside of a legislative framework that provides individuals a right of access also has barriers. Theses barriers and costs can appear and accrue in hours in meetings, phone calls, writing letters/emails, city council meetings, building up a reputation, etc. ________________________________ From: James McKinney [hidden email] To: Mark Weiler [hidden email]; civicaccess discuss [hidden email] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:51:37 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 2012-05-16, at 12:47 AM, Mark Weiler wrote: And how much does persuasion cost? Are you suggesting Kent go into government offices and *persuade* them to give him the data? It helps if you flesh out your ideas more.________________________________ From: James McKinney [hidden email] To: civicaccess discuss [hidden email] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:03:47 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 2012-05-15, at 8:35 PM, Mark Weiler wrote: "I cannot, however, go into a government office and take the data I need in order to perform any of these activities."Unless there was something like a "Freedom of Data Sets Act".I think Kent knows of the existence of the Access to Information Act, and I think most of us know of the significant barriers to making effective use of that Act: articulating the request, paying request and processing fees, getting the data sent to you in a reasonable time for your purposes, getting it in a digital format rather than paper printouts, getting it in a format that you are familiar with, etc. _______________________________________________ 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: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
Sorry for it not coming across well. I am quite serious about enframing some of the ideas in a "Freedom of Data Sets" legislation. But in so doing, we'd probably notice that the ATI Act already is a considerable contribution as it (a) provides individuals a right of access to records, with limited and specific exemptions and (b) the interpretation of "records" is quite broad - broad enough to include data sets. License policies aren't set in stone. In the UK, materials accessed through their FOI Act are under the open license; and in BC, the gov't posts materials accessed through the FOI process on-line, http://bit.ly/Kt4qcS making them available to many; and in BC there's a recently added clause that says: "the head of a
public body must establish categories of records that are in the custody or under
the control of the public body and are available to the public without a request for access under this Act" From: Kent Mewhort <[hidden email]> To: Mark Weiler <[hidden email]>; civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Cc: James McKinney <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:05:21 AM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
Mark, it didn't come through very well if your comment on a "Freedom
of Data Sets Act" was tongue-in-cheek or serious, but yes -- I would
argue we do need such an act for the very reasons you outline.
Persuading governments to provide access to datasets takes
considerable resources and, at the of the day, isn't a guaranteed
success. Likewise, an ATI request takes considerable resources and
isn't a guaranteed success. Moreover, an ATI only gives the
information to one person: if the information is covered by
copyright, you arguably cannot even redistribute it (save if the
copying falls under fair dealing).
A "Freedom of Data Sets Act" would require government departments to OPENLY release their data by default, barring only a justifiable reason not to. Thus, the government would release data to the public at large -- not just to one individual requestor. The only resources going into persuasion would be at the government's end when a government body wishes to persuade the case that a dataset should NOT be released. Obviously we're a long ways from this right now. Kent On 12-05-16 02:15 AM, Mark Weiler wrote: No. I'm just saying that persuading governments to provide access to datasets outside of a legislative framework that provides individuals a right of access also has barriers. Theses barriers and costs can appear and accrue in hours in meetings, phone calls, writing letters/emails, city council meetings, building up a reputation, etc. ________________________________ From: James McKinney [hidden email] To: Mark Weiler [hidden email]; civicaccess discuss [hidden email] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:51:37 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 2012-05-16, at 12:47 AM, Mark Weiler wrote: And how much does persuasion cost? Are you suggesting Kent go into government offices and *persuade* them to give him the data? It helps if you flesh out your ideas more.________________________________ From: James McKinney [hidden email] To: civicaccess discuss [hidden email] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:03:47 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 2012-05-15, at 8:35 PM, Mark Weiler wrote: "I cannot, however, go into a government office and take the data I need in order to perform any of these activities."Unless there was something like a "Freedom of Data Sets Act".I think Kent knows of the existence of the Access to Information Act, and I think most of us know of the significant barriers to making effective use of that Act: articulating the request, paying request and processing fees, getting the data sent to you in a reasonable time for your purposes, getting it in a digital format rather than paper printouts, getting it in a format that you are familiar with, etc. _______________________________________________ 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: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Kent Mewhort
On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: > Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can open > data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used > 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with is > that you are advocating against open data, unless the pre-conditions of > the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is met. Is this a > correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could clarify this point (in > your article as well as here)? I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will have access. If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest organizations. It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move as close to their target without subverting their own goals. I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
Russell,
It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to Kent's post as follows... Kent, In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously documented how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I said "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of income and power. (Done in haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I actually believe and I would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous sentence.) FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with some of these issues. M -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell McOrmond Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: > Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can > open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used > 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with > is that you are advocating against open data, unless the > pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is > met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could > clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will have access. If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest organizations. It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move as close to their target without subverting their own goals. I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
It might be wise for those interested in open data on this list to form a Canadian oriented list so that discussions about the challenges of open data dont default to a disussion on the problems of corruption in bangalore and instead can focus on a context that is more relevant to us.
I'm happy to discuss open data in an international context but know that many people here have a strong Canadian focus. -- www.eaves.ca @daeaves Sent from my iPhone On 2012-05-16, at 10:02 AM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote: > Russell, > > It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to Kent's > post as follows... > > Kent, > > In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously documented > how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the > poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I said > "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the > intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to > indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open > data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of income > and power. (Done in haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I actually > believe and I would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous > sentence.) > > FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. > > FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my > comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with some of > these issues. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell > McOrmond > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > > > On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can >> open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with >> is that you are advocating against open data, unless the >> pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is >> met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could >> clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? > > > I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is > concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent > and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I > believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. > > While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other > people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we > aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the > easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked > to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend > buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will > have access. > > > If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the > rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? > Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest > organizations. > > > It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at > risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is > impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move > as close to their target without subverting their own goals. > > I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty > crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the > open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty > initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and > includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. > > > -- > Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> > Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property > rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! > http://l.c11.ca/ict > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or > portable media player from my cold dead hands!" > _______________________________________________ > 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: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell McOrmond
The anti-poverty crowd is for open access, the Canadian Council on
Social Development is a case in point, they have been using data and empowering community groups to do so for decades as have social planning and community development councils with their community mapping work. The Indian example is one example of misuse in a system of incredible social inequality and illiteracy, also, it simply highlights in my mind, that open data is good for the poor, because, in this case, a richer group of baddies had easier access to data that they could easily have purchased, and had they purchased those data, the outcome would have been the same, only we would not have known about it. So open data made it obvious what some baddies were doing in a pay for / cost recovery system. And in the end baddies will be baddies whether the data are free or for fee. There is however an argument to be made for open data, open access to data, and the ongoing work of providing and creating information products (apps, online atlases, interactive reports, engaging indicator systems, visualization services - ManyEyes) that make data accessible to people who do not have the tools, ability or knowledge framework to work with thematic & specialized raw data. There is also an argument to be made for capacity building to work with data, and that is for community groups, environmental organizations, journalists and so on. We are overall pretty innumerate as a society and open data provides an opportunity to reduce that if we consider capacity building as part of the equation. It is true that open data and open access are for specialized, skilled, knowledgeable and educated groups of people, and so is operating a helicopter or using machines in woodworking shop or other activity that requires some skill. Not everyone can or will do it, but in the case of open data, and open access, it opens the doors for people to get engaged in public policy in ways they might not have and could not have before, and that is good. It is a public good, and like all public goods, not everyone uses them, (e.g., not all adults have kids in school, but we all gain if kids go to school so we all pay), and in the case of open data, even better, as it is a non rivalrous public asset and good. I think there is also an argument to be made to critically think about the products we create with open data, my favourite example is transit apps with interpolation time sensitive algorithms that tell us when the bus is coming on our expensive iphones, but no transit apps that are part of transit committee decision making processes in cities, where schedules, costs, routes are decided. In other words a transit app that informs public policy instead of just monitoring the reliability of the system and surveilling transit labour. Finally, along with capacity building and critical thinking about what we produce, we also need to embed open data into political deliberations. I am interested in open data because it is about evening the playing field between citizens and power brokers, as it diffuses evidence based decision making beyond the boundaries of government. But we have not yet really gotten there, as we still have to learn how to do that, and budget decision making tools, and electoral info tools and so on help with that, but we still need to take our numbers and tools into policy arenas and be engaged in the political process around whatever issues we are passionate about. That means government needs to be more open & receptive to what citizens bring to the table, and open government has to be more than the shallow political consultation that are done online around certain strategies or a twitter town hall. What are the ways to do that? - I like the Mark & Kent's ideas - of a legal framework - including capacity building as part of open data and open government policy - critically thinking about what we produce and for whom and why - creating meaningful apps that inform public policy and democratic engagement - ensuring that open data does not usurp the government production of information products (reports, papers, indicator projects, maps, etc.0 - processess like ChangeCamps and Transit camps which are more focussed and long term - some sort of funding to support open data and open access work - which could mean many things, one of which is adjusting current research funding & community based funding processes to include social and technological streams, which at the moment, few do. - and .... I need to get back to my exam study, but I must say, this is a pretty interesting discussion that I am finding hard to watch from the sidelines! On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Russell McOrmond <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >> >> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can open >> data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with is >> that you are advocating against open data, unless the pre-conditions of >> the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is met. Is this a >> correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could clarify this point (in >> your article as well as here)? > > > > I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is concerning > me. The idea that making government more open, transparent and accountable > will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I believe it is true, > but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. > > While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other > people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we > aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the easier > it is to access information (and not have that information locked to those > who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend buying data > sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will have access. > > > If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the rich > (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? Organizations > trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest organizations. > > > It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at risk > from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is impossible, > political battles are won by those who are willing to move as close to their > target without subverting their own goals. > > I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty crowd > stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the open access > crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty initiatives? Open > Access crosses many political boundaries, and includes leftists and > libertarians working side-by-side. > > > -- > Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> > Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property > rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! > http://l.c11.ca/ict > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or > portable media player from my cold dead hands!" > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
Does the suggestion include not sharing posts about developments in the United States? From: David Eaves <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:12:53 AM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide It might be wise for those interested in open data on this list to form a Canadian oriented list so that discussions about the challenges of open data dont default to a disussion on the problems of corruption in bangalore and instead can focus on a context that is more relevant to us. I'm happy to discuss open data in an international context but know that many people here have a strong Canadian focus. -- www.eaves.ca @daeaves Sent from my iPhone On 2012-05-16, at 10:02 AM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote: > Russell, > > It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to Kent's > post as follows... > > Kent, > > In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously documented > how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the > poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I said > "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the > intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to > indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open > data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of income > and power. (Done in haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I actually > believe and I would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous > sentence.) > > FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. > > FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my > comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with some of > these issues. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell > McOrmond > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > > > On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can >> open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with >> is that you are advocating against open data, unless the >> pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is >> met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could >> clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? > > > I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is > concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent > and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I > believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. > > While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other > people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we > aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the > easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked > to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend > buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will > have access. > > > If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the > rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? > Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest > organizations. > > > It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at > risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is > impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move > as close to their target without subverting their own goals. > > I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty > crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the > open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty > initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and > includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. > > > -- > Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> > Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property > rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! > http://l.c11.ca/ict > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or > portable media player from my cold dead hands!" > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
And apologies if I've diverted the attention of the list... As I argue elsewhere I well understand that the Open Data concerns in Canada/developed countries are quite different from those in LDC's although the original discussion here which was in conjunction with the post from Gartner, dealt quite specifically with the impact of OGD in Canada and on Canadians. But I'm going to be in some hibernation for the next while in any case... M
-----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Eaves Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:13 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide It might be wise for those interested in open data on this list to form a Canadian oriented list so that discussions about the challenges of open data dont default to a disussion on the problems of corruption in bangalore and instead can focus on a context that is more relevant to us. I'm happy to discuss open data in an international context but know that many people here have a strong Canadian focus. -- www.eaves.ca @daeaves Sent from my iPhone On 2012-05-16, at 10:02 AM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote: > Russell, > > It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to > Kent's post as follows... > > Kent, > > In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously > documented how digitization and opening up of the land records was > used "against the poor". Since then various other examples have come > forward and note I said "can" be used rather than "will" be used > against the poor. And again the intent of the paper was not to argue > against open data but rather to indicate that in the absence of > certain interventions the effect of open data would be to exacerbate > existing divides including disparities of income and power. (Done in > haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I actually believe and I > would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous > sentence.) > > FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. > > FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my > comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with > some of these issues. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Russell McOrmond > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New > Divide > > > > On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can >> open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with >> is that you are advocating against open data, unless the >> pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is >> met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could >> clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? > > > I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is > concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent > and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I > believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. > > While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other > people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we > aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the > easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked > to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend > buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will > have access. > > > If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the > rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? > Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest > organizations. > > > It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at > risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is > impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move > as close to their target without subverting their own goals. > > I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty > crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the > open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty > initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and > includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. > > > -- > Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> > Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property > rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! > http://l.c11.ca/ict > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or > portable media player from my cold dead hands!" > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
David and list, Sorry if that sounded harsh. Mark From: Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:25:08 AM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide Does the suggestion include not sharing posts about developments in the United States? From: David Eaves <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:12:53 AM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide It might be wise for those interested in open data on this list to form a Canadian oriented list so that discussions about the challenges of open data dont default to a disussion on the problems of corruption in bangalore and instead can focus on a context that is more relevant to us. I'm happy to discuss open data in an international context but know that many people here have a strong Canadian focus. -- www.eaves.ca @daeaves Sent from my iPhone On 2012-05-16, at 10:02 AM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote: > Russell, > > It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to Kent's > post as follows... > > Kent, > > In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously documented > how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the > poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I said > "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the > intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to > indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open > data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of income > and power. (Done in haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I actually > believe and I would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous > sentence.) > > FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. > > FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my > comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with some of > these issues. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell > McOrmond > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > > > On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can >> open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with >> is that you are advocating against open data, unless the >> pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is >> met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could >> clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? > > > I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is > concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent > and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I > believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is true. > > While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other > people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we > aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the > easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked > to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend > buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will > have access. > > > If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the > rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? > Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest > organizations. > > > It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at > risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is > impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move > as close to their target without subverting their own goals. > > I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty > crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the > open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty > initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and > includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. > > > -- > Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> > Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property > rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! > http://l.c11.ca/ict > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or > portable media player from my cold dead hands!" > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
This is a Canadian oriented list.
from http://civicaccess.ca/ "CivicAccess.ca is a group of citizens which believes that all levels of government should make civic information and data accessible at no cost in open formats to their citizens. We believe this is necessary to allow citizens to fully participate in the democratic process of Canada's knowledge based economy." And our the letter announcing the list: "Public Launch - CivicAccess April 26th, 2006 We would like to announce the launch of a new online space for Canadian civic engagement - Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information and Data (aka: CivicAccess.ca). CivicAccess is being founded by librarians, civil servants, academics, lawyers, free- and open-source advocates, geomatics professionals and community planners from across Canada. We are motivated by the belief that open civic information and data are necessary for being engaged citizens in an "information society". Our goals are: 1. To encourage all levels of governments (county, municipal, provincial, federal) to make civic data and information available to citizens without restrictions, at no cost, and in useable open formats. 2. To encourage the development of citizen projects using civic data and information. Access to civic information and data help us make informed choices as voters. In addition it helps to ensure government transparency and accountability - essential elements of a democracy. These are the bits and bytes required to understand, critically analyze, and re-envision the communities in which we live. As engaged citizens in our neighborhoods, cities, and provinces we are working to develop a community of practice on open civic data in Canada. This is an idea whose time has come. Please join us in making it a reality! Founders: Darin Barney, Marcus Bornfreund, Stéphane Couture, Patrick Dinnen, Daniel Faivre, Michael Geist, Stephane Guidoin, Michael Gurstein, Daniel Haran, Ted Hildebrandt, Alton Hollett, Cory Horner, Tracey Lauriault, Nathalie Leclerc, Michael Lenczner, Graham Longford, Hugh McGuire, Russell McOrmond, Robin Millette, Joe Murray, Michael Pilling, Joel Rivard, Gabe Sawhney, Phillip Smith and Marc Tuters. To find out more: Discussion List - http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca/ Website - http://civicaccess.ca/" taken from Cory's website - http://www.canoe42.ca/blog.php?id=70 Michael Lenczner CEO, Ajah http://www.ajah.ca 514-400-4500 1-888-406-2524 (AJAH) http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaellenczner On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote: > Does the suggestion include not sharing posts about developments in the > United States? > > ________________________________ > From: David Eaves <[hidden email]> > To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:12:53 AM > > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide > > It might be wise for those interested in open data on this list to form a > Canadian oriented list so that discussions about the challenges of open data > dont default to a disussion on the problems of corruption in bangalore and > instead can focus on a context that is more relevant to us. > > I'm happy to discuss open data in an international context but know that > many people here have a strong Canadian focus. > > -- > www.eaves.ca > @daeaves > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2012-05-16, at 10:02 AM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Russell, >> >> It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to Kent's >> post as follows... >> >> Kent, >> >> In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously >> documented >> how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the >> poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I >> said >> "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the >> intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to >> indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open >> data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of >> income >> and power. (Done in haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I >> actually >> believe and I would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous >> sentence.) >> >> FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. >> >> FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my >> comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with some >> of >> these issues. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell >> McOrmond >> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >> >> >> >> On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >>> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can >>> open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >>> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with >>> is that you are advocating against open data, unless the >>> pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is >>> met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could >>> clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? >> >> >> I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is >> concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent >> and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I >> believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is >> true. >> >> While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other >> people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we >> aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the >> easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked >> to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend >> buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will >> have access. >> >> >> If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the >> rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? >> Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest >> organizations. >> >> >> It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at >> risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is >> impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move >> as close to their target without subverting their own goals. >> >> I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty >> crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the >> open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty >> initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and >> includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. >> >> >> -- >> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> >> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property >> rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! >> http://l.c11.ca/ict >> >> "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware >> manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or >> portable media player from my cold dead hands!" >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide
|
|
Michael,
Thank you very much for pointing to this important historical information, this is most helpful. May I suggest that a list with a Canadian focus will benefit from information about what is happening in open data / open government anywhere? It should be possible to manage a mostly Canadian focus without a Canadian content only rule. I think that civicaccess.ca already manages this balance very well! For many on the list, what might be of greatest interest is what the world's leaders are doing, to inform best practices, what's cool and so forth. However, for important philosophical reasons, I would encourage any group to remember that we share a planet, and it is healthy for at least some of our discussion to be inclusive of people in less fortunate areas of the world. With respect to high-speed internet access, this divide includes portions of rural Canada, not just the developing world. Michael Geist recently pointed out that we have yet to see the Canadian Digital Economy Strategy for which consultations were held a couple of years ago. It would make sense to me to ask the Canadian government when this will be forthcoming. For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT suggesting that anyone hold up moving to open data or open government until there is such a strategy. We need to move forward in both directions, gettting existing data out there and useful and encouraging good public policy, at the same time. best, Heather Morrison On 2012-05-16, at 10:40 AM, Michael Lenczner wrote: > This is a Canadian oriented list. > > from http://civicaccess.ca/ > "CivicAccess.ca is a group of citizens which believes that all levels > of government should make civic information and data accessible at no > cost in open formats to their citizens. We believe this is necessary > to allow citizens to fully participate in the democratic process of > Canada's knowledge based economy." > > And our the letter announcing the list: > > "Public Launch - CivicAccess > April 26th, 2006 > > We would like to announce the launch of a new online space for > Canadian civic engagement - Citizens for Open Access to Civic > Information and Data (aka: CivicAccess.ca). CivicAccess is being > founded by librarians, civil servants, academics, lawyers, free- and > open-source advocates, geomatics professionals and community planners > from across Canada. We are motivated by the belief that open civic > information and data are necessary for being engaged citizens in an > "information society". > > Our goals are: > > 1. To encourage all levels of governments (county, municipal, > provincial, federal) to make civic data and information available to > citizens without restrictions, at no cost, and in useable open > formats. > > 2. To encourage the development of citizen projects using civic data > and information. > > Access to civic information and data help us make informed choices as > voters. In addition it helps to ensure government transparency and > accountability - essential elements of a democracy. These are the bits > and bytes required to understand, critically analyze, and re-envision > the communities in which we live. > > As engaged citizens in our neighborhoods, cities, and provinces we are > working to develop a community of practice on open civic data in > Canada. > > This is an idea whose time has come. Please join us in making it a reality! > > Founders: Darin Barney, Marcus Bornfreund, Stéphane Couture, Patrick > Dinnen, Daniel Faivre, Michael Geist, Stephane Guidoin, Michael > Gurstein, Daniel Haran, Ted Hildebrandt, Alton Hollett, Cory Horner, > Tracey Lauriault, Nathalie Leclerc, Michael Lenczner, Graham Longford, > Hugh McGuire, Russell McOrmond, Robin Millette, Joe Murray, Michael > Pilling, Joel Rivard, Gabe Sawhney, Phillip Smith and Marc Tuters. > > To find out more: > > Discussion List - > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca/ > Website - http://civicaccess.ca/" > > > taken from Cory's website - http://www.canoe42.ca/blog.php?id=70 > > > Michael Lenczner > CEO, Ajah > http://www.ajah.ca > 514-400-4500 > 1-888-406-2524 (AJAH) > http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaellenczner > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Does the suggestion include not sharing posts about developments in the >> United States? >> >> ________________________________ >> From: David Eaves <[hidden email]> >> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:12:53 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >> >> It might be wise for those interested in open data on this list to form a >> Canadian oriented list so that discussions about the challenges of open data >> dont default to a disussion on the problems of corruption in bangalore and >> instead can focus on a context that is more relevant to us. >> >> I'm happy to discuss open data in an international context but know that >> many people here have a strong Canadian focus. >> >> -- >> www.eaves.ca >> @daeaves >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2012-05-16, at 10:02 AM, michael gurstein <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Russell, >>> >>> It was a very long string but you seem to have missed my reply to Kent's >>> post as follows... >>> >>> Kent, >>> >>> In that paper I pointed to the Bangalore study which meticulously >>> documented >>> how digitization and opening up of the land records was used "against the >>> poor". Since then various other examples have come forward and note I >>> said >>> "can" be used rather than "will" be used against the poor. And again the >>> intent of the paper was not to argue against open data but rather to >>> indicate that in the absence of certain interventions the effect of open >>> data would be to exacerbate existing divides including disparities of >>> income >>> and power. (Done in haste, this is probably a bit stronger than I >>> actually >>> believe and I would substitute "could" for "would" in the previous >>> sentence.) >>> >>> FWIW I agree with everything that I see in your post. >>> >>> FWIW (2) folks who didn't notice it earlier might be interested in my >>> comments on the OGP meeting http://wp.me/pJQl5-9f where I deal with some >>> of >>> these issues. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [hidden email] >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell >>> McOrmond >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:33 AM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Gartner: Open Data and The New Divide >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12-05-15 04:45 PM, Kent Mewhort wrote: >>>> Michael, you conclude your article with the note that "not only can >>>> open data not be used by the poor but in fact 'open data' can be used >>>> 'against the poor'". The interpretation that I first walk away with >>>> is that you are advocating against open data, unless the >>>> pre-conditions of the extensive seven-layer model that you set out is >>>> met. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, maybe you could >>>> clarify this point (in your article as well as here)? >>> >>> >>> I didn't even want to wade into this debate, but this theme is >>> concerning me. The idea that making government more open, transparent >>> and accountable will somehow harm the poor is troubling: not in that I >>> believe it is true, but that it troubles me that people believe it is >>> true. >>> >>> While I acknowledge that all information can be abused to harm other >>> people, secrecy is far more easily able to be abused. In this case we >>> aren't talking about mandatory secrecy, but effective secrecy -- the >>> easier it is to access information (and not have that information locked >>> to those who can navigate the ATIP system and have the money to spend >>> buying data sets), the more the people who want to help the poor will >>> have access. >>> >>> >>> If poverty is your issue, then how can restricting data to only the >>> rich (what non "open data" policies effectively do) be helpful? >>> Organizations trying to help the poor also tend to not be the richest >>> organizations. >>> >>> >>> It also makes me uncomfortable to have yet more good policy put at >>> risk from those who want perfection-or-nothing. Given perfection is >>> impossible, political battles are won by those who are willing to move >>> as close to their target without subverting their own goals. >>> >>> I also don't want to see more divisive politics: If the anti-poverty >>> crowd stands in the way of open access, then how will that help if the >>> open access crowd then ignores or stands in the way of anti-poverty >>> initiatives? Open Access crosses many political boundaries, and >>> includes leftists and libertarians working side-by-side. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> >>> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property >>> rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! >>> http://l.c11.ca/ict >>> >>> "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware >>> manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or >>> portable media player from my cold dead hands!" >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |