Re: Census 2006 available for Linux

[Judyth Mermelstein]

Russell McOrmond <[hidden email]> wrote in part:
>...
>   Unfortunately you would have an uphill battle at this point if the
>government truly believes they "really really really" needed to run an
>application on the citizen's computer.  There is no "standard" to do this
>that runs on every platform.  The closest thing we have currently is the
>ECMA's standardization of C# and the CLI.  This makes that platform far
>more appropriate than the proprietary Java and the JVM, but you are still
>locking out the low and high-end (Small/older machines, and mobile devices
>such as PDA's, etc) which do not run such complex language interpreters.

Today's New York Times seems to indicate Java may not stay proprietary

>>Chief Says Sun Plans to Offer Open-Source Version of Java
>>By LAURIE J. FLYNN
>>The move provides further evidence that Sun's new
>>management sees it as more of a services company than a
>>network computer maker.
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/technology/17suns.html?th&emc=th

but that won't resolve the accessibility issues for low-end users, though PDAs and whatnot used by the more affluent are likely to become more powerful to handle higher-end applications.

More to the point, though, the crux from a privacy and security perspective is
>...  You are still downloading an application of unknown
>origins that has an undocumented task, with applications always having a
>target platform that creates incompatabilities.
The inherent problem there is not mere "incompatibilities" but the ways in which access to the individual's computer can be abused.

Also, while it is obviously an advantage to automate certain tasks on a site to accommodate the many non-techie users of "out of the box" software, I think Russell and I agree that the very fact of transferring knowledge and control of the user's system to third parties is pernicious, not least because it means users are left at the mercy of parties who may not really know what their applications are doing at the user end since user systems are so diverse.

Economically, the advantage of forcing standardization of applications and habits on the public makes it cheaper and more efficient for government and business to use the Web for their purposes ... but the real costs (money, learning curve, time, etc.) are merely being transferred to the individual users, many of whom are unable or unwilling to assume them.


>   I think this is a bit outside of CivicAccess which is not the technical
>details of how the government interacts with citizens, but the
>availability to citizens of government generated information.  While there
>is overlap, they aren't the same.

As Russell knows, I've been arguing for years that any "e-government" initiatives should be based on the technological lowest common denominator (inexperienced or handicapped user on older and/or less-powerful device) rather than the "software solutions" currently being sold to businesses whose philosophy is to simply dismiss "low end" clients as not worth the bother because they won't be buying enough products. Any government activity online should be accessible to each and every voter; in the same way as it's normal to provide TTY lines for deaf citizens along with voice lines for hearing ones, it should be routine to provide a plain text/hyperlink interface along with the all-singing, all-dancing Web sites one can only use with particular software products and 20/20 (or better) vision.

I can't say I've got very far with my individual attempts to sensitize people in government to the issues, even though I put it to them in terms of the need to think "all citizens" rather than "all 'normal' citizens working in modern offices with the latest gear and the freedom to use employers' resources for personal matters." In my admittedly-limited experience, civil servants and politicos tend to think of what works for them, not what obstacles are being created for people without the same resources. But that means there is an overlap: you can't explain accessibility to non-geeks without explaining *why* some technologies are accessible and others not, and *how* one can provide obstacle-free access without incurring a lot of extra trouble and expense. In other words, I think one has to reduce the geek-speak about hardware and software to a minimum of intelligible prose for the benefit of the non-geeks, but one also has to equip them to think past the IT departments' "the best way is to buy or upgrade X software" to the writing of specs like "must *not* require the user to download 5+ MB of proprietary software and plugins to use the home page."

>   I think the better venue for what you are looking for is GOSLING -
>http://GOSLINGcommunity.org .  While there is an active Ottawa chapter, we
>haven't yet launched chapters in other cities and are looking for help.

I'm afraid I'm a semi-hermit (physical limitations) as well as only a semi-geek, so I'm not likely to be much use to GOSLING. I'm hoping that will not be the case here, given the emphasis on promoting accessibility for citizens to information and services, rather than advancing the philosophy of open technologies at more exalted levels. Especially since what happens at those more-exalted levels is things like this:

>http://www.sshrc.ca/web/about/council_reports/news_e.asp#4
>
>Following on Council’s October 2004 approval in principle of open        access—permanent, free, online access to the results of federally-funded        research—staff consulted with the social sciences and humanities community        and reported on the options available to make open access a reality.
>
>The idea of open access to all research is widely accepted, but        presents a number of implementation obstacles, and the community is by and        large cautious.
>
>Rather than imposing mandatory requirements on researchers to publish        via open access, Council chose to increase awareness of open access,        pursue discussions with major stakeholders, and gradually incorporate open        access provisions in research support programs.
>

In other words, objections by parties which make money selling access to research and parties which don't want the headache of changing the way things work now were considered to outweigh the advantage of providing open access, but some future grants may eventually include clauses requiring free access to the research six months or a year after the original publisher has used it to generate revenues. (Sorry to be so cynical but I've read too many press releases like that over too many years.)

The Council's position won't prevent *some* researchers from choosing to publish in open archives but it certainly won't mean much more open access in the forseseeable future, even for SSHRC-funded research.

To me, this is one of the many sub-issues within the broad heading of "civic access" but I hardly know what we can do as a group to sensitize a federal government which routinely places business interests above the public interest. Any ideas of where we could start?

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein   "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC         <[hidden email]>
Canada H4C 2P9       <[hidden email]>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."

[syd]

>
> To me, this is one of the many sub-issues within the broad heading of
> "civic access" but I hardly know what we can do as a group to sensitize a
> federal government which routinely places business interests above the
> public interest. Any ideas of where we could start?
>

I agree that the problem of placing "interests" above principles is at the
heart of the problem of open access. And the interests that are the least
controversial are economic interests. If a government can be seen to be
placating economic interests, it can sweep divisive issues under the
carpet.

Governments have to be convinced that their role isn't merely that of
mediator between interest groups, but rather that of supporting the Good
and not being afraid to act in its service. The language that I'm using to
express these things is so archaic and foreign to a modern politician that
I'd be surprised if they didn't find it offensive. The Good is offensive
because it's not inclusive. How funny is that?

Anyhow, as others have already pointed out, until things change, the best
way to present these things is as a business case.

- Maybe you could use the argument that any money paid to a government
institution constitutes a dead weight loss to the economy just like a tax,
since StatsCan is not truly profit and market driven. Every dollar that
industry gives to StatsCan is a dollar that private industry cannot use
for something productive.

- Car and road analogies are often useful, since that is the technological
era in which our reasoning is stuck: cost recovery policies would probably
make road maintenance easier, but would it help or harm the businesses
that use the roads?

- Isn't the ideal of a perfectly competitive market dependent upon
citizens *and* industries having perfect knowledge of market signals? I'm
sure some of StatsCanada's stuff would help make us informed (and
therefore market-efficient) consumers.

Disclaimer: i am making all this economics stuff up as I go, so make of it
what you will.

Is that a start?

Regards,
Syd

[Carmen Kazakoff Lane]

Hello:

I would like to say that I like the business analogy:

1. The Conservative Party of Canada talks about taxes all the time and about
government waste. What a waste to spend all that taxpayer money on a product
that few see unless they walk into a depository library.
2. They talk about transparency. Well making the information available for
free online is good for transparency.
3. They talk about competition, growth and innovation (which is made more
difficult when existing companies can afford to buy government information
but small enrepreneurs cannot.)
4. They talk about rural needs  - but again - how well are they serving
rural Canada if a rural voter has to go into a city where there is a
depository library?  How hard is it for a rural business to start up when
they do not have access to information or have to pay for it?

Having said all that, I do not think we should throw the "Public Good"
argument out the window. Governments need to be seen as leaders with a
vision for the future. While I am not naive enough to assume they are not
equally interested in the latest opinion polls, some still do aspire to
working towards what is good long-term (as few as they may be).  We may even
have a leader who is less interested in looking good for the media (much to
the media's consternation), and more interested in acting after he has
examined the long-term implications of an action (being both a policy person
and an introvert - who tend to like to work ideas out first.)  But taken
from a purely pragmatic approach to politics, I do think that Open Access
(1) could be a policy issue that does a lot of the things the party talks
about, and gives them the opportunity to look like leaders, and (2) is an
issue that would be favored by young voters who like to download music, mash
up videos, etc. The party is trying to appeal to these young voters and by
redoing copyright and opening access up to information (both Government and
Academic), they are given the chance to look like they are in touch with the
new world occuring in Web 2.0.

Pragmatic politics and Public Good are two issues that can be linked  if you
let politicians know they can lead and win at the same time.  But the issues
must be presented in a coherent, well documented, fashion.  In particular we
need to have a means of demonstrating (1) how increasingly people - i.e. the
voters -  are moving towards favoring open access and the opponents to it
are old school, and (2) econmic indicators that demonstrate the value of
information to innovation and prosperity (getting back to the types of
things we might want to document).  This might be the type of information
that economists and sociologists should be brought in to supply.

It might be a hard sell, but it is not impossible.

Sincerely,

Carmen Kazakoff-Lane


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:12 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Census 2006 available for Linux


>
> To me, this is one of the many sub-issues within the broad heading of
> "civic access" but I hardly know what we can do as a group to sensitize a
> federal government which routinely places business interests above the
> public interest. Any ideas of where we could start?
>

I agree that the problem of placing "interests" above principles is at the
heart of the problem of open access. And the interests that are the least
controversial are economic interests. If a government can be seen to be
placating economic interests, it can sweep divisive issues under the
carpet.

Governments have to be convinced that their role isn't merely that of
mediator between interest groups, but rather that of supporting the Good
and not being afraid to act in its service. The language that I'm using to
express these things is so archaic and foreign to a modern politician that
I'd be surprised if they didn't find it offensive. The Good is offensive
because it's not inclusive. How funny is that?

Anyhow, as others have already pointed out, until things change, the best
way to present these things is as a business case.

- Maybe you could use the argument that any money paid to a government
institution constitutes a dead weight loss to the economy just like a tax,
since StatsCan is not truly profit and market driven. Every dollar that
industry gives to StatsCan is a dollar that private industry cannot use
for something productive.

- Car and road analogies are often useful, since that is the technological
era in which our reasoning is stuck: cost recovery policies would probably
make road maintenance easier, but would it help or harm the businesses
that use the roads?

- Isn't the ideal of a perfectly competitive market dependent upon
citizens *and* industries having perfect knowledge of market signals? I'm
sure some of StatsCanada's stuff would help make us informed (and
therefore market-efficient) consumers.

Disclaimer: i am making all this economics stuff up as I go, so make of it
what you will.

Is that a start?

Regards,
Syd


_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca

[Russell McOrmond-2]

Judyth wrote:

> Today's New York Times seems to indicate Java may not stay
> proprietary

(BTW: This is GOSLING community stuff.. but...)

   Sun has been saying that they will be opening up Java for years, and
I'll believe it when I actually see it.  The recent announcement is not
about the opening of the Java language to standardization, but a change
in the copyright/patent licensing that Sun is using for their
implementation of a proprietary language.

   Just because there is an Open Source implementation of a language
does not make the language either a standard or non-proprietary.  The
two are not identical concepts, and for the government the issue of
standardization is more critical than the license of any specific
implementation.

   In order for Java to become an appropriate choice for what the Census
was doing the language needs to be brought to a standards body and very
specifically not remain solely in the hands of Sun.  This is what
Microsoft did with C# (similar to Java in many ways) and the CLI
(Similar to the JVM in many ways) through the ECMA.  This is why the
Mono project is able to have a far more complete implementation of
C#/CLI than the Kaffe project is able to have of Java/JVM.

   Eventually Sun/Java/JVM may catch up to the openness of
Microsoft/C#/CLI (their implementation known as .NET), but I'm not going
to hold my breath.  I've also seen more innovation/advancement in the
C#/CLI community, so would be happy if people just upgraded from Java to
the standard.


(Note: Yes, I expect to get hate-mail from the anything-but-Microsoft
camp ;-)

> To me, this is one of the many sub-issues within the broad heading of
> "civic access" but I hardly know what we can do as a group to
> sensitize a federal government which routinely places business
> interests above the public interest. Any ideas of where we could
> start?


   Not sure where to start, but do suggest that we don't put "business
interests" into one category.  Many of the initiatives we support are
very good for business, just different businesses than the 'incumbents'.

   Much of the lobbying comes down to competition issues:  the
incumbents want things to stay the same and the innovators want things
to change.   Whether part of the voluntary, public, private, civil
society, education (etc, etc) sectors, we are just a group of innovators
trying to move forward.

   I make this note as it comes up in copyright reform conversations all
the time, and how the "more is better" philosophy has captured the minds
of too many people.   When you get people talking about your actual
needs you will then find a debate of authors-vs-authors, which is really
just another form of incumbents-vs-innovators in yet another field.  I
witnessed that last weekend at the PWAC.ca conference, with the debate
between these professional writers getting pretty heated.

--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  2415+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
  Movie and "software manufacturing" industries from modernization.
  Send a letter to your Canadian MP! --> http://digital-copyright.ca/