James,
That certainly wasn't my intent... Rather it was to point out one of the
dilemmas/boundary conditions concerning open data in certain environments.
Among the strongest critics (and I believe with good reason) around open
access to certain kinds of data/information have been indigenous people for
whom certain information has significant cultural and potential financial
value for which they could not otherwise receive compensation and which in
many instances is their only economic resource.
As with issues of personal privacy/identification there is a need for a
recognition of the dilemmas posed in certain contexts and a related need for
adaptation to these as constraints.
And for the nth time (and not particularly related to the above) I am
personally a strong supporter of "open data" but my preferred meme/advocacy
position in this regard is "open and inclusive data".
M
-----Original Message-----
From:
[hidden email]
[mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James
McKinney
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:34 AM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Weenusk First Nation says no to sharing
of aerial geologic survey information
For the sake or argument, let's assume mining claims are 100% bad. The
problem isn't open data, it's the process around issuing licenses for
staking. The previous unavailability of open data just meant it would be
longer before mining companies discovered these opportunities and submitted
mining claims. Ending the release of aerial survey data would be putting a
bandaid on a bullet wound. Please do not use this as a reason open data is
"bad".
On 2013-02-10, at 1:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
Locked
