http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/The-case-for-context-in-defining-Open-Data-tp5474p5511.html
Just to add a small note to Glen's comment. This also applies to
archeological sites. The folks managing this information are quite
protective. They don't want to see sites looted or vandalized.
> A less politicised (and arguable clearer) example than the Weenusk one
> is one from the area of biological conservation: the release of the
> location of populations of new or threatened species can have huge
> negative impacts on the species in question. Depending on the
> "sexiness" of the species (rare orchids, or newly discovered primates,
> for example) to the public (and by extension, poachers), the
> publication of the location of these organisms can lead to their
> reduction or extinction, and have significant negative impact on their
> environment.
>
> Few would disagree with the need to withhold or generalize this data,
> seeing that the cost of releasing it far outweighs the benefit. The
> dominant policy now is to not release the location to the public, but
> researchers will often communicate the information to other
> researchers when it is requested.
> Keeping it out of the public (read: "poachers") hands in this case is
> acceptable.
> _Even_ if the public funded the research. The greater public good is
> in _not_ releasing this information.
>
> See also:
> - "Should the location of newly discovered species be hidden?"
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17386764> - "Newly discovered slow loris species already threatened"
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/newly-discovered-slow-loris-species-borneo> - "Rare Species Are Valued Big Time"
>
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005215> - "Endangering the endangered: The effects of perceived rarity on
> species exploitation"
>
http://129.175.106.17/epc/conservation/PDFs/Endangering.pdf>
> -Glen
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM, michael gurstein <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Russell and all,
>>
>> I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit familiar with
>> indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there may be
>> found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made "open".
>> The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is "information" and
>> that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk as for
>> many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning specific
>> physical features of the land because of their particular intense
>> involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what for
>> others might be generalized and neutral "information" about particular
>> features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning for
>> example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
>> etc.etc.
>>
>> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
>> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
>> living with their land.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
[hidden email]
>> [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell
>> McOrmond
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
>> To:
[hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining Open
>> Data
>>
>>
>> On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:
>>> For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
>>>
http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/>> I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
>> decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
>> skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different. It is good to
>> have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement will learn
>> from the more senior Free Software movement.
>>
>>
>>
>> When you move beyond making data or software able to be collaborated with
>> a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements about
>> wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad" things.
>> You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good" or "bad"
>> means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to limit "bad"
>> uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.
>>
>> In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the creation of
>> multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of what a
>> "good" use of software is. The fact that software could be used for a "bad"
>> purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be ignored
>> in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first place.
>>
>> Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being related "to
>> achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
>> collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
>> opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts. To focus on these things
>> will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data, pushing
>> software/data towards the alternative.
>>
>> The alternative is that the only software that gets written or data that
>> is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the software/data
>> benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger public(s).
>> In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be, this is a
>> bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.
>>
>>
>> The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
>> land is made more widely known, then this will harm them. This ignores
>> the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to mining
>> companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more open to
>> that type of exploitation than it was before. Even if the government
>> refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario in the
>> current political climate), those with the greatest financial incentives may
>> do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
>> interests.
>>
>>
>> What opening data does is make the data available to *others*. Those
>> *others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes or "bad"
>> purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns expressed (and
>> they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential new (and
>> as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is likely
>> going to outweigh the "bad".
>>
>> I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
>> mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if anything, less
>> access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's ultimate
>> interests.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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>
>
> --
> -
>
http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/> -
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss>