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.
On 28/02/2013 4:51 AM, Glen Newton wrote:
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:I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/
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
_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |