voting tools on datalibre
Locked
voting tools on datalibre
 
|
I posted some tools on datalibre.ca, tools to help you make decision about how to vote.
If you have more I will post them! http://datalibre.ca/2011/03/29/tools-for-the-elections/ -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
|
|
How about http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/?
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: I posted some tools on datalibre.ca, tools to help you make decision about how to vote. |
Re: voting tools on datalibre
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I posted some tools on datalibre.ca, tools to help you make decision about > how to vote. > > If you have more I will post them! > > http://datalibre.ca/2011/03/29/tools-for-the-elections/ For those interested in technology law issues, we have per-district blogs/etc at http://Digital-Copyright.ca -- 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://fix.billc32.ca/petition/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!" |
|
|
Hi everyone, posted an analysis of the structural problems with ATIP I feel don't often get talked about. Thought some people on this list may find it interesting. Hope this is interesting. Access to Information is Fatally Broken... You Just Don't Know it Yet http://bit.ly/fis9b4 Dave
|
|
|
The clogging experienced by the Commissioner is on purpose and the
Commissioner is complicit to it.
The job of the Commissioner is to act on it, instead of just lament they have a problem. The Commissioner has cvasi-judicial powers to subpoena and to pursue. Those powers are not used since John Reid has left office and the late Commissioners are more interested in spending money on websites and symposiums than getting to the bottom of it. All the government had to do is slow the pace for a few years, now the backlog is growing exponentially. Very convenient, now you can cherry-pick ATIP requests and delay indefinitely the incommode ones and the resulting complaints. I have personally received from the Commissioner a resolution to one of my unreasonable delay complaints that stated that one year+ delays are normal. And I have signaled and documented the Commissioner some illegal censorship practices - and these complaints are rotting at their office since 2007. Just wait 20 years and the records are free, why bother with complaints? In the meantime, the Infocom can size things up with statistics. The Commissioner is part of the problem nowadays and this will not change unless we organize and put enough pressure from the bottom. BTW, there never was political willingness to openness, and this is why Reid was so incomodating. On 03/30/2011 10:34 AM, David Eaves wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
Any idea how the distribution of requestors has changed (or even what
is currently), and if the types of requests follow any patterns? It seems like a crucial question to ask why the number of requests is increasing so rapidly. I don't know too much about ATIP, but no obvious reasons come to mind. Is there some structural reason for overall request volumes to increase consistently in every area, or are there a few more specific causes that are resulting in a flood of certain kinds of requests? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi everyone, posted an analysis of the structural problems with ATIP I feel > don't often get talked about. Thought some people on this list may find it > interesting. Hope this is interesting. > Access to Information is Fatally Broken... You Just Don't Know it > Yet http://bit.ly/fis9b4 > Cheers, > Dave |
|
|
Michael,
I actually thing it is become more and more a business tool. There are lots of companies launching ATIP requests about themselves and their competitors, so that is probably one of the drivers... it's a great question though - I don't pretend to know the answer... On 11-03-31 10:05 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: > Any idea how the distribution of requestors has changed (or even what > is currently), and if the types of requests follow any patterns? > > It seems like a crucial question to ask why the number of requests is > increasing so rapidly. I don't know too much about ATIP, but no > obvious reasons come to mind. Is there some structural reason for > overall request volumes to increase consistently in every area, or are > there a few more specific causes that are resulting in a flood of > certain kinds of requests? > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM, David Eaves<[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi everyone, posted an analysis of the structural problems with ATIP I feel >> don't often get talked about. Thought some people on this list may find it >> interesting. Hope this is interesting. >> Access to Information is Fatally Broken... You Just Don't Know it >> Yet http://bit.ly/fis9b4 >> Cheers, >> Dave > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
I disagree with characterizing ATI as being "fatally broken." First, though we have to parse the "P" from ATIP, which refers to "Privacy" and the "Privacy Act." Freedom of information legislation is relatively new in our cultural history. Sweden was the first country to have a right to access information in 1766. It would take 200 years for the third country to have a robust FOI law - the United States of America. Canada's federal Access to Information Act received royal assent on July 7th 1982. So we are the first generation of Canadians to use and make sense of ATI. Freedom of information is quite simple from a conceptual pov. All it does is grant a general right to access any government document. It then recognizes that some forms of access are potentially harmful and so authorizes the government to withhold certain classes of information. Third, and importantly, freedom of information legislation defines a method of access: a series of steps, that if followed, assure access (barring any interference). Fourth, it creates an independent agency to review government non-compliance with ATI. There are lots features beyond this basic FOI structure such as continuous access clauses (e.g., Ontario, Alberta), duty to assists clauses (e.g., Federal, BC). An argument that equates "High Cost" with "ATI fatally broken" needs to distinguish between avoidable costs and unavoidable costs. Governments can introduce unnecessary procedures that burdens ATI with avoidable costs. For example, some departments in the government engage in a practice known as "contentious issues management" or "amber lighting" (as called by journalists) where certain ATIs are given "special handling" because of their potential to stir controversy. This special handling includes additional meetings and involving communication department to prepare media lines that are then given to official spokespeople prior to the distribution of the documents. The story of "Amber Lightening" was broke by investigative journalist Ann Rees in 2003. Here's a more recent example: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=e2888c59-a2c6-4ef8-be60-76533d2c8233&k=91330 The Information Commissioner recently reported their findings on an investigation into allegations that "amber lighting"/"contentious issue management" introduced delays into ATI. The report stated: "we found that institutions that label access requests as 'sensitive,' 'of interest' or 'amber light,' or with some other marker indicating special handling, tend to delay requests for unacceptably long periods. We also found that the media are not the only ones to encounter such delays. Requests from parliamentarians, organizations, academics and lawyers are also delayed." http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/syst-inv_inv-syst_do_secret_rules_lead_to_delays.aspx David's blog estimates the total cost of ATI last year to be over $1.175 Billion. This estimate is based on a calculation of $47,196,030 (the cost David attributes to TBS handling ATIs) x 25 (a conservative estimate of the number of compliant ministries). However, the $47,196,030 is actually the total cost of handling ATI across 250 ministries and departments in the entire government of Canada. TBS is the department with the portfolio for overseeing gov't implementation of ATI Act and the Privacy Act and they compile statistics through the reports to Parliament that each ministry/departments submits annually. The statistics are available in a tech-unfriendly form at http://www.infosource.gc.ca/bulletin/2010/b/bulletin33b/bulletin33b02-eng.asp That page states "These figures are based on Statistical Reports provided by government institutions subject to the Access to Information Act." An economic analysis of ATI needs to include not only the cost of ATI but the benefits. How much is saved by journalists and parliamentarians using ATI to identify waste? Or business putting forward more competitive bids as a result of using ATI? Or the costs saved from tragedies adverted? An important question imo is "how can ATI be streamlined?" Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian has proposed concepts, "Privacy by Design" and "Access by Design" for introducing privacy and proactive disclosure into government. I would also like to see "Reactive by Design", a set of principles, technologies, and practices that makes the method of access defined by ATI/FOI move much more quickly. There is also, imo, a need to further professionalizing the role of handling ATIs/FOIs. There are professional associations of access and privacy officials and the University of Alberta has a curricula for ATIP professionals. Perhaps schools of Library and Information Sciences departments at universities could have special programs? There's a need to educate current senior government employees about ATI. Another side of streamlining ATI is educating ATI users. "Send me any and all documents relating to ... for the period since the 1867 to the present" is a common first FOI. But it's a bit like asking a librarian for "All the books that contain the letter 'e'". One strategy I have found helpful is to ask ATIP officers to first send table of contents or meta-data about documents of interest. Then I review this meta-data and decide which information I'd like to access and which I don't. The ATI practice here is to foreground document derived meta-data to the user early on so as to avoid the cost of applying exemptions to documents not needed. I imagine there's ways of streamlining ATI at other stages too. In some foi legislation, governments have 10 days to provide access. The ATI provides 30. Maybe reducing the time frame for the government to respond could help identify efficiencies. Freedom of information legislation is still very new. Chances are your parents didn't have this right when they were your age. If you haven't used ATI yet, send one in then pass on the letter to your grandkids. It will be a family heirloom. Mark |
|
|
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote: David's blog estimates the total cost of ATI last year to be over $1.175 Billion. This estimate is based on a calculation of $47,196,030 (the cost David attributes to TBS handling ATIs) x 25 (a conservative estimate of the number of compliant ministries). However, the $47,196,030 is actually the total cost of handling ATI across 250 ministries and departments in the entire government of Canada. Indeed. I also added the following comment to the blog: Quoting blog post: "At some point the hours required to fulfill all requests sent to a ministry will equal the total hours of manpower at that ministry's disposal." This assumes the number of requests will reach that point. I don't think that's a fair assumption. It will likely plateau much sooner than that, before even 1% of time is spent on FOI. Also, 60 people, in the Government of Canada, is not a lot. There are over a quarter million civil servants.
This, along with Mark Weller's comment, suggests that FOI is not broken at an economic level. |
|
|
60 people just in the department of foreign affairs, not doing any other works actually is a crises of resource - especially in the middle of an armed conflict. -- @daeaves Sent from my iPhone
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
David, if DFAIT's involving 60 employees in handling one ATI is meant to signal a failure of ATI, it's important to remember that it may actually be a failure of DFAIT. According to the annual report cards published by the Office of the Information Commissioner, DFAIT doesn't have a strong track record with complying with ATI Act (see below). It seems possible that DFAIT's involvement of 60 employees in making documents about government actions accessible in a time of conflict is not a crisis but is laudatory.
Mark DFAIT report cards by OIC 1998-1999... F 1999-2000... F 2000-2001... F 2001-2002... F 2002-2003... C 2003-2004... D 2004-2005... F 2005-2006... F 2006-2007... D 2007-2008... F 2008-2009... F, Off the chart, "Red Alert" The list may be wrong, I seem to a "B" somewhere From: David Eaves <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Cc: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]>; Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 10:22:04 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] ATIP Analysis 60 people just in the department of foreign affairs, not doing any other works actually is a crises of resource - especially in the middle of an armed conflict. -- www.eaves.ca @daeaves Sent from my iPhone On 2011-03-31, at 10:14 PM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Mark Weiler <[hidden email]> wrote: > > David's blog estimates the total cost of ATI last year to be over $1.175 Billion. This estimate is based on a calculation of $47,196,030 (the cost David attributes to TBS handling ATIs) x 25 (a conservative estimate of the number of compliant ministries). However, the $47,196,030 is actually the total cost of handling ATI across 250 ministries and departments in the entire government of Canada. > > > Indeed. I also added the following comment to the blog: > Quoting blog post: "At some point the hours required to fulfill all requests sent to a ministry will equal the total hours of manpower at that ministry's disposal." This assumes the number of requests will reach that point. I don't think that's a fair assumption. It will likely plateau much sooner than that, before even 1% of time is spent on FOI. Also, 60 people, in the Government of Canada, is not a lot. There are over a quarter million civil servants. > This, along with Mark Weller's comment, suggests that FOI is not broken at an economic level. |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:21 AM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
The March 2010 detainee issue didn't last forever; we don't know how long these 60 people were working full-time (it could have been only one day, for all we know), we don't even know if the claim was without exaggeration. I don't think we know enough to say it's a crisis. The March 2010 detainee issue was specific to DFAIT - there's no reason to believe other departments were similarly flooded with requests.
We've been in the "middle of an armed conflict" since 2002. If March 2010 demanded the full power of DFAIT to manage the conflict in Afghanistan, I doubt 60 people would have been assigned to ATI. The truth is, yes, we were in an armed conflict in March 2010, but March 2010 was not an especially busy time for DFAIT in terms of armed conflict - it was busy in terms of public opinion, and fulfilling ATI requests are a part of that.
|
|
|
David,
Can you please clarify the figures on the cost of ATIP. Whose costs are right and if the commentator is correct, why has it not been corrected on your blog? Over 1.1 Billion in costs for ATIP strikes me as a little out of proportion. You mentioned to Glen you would be posting the raw data you got from the government, I could not find it on your site, maybe I missed it, can you please point me in the right direction? Have a great weekend, On 2011-04-01, at 10:46 AM, James McKinney wrote:
|
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |