tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/open-government-3217/articlesOpen government – The Conversation2024-03-12T12:30:35Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2215532024-03-12T12:30:35Z2024-03-12T12:30:35ZGrowing secrecy limits government accountability<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580737/original/file-20240308-18-lpv6zj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5599%2C3741&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When government officials block access to information, the public suffers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/white-collar-crime-businessman-not-wanting-his-royalty-free-image/171587971">fstop123/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When I started covering crime as a reporter for small newspapers in the 1980s, I was assigned to walk to the police department lobby each morning and look through all of the previous day’s police reports, clipped to a board on the counter, containing all the details laid out for anyone to see. We were able to report to the community each day on the major events in town – to explain why people heard sirens, or saw a smoke plume.</p>
<p>By the 1990s, the clipboards were moved out of the lobby, so we asked at the counter to see them. Then we were told we had to review them with the sergeant on duty. Then we were told we couldn’t see them – we had to ask the police what they felt was newsworthy. Then we were told to submit a public records request, and wait for days or weeks – if we got them at all.</p>
<p>For decades, journalists and civic activists have lamented the increasing secrecy of government – the times, they were <a href="https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol114/iss6/2/">denied government information</a>, particularly from public records requests. Reports have shown secrecy getting worse at the federal, <a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol169/iss6/1/">state and local government</a> levels.</p>
<p>But those were usually anecdotal reports of problems. Now, there is data that brings those refusals into focus and which provides a fuller picture of government agencies hiding their work from <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/19/letters-from-the-editors-public-records-are-just-that/">the public they ostensibly serve</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="Ctfsn" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Ctfsn/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Openness benefits people and society</h2>
<p>The stakes, and potential ramifications for everyday people, are significant. </p>
<p>Access to government records helps people research their <a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/genealogy">family history</a>, identify <a href="https://www.fldoe.org/accountability/accountability-reporting/school-grades/">quality schools</a> for their children, monitor the cleanliness of their <a href="https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-drinking-water-contamination/">drinking water</a>, background-check their <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/the-dig-how-to-background-your-tinder-dates-experts-edition">online dates</a>, and hold their <a href="https://cardinalnews.org/2023/03/16/the-crazy-foia-lady-used-state-law-to-dislodge-public-records-and-improve-emergency-response-times-and-finances-in-her-town/">local town officials accountable</a>. </p>
<p>And there are clear benefits: Open records are proven to lead to less <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676">sex-offender recidivism</a>, fewer <a href="https://doi.org/10.1300/J369v05n04_04">food service complaints</a>, increased <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000034">trust in government institutions</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685">reduced corruption</a>.</p>
<p>Stanford University professor James Hamilton calculated that for every dollar spent by newspapers on public records-based journalism, <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674545502">society realizes benefits worth US$287</a> in lower taxes and saved lives.</p>
<h2>Less transparency year after year</h2>
<p>My analysis of government agencies’ compliance with public records laws through 37,000 federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests submitted through the nonprofit <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/">MuckRock.com</a> shows that a decade ago, if you asked the federal government for a public record, you might get it about half the time – which isn’t great. Today, you might get it about 12% of the time, and the trend is steadily downward.</p>
<p>The trend is similar though less uniform among state and local governments: You might receive what you ask for two-thirds of the time in Idaho or Washington state, but only <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6182080-Sticks-and-Compliance-Cuillier">10% of the time in Alabama</a>.</p>
<p>Every year in mid-March, since 2005, national <a href="https://sunshineweek.org/">Sunshine Week</a> has promoted the right of people to acquire public records and attend public meetings. The <a href="https://brechner.org/foi/">Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project</a> at the University of Florida, where <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Nx2xluMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I am the director</a>, has conducted research and education about access to government information for nearly 50 years. </p>
<p>Our research indicates that U.S. government secrecy has never been so prevalent.</p>
<p>Increasing secrecy <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1856603">isn’t tied to any particular president</a> or regime. The administration of President Barack Obama, who declared on his first day of office his intent to be the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/cui/documents/2009-WH-memo-on-transparency-and-open-government.pdf">most transparent president in history</a>, was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.001">slower to respond and less likely to release information</a> than George W. Bush’s administration.</p>
<p>President Donald Trump’s administration was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101443">more secretive than Obama’s</a>, and transparency continues to slide under the Biden administration.</p>
<p><iframe id="gHs4l" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gHs4l/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Data tells a piece of the story</h2>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/oip/reports-1">annual data collected</a> by the U.S. Department of Justice, federal agencies have become more secretive over the past decade:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The prevalence of people getting what they asked for through FOIA requests declined from 38% of the time in 2010 to 17% in 2022.</p></li>
<li><p>In 2010, about 13% of the time, federal agencies would reply to FOIA requests by saying they couldn’t find records pertaining to the request. By 2022, the rate of that type of response had increased to 21%, which officials often attributed to <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105040">outdated record management systems</a> incapable of keeping up with the massive amounts of electronic records, particularly emails.</p></li>
<li><p>Backlogs, where requests languish beyond the 20-day legal requirement for completion, have nearly doubled since 2010, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/oip/reports-1">from 12% of total requests to 22%</a>. The average number of days it takes to process simple requests, which require little staff time and a smaller volume of records, has doubled since 2014, from 21 days to 41 days, according to Justice Department reports.</p></li>
<li><p>While some secrecy is necessary to protect national security, the Government Accountability Office reported that the use of FOIA Exemption (b)(3), which allows federal agencies to deny records if another law makes the information secret, has <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-148">more than doubled</a> during the past decade, even though the number of requests only increased by a third. That includes denying people’s requests about properly withheld intelligence information. But it also includes refusing to release information on topics of great public interest, such as defective consumer products and employment discrimination cases.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Even if agencies grant requests, they present other obstacles. A.Jay Wagner of Marquette University and I surveyed 330 people who requested records in the U.S., finding that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101879">high fees to copy documents discourage people</a>, such as journalists, nonprofits and members of the public, from seeking information in the public interest. And some agencies’ <a href="https://www.spj.org/pios.asp">public information officers</a> obstruct public access to information. They limit access to the people and documents most important for government transparency and accountability.</p>
<h2>Research-based solutions</h2>
<p>Just as researchers have identified secrecy spreading through the government, recent studies offer ideas for possible cures.</p>
<p>Independent <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/ogis/about-ogis/chief-foia-officers-council/reimagining-ogis-recommendations-03-30-2022.pdf">oversight offices with enforcement power</a>, such as in <a href="https://portal.ct.gov/FOI">Connecticut</a>, <a href="https://ohiocourtofclaims.gov/public-records/">Ohio</a>, <a href="https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/">Pennsylvania</a> and more than 80 nations, provide private citizens an alternative to litigation. Instead of having to hire a lawyer to sue the government for what you are entitled to, the independent agencies will review your case, make a determination and force the government to provide you the information.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee">federal FOIA Advisory Committee</a>, working since 2014, has provided <a href="https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/dashboard">52 recommendations</a> for Congress and federal agencies to improve transparency in the United States, crafted from experts and researchers. A subcommittee I co-chair for the current term is close to finishing its assessment of how well the recommendations have been implemented, with results to be released in May 2024. Our preliminary assessment indicates that there is a lot of work left to do, and that Congress and government agencies have ignored many of the recommendations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221553/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Cuillier has received funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation for research in access to information, and is former president of the nonprofit National Freedom of Information Coalition. He is currently director of the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project, a nonpartisan organization at the University of Florida dedicated to research and education in freedom of information since 1977. The Brechner FOI Project coordinates Sunshine Week to educate the public about their right to know.</span></em></p>After years of anecdotes, data provides a fuller picture of government agencies hiding their work from the public they ostensibly serve.David Cuillier, Director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project, College of Journalism and Communications, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1853322022-08-09T12:16:49Z2022-08-09T12:16:49ZKey parts of US laws are hard for the public to find and read<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477199/original/file-20220802-19-ya953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=18%2C37%2C6211%2C4110&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The full text of a law may not be in this book – nor in its online equivalent.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/close-up-of-lawyer-reading-law-book-at-desk-royalty-free-image/998882240">RunPhoto/The Image Bank via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It happens in court cases from time to time: Lawyers and judges discussing the meaning of a law can’t access the text they need to review. </p>
<p>It happened in a <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/391/312/559348/">federal court in Rhode Island</a> in 2004 and <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2017/53s04-1703-ct-121.html">in the Indiana Supreme Court</a> in 2017. </p>
<p>In both situations, state legislators and regulators had adopted laws and rules that required, under penalty of law, companies to do specific things to keep the public safe. The Rhode Island case was about fire protection, and the Indiana dispute was about high-tension electrical power lines. But the state officials had not spelled out the specific rules.</p>
<p>Instead, they required adherence to safety rules that were created and maintained by private companies – the <a href="https://www.nfpa.org/">National Fire Protection Association</a> and the <a href="https://www.ieee.org/">Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers</a>, respectively. The legislators and regulators did not, however, include the text of these safety rules in the laws and rules they adopted. </p>
<p>The organizations that create the rules can make it difficult to find and use the rules. This creates problems for judges trying to interpret and apply the rules. </p>
<p>In Rhode Island, neither the lawyers nor the judge could find the text of the safety rules. Without the text of the rules, the judge could not determine the responsibilities of a company to pay for fire prevention equipment. </p>
<p>The Indiana Supreme Court decided that it was so difficult to access a safety code that people in the state might not know what they needed to do to comply or how the code affected them. In its 2017 ruling, the court expressed concern “<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2017/53s04-1703-ct-121.html">that the Code may not be accessible</a> to those whose property interests it implicates, now that it has been adopted by a state regulatory agency and purports to carry the force of law.”</p>
<h2>‘Free access’ to the law</h2>
<p>Since the early 1800s, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the actual text of the law needs to be accessible to the public. </p>
<p>The most recent ruling was in 2020 in a case involving free access to Georgia laws. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/18-1150/">that decision</a>, the Supreme Court, quoting an 1886 Massachusetts case, declared that “‘<a href="http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/142/142mass29.html">Every citizen is presumed to know the law</a>,’” and “‘all should have free access’ to its contents.”</p>
<p>As <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol29/iss1/2/">my research</a> shows, federal and state judicial support for access to the law extends back over 180 years. </p>
<p>Despite this support, judges and lawyers – not just the general public – at times find it difficult to access documents that have the force of law and govern people’s lives and communities.</p>
<h2>What is ‘the law,’ anyway?</h2>
<p>Most people think of “the law” as statutes enacted by legislatures, although “the law” also includes cases decided by courts and regulations issued by agencies. All of these documents are usually readily available to the public in printed form in libraries, courthouses and offices of government agencies, as well as online.</p>
<p>But there are nongovernmental organizations, mainly private, that also write provisions that govern Americans’ lives.</p>
<p>In both the Rhode Island and Indiana situations, the texts of these very detailed and technical codes were adopted into law but were not included with the texts of the statutes or regulations. For example, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission required in its regulations that companies maintaining overhead communications lines follow the <a href="https://standards.ieee.org/products-programs/nesc/">National Electrical Safety Code</a>. Instead of including the code’s text, the commission stated in its regulations that it “incorporates by reference the 2002 National Electrical Safety Code.”</p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incorporation%20by%20reference">Incorporate by reference</a>” is a common phrase used in laws when legislators or regulators want to avoid adding lengthy text to a statute or regulation. It means the text referred to has the force of law as if the text were included in the statute or regulation. Anyone wanting to access the incorporated text, however, has to find it.</p>
<h2>No text included</h2>
<p>Legislatures and regulatory agencies rely on the expertise of private organizations to draft standards and codes that govern safety and technical requirements for numerous industries, including consumer products, energy, water, housing and building construction, paints, plastics and iron and steel products. </p>
<p>It is common to incorporate references to those privately created standards and codes in both state and federal law. The texts of the standards and codes are not included.</p>
<p>In federal regulations, there are thousands of these incorporated standards and codes.</p>
<p>A federal website, last updated in 2016, shows <a href="https://sibr.nist.gov/">more than 24,000 standards</a> incorporated by reference into federal regulations. That number doesn’t include any standards incorporated by reference into state laws and regulations.</p>
<p>In the past, to limit the physical size of published statutes and regulations, legislatures and regulatory agencies did not include the text of the incorporated standards and codes.</p>
<p>But even with online storage and access, where length is not a consideration, incorporation by reference continues.</p>
<p>It is often difficult to locate the text of these incorporated standards and codes. There is no one place where copies of these standards and codes are available. The creators of the standards and codes may provide some access. They also, however, can charge for access and limit or prohibit printing and downloading.</p>
<p>As shown in the Rhode Island and Indiana cases, lack of access can raise questions about the ability of people and companies to comply with the law. It is difficult to comply with the law if it is not available or is hard to obtain.</p>
<h2>Control by copyright</h2>
<p>The private parties who create these standards and codes claim copyright in these writings.</p>
<p>As copyright holders, they can control access.</p>
<p>For example, several creators of standards sued the nonprofit organization Public.Resource.Org, Inc., when it scanned and posted on its website numerous copyrighted standards.</p>
<p>In March 2022, a federal district court ruled that Public.Resource.Org was not violating copyright protections by posting <a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Testing_and_Materials_v._Public.Resource.Org,_Inc._(2022)">standards that were incorporated into law</a>. The ruling has been appealed.</p>
<h2>Going backward?</h2>
<p>With so many private standards incorporated into law but hard to find and access, I see parallels with the period of the New Deal in the early 1930s, when the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt <a href="https://public.resource.org/48HarvLRev198.pdf">issued a large number of regulations</a> and <a href="https://www.governing.com/now/the-executive-order-a-history-of-its-rise-and-slow-decline.html">executive</a> and administrative orders. </p>
<p>At the time, there was no organized means of publishing and accessing these documents. The situation was so chaotic that even government officials did not know the law.</p>
<p>In one case, the government indicted several people for violation of a regulation provision. No one knew that the provision had been removed and did not exist when the people were charged. This error was not discovered until the case was <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1934/10/02/93644136.pdf">on appeal before the Supreme Court</a>, which <a href="https://cite.case.law/us/293/633/3931826/">dismissed the case in 1934</a>.</p>
<p>Federal regulations are now <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/cfr">published in an organized form</a> and are accessible in print and online. Incorporated copyrighted standards and codes, however, remain a challenge to locate.</p>
<p>The Indiana Supreme Court noted that with the advent of electronic technology, “<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2017/53s04-1703-ct-121.html">incorporating copyright-protected materials by reference</a> seems antiquated and at odds with government’s obligation to provide meaningful access to laws.”</p>
<p>The court emphasized that “<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2017/53s04-1703-ct-121.html">If the rule of law means anything</a>, it is that persons have meaningful access to the laws they are obliged to follow, so they can conform their conduct accordingly.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185332/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>D. R. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s a long-standing principle that people should be able to read the laws that govern them. But many technical rules and standards are hard to find and access, even for lawyers or court officials.D. R. Jones, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Law Library, University of MemphisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1608462021-05-25T12:11:34Z2021-05-25T12:11:34ZBody cameras help monitor police but can invade people’s privacy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400380/original/file-20210512-24-vmvfml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=36%2C13%2C2975%2C2063&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Police see some difficult scenes; body cameras can record those and make them public.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/diversey/48968390892/">Tony Webster via Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the course of their work, police officers encounter people who are intoxicated, distressed, injured or abused. The officers routinely ask for key identifying information like addresses, dates of birth and driver’s license numbers, and they frequently enter people’s homes and other private spaces. </p>
<p>With the advent of police body cameras, this information is often captured in police video recordings – which some states’ open-records laws make available to the public. </p>
<p>Starting in the summer of 2014, as part of research on police adoption of body-worn cameras within two agencies in Washington state, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7kICf7kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I</a> spent hours <a href="https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol92/iss4/2">riding in patrol vehicles</a>, hanging out at police stations, <a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol96/iss5/8">interviewing officers</a>, observing police officers while they worked and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818786477">administering surveys</a>.</p>
<p>One of the most striking findings of my study was about the unintended effects of these cameras and associated laws. Body-worn cameras and freedom of information laws do enable oversight and accountability of the police. But, as I outline in my new book, “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520382909/police-visibility">Police Visibility: Privacy, Surveillance, and the False Promise of Body-Worn Cameras</a>,” they also hold the potential to force sensitive data and stressful episodes in private citizens’ lives into public view, easily accessible online.</p>
<h2>Accountability, with visibility</h2>
<p>Body-worn cameras have been issued to <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/program/body-worn-cameras-bwcs/overview">police all over the United States</a>, with a patchwork of regulations and laws governing their operation and the video they record. The goal is often to make officers accountable for their actions, though <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-29/police-body-cameras-why-don-t-they-improve-accountability">their effectiveness at doing so has been questioned</a>. </p>
<p>Opinions and laws also differ on <a href="https://theconversation.com/police-and-civilians-disagree-on-when-body-camera-footage-should-be-made-public-157111">when body camera footage should be made public</a>. And, even when it is, interpreting what the footage depicts <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-rodney-king-to-george-floyd-how-video-evidence-can-be-differently-interpreted-in-courts-159794">can be complicated</a>. Nevertheless, the cameras have the potential to make police work, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/us/brooklyn-center-police-shooting-minnesota.html">including misconduct and police violence</a>, more visible.</p>
<p>I found that within weeks of adopting body-worn cameras, the police agencies I studied began receiving requests under local and state public records laws, seeking all of the footage recorded. In response, the departments began to release the videos, under the provisions of <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/body-worn-cameras-interactive-graphic.aspx">state public records laws</a> with few – if any – redactions to protect citizens’ sensitive personal information. The primary instigator of these initial requests <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/05/the-body-cam-hacker-who-schooled-the-police/">posted the disclosed video to a publicly accessible YouTube channel</a>.</p>
<p>One patrol officer told me, “I personally would never provide my personal information to an officer with a camera. It all ends up on the internet. That is wrong and unsafe.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman gestures in a bedroom" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400591/original/file-20210513-20-6vorg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An image from body-worn camera footage recorded during a prostitution sting in Bellingham, Wash., which later appeared on YouTube.com. The young woman’s face is obscured in this image to help preserve her privacy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bryce Newell</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Say hi to the camera, honey!’</h2>
<p>One winter afternoon in 2015, I accompanied a Spokane, Washington police officer on a domestic violence call. After parking by the curb, we walked up the driveway to where a man was standing. </p>
<p>The officer I was shadowing turned on his body camera and informed the man that he had activated his camera and would be recording their conversation. </p>
<p>The man we had approached yelled down the driveway to his wife, “Smile and say hi to the camera, honey!” </p>
<p>The woman had allegedly taken a metal baseball bat and smashed in the man’s face across his eye. He had blood leaking from his eye and eyebrow and rolling down his nose and cheek. His eyebrow looked caved in; the bone was obviously broken. After a few minutes of questioning, the medics arrived and quickly rushed him to the ambulance. </p>
<p>The officer and I followed them to the ambulance, where the officer continued to question the injured man, seeking to get a statement or confession out of him on camera. His body camera continued to record everything in front of the officer, including the man and the inside of the ambulance.</p>
<p>When the ambulance left, we entered the home, where the woman was being questioned. The officer continued to record in case the woman might offer her own statement or confession.</p>
<p>Although much of what was recorded on the officer’s camera in this case occurred outside, within view of neighbors and others present on the street, it still was a traumatic, personal and embarrassing moment in the lives of both victim and alleged offender. </p>
<p>But the fact that a camera recorded it made these events much more visible, to a wider audience, for a longer time. Officers sometimes showed each other videos at the end of their shifts while writing reports, often to simply decompress after a long shift or bond with their colleagues. In addition, the footage could potentially become public under state open records laws at the time it was recorded.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Three images, one with a man with his arms spread wide, then the man running away, then a police officer with a Taser pointed at the man" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=146&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=146&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=146&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=184&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=184&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400593/original/file-20210513-21-tagp7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=184&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">These screen captures are from a body-worn camera video recorded during a police contact and foot chase in Bellingham, Wash. Faces have been obscured.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bryce Newell</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Maybe I should stop drinking’</h2>
<p>On another winter evening, I found myself standing inside another couple’s living room with two officers as the man and woman, separately, tried to explain why the wife had called 911 and accused the husband of threatening violence. </p>
<p>The husband was drunk – and drinking continuously while talking to the officer, who was wearing a camera on his chest. He told a rambling story about how much trouble his wife had caused him over the years, musing that perhaps he should leave her and move on, but perhaps he loves her. On the other hand, he said, she had caused him nothing but grief and made his life miserable. Moments later, he continued, “Maybe what I really should do is stop drinking,” and he took another sip from his beer can.</p>
<p>Even if he had been sober, he probably would not have realized that this conversation might end up on YouTube with virtually unlimited visibility. If he had, would he or his wife have let the police into their house in the first place? Would the wife even have called to report her husband’s threats? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A police officer gives a field sobriety test to a person" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400594/original/file-20210513-20-1ro1s3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This image is from body-worn camera footage of a field sobriety test in Bellingham, Wash., which later appeared on YouTube.com.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bryce Newell</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are potential social costs to deploying body-worn cameras, including possible invasions of privacy when sensitive moments are recorded or made public, and increasing police surveillance of communities already subjected to heightened police attention. When body cameras are introduced, careful attention to existing laws and policies, including public records laws, can help minimize harm to the public while increasing the transparency of police work. </p>
<p>As I discuss in <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520382909/police-visibility">my book</a>, one possible solution could be redacting personal information about victims, witnesses, bystanders and even suspects, as long as it is not related to law enforcement officer conduct. Other options include creating independent oversight groups to review footage before its release, giving victims and their families access to footage, and erring on the side of nondisclosure when body cameras record in private spaces or in particularly sensitive contexts. </p>
<p>I believe these are possible without limiting public access to procedural information about how officers conduct their activities, to enable oversight and accountability. </p>
<p>Just as <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cellphone-videos-of-black-peoples-deaths-should-be-considered-sacred-like-lynching-photographs-139252">videos of Black people’s deaths at the hands of the police should be treated with more care</a>, the decision to make police video that captures sensitive and traumatic moments of people’s lives public should be a measured and considered one. In my view, there is little need to force civilians onto the public stage simply because they are contacted by a police officer.</p>
<p>[<em>The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-need-to-know">Sign up for Politics Weekly</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160846/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bryce C. Newell received funding for some parts of this research from the University of Washington's Information School and the Dutch Research Council (NWO). </span></em></p>Police body cameras have the potential to make private details about people’s lives, including some of the most stressful experiences of their lives, public and easily accessible onlineBryce C. Newell, Assistant Professor of Media Law and Policy, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567782021-03-17T19:04:41Z2021-03-17T19:04:41ZWhat the drive for open science data can learn from the evolving history of open government data<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388530/original/file-20210309-19-91fsap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C53%2C6000%2C3934&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/open-signage-hanging-on-glass-door-of-vicinity-331990/">Kaique/Pexels</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nineteen years ago, a group of international researchers met in Budapest to discuss a persistent problem. While experts published an enormous amount of scientific and scholarly material, few of these works were accessible. New research remained locked behind paywalls run by academic journals. The result was researchers struggled to learn from one another. They could not build on one another’s findings to achieve new insights. In response to these problems, the group developed the <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/">Budapest Open Access Initiative</a>, a declaration calling for free and unrestricted access to scholarly journal literature in all academic fields.</p>
<p>In the years since, open access has become a priority for a growing number of <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-uc-split-publishing-giant-elsevier">universities</a>, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-policy/open-science_en">governments</a>, and <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/science-journals-offer-select-authors-open-access-publishing-free">journals</a>. But while access to scientific <em>literature</em> has increased, access to the scientific <em>data</em> underlying this research remains extremely limited. Researchers can increasingly see what their colleagues are doing but, in an era defined by the <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/27/17761466/psychology-replication-crisis-nature-social-science">replication crisis</a>, they cannot access the data to reproduce the findings or analyze it to produce new findings. In some cases there are good reasons to keep access to the data limited – such as confidentiality or sensitivity concerns – yet in many other cases data hoarding still reigns.</p>
<p>To make scientific research data open to citizens and scientists alike, open science data advocates can learn from open data efforts in other domains. By looking at the evolving history of the open government data movement, scientists can see both limitations to current approaches and identify ways to move forward from them.</p>
<h2>The three waves of open government data</h2>
<p>The term open data did not <a href="http://www.paristechreview.com/2013/03/29/brief-history-open-data/">appear</a> until 1995, but the movement to open government data has a longer history. With roots in mid-century freedom of information legislation, open data emerged first as an attempt to push the boundaries of transparency and accessibility. This approach, part of the “first wave of open data” centered on removing secrecy in response to specific inquiries. While it had value it was also limited. It primarily benefited journalists, lawyers, and activists – those with the time, resources, and expertise needed to regularly query the government with specific requests.</p>
<p>As the Internet moved into the <a href="https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html">Web 2.0 era</a> of the 2000s, new approaches began to emerge. Open government data came to be seen not just as a way to ensure accountability but a way to improve the processes of government itself. This second wave of open data prioritized problem solving.</p>
<p>It was, as former deputy chief technology officer for open government Beth Noveck once <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/beth_noveck_demand_a_more_open_source_government/transcript">noted</a>, “not about transparent government. Simply throwing data over the transom doesn’t change how government works. It doesn’t get anybody to do anything with that data to change lives, to solve problems, and it doesn’t change government. […] It’s not even producing accountability as well as it might if we took the next step of combining participation and collaboration with transparency to transform how we work.”</p>
<p>This conception allowed open government data to benefit a broader cohort, one that included civic technologists, governments, corporations, and start-ups. New York activists, for instance, <a href="https://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/144197004989/the-nypd-was-systematically-ticketing-legally">used</a> open government datasets to reveal improper ticketing practices by the New York Police Department. In Brazil, open datasets <a href="http://odimpact.org/case-brazils-open-budget-transparency-portal.html">supported</a> critical anti-corruption work. In Ghana, open data <a href="http://odimpact.org/case-ghanas-esoko.html">helped</a> smallholder farmers sell their crops at better prices.</p>
<p>Yet, this approach too had its limitations. Data could be released without a clear sense of how others would use it, leading to a large number of datasets about issues unimportant to the public. Meanwhile, the desire to release datasets often led to a focus on assets that already existed, which benefited large institutions (often national governments) over smaller ones with less resources (such as local governments).</p>
<p>Recognizing these limitations, <a href="https://opendatapolicylab.org/images/odpl/third-wave-of-opendata.pdf">a third wave of open data</a> has begun to emerge. This wave involves data holders across sectors and regions adopting a purpose-driven approach to making data accessible to the benefit of community-based organizations, NGOs, academics, and small businesses. It seeks not just to open data for the sake of opening but to use collaborations to re-use assets that will be impactful. By paying as much attention to the demand for data as the supply, it concerns itself with the broader context within which data is produced and consumed. What’s more, it asks how data held by businesses and other stakeholders can supplement those assets held by governments through data collaboratives..</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388522/original/file-20210309-23-1e1fjc5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Third Wave of open data will include a wider spectrum of openness and data types, including private-sector data. Among the main distinguishing features of this wave will be a greater effort to match supply and demand, and to target which datasets are released so to achieve maximum social impact.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://opendatapolicylab.org/images/odpl/third-wave-of-opendata.pdf">The GovLab</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This approach to data is still emerging but can be seen in many of the responses to Covid-19, which have relied heavily on collaborative methods. Efforts such as the NYC Recovery Data Partnership have combined public and private data assets on a local level to address public needs.</p>
<p>Much as the open government data movement has come to accept demand-driven, collaborative methods, so too can the movement to open science data. By recognizing the value of responding to more than just the “usual suspects,” advocates can open the possibility of new and innovative research on pressing issues in their fields. They can allow professionals in other fields and domains the chance to build on their research.</p>
<h2>Where to start</h2>
<p>Advocates of open research data can learn from the open government data movement. As the last three decades show, opening data requires credible action on behalf of researchers, data providers, and intermediaries to foster a data ecosystem that sustains and nurtures collaboration. It requires organizations to make real commitments to openness.</p>
<p>While these efforts will not be easy, our research at The GovLab points to several actions that organizations can take to foster an ecosystem that encourages openness. As we argue in our recent report, <a href="https://opendatapolicylab.org/images/odpl/third-wave-of-opendata.pdf"><em>The Third Wave of Open Data</em></a>, open data can flourish if organizations focus collectively on:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Fostering and Distributing Institutional Data Capacity</strong>: In the public sector, data science capacity has often been relegated to small teams within organizations. This tendency has meant that attempts to use data are often ad hoc and isolated, with work siloed according to the field or skills. Much like those government organizations that have embraced the third wave, open research data advocates can try to build a culture of learning in their institutions, encouraging professional development and training programs that help low-ranking and senior researchers alike (re)use data in their daily operations.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Articulating Value and Building an Impact Evidence Base</strong>: In earlier waves of the open government data movement, advocates often started and ended their calls for open data by emphasizing the norms of transparency or accountability. While not wrong, these arguments tended to be less compelling to officials and members of the public who wanted to understand the tangible ways open data would improve their lives. Learning from this experience, open science data advocates can compile clear and specific uses for open science data to demonstrate the ways it strengthens existing research methods.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Creating New Data Intermediaries</strong>: Collaborating with outside organizations can be costly in terms of time, resources, and labor. Organizations like <a href="https://opennorth.ca/">Open North</a>, <a href="https://brighthive.io/">BrightHive</a>, and StatsNZ’s <a href="https://dataventures.nz/">Data Ventures</a> have emerged to address these costs. These organizations help public-facing organizations engage with possible collaborators by ensuring data is interoperable, providing mechanisms to securely share assets, and building trust between parties. Similar organizations could prove useful for sharing open science data.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Establishing Governance Frameworks and Seeking Regulatory Clarity</strong>: A recent MIT survey <a href="https://mittrinsights.s3.amazonaws.com/AIagenda2020/GlobalAIagenda.pdf">found</a> that 64% of business executives in the United States are reluctant to embrace open data because of regulatory uncertainty. This statistic is telling Though a lack of regulation is often seen as offering organizations flexibility, the decades-long failure to develop policies around data reuse has instead disincentivized sharing. Just as organizations like the European Union have recently tried to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-strategy-data">develop</a> strategies to organize the reuse of public and private data stores, open science data advocates might develop similar policies, plans, and procedures laying out expectations concerning the data they use.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Creating Technical Infrastructure for Reuse</strong>: In many countries, open government datasets are facilitated by open data portals. Sites like <a href="https://www.data.gov/">data.gov</a> commingle various institutional datasets and allow users to browse, filter, search, and download data to their machines. While this approach can be used for open science data, additional technical infrastructure is likely for data users and suppliers to improve institutional capacity. As John Wilbanks of Sage Bionetworks <a href="https://medium.com/open-data-policy-lab/summer-of-open-data-panel-9-incentives-for-data-reuse-frameworks-for-collaboration-and-f020b0f87d71">has argued</a>, institutions might explore ways to subsidize computing capacity among target users and demographics, especially in fields where the datasets in question are prohibitively large and complex.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Fostering Public Data Competence</strong>: Open government data advocates in places like Taiwan have <a href="https://medium.com/open-data-policy-lab/summer-of-open-data-keynote-conversation-with-taiwans-audrey-tang-b6c1921e10bf">sought to encourage</a> data competence among the public. These leaders argue that anyone should be able to participate fully in data projects, not just as consumers but producers of data-driven solutions that can improve their lives. To encourage public involvement in scientific research and foster new and innovative applications of data, open science data advocates might seek out ways to engage with the public, such as through research challenges and <a href="https://the100questions.org/">participatory agenda-setting</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Tracking, Monitoring, and Clarifying Decision and Data Provenance</strong>: Decision provenance <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05741">entails</a> identifying decision points impacting data’s collection, processing, sharing, analysis, and (re)use to determine which parties influence it. As third wave advocates have come to understand, awareness of these decision points is crucial in proactively identifying gaps and biases, both of which can undermine project goals. As such, open science data practitioners might create processes that allow others to understand the context from which data emerged and the harms that might result from inadvertent use.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Creating and Empowering Data Stewards</strong>:Finally, a core aspect of open government data work amid the third wave has been acknowledgement that data sharing and collaboration needs leaders who can champion it. These data stewards – responsible data leaders empowered by organizations to identify opportunities for data sharing and seek new ways of creating public value – already <a href="https://opendatapolicylab.org/third-wave-of-open-data/">exist</a> in a number of public sector institutions, civil society organizations, and companies. To encourage the creation of similar leaders in research spaces, open science data advocates might create <a href="https://course.opendatapolicylab.org/">training courses</a> and <a href="http://datastewards.net/">professional networks</a> that encourage data stewardship skills.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Almost two decades since the Budapest Open Access Initiative, our understanding of science data has changed profoundly. As we enter a new decade, these changes can continue so long as they are shepharded by advocates committed to expanding access.</p>
<p>We at The GovLab encourage researchers, institutions, and others to look toward the example provided by the open data movement in government to transform the way they work. By learning from others and adopting their practices, open research data can be a possibility for any field.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328409/original/file-20200416-192725-wmbl1n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>This article is part of the series “Great Stories of Open Science” published with the support of the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. To learn more, visit <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/">Ouvrirlascience.fr</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefaan G. Verhulst has conducted research on open data that has been funded by Luminate, Omidyar Network, Rockefeller Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and Microsoft.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Zahuranec works for The GovLab. It receives funding from Luminate, The Omidyar Group, the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Microsoft for its open data work </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Young works for The GovLab. It receives funding from Luminate, The Omidyar Group, the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Microsoft for its open data work</span></em></p>By looking at the evolving history of the open government data movement, scientists can see both limitations to current approaches and identify ways to move forward from them.Stefaan G. Verhulst, Co-Founder and Chief Research and Development Officer of the Governance Laboratory (GovLab), New York UniversityAndrew J. Zahuranec, Research Fellow, The GovLabAndrew Young, Knowledge director, the Governance Lab, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1352912020-04-03T20:07:05Z2020-04-03T20:07:05ZGovernment secrecy is growing during the coronavirus pandemic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325094/original/file-20200402-74900-ofjxii.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s administration said it would reject all freedom of information requests -- and then reversed itself after public outcry.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Chicago-Mayor/4e8fd5d2ab4642c4848fb26a9e38a439/23/0">AP/Teresa Crawford</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Students at the University of Florida who want to know how they are being protected from the COVID-19 pandemic can’t find out.</p>
<p>The university is <a href="https://www.wuft.org/news/2020/03/27/unintended-consequences-lawmaker-says-he-never-meant-to-allow-florida-colleges-universities-to-hide-details-of-pandemic-response-plans/">hiding its emergency response plan</a> under a legal loophole intended to keep terrorists and enemy combatants – not viruses – from exploiting government weaknesses.</p>
<p>Since the spread of coronavirus accelerated in recent weeks, local, state and federal officials throughout the United States have locked down information from the public. Examples include:</p>
<p>The city of Palestine, Texas, <a href="https://www.palestineherald.com/community/virtual-meeting-may-have-violated-open-meetings-act/article_58ee940e-6e25-11ea-a4db-1f9c02e61620.html">banned a news reporter</a> from a city council meeting on March 23, even though fewer than a maximum of 10 people would be in the room, and did not allow the public to listen in on the meeting through a toll-free phone number, as required by state law.</p>
<p>The Council of the District of Columbia <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/statement-dc-covid-19-legislation/">decided</a> on March 19 that district employees do not have to respond promptly to public records requests any more.</p>
<p>The FBI <a href="https://efoia.fbi.gov/#home">no longer accepts</a> requests for information online or by email because of the virus. If anyone wants information they must mail their request, which ironically is more apt to pass along the virus.</p>
<p>Throughout the country, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/hospitals-tell-doctors-they-ll-be-fired-if-they-talk-to-press">journalists are barred from talking to staff</a> at public hospitals and locations serving the sick. And with administrators limiting access to the hospital itself, journalists are unable to tell the public what is happening. Precautions can be taken to protect the health of everyone concerned and protect the privacy of patients.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=188&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=188&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=188&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325089/original/file-20200402-74858-f1qj4l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=236&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Government agencies are closing down or slowing the public’s access to information.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.fbi.gov/">FBI</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Cloudy Week’?</h2>
<p>And this is just in the United States. The <a href="https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/3/25/Fake-news-peddlers-P1-million-fine-under-Duterte-special-powers.html">Philippines threatens</a> journalists with prison time for spreading false news about the virus, and the <a href="https://cpj.org/2020/03/the-torch-governments-crack-down-on-journalists.php">Committee to Protect Journalists</a> is tracking the arrests of reporters in Venezuela, Niger, India and elsewhere, regarding coronavirus coverage.</p>
<p>Ironically, most of these information crackdowns started in mid-March, during national <a href="http://sunshineweek.org/">Sunshine Week</a>, a time when news organizations and others promote citizens’ rights to access government information.</p>
<p>Some agencies are <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/fbi-limitng-foia-during-coronavirus-covid19">making the case</a> that responding to records requests is not an essential need or function. Research suggests that access to government information is indeed essential for our health and well-being. Studies have shown that making government information open leads to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069608000399">cleaner drinking water</a>, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J369v05n04_04">safer restaurant food</a>, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.12685">less corruption</a> and more <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1017/S0022381610000034?mobileUi=0&">confidence in government</a>.</p>
<p>James Hamilton, an economist from Stanford University, found that <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674545502">for every $1 spent by news organizations</a> on public records-based investigative reporting, the public derives $287 in benefits. The free flow of information makes for a better society and a better economy. It’s a smart return on investment.</p>
<p>Indeed, businesses use public information more than anyone else – <a href="https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/foia-inc-kwoka-vol65-iss7/">studies</a> have shown that at some federal agencies three-quarters of Freedom of Information Act requests are submitted by commercial interests. Maintaining a free flow of information actually greases the nation’s economic machine, which could be more important than ever given its state today.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325097/original/file-20200402-74863-k2dn1t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The City Council of Palestine, Texas, banned a reporter from a city council meeting on March 23 and did not allow the public to listen in on the meeting electronically.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cityofpalestinetx.com/government/city-council/">City of Palestine, Texas, screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Crisis as opportunity</h2>
<p>The recent information closures are reminiscent of actions immediately following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when <a href="https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol53/iss1/4/">governments closed massive amounts of information</a>, including records showing the dilapidated conditions of bridges and dams.</p>
<p>Rather than limiting public information, however, agencies can use this crisis as an opportunity to take governance to the next level – making government even more accessible to the public it serves.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nfoic.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/131%20Organizations%20Sign%20Statement%20on%20Government%20Coronavirus%20Emergency%20Transparency%20and%20Access%20March%2020%2C%202020.pdf">A statement signed by 132 nonprofits</a> from a broad spectrum of industries and political persuasions was issued on March 20, urging a measured response that serves the public interest. </p>
<p>“We strongly urge government branches and agencies to recommit to, and
not retrench from, their duty to include the public in the policy-making process, including policies relating to COVID-19 as well as the routine ongoing functions of governance,” the organizations wrote.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nfoic.org/">National Freedom of Information Coalition</a>, a nonprofit that provides education and research for citizens in acquiring government information, organized the statement. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Nx2xluMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I</a> serve as the coalition’s president, have <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/watch?hearingid=891D29A7-5056-A066-6027-F695186CBC6A">testified</a> before Congress several times regarding the Freedom of Information Act, teach classes on accessing information and publish <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10811680.2016.1216678">research</a> on the state of access in the United States.</p>
<p>Some of the recommendations included:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Postpone nonessential government business decisions until after the pandemic has subsided, when the public can once again fully engage.</p></li>
<li><p>Move necessary decisions online in live-streamed meetings accessible to all, including opportunities for public input and questions. Record the streams and post the recordings so people can view it later.</p></li>
<li><p>Do not conduct the public’s business via private channels, such as social media, texting and phone calls. (This <a href="https://apnews.com/ec1cb1c769b44236ade6ea8a524a94eb">holds true all the time</a>, but especially now.) All official communications should be preserved and made accessible to the public online.</p></li>
<li><p>Post documents and data online as a matter of course so people don’t have to request it and government workers don’t have to take the time to retrieve and disseminate them.</p></li>
<li><p>Officials can provide journalists greater access to hospitals and other health installations, applying safety precautions and protecting the privacy of victims.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Efforts to make government more accessible now can result in permanent improvements in the future, to better serve citizens who are homebound or too busy with work and child-rearing to attend a local government meeting.</p>
<p>Sometimes it takes a crisis to pull together and move forward, as citizens and government working together, fully engaged and well-informed.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: The University of Florida is a funder of The Conversation US.</em></p>
<p>[<em>Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=upper-coronavirus-facts">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.</a>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135291/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Cuillier is president of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, a nonprofit dedicated to education and research in citizens' access to government information. He also was commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to produce the March report "Mapping the Civic Data Universe: Ten Ways to Improve Access to Government Information Through Expanded Interstellar Connections," <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/reports/mapping-the-civic-data-universe/">https://knightfoundation.org/reports/mapping-the-civic-data-universe/</a></span></em></p>One more casualty of the coronavirus pandemic: open government. Since the crisis began, local, state and federal officials throughout the United States have locked down information from the public.David Cuillier, Associate Professor, School of Journalism, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1119562019-03-06T11:40:28Z2019-03-06T11:40:28ZUS takes tentative steps toward opening up government data<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261952/original/file-20190304-92298-1uc0ll9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Open data offers great promise, but also some risk.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/open-data-security-issues-key-golden-583784431">rawf8/shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the beginning of this year, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174/text">President Trump signed into law</a> the Open, Public, Electronic and Necessary Government Data Act, requiring that nonsensitive government data be made available in machine-readable, open formats by default.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://kelley.iu.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/profile.cshtml?id=ANGRAYMO">researchers</a> <a href="https://spea.indiana.edu/faculty-research/directory/profiles/faculty/full-time/cate-beth.html">who</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YtgRGx0AAAAJ&hl=en">study</a> data governance and cyber law, we are excited by the possibilities of the new act. But much effort is needed to fill in missing details – especially since these data can be used in unpredictable or unintended ways. </p>
<p>The federal government would benefit from considering lessons learned from open government activities in other countries and at state and local levels. </p>
<h2>Cracking the door toward open data</h2>
<p>Open government is the governing doctrine which holds that citizens have the right to access the documents and proceedings of the government to allow for effective public oversight. The doctrine has drawn increased attention in recent years, as a growing list of nations agree to participate in a global voluntary commitment towards democratic reforms, <a href="https://www.opengovpartnership.org/">via the Open Government Partnership initiative</a>. </p>
<p>America was one of the Open Government Partnership’s eight founding countries in 2011, and the Open Government Partnership was an outgrowth of domestic open government initiatives <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open">launched</a> in the first months of the Obama presidency.</p>
<p>In December 2009, Obama <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive">issued a directive</a> requiring federal agencies to proactively publish government information online in open formats and to take other steps toward building a culture of openness around data. </p>
<p>This initiative launched the <a href="http://data.gov">Data.gov</a> website that publishes government databases, as well as <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov">WeThePeople.gov</a>, for petitioning the government; <a href="http://challenge.gov">Challenge.gov</a>, for competing to help the government solve problems; and <a href="http://USASpending.gov">USASpending.gov</a>, disclosing and tracking the federal budget. </p>
<p>Open government data have already produced <a href="https://www.data.gov/impact/">direct impacts</a> on Americans’ daily lives. For example, detailed city profiles offer information such as demographics, crime rates, weather patterns and home values. These data, in turn, allow developers to build more robust applications for individuals, such as a health inspection score app or <a href="https://www.accuweather.com/">AccuWeather</a>, which provides minute-by-minute precipitation forecasts.</p>
<p>Because the Obama administration’s efforts toward openness were driven by executive orders and not legislation, they faced possible rollback by later administrations. The Trump administration’s early removal of <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-web-pages-erased-and-obscured-under-trump/">climate science-related data</a> on agency websites, for example, raised concerns among researchers and others about its commitment to transparency and accountability.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261953/original/file-20190304-92292-atk8k3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">After the Trump administration took office, some pages on climate change, among other topics, were removed from the White House website.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation US</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Trump administration has, however, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/fueling-american-innovation-economic-growth-open-data/">recognized the value</a> of government data for driving innovation and economic growth, holding federal grantees accountable and improving the effectiveness of public services. </p>
<h2>Enter the OPEN Government Data Act</h2>
<p>The OPEN Government Data Act, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174">signed into law on Jan. 14</a>, enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress and built directly on the Obama era agenda for openness. </p>
<p>Taking effect in January 2020, the act requires government agencies to make their data freely and publicly available in open formats and machine-readable, unless other considerations – such as intellectual property, privacy or national security concerns – indicate otherwise. </p>
<p>Agencies must also develop strategic plans for managing their data; develop a comprehensive and metadata-enriched inventory of their data, minus some national security-related data; and appoint a chief data officer to manage agency data and maximize its value to the government and the public. </p>
<p>In February, the White House issued America’s fourth <a href="https://open.usa.gov/assets/files/NAP4-fourth-open-government-national-action-plan.pdf">National Action Plan</a>. This plan echoes the OPEN Government Data Act and emphasizes the need to make federally funded science publicly available in the interest of economic growth, innovation and public health.</p>
<h2>A change in culture</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.federaltimes.com/it-networks/2019/02/07/what-comes-after-legally-mandated-open-data/">As Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer of Washington said</a> in an interview to Federal Times, “Passing the OPEN Government Data Act was a big step, but it wasn’t the last step.” </p>
<p>While the law requires that all agencies designate a nonpolitical chief data officer, only a few agencies currently have filled this role. Even the existence of a data officer does not guarantee success; the key will be whether the data officers can build a robust agency culture of data sharing and openness.</p>
<p>“There’s, I think, naturally, a tendency within government or any other large institution to favor risk aversion and opacity,” Christian Troncoso, policy director at Business Software Alliance, <a href="https://www.fedscoop.com/future-open-government-data-act-relies-largely-cdos/">commented to Fedscoop.com</a>. “People take a sort of siloed view of what they’re working on and don’t necessarily appreciate the fact that the data they may be generating in the course of a project could also be helpful to their colleagues within the agency, certainly, but then to their colleagues across government as well.” </p>
<p>Several features of the act are designed to promote data sharing and best practices in data management. For example, the Office of Management and Budget must create guidance for agencies and a council of agency chief data officers, and collaborate with others to build an online repository of open data tools and standards. </p>
<p>But, in practice, the act may still leave significant room for agency discretion in judging data to be restricted or too costly or not worth making open. This could lead to serious gaps in open data. While open government data is a lofty goal, without coordinated implementation, it may suffer from unrealized potential.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261955/original/file-20190304-92286-oqmxgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Open data could lead to privacy issues, as shown in a 2014 study on New York City taxi data.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/grand-central-along-42nd-street-traffic-102953573">dibrova/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Keeping data secure</h2>
<p>The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to walk a fine line between making data as open as possible, but as closed as necessary due to, for example, <a href="https://www.theagilityeffect.com/en/article/open-data-cyber-security-impossible-equation/">cybersecurity</a> concerns over sensitive information. </p>
<p>Federal law already limits some disclosures. For example, under <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5215">the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act</a>, statistical agencies face strict rules for protecting personally identifiable information. Employees at agencies such as the Census Bureau face fines and potential jail time for improper disclosure of data. </p>
<p>Existing laws have contributed to a culture of withholding data when sensitive data are present within the data set. But the OPEN Act could lead to new tensions between openness and privacy, because expanding the universe of open data increases the risk that data that appear anonymized will become personally identifiable.</p>
<p>For example, in 2014, a London researcher <a href="https://skift.com/2014/04/16/london-transports-bike-share-privacy-slip-raises-concerns/">was able to trace an individual’s movements</a> from Transport for London’s open data. With just a little more information, the researcher claims he could have easily identified the individual. </p>
<p>In 2014, another group of researchers successfully <a href="https://research.neustar.biz/author/atockar/">deanonymized New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission data</a>. The researchers were able to track specific taxi medallion numbers and, in some cases, specific passenger trips. </p>
<p>While these instances were part of a small number of reported concerns, we are concerned how other data releases may lead to unintended consequences, such as open data being used to track the movements of individuals. Appropriately, the OPEN Government Data Act calls on OMB and agencies to consider the risks of reidentification from data pooling as they carry out their open data activities. </p>
<p>But, it seems to us that truly deidentifying data is an increasingly elusive goal. The act also requires agencies to collect and analyze information on how their data are being used. While this makes sense in the broader context of maximizing the usefulness of government data, it raises its own privacy issues. Implementation choices will be key – and the role of data officers will be critical.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111956/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Cate received funding from The Privacy Projects in connection with the production of a chapter on the Supreme Court's information privacy jurisprudence, for inclusion in Bulk Surveillance: Systematic Government Access to Private Sector Data, James X. Dempsey and Fred H. Cate eds. (Oxford Univ. Press 2018). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anjanette Raymond and Scott Shackelford do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new act requires that all nonsensitive government data be made available publicly by January 2020. But the plan could open up new privacy issues.Anjanette Raymond, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Director, Program on Data Management and Information Governance, Ostrom Workshop, Indiana UniversityBeth Cate, Clinical Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityScott Shackelford, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Director, Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance; Cybersecurity Program Chair, IU-Bloomington, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1076452019-01-02T23:55:00Z2019-01-02T23:55:00ZWith election ahead, we need to make public records truly public<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252049/original/file-20181228-47319-pxxs1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Easy access to government documents is essential to a healthy democracy. As a federal election approaches, Canada needs to do better.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Citizens require access to public records in order to become properly informed about the activities of their governments and to provide sound feedback on government policies, plans and programs. </p>
<p>However, many Canadian citizens have learned through experience that <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-1/page-1.html">freedom of information (FOI) legislation</a> is not properly serving citizens. </p>
<p>As a result, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-information-commissioner-says-her-office-at-breaking-point-1.4954627">they lack information</a> and informed interactions with their elected representatives, and are reduced to musing about public affairs with other citizens.</p>
<p>As a federal election year dawns, an alternative approach is needed — and soon, because the relationship between citizens and governments is under serious challenge. Claims of “fake news” are too often displacing discussions that are based on evidence. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-real-consequences-of-fake-news-81179">The real consequences of fake news</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>An alternative approach is readily available, whereby citizens have access to public records in a manner consistent with living in a free and democratic society, and the principles of transparency and accountability of governments are more than just buzzwords.</p>
<h2>Failure to provide access</h2>
<p>Let’s focus on access to the records of municipal governments, which are often claimed to be the governments closest to the people, and which have the most direct impact on citizens. </p>
<p>The 2018 municipal election campaign in Ontario serves as an excellent case in point. Citizens, <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/04/27/court-finds-tribunal-secrecy-unconstitutional-in-response-to-star-challenge.html">journalists</a> and candidates <a href="https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/news-story/8967338-niagara-region-recognized-as-canada-s-most-secretive-municipal-government/?s=e">have faulted municipal governments</a> for failing to provide appropriate access to municipal records including budget documents, project contracts, police service reports and development proposals.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, freedom-of-information legislation has proven of little value to citizens. </p>
<p>Access to records is limited to what governments provide. Making a request and learning its status <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/information-access-complaint-attaran-maynard-human-rights-delay-request-backlog-1.4662604">are often frustrating exercises.</a> The cost can be prohibitively expensive for many citizens. Responses are often sub-standard and useless compared to what citizens could ascertain if given proper access or opportunities to analyze files.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252048/original/file-20181228-47298-1s1xejw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A voter casts his ballot in the New Brunswick provincial election in Dieppe, N.B. in September 2018. Effective freedom-of-information legislation would allow Canadians to make informed decisions when it comes time to vote.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darren Calabrese</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To put the failure of FOI legislation in context, and underline the urgent need for a new approach, <a href="https://historyofrights.ca/encyclopaedia/main-events/freedom-information/">freedom-of-information discussions began more than 50 years ago.</a> </p>
<p>Two major forces behind the movement were the digital technology revolution and activist members of society who insisted upon knowing what governments were up to.</p>
<p>The digital revolution began with mainframe computers as the base for electronic data processing, followed by numerous innovations in computers and communications, remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS), with offshoots such as listening devices and tracking capabilities for surveillance.</p>
<p>Freedom-of-information concerns did not initially focus on the technology, but on the rapid increases in the capacity of governments to acquire and use data, information and knowledge about people, entities and events in an increasing variety of ways.</p>
<h2>The subject of a British comedy</h2>
<p>Thirty-five years ago, technology and freedom of information received popular attention from the <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/">British TV series <em>Yes, Minister</em></a> and <em>Yes, Prime Minister</em> and from the movie <em>Big Brother Is Watching You</em>, based on George Orwell’s 1949 novel, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PLsHxJm9Y"><em>Nineteen Eighty-Four</em></a>. </p>
<p>“Open Government,” the first episode of <em>Yes, Minister,</em> brilliantly dismissed the idea of allowing British citizens to access the central government’s records:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/40Br165MhLU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">BBC Archives.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The phrase, “Big brother is watching you,” meantime, summarizes many of the concerns about technology enabling authoritarian and even totalitarian initiatives almost 70 years after Orwell’s dystopian novel was published.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252047/original/file-20181228-47313-hwkla6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">American street artist Shepard Fairey’s Big Brother posters are seen in London in 2007.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tim Rich/Lesley Katon, Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Public activists, on the other hand, put emphasis on questioning how we are being governed, and their advocacy for open government is based on several principles: A duty to know what governments are doing; timely access to government records; and, since government records are bought and paid for by citizens through taxes, fees, tolls, fares, fines, levies, etc., access to records is a right.</p>
<p>These beliefs are pillars of citizens’ open government movements, and point to five conditions that I believe are necessary, and readily achievable, to significantly improve citizens’ access to government records. </p>
<h2>Five requirements</h2>
<p><strong>–</strong> Free access. Charging fees for access is gouging, because citizens have already paid governments to produce these records.</p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Easy access. “User-friendly” includes removing bureaucratic hurdles that waste citizens’ time. Google, for example, demonstrates how to design intuitive access procedures that are easy to use. </p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Timely access. Efficient searches occur when keywords lead to the links for reports, images and other records, including data and information bases. At the municipal level, timely access involves links to maps and other geographic information because approximately 80 to 85 per cent of municipal data and information holdings are based on location.</p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Direct access. Fifty years ago banking changed significantly due to automated teller machines (ATMs), with mobile devices leading to more changes. Banking shifted from moving paper and metal currency into the information-processing business, and is a highly credible precedent for governments to provide citizens direct access to public records.</p>
<p><strong>–</strong> Online access. Governments already inform Canadians via websites, and there are many reasons for governments to better serve citizens via online access to public records.</p>
<p>The right to free, easy, timely and direct online access to public records is a defining feature of a free and democratic society, and represents an invaluable hallmark of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s time that right actually existed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I initially received funding related to this topic beginning about 50 years ago while in graduate school, and received related funding for many years as researcher, consultant, and expert witness, but I am not currently affiliated with any organization.
</span></em></p>As a Canadian federal election year dawns, an alternative approach to freedom-of-information legislation is an urgent need.Barry Wellar, Professor Emeritus, Geography and Environmental Studies, and President, Information Research Board, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/971592018-05-24T15:42:07Z2018-05-24T15:42:07ZAppeals court rules against Trump blocking critics on Twitter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220302/original/file-20180524-51135-12psfdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1661%2C0%2C4329%2C3314&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The president uses his Twitter feed to make official announcements.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Tapes/5fc411a2244247fe8c316566d50d1fa6/203/0">AP Photo/J. David Ake</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A federal appeals court in New York has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/twitter-trump-appeals-court/index.html">upheld a lower court’s ruling</a> that <a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf">President Donald Trump cannot block people</a> from following or viewing his <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> Twitter account. While the case could be appealed further to the U.S. Supreme Court, the upheld decision is a resounding victory for the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a> right of citizens to speak to and disagree with government officials in the social media era.</p>
<p>The appeals court’s ruling is not a surprise to me, as director of the <a href="http://firstamendment.jou.ufl.edu">Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project</a> at the <a href="http://www.ufl.edu">University of Florida</a>. That’s because it, like the lower court decision it upholds, is grounded in the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397">well-established principles</a> of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">protecting political speech</a> and <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2017/9/2017-supreme-court-review-1.pdf">barring government discrimination</a> against <a href="https://theconversation.com/first-amendment-lawsuit-says-president-trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-he-doesnt-like-79074">people engaged in public discourse</a> <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf">based on their viewpoints</a>. </p>
<p>The district court judge found that Trump blocked Twitter followers from his account “<a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf">indisputably … [as] a result of viewpoint discrimination</a>.” The appeals court agreed, finding that Trump “<a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2019.07.09_Opinion.pdf">engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination</a> by utilizing Twitter’s ‘blocking’ function.” In other words, Trump cannot block people simply because they criticize him or his policies.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"874599756143755264"}"></div></p>
<p>That issue was never really in question in this case, though. The main debate was whether the president’s personal Twitter account was a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums">public forum</a> governed by the First Amendment. More traditional public forums are physical places owned by the government, such as sidewalks, parks and auditoriums. Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a <a href="http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13012">compelling government interest</a>. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.</p>
<p>The district court’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/magazine/dan-scavino-the-secretary-of-offense.html">White House social media director Dan Scavino</a> – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “<a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf">from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets</a>,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.</p>
<p>Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the district court judge found that “<a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf">the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account</a> as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.</p>
<p>The appeals court agreed on both points, saying, “<a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2019.07.09_Opinion.pdf">the First Amendment does not permit a public official</a> who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”</p>
<p>This decision brings the Supreme Court’s longstanding free speech doctrine into the social media era.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published May 24, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97159/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clay Calvert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Twitter account used for official purposes is a public forum protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled.Clay Calvert, Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/927242018-03-13T15:25:48Z2018-03-13T15:25:48ZCould the open government movement shut the door on Freedom of Information?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210004/original/file-20180312-30961-1wb53gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One government transparency movement may now be threatened by the other</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For democracy to work, citizens need to know what their government is doing. Then they can hold government officials and institutions accountable.</p>
<p>Over the last 50 years, Freedom of Information – or FOI – laws have been one of the most useful methods for citizens to learn what government is doing. These state and federal laws give <a href="http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws">people the power to request</a>, and get, government documents. From everyday citizens to journalists, FOI laws have proven a powerful way to uncover the often-secret workings of government.</p>
<p>But a potential threat is emerging – from an unexpected place – to FOI laws. </p>
<p>We are scholars of government administration, ethics and transparency. And our research leads us to believe that while FOI laws have always faced many challenges, including <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/us-law/blacked-out-government-secrecy-information-age">resistance, evasion, </a> and poor <a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16520">implementation and enforcement</a>, the last decade has brought a different kind of challenge in the form of a new approach to transparency.</p>
<h2>Technology rules</h2>
<p>The new kid on the block is the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7844280.stm">open government</a> movement. And despite the fact that it shares a fundamental goal with the more established FOI movement – government transparency – the open government movement threatens to harm FOI by cornering the already limited public and private funding and government staffing available for transparency work.</p>
<p>The open government movement is <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=yhrdlj">driven by technology</a> and seeks to make government operate in the open in as many ways as possible. </p>
<p>This includes not just letting citizens request information, as in FOI, but by making online information release an everyday routine of government. It also tries to open up government by including citizens more in designing solutions to public policy problems. </p>
<p>One example of this hands-on approach is through <a href="https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/">participatory budgeting initiatives</a>, which allows citizens to help decide, via online and in-person information sharing and meetings, how part of the public budget is spent. Thus, while open government and FOI advocates both want government transparency, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X10000663">open government</a> is a broader concept that relies more on technology and encourages more public participation and collaboration. </p>
<p>One type of open government initiative is data portals, such as <a href="https://www.data.gov/">Data.gov</a>. Governments post lots of data that anyone can access and download for free on topics such as the environment, education and public safety. </p>
<p>Another popular open government reform is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing asks the general public to come up with ideas to solve government problems or collect data for government projects. Two popular crowdsourcing initiatives in the U.S. are Challenge.gov and citizen science projects, such as the ones for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/citizen-science">Environmental Protection Agency</a> where citizens are testing water quality.</p>
<p>Advocates of FOI and open government talk about them in similar ways and indeed participate in many of the same initiatives such as the <a href="https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/ogp-steering-committee/civil-society-members">Open Government Partnership</a>. That initiative is a global partnership of countries that develop multiple types of open government practices like anti-corruption programs, open budgets or crowdsourcing events. </p>
<h2>Movements complement each other</h2>
<p>The open government movement could help FOI implementation. Government information posted online, which is a core goal of open government advocates, can reduce the number of FOI requests. Open government <a href="https://www.opengovpartnership.org/theme/access-information">initiatives</a> can explicitly promote FOI by encouraging the passage of FOI laws, offering more training for officials who fill FOI requests, and developing technologies to make it easier to process and track FOI requests.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210006/original/file-20180312-30969-1k4ug89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s a lot to the Freedom of Information Act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">U.S. Department of Justice</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, the relationship between open government and FOI may not always be positive in practice. </p>
<p>First, as with all kinds of public policy issues, resources – both money and political attention – are inherently scarce. Government officials now have to divide their attention between FOI and other open government initiatives. And funders now have to divide their financial resources between FOI and other open government initiatives.</p>
<p>Second, the open government reform movement as well as the FOI movement have long depended on nonprofit advocacy groups – from the <a href="https://www.nfoic.org/">National Freedom of Information Coalition</a> and its state affiliates to <a href="https://sunlightfoundation.com/">the Sunlight Foundation</a> – to obtain and disseminate government information. This means that the financial stability of those nonprofit groups is crucial. But their efforts, as they grow, may each only get a shrinking portion of the total amount of grant money available. <a href="http://www.freedominfo.org/2018/01/editorial-note-readers/">Freedominfo.org</a>, a website for gathering and comparing information on FOI laws around the world, had to suspend its operations in 2017 due to resources drying up. </p>
<p>We believe that priorities among government officials and good government advocates may also shift away from FOI. At a time when open data is “hot,” FOI programs could get squeezed as a result of this competition. Further, by allowing governments to claim credit for more politically convenient reforms such as online data portals, the open government agenda may create a false sense of transparency – there’s a lot more government information that isn’t available in those portals. </p>
<p>This criticism was leveled recently against <a href="https://sunlightfoundation.com/2013/09/23/why-kenyas-open-data-portal-is-failing-and-why-it-can-still-succeed/">Kenya</a>, whose government launched a high-profile open data portal for publishing data on government performance and activities in 2011, yet delayed passage of an FOI law until 2016. </p>
<p>Similarly, in the United Kingdom, <a href="http://www.information-age.com/francis-maude-id-like-to-make-foi-redundant-2111138/">one government minister said in 2012,</a> “I’d like to make Freedom of Information redundant, by pushing out so much data that people won’t have to ask for it.” </p>
<h2>Open data, no substitute for FOI</h2>
<p><a href="https://webfoundation.org/2015/07/why-is-the-uks-review-of-the-freedom-of-information-act-a-cause-for-concern/">But the World Wide Web Foundation</a>, the founder of the global open data ranking system called the <a href="https://opendatabarometer.org/">Open Data Barometer</a>, reported in 2015 that the United Kingdom government was using its first place ranking in the Barometer to “justify a (government) mandate to review, and allegedly limit, the Freedom of Information Act.” </p>
<p>Open government programs not mandated by law are easier to roll back than legislatively mandated FOI programs. In the U.S., the Trump administration took down the White House <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/14/trump-admin-killing-open-data-portal/">open data portal</a>. The move was immediately condemned by open government advocates, to no avail. In other cases, new open government efforts could hinder existing FOI implementation due to a limited number of staff members assigned to transparency work. </p>
<p>One indication of this is a 2015 <a href="http://cidac.org/los-retos-de-implementar-una-ley-de-transparencia/">Mexican</a> <a href="http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/politica/2017/05/5/dan-prorroga-sujetos-para-transparentar-su-informacion">reform</a> that increased the categories of information that government agencies were required to post in the online <a href="http://www.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/web/guest/sistema-portales">Portal de Obligaciones de Transparencia</a>. </p>
<p>But the job of identifying and digitizing this information was given to agencies’ existing FOI response units – without any additional staff or resources. This led to severe <a href="http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/entrada-de-opinion/articulo/carlos-matute/nacion/2017/05/5/la-plataforma-nacional-de-transparencia-y">administrative burdens</a> and, in some cases, <a href="http://diagnostico-transparencia.cide.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Informe_INAI_20170928.pdf">slower response times</a> to FOI requests. Meanwhile, the updated portal was criticized for a <a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/490390/dia-internacional-los-archivos-poco-festejar">complicated interface</a> and <a href="http://www.proceso.com.mx/500269/nosotrxs-exige-aclaracion-al-inai-evitar-sesgos-politicos">unreliable</a> or <a href="http://www.sinembargo.mx/22-08-2017/3290756">missing</a> information.</p>
<p>Is it possible for open government and FOI to avoid the mistakes seen in the Mexican case? Some experts are optimistic. <a href="http://www.thegovlab.org/beth-noveck.html">Beth Simone Noveck</a>, who served as the first United States deputy chief technology officer and director of the White House Open Government Initiative from 2009 to 2011, <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=yhrdlj">suggests</a> that “in the long term, FOIA and open data may themselves converge as we move to a future where all government data sits in a secure but readily-accessible cloud.” </p>
<p>Such a happy convergence would require a commitment by government to have any new or merged systems reflect the goals of both FOI and open government. That would mean a system that both supported existing avenues for transparency while also adding new ones. As scholars, we are unclear which direction government will take and thus, whether the public interest will ultimately be served.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>During Sunshine Week, three scholars of government transparency look at a potential collision between the old freedom of information movement and the new open government movement. Is there room for both?Suzanne J. Piotrowski, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), Rutgers University - NewarkAlex Ingrams, Assistant Professor, Tilburg UniversityDaniel Berliner, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/825832017-09-12T09:57:15Z2017-09-12T09:57:15ZResponsive leaders needed to encourage citizen participation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182677/original/file-20170820-11827-12422io.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C0%2C988%2C531&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Communicative and responsive leaders could well be the main ingredient for citizens to participate.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Indonesia’s central government seems to understand, at least in principle, that communication between government and citizens should go both ways. But <a href="http://cipg.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MAVC_CIPGv2_Final_online.pdf">our research</a> shows the government isn’t always responding to complaints from it’s citizens, so the communication is sometimes only one way. </p>
<p>In 2011 the government set up a nation-wide complaint system called <a href="https://lapor.go.id/">LAPOR!</a> as part of the <a href="http://www.opengovindonesia.org/">Open Government Indonesia</a> project. The system allows citizens to send reports through a <a href="https://lapor.go.id/">website</a>, via text messages and a mobile app.</p>
<p>It’s aimed at pushing government openness and transparency, to enhance participation from citizens in politics. LAPOR! is useful for public officials to enhance their responses to problems. Meanwhile citizens can also use it to hold their officials accountable.</p>
<p>However if this system is to truly work and create trust, the government needs to learn from these initial failings. It could take some hints from local government leaders on this.</p>
<h2>Tale of two regencies</h2>
<p>In 2012, the central government started to trial LAPOR! in three areas, including in Indragiri Hulu, a regency in Riau. Some other areas also implemented LAPOR! through their own initiatives. Bojonegoro, East Java is one of them. </p>
<p><a href="http://cipg.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MAVC_CIPGv2_Final_online.pdf">Our research</a> assessed whether LAPOR! was working at the local level in both Indragiri Hulu and Bojonegoro. We found its implementation left a lot to be desired. </p>
<p>Not many people in Indragiri Hulu actually knew the system existed. Only 26% of of people we surveyed there in 2016 were aware of it. </p>
<p>It also seemed the Indragiri Hulu administration was reluctant to accommodate citizens’ complaints. For example, within 2015 Indragiri Hulu received 250 complaints but in average only 64,7% were responded to. </p>
<p>Despite the existence of LAPOR! the citizens of Indragiri Hulu had very limited interactions with the local government. Some citizens were even unaware of their basic rights as citizens. For example <a href="http://cipg.or.id/four-stories-complaint-handling-systems-indonesia/">many didn’t have identification cards</a> and so were excluded from services such as national health insurance.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in Bojonegoro citizens and the government are actively communicating with each other. The regent, Suyoto, not only introduced LAPOR! but also other programs that allow citizens to directly engage with him. </p>
<p>Every week, Sutoyo opens his house for “Dialog Jumat” or Friday Dialogue. Here, citizens can freely express their concerns directly to the regent and other governing officials. </p>
<p>There’s no prior registration required, they simply have to attend. It’s also broadcast live every Friday on the official Dialog Jumat website and via Radio Malowopati. </p>
<p>With a population of 1.2 million, this region’s active LAPOR! users made a total of 1,671 incoming complaints (as of 2016). A <a href="http://cipg.or.id/four-stories-complaint-handling-systems-indonesia/">Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance’s survey in 2016</a> also suggests that 44% of Bojonegoro citizens received feedback from these reports within seven days. However the same percentage never received any response from the relevant government department. So there’s a need to improve the overall response of the program. </p>
<p>In addition to LAPOR! and Dialog Jumat, a group also formed in Bojonegoro called the Information Society Group (Kelompok Informasi Masyarakat). This is a group of bloggers who act as citizen journalists to strengthen the cooperation between the government and local communities. </p>
<p>These different arenas enable citizens to be heard by the government, generating mutual trust whilst eliminating the distance between the two sides. In the case of Bojonegoro, increased government response has also enhanced citizens’ enthusiasm to complain - and participate. </p>
<h2>Complaining is participating</h2>
<p>It may sound counter-intuitive, but complaining to the government is actually a form of citizen participation. It can be a major driver to strengthen democracy and government accountability. </p>
<p>In the context of Indonesia’s history, complaining to the government goes beyond participation. Citizens who complain actually have the power to transform government. </p>
<p>Having experienced feudalism prior to independence and dictatorship under the New Order regime, complaining redefines the interaction between the Indonesian state and its citizens by reforming the roles and expectations between the two. </p>
<p>The transitional Reformasi period, after the fall of New Order, became a training ground for the state to respect and protect citizens freedom of speech and expression and for citizens to claim these rights. </p>
<p>To really embed democracy into daily life, citizens should exercise their rights. Complaining about public service is just one of them. </p>
<h2>Leaders matter</h2>
<p>The stories from Indragiri Hulu and Bojonegoro show that it’s not enough to set up an information technology-based complaint system to open up communication channels between the government and citizens. Complaint systems will fail to build trust if bureaucracies are unresponsive. </p>
<p>Even though its introduction is no guarantee for better institutional response, complaint mechanisms allow citizens to channel their aspirations for government, and so it’s a first step towards trust building. </p>
<p>But as we have seen in our research, communicative and responsive leaders could well be the main ingredient for citizens to participate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82583/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fajri Siregar receives funding from LPDP (Indonesia) and DAAD (Indonesia).</span></em></p>Complaint systems, such as the government initiative LAPOR!, will fail to build trust if bureaucracies are unresponsive.Fajri Siregar, Executive Director, Centre for Innovation Policy and GovernanceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/801842017-07-01T02:54:19Z2017-07-01T02:54:19ZCanada in 150 years: People power will shake up society<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176479/original/file-20170630-9576-oubox9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C135%2C3775%2C2615&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The future of citizenship is more distributed, interactive and local than dealing with central government through new technology. That may be sad news for those who wish to interact with the likes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in virtual reality if not in person.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=93&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=trudeau%20and%20technology&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED27AEA6EAB315B987A8EB1B023AB80A6779EEECB0F082709652BF4B180AE6F446F48ACB7DB1B8CDE7E37BF497D18515FAB7C57815DF9C7E71E1737892DD5BA3F690925AF21DC8828E055D9B15C804EE2539B910651727E2C0824659CEF5EB788C838F5F328CE42AFA780F6B4F506D717E148A6BC204AFB38682B06DD3E64BFE1C61602AC54D7513C1F5">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: 2017 marks the sesquicentennial of Confederation. While the anniversary is a chance to reflect on the past, The Conversation Canada asked some of our academic authors to look down the road a further 150 years — or “Canada +150”. Curtis McCord, who researches information systems, predicts technology will further expand our ability to understand politics and engage in political action.</em></p>
<p>Nothing is certain in the next 150 years — not even the future of our democracy. Coming to grips with the tragedies of a colonial past and uncertainties of our present is a challenge for many of us. </p>
<p>Rather than wondering what will be, we should wonder what could be: Our political horizons will be set by hard work and co-operation, not a track guaranteed by any technology or imagined destiny. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, cultural change sparked by social movements and aided by technology can empower citizens. They can shape their country’s destiny as part of daily life, rather than at a voting booth once every few years.</p>
<p>Much of our knowledge, practices and trades are changing with technology and we must also adapt. This applies in our personal, professional and public lives as we express our citizenship. I have dedicated the last three years to researching how technology shapes our citizenship. </p>
<p>I believe we ought to strive for a country in which citizens are empowered and autonomous, and where our government is more democratic and responsive to our needs. Advances in artificial intelligence, <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/we-live-inside-the-machine-now-the-arrival-of-ubiquitous-computing/article9834737/?page=all">ubiquitous computing</a> and data-gathering will accompany these developments, but effective democracy requires deeper cultural change.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C1183%2C1095&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176477/original/file-20170630-8214-108i3hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Technology and societal change will transform the nature of citizenship and government in Canada.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-leaf-maple-electronic-illustration-eps-84166651">(Shutterstock)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most people engage in citizenship through acts such as voting, obtaining and using passports, and interacting with government services. This transactional approach puts citizenship in the background of our social and work lives. </p>
<p>The most tangible advances in Canadian democracy will not come from applying new technologies to existing models. They will come by re-evaluating how we use technology to relate to the shared project of governance. This means understanding that the ways in which technology mediates our citizenship often sets the limits of what kinds of citizenship we have. </p>
<p>Digitization of services — sometimes called eGovernment or digital government — follows the same kinds of trends as corporate information systems. They make our relationship with our government one of client and service-provider. The result is a trade-off: eGovernment attempts to do justice to the financial responsibilities of the state, but does not foster a sense of shared ownership included in a deeper understanding of democratic citizenship. </p>
<h2>Reinventing citizenship</h2>
<p>Expressions of citizenship go beyond delegating responsibility to politicians. Canadians take causes into their own hands, ranging from the <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.ca/">redressing of systemic injustices</a>, <a href="https://www.cycleto.ca/">advocating for urban cyclists</a> to <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2017/06/broadband-bruce-fighting-canada-digital-divide-170614123247706.html">building community internet infrastructure for under-served communities</a>. We are living through a shift towards increasingly networked and citizen-led expressions of participation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176480/original/file-20170630-8514-1kiabqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Black Lives Matter movement is one example of how people are increasingly expressing and exercising their citizenship.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=12&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=black%20and%20lives%20and%20matter%20and%20toronto%20and%20(FQYFD%20contains(20160630~~21000101))&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED27AEA6EAB315B987A8EB1B023AB80A6779EEECB0F082709652BF4B180AE6F446F48ACB7DB1B8CDE7E37BF497D18515FAB7C57815DF9C7E71E1737892DD5BA3F690A3D27F4B84A88068193EE6609EB5B892B910651727E2C0824659CEF5EB788C838F5F328CE42AFA780F6B4F506D717E148A6BC204AFB38682B06DD3E64BFE1C61602AC54D7513C1F5">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mark Blinch)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We must redesign state institutions to accommodate these efforts and make the relationship between citizens and governments more nuanced, immediate, and fair. The seeds of change exist already. They are demonstrated in the growth of policy and practice to allow greater citizen participation and scrutiny — open government. </p>
<p>The goals of open government are often realized through online public consultations. They enable citizens to participate in decisions outside of election season, or in more local, in-person processes such as town halls. Online consultations are becoming a normal part of Canadian democracy. They are employed by all levels of government, on issues that range from budget priorities to assessing new infrastructure needs, and even such high level policy decisions as <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nafta-renegotiations-trump-canada/article33715250/">renegotiating NAFTA</a>.</p>
<p>Developing a culture of participating in institutions will become more necessary. Increasing public engagement will offer people a more secure place in our democracy, a role in making agendas and policy decisions. </p>
<h2>Government as infrastructure</h2>
<p>We should see these online forums as public infrastructure — resources shared in common. Participation in democratic institutions increases citizens’ knowledge and capabilities, and provides a stage for the public to connect around issues that affect them. The forums also serve as a catalyst for greater coverage in media and the public consciousness. </p>
<p>Our democratic institutions are often too focused on transactions between the state and individuals. Instead, we should encourage the <a href="http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1289/1209">“democracy of groups”</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Public_and_its_Problems">enable smaller-scale groups or “publics” that share common goals</a>.</p>
<p>Visibility on the public stage can help to connect disparate groups, and legitimize and amplify marginalized voices that too often go unheard. Greater confidence in such platforms will give citizens access to knowledgeable public servants (or responsive artificial intelligence). These resources can encourage citizens to follow standards of evidence and argumentation, and add legitimacy to their positions.</p>
<p>Embracing these possibilities could bolster the growing practice of <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/diy-citizenship">“DIY citizenship</a>,” and expand our understanding of politics and political action. Citizens across the country (and the world) are already showing us the way.</p>
<p>Creating a more autonomous and decentralized type of governance does not mean that the state should weaken its own capacities for action. State institutions are perhaps the most readily available venue for supporting citizens, as they are meant to be held in common for all. </p>
<h2>Cooperative Canada</h2>
<p>Shifts in climate, food security and the continuing accumulation of wealth will force us to re-evaluate political and economic relations that govern our states and societies. Co-operation with those around us will be the only option. Matters of everyday life will be more tangible for citizens, reliant on community for their livelihood and leisure. They will surely tire of the alienating economic and cultural practices of today.</p>
<p>Channelling the current momentum of citizens, we should now begin laying the groundwork for a new kind of state and society. It should prioritize responsive government, fair institutions, and empowering citizens in their public lives.</p>
<p>To re-imagine the relationship between citizens and government, some have proposed a <a href="http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/">“partner state approach”</a>. Rather than the representative and service-providing model of government we know today, a partner state actively encourages and supports autonomous action by citizens. </p>
<p>Governments would be stewards of infrastructure and other public goods. They would provide resources for citizens to interact and cooperate with each other.</p>
<p>In this future, Canadians will be not only more aware of the politics of their everyday lives. They will be able and empowered to take their causes public and work with their fellows to decide, make, and enact their societies together.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80184/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Curtis McCord does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The disruptive impact of intelligent machines and new social movements will force us to remake citizenship into a more personal pursuit over the next 150 years.Curtis McCord, Doctoral Student in Information Systems, Values in Design, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/790742017-06-09T03:55:42Z2017-06-09T03:55:42ZFirst Amendment lawsuit says President Trump can’t block Twitter followers he doesn’t like<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172968/original/file-20170608-32339-144pe3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can the president block people from seeing his tweets?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Twitter/fc0fabbe10ca48768f6b963c4d735003/52/0">AP Photo/J. David Ake</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A lawsuit filed July 11 seeks to <a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/news/critics-blocked-presidents-twitter-account-file-suit">force President Donald Trump to unblock Twitter users</a> from following his <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> account. Filed in federal court in New York City, the suit argues that his Twitter posts and people’s responses to them <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf">constitute a public forum</a> that government officials – Trump and key staffers – can’t legally ban people from.</p>
<p>The president’s fondness for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-defends-twitter-use-as-aides-urge-him-to-cut-back.html">criticizing news organizations</a>, “<a href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/trump_twitter_media_journalism.php">heckling journalists</a>” and spouting <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-updates-everything-president-trump-has-tweeted-and-what-it-was-about-2017-htmlstory.html">points of public policy</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">his Twitter account</a> is clear. </p>
<p>News of his <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/872419018799550464">nomination of Christopher Wray</a> to be the next FBI director, for example, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336717-trump-fbi-twitter-announcement-raises-eyebrows">came by tweet</a>. His tweets carry the stamp of government authority: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/06/sean-spicer-just-settled-it-we-should-all-pay-attention-to-trumps-tweets">White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently declared</a> “the president is the president of the United States, so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States.”</p>
<p>But just as seemingly everything Trump does and says sparks controversy, so too is the president’s “<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/25/the-risky-business-of-trump-the-twittering-president/">prolific and unpredictable use of Twitter</a>,” as one reporter called it, raising a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html">novel question</a> of constitutional law: Is there a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment">First Amendment</a> right to access Trump’s Twitter account?</p>
<h2>Enter the First Amendment</h2>
<p>The issue arises because when Trump objects to what people say about him on Twitter, he sometimes blocks their access to his account. What is blocking? <a href="https://support.twitter.com/articles/20170134">As Twitter describes it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“When you block an account on Twitter, you restrict that account’s ability to interact with your account. It can be an effective way to handle unwanted interactions from accounts you do not want to engage with. Accounts you have blocked will not be able to view your Tweets, following or followers lists, likes, or lists when logged in on Twitter, and you will not receive notifications of mentions directly from those accounts. You’ll also stop seeing their Tweets in your timeline.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now Columbia University’s <a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/content/about-knight-institute">Knight First Amendment Institute</a>, which is dedicated to protecting free speech and free press, <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf">has sued Trump</a> to force him to unblock “<a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/news/knight-institute-demands-president-unblock-critics-twitter">the Twitter accounts of individuals denied access to his account</a> after they criticized or disagreed with him.” </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3859469-White-House-Twitter-Letter-FINAL.html">a letter</a> to Trump dated June 6 threatening to sue, officials from Knight argued that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Blocking users from your Twitter account violates the First Amendment. When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum from which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf">lawsuit itself goes farther</a>, specifying that the public forum is created by Trump’s own choices about how he uses Twitter: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the President and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the President and his aides and exchange views with one another.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Unpacking the argument</h2>
<p>Does this argument hold water? As director of the <a href="http://firstamendment.jou.ufl.edu">Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project</a> at the <a href="http://www.ufl.edu">University of Florida</a>, I study just this kind of question. Here’s how the case against Trump’s blocking unfolds.</p>
<p>Initially, the First Amendment protects free speech and the press from government censorship, as well as the right of citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances. When people complain to Trump on his Twitter account about his policies, they not only are engaging in free speech, but also are petitioning the government.</p>
<p>The First Amendment, however, doesn’t address or prevent censorship imposed by private individuals and private businesses. Twitter is a private entity, but because Trump is a government official, the First Amendment applies. In essence, according to this argument, when Trump blocks people from interacting with him on Twitter, he plays the role of <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1312053">government censor preventing people</a> from speaking and petitioning the government.</p>
<p>In addition, the First Amendment prohibits <a href="http://uscivilliberties.org/themes/4667-viewpoint-discrimination-in-free-speech-cases.html">viewpoint-based censorship</a> of speech. This means that the government cannot favor or suppress sides on any given issue or topic. It cannot allow one viewpoint to be expressed but not another. For example, a law permitting only pro-life speech on the topic of abortion and banning pro-choice expression is viewpoint-based and thus unconstitutional.</p>
<p>When Trump blocks access to his Twitter account for those who disagree with him but permits access for those who agree with him, he is engaging in viewpoint-based censorship.</p>
<p>Third, the rule against viewpoint-based censorship applies when the government (in this case, Trump) creates what is called a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums">public forum</a> for speech. There are two main kinds of public forum. The first – called a traditional public forum – is easy to understand. These venues include physical spaces such as public sidewalks and public parks where speech, such as rallies, protests and concerts, have occurred for many decades. Twitter clearly is not such a traditional public forum.</p>
<p>The Knight Institute, however, <a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/news/knight-institute-demands-president-unblock-critics-twitter">argues in both its June letter to the president</a> <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf">and in its lawsuit</a> that Trump’s Twitter account constitutes a <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/designatedforum.htm">designated public forum</a>, a space created by the government specifically for speech. Imagine, for instance, a bulletin board inside city hall or a courthouse where people can post flyers about upcoming events. Essentially, Trump’s Twitter account is akin to a virtual bulletin board. People who are blocked cannot respond directly to him. They cannot, by analogy, use the bulletin board.</p>
<p>Jameel Jaffer, executive director of Knight First Amendment Institute, <a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/news/knight-institute-demands-president-unblock-critics-twitter">asserts that while the framers of the First Amendment</a> in 1791 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“surely didn’t contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the President must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable. Having opened this forum to all comers, the President can’t exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what they’re saying.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Public forums in the modern age</h2>
<p>But is his Twitter account a designated public forum? This is the tricky part of Knight’s case against Trump. Twitter has more than <a href="https://about.twitter.com/company">300 million active users</a> each month. It is a vibrant, virtual space where people – Trump included – engage in often robust discussion about political issues. Trump’s first <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/03/01/trumps-speech-twitter-record/98566772/">address to Congress</a>, for example, spawned more than three million tweets. By these measures, Twitter is a modern-day public forum, yet it’s not run by the government.</p>
<p>Trump’s own account, however, is run by the government – namely, himself. That’s the argument that the designated public forum label applies and, in turn, that Trump’s blockage of users based on their viewpoints is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Knight <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf">argues in its complaint</a> that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Because of the way the President and his aides use the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the account is a public forum under the First Amendment. Defendants have made the account accessible to all, taking advantage of Twitter’s interactive platform to directly engage the President’s 33 million followers … Defendants use the account to make formal announcements, defend the President’s official actions, report on meetings with foreign leaders, and promote the administration’s positions on health care, immigration, foreign affairs, and other matters.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Any claim that <a href="http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> is his personal account (not his official one, <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS">@POTUS</a>) and does not represent the government has been conceded by the White House already: Remember Spicer’s statement that Trump’s tweets are “official statements by the president of the United States.”</p>
<p>The lawsuit now gives both Knight and Trump the opportunity to break new First Amendment ground on public forums in the digital era. And if Knight prevails and expands free speech rights to clarify that government officials on Twitter can’t block interactions with other users, it would be a most ironic outcome for a president who often <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-first-amendment/index.html">takes aim</a> at the First Amendment.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s Note: This article and its headline were updated on July 12, 2017, to reflect the fact that the Knight First Amendment Institute did, in fact, file suit against President Donald Trump.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79074/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clay Calvert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s a new constitutional question for the internet age: Should the president be allowed to block someone on Twitter?Clay Calvert, Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/708502017-01-10T19:53:53Z2017-01-10T19:53:53ZSouth Africa has work to do to make government more accountable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151973/original/image-20170106-18650-4hq0cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Demonstrators march against corruption in Cape Town. South Africa has some way to go to plug a public accountability deficit.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mike Hutchings</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The South African government completed its term as lead-chair of the Open Government Partnership <a href="http://www.sanews.gov.za/world/sa-hands-over-ogp-chair-position-france">(OGP)</a> in December 2016. The partnership is an international initiative formed by <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/">eight countries in 2011</a> that has grown to 75 members. Its aim is to improve public sector governance and encourage civil society participation in making governments more accountable and responsive to citizens.</p>
<p>Some of the original founding members include Brazil, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Britain and the US. Nigeria is the most recent African country to sign up. </p>
<p>Countries are invited to join if they meet the minimum eligibility criteria. These include a framework on open budgets, a law on access to information, public asset disclosure rules and basic protections for human rights.</p>
<p>Member countries are required to develop national action plans that are implemented in a two-year cycle. They are expected to submit self-assessment reports within the period. In addition, the partnership secretariat appoints a country researcher who consults with government and civil society organisations to monitor the implementation of the plans and develops both a mid-term and end of term assessment reports. Ultimately, the OGP provides an international platform for change agents at a country level both within and outside government to make government open, accountable and responsive to citizens.</p>
<p>South Africa has just been given an <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/South-Africa_EoT-Report_Dec2016.pdf">end of term report</a> for its recently concluded two-year action plan. The report, released in December 2016, shows that it failed to meet key targets it set at the beginning of the process. But it also shows improvements in some areas.</p>
<h2>Why people’s involvement matters</h2>
<p>During South Africa’s two-year leadership the partnership hosted the <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/events/ogp-africa-regional-meeting-2016">Africa regional meeting</a> focused on using open government for sustainable development in Africa. </p>
<p>This was significant because 2016 signalled the beginning of the implementation of the United Nation’s sustainable development goals <a href="http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/">(SDGs)</a>. The goals are premised on the idea of partnerships for development. This includes the establishment of a collaborative platform that involves various stakeholders to ensure that marginalised people have a voice in determining priority areas to achieve the goal of poverty eradication.</p>
<p>Recent events in South Africa make it clear how urgently this ideal must be realised. </p>
<p>During 2016 the country was characterised by protests over the <a href="http://mg.co.za/tag/service-delivery-protests">delivery of basic services</a> and higher education <a href="http://www.enca.com/south-africa/student-protests-between-a-rock-and-a-hardplace">fees</a>. These distress calls came against a backdrop of growing concern about <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2016-09-03-why-patronage-and-state-capture-spell-trouble-for-south-africa/">“state capture”</a> – the diversion of state resources to benefit an already privileged elite. The problem of state capture shows a public accountability deficit which the partnership aims to address. </p>
<p>South Africa’s end of term report highlights the country’s accountability challenges. This is particularly true in relation to its failure to implement and mainstream public service anti-corruption laws. The report shows that the country failed to fully complete any of its seven commitments. These were the establishment of:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>an accountability/consequences management framework,</p></li>
<li><p>service delivery improvement forums, </p></li>
<li><p>platform for citizen participation in government, </p></li>
<li><p>environmental management information portal, </p></li>
<li><p>online crowd sourcing tool on data conservation, </p></li>
<li><p>schools connectivity project, and a service rights and responsibilities campaign.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The report also shows that, contrary to agreement, the government didn’t formally establish a forum to involve civil society organisations in the partnership process. It still has to set up a joint mechanism to monitor the implementation of government’s commitments. </p>
<p>Transparency may not do much to reverse the disconcerting rise in corruption in both the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-patronage-and-state-capture-spell-trouble-for-south-africa-64704">public</a> and <a href="http://osf.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/OSF-Mining-In-Good-Company-web-FINAL_3-Nov-2015.pdf">private sectors</a>. But it is a good starting point in promoting public integrity and accountability.</p>
<p>South Africa cannot continue to place the burden of holding the government accountable on just the media and brave whistle blowers.</p>
<p>These shortcomings not withstanding, it was not all doom and gloom. </p>
<p>The government must be applauded for setting up a citizen-based <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/20058/">pilot monitoring programme</a>. This was set up to collect community feedback on public services. </p>
<h2>What needs to be done</h2>
<p>It is important that the lessons of the previous action plan be heeded as South Africa embarks on a new two-year national action plan. The focus here will be to link its partnership commitments with its development goals.</p>
<p>South Africa is now on its third two-year action plan which will run from 2016 to 2018. It includes a commitment – introduced by civil society – to establish community advice offices to promote access to justice. This fits in with goal 16 of the SDGs – to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions. </p>
<p>Other commitments include citizen-based monitoring of service delivery projects and increasing public participation in government planning and budget processes. Another is to increase the level of civic participation in the provision of basic services. </p>
<p>These commitments require the sustained involvement of civil society. It is high time the South African government established a permanent dialogue mechanism that treats civil society bodies as equal partners. It also needs to develop ways of working more collaboratively so that it can make government work for all citizens.</p>
<p>It’s clear that the South African government recognises the importance of partnerships with civil society. But it stands accused of paying lip service to the idea of inclusivity. Indeed, the shrinking space for civil society in governance that is <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/ogp-webmaster/2016/05/01/partnership-question">seen around the world</a> is also evident in South Africa. The country’s civil society organisations are not seen as equal partners when it comes to accountability and governance.</p>
<p>For their part, South Africans need to re-imagine the role of civil society in the governance of their public services and management of their public resources. The partnership initiative offers that platform. But it needs to be implemented effectively and in the spirit of participation by ordinary people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fola Adeleke is the Open Government Partnership Country Researcher for South Africa and the head of Research at the South African Human Rights Commission. He writes in his personal capacity. </span></em></p>South Africa’s end of term report at the helm of the Open Government Partnership shows that it failed to meet key targets it set for itself. But it also shows improvements in some areas.Fola Adeleke, Fellow, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/702632016-12-12T18:59:07Z2016-12-12T18:59:07ZAustralia still to deliver on ‘open government’ rhetoric<p>After <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/12/06/australia-still-hasnt-finished-its-plan-open-government">delays that threatened</a> to see it dubbed an “inactive” member of the Open Government Partnership, Australia last week issued its <a href="http://ogpau.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2016/12/open-government-national-action-plan1.pdf">Open Government National Action Plan.</a></p>
<p>The Plan offers benefits in advancing “transparency, accountability, public participation and technological innovation in Australia over the next two years”. It also sees Australia follow its peers with a commitment to increase “confidence in the electoral system and political parties”, combat corporate crime, “digitally transform the the delivery of government services” and foster “open contracting”. </p>
<p>The government promises to do more, much more, in the next iteration of the plan, due in 2018.</p>
<p>But the “ambitious package of 15 commitments” is just as much about bureaucratic turf wars – legitimising the ambitions of the Department of <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/agict/">Finance</a> and <a href="https://www.dta.gov.au/who-we-are/">Digital Transformation Agency</a> after the abortive <a href="http://gov2.net.au/">Gov 2.0</a> program – as it is about responsiveness on the part of politicians, officials and the increasingly pervasive private sector solution providers such as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/turning-router-off-and-on-could-have-prevented-census-outage/7963916">IBM</a>.</p>
<p>Many of what the plan claims as achievements and building blocks for future development were contrary to to a commitment to transparency. The <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/FOI%20report.pdf">Hawke Report</a> for example called for the winding back of access rights under the Freedom of Information Act, in essence because they were administratively inconvenient. That view hasn’t been helped recently, after Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/labor-senator-joe-ludwig-lashes-public-service-commissioner-john-lloyd-over-foi-20150313-1433mm.html">called freedom of information laws</a> “very pernicious”.</p>
<p>The Action Plan also cites the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The continued existence of this timid watchdog is attributable only to the inability of the Attorney-General to abolish the agency, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/607692/brandis-confirms-timothy-pilgrim-information-commissioner/">despite recurrent commitments to do so.</a></p>
<p>The Plan also references Trove, an unrivalled digital initiative accessible across Australia. It was <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-12/future-of-national-librarys-trove-online-database-in-doubt/7242182">threatened</a> in yet another round of National Library funding cuts. Boasts in the Plan about the National Archives are also diminished by the funding cuts it has experienced on a year by year basis. Open government means keeping the doors open and the lights on at curatorial institutions like these.</p>
<p>What’s needed is more than buzzwords about “digital transformation”, “technological innovation”, “discoverability” and the release of “high-value datasets”. Meaningful open government involves respect for figures such as Australian Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs, who <a>dared</a> to ask inconvenient <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-rights-commission-boss-gillian-triggs-blocked-from-visiting-nauru-20140203-31xg6.html">questions</a> about government policies and their implementation in refugee facilities onshore and offshore. </p>
<p>Meaningful open government also involves a vigorous fourth estate, given that media organisations – unlike most individuals – have the skills and resources to use open government tools such as FOI to identify and critique wrongdoing. It is significant, for example, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Fairfax effectively exposed systematic wrongdoing in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/comminsure-case-shows-its-time-to-target-reckless-misconduct-in-banking-55748">finance sector</a>, wrongdoing ignored by regulators such as <a href="http://www.superreview.com.au/news/superannuation/room-improvement-apra">APRA</a> and ASIC. It is also significant that the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/michelle-guthries-bruising-first-year-atop-the-abc-the-way-it-was-done-was-brutal-20161208-gt7cgq.html">ABC</a>, amid ongoing financial stringency, continues to face threats to its <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-fundamental-challenge-to-the-abcs-independence-abc-chair-unloads-on-turnbull-government-20161101-gsfzdh.html">independence</a>.</p>
<p>The Action Plan <em>is</em> an achievement, but we should not take it at face value. There are no signs that the people charged with putting it into effect have experienced a true conversion on the digital road to Damascus. The “new ongoing multi-stakeholder forum” is commendable but needs to be substantiated by action that goes beyond privatising “high-value datasets” such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/care-data-has-been-scrapped-but-your-health-data-could-still-be-shared-62181">health records</a>. Less rhetoric, please, about transparency and more respect by mandarins such as Public Service Commissioner Lloyd for the spirit of the FOI Act.</p>
<p>If we are indeed open to “open government” a fine demonstration would be facilitating AHRC access to what is happening on Australia’s behalf in offshore detention centres.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70263/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The actions of the Coalition government speak louder than words in its commitment to open government.Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/604882016-06-06T13:02:26Z2016-06-06T13:02:26ZGovernment buries its own research – and that’s bad for democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125355/original/image-20160606-25999-1rplveg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No one will find the report now.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government spends billions on research aiming to guide and inform its policies. Yet it turns out the government doesn’t know exactly what it has commissioned or published. Worse, there is evidence that government-funded research is sometimes deliberately buried or delayed. Transparent and open government, this is not.</p>
<p>Government funds research to help it understand what evidence there is about particular policy problems (such as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287287/occ109.pdf">effect of immigration on employment</a>) or solutions (such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/ban-on-below-cost-alcohol-sales-would-be-40-times-less-effective-than-minimum-pricing-21865">alcohol pricing</a>). But a <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/478/missing-evidence">new report</a> from campaign group Sense about Science found that only four of the 24 government departments keep central records of what research they commission and publish.</p>
<p>The investigation, led by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley, also identified several cases where research may have been delayed to avoid political embarrassment, or to prevent informed public debate. For example, research on depression and the recession <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/478/missing-evidence">was delayed</a> due to a Number 10 speech on the state of the economy. A report into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/horsemeat-scandal-was-a-damning-indictment-of-the-state-of-our-food-21490">horsemeat scandal</a> was delayed as it suggested local authority cuts had directly <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/15/official-report-horsemeat-scandal-delayed-new-food-safety-fears">reduced food safety</a> – which was potentially very embarrassing for the government.</p>
<p>Government research can be highly valuable but is costly and time consuming. So you’d hope taxpayer money was being spent on the most important research priorities. But this report – to which I contributed – suggests that there is no overall strategy. Instead, government may be commissioning research reactively, for example in response to a minister’s latest ideas or a media furore.</p>
<p>If this is the case, it would indeed lead to a situation as described by Sense About Science: a system full of inefficiencies with no overall strategy, quality control, or monitoring. Researchers are placed under embargo, and not allowed to publish without political endorsement, or until the policy itself is announced. </p>
<p>However, there are alternative explanations. Maybe research is not always commissioned to inform government about a policy problem, or public policy solutions. Research may be commissioned to reassure MPs that the government is looking into an issue – in other words, as a way of putting problems on the back burner.</p>
<p>A report may be commissioned in good faith, but changes in the political environment suddenly make the report irrelevant or unpopular. It may be that the government genuinely wants information, but the research findings are so politically explosive that the government decides it is less risky to bring new information into the debate, which may challenge the existing policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125357/original/image-20160606-26003-1pu3uj1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I’ll just leave this here.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, when the government wanted to introduce a cap on non-EU immigrants, Theresa May, the home secretary, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-speech-on-an-immigration-system-that-works-in-the-national-interest">claimed in December 2012</a> that 23 British workers would become unemployed for every 100 migrants that entered the country. This statistic was immediately <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/theresa-may-immigration-speech">criticised for being cherry-picked</a> from a report that found no overall significant effects on employment as a result of immigration.</p>
<p>Rather than admit to the complexity of the data, the Home Office delayed publication of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impacts-of-migration-on-uk-native-employment-an-analytical-review-of-the-evidence">its own analyses</a> – which agreed there were no significant effects – for a further 15 months. Misuse of statistics by ministers <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34598335">is hardly new</a>, but ignoring their own research in order to avoid difficult conversations is highly undemocratic. </p>
<h2>Joined-up government?</h2>
<p>Regardless of the reasons for the current situation, it’s clear we need to improve the way government organises and commissions its research. Without access to high-quality and reliable information to help them plan and implement effective policies, government officials can’t be confident that they are making the best decisions. Poor record keeping leads to a lack of transparency and poor access to this research, as well as making it more likely government will commission the same research twice.</p>
<p>Citizens also have a right to know what is being done with their taxes. If there is no way of telling what research is being done to inform policy, citizens are less able to judge how well informed policies are. Obscuring this allows politicians to paint their own pictures, even distorting the facts to suit their own agendas. It is also important for the public to be able to judge whether government research is well conducted, and if it is addressing issues of importance.</p>
<h2>What would a good system look like?</h2>
<p>In the report, Sedley called for a publicly searchable central database of all funded research. This would be a good start, but it would not really address the underlying problems of poor commissioning and research-use practices.</p>
<p>Imagine instead a system where the public, researchers and any other involved groups had a serious and transparent say in what research was needed, and what should be commissioned. This would involve reviewing the strengths and gaps in the evidence base to reduce duplication and ensure only needed research was commissioned.</p>
<p>New research could be <a href="http://www.alltrials.net">registered in advance</a>, which would allow us to monitor progress. Government could hold consultations about the findings of the research once published, opening the door for informed debate about the quality and relevance of the work. </p>
<p>Few would advocate for a technocratic system in which policies are decided purely on the basis of available research evidence and without considering the political or ethical implications. For one thing, the evidence available is often weak and fragmented, and can be just as affected by subjective values as any other way of determining policy. Politicians must also take into account the views of their constituents, and the political machinery itself.</p>
<p>There are often very good reasons for policymakers to make the decisions they do –- even occasionally when they go against the evidence. But rather than burying research that is unwanted or appears to contradict policy, government should come out of the shadows and explain their reasoning. As <a href="https://researchinquiry.org/inquiry-report/">Sedley’s report says</a>, good political leaders should always be able to explain their “grounds of doubt or disagreement”. It takes bravery to have those honest conversations, but it’s a bravery citizens are entitled to -– and pay for.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60488/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Oliver has previously worked on projects funded by the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. She currently receives funding from ESRC and AHRC.</span></em></p>A new report from Sense About Science reveals the scale of politics before evidence.Kathryn Oliver, Departmental lecturer in evidence-based social intervention and policy evaluation, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/588512016-05-06T02:50:57Z2016-05-06T02:50:57ZOpen data on Australian companies could be the best response to tax avoidance<p>Imagine if Australia’s economy was as efficient as Silicon Valley is. It’s not that absurd an idea, and the keys are potentially at the government’s disposal. </p>
<p>In the US, technology sector companies including <a href="https://mattermark.com/">Mattermark</a> and <a href="https://www.cbinsights.com/">CB insights</a> are providing “CIA-like” business data intelligence services about private companies in the startup ecosystem. They collect data on anything and everything, distilling it all into “signals” that may provide clues on who might become the next Apple, Google or Uber. </p>
<p>Australia has a unique opportunity to open more data on private companies in the way NZ has already done with the <a href="http://www.coys.co.nz/">Open NZ Companies Register</a>, making for a more transparent and efficient economy. This enables insights into specific firms but helps companies better understand <a href="http://businesstoolbox.stats.govt.nz/IndustryProfilerBrowse.aspx">trends in their industry</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121468/original/image-20160506-5690-kidqjk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google NZ data as displayed in the Open NZ Companies Register.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The company regulator ASIC, in its corporate registry business, holds a treasury of statistical data about Australian private businesses. Researchers, policymakers and businesses could use this data to improve the productivity of the whole economy. </p>
<p>The government is <a href="http://www.afr.com/street-talk/final-bids-for-asic-registry-due-in-august-20160502-gok1e0">exploring options to sell the ASIC registry business</a>, which is estimated to be worth A$6 billion. The conditions of open public and research access to the data held in this register could provide either great opportunity or impediment to Australia’s long-term economic efficiency. </p>
<h2>Open data for tax compliance</h2>
<p>At the same time, Australia is leading the way globally in its efforts to target tax avoidance by multinational corporations, which is an interesting and challenging undertaking. </p>
<p>Among a number of federal budget measures aimed at cracking down on tax avoidance are mandatory disclosure rules to uncover aggressive tax planning schemes.</p>
<p>This is aligned with the idea that sunlight provides the best disinfectant and perhaps one of the best approaches. Transparency and open data certainly seem to work within the corporate world at a micro level, so perhaps this is an important part of the solution to this tricky global problem. </p>
<p>Award-winning Harvard Business Review author <a href="http://bbrt.org/bjarte-bogsnes/">Bjarte Bogsnes</a>, who is VP Performance at Norwegian Energy Giant Statoil, found the best way to rein in corporate travel expense abuse was simple: abandon creating and enforcing complex rules and simply publish the spending data for all to see. Once other executives could see how much others were spending or saving on travel, behaviours changed dramatically, resulting in massive savings. </p>
<p>Already the ATO has started down this path by publishing a list of total income, taxable income and tax payable of over 1,800 Australian public, private and foreign private entities for the 2013-14 income year. </p>
<p>It makes interesting reading and reveals who pays most and least corporate tax in Australia. Yet issues remain about what many global companies declare as income in Australia. </p>
<p>While much focus to date has been on those paying the least tax, this data also reveals those contributing most to our economy – paying their fair share. The following list is of the top 20 companies from this data sample of large Australian public, private and foreign private groups that paid the largest share of their total income in tax. </p>
<p><strong>Which large corporates pay largest share of their income in tax?</strong><br>
<em><em>Top 20 Australian Large Company Taxpayers</em></em><br>
<em>Ranked by Tax Payable / Total Income 2013-14 %</em>
</p><ol>
<li>Citibank Na (24%)</li>
<li>Platinum Asset Management Limited (22%)</li>
<li>Future Fund Investment Company No.2 Pty Ltd (19%)</li>
<li>ASX Limited (19%)</li>
<li>Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Australia Pty Limited (19%)</li>
<li>Japan Australia Lng (Mimi) Pty Ltd (19%)</li>
<li>Magellan Financial Group Limited (18%)</li>
<li>Interlink Roads Pty Limited (18%)</li>
<li>Kin Group Pty Ltd (18%)</li>
<li>Robe River Mining Co Pty Limited (18%)</li>
<li>Schroder Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (18%)</li>
<li>Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (16%)</li>
<li>Carsales.Com Ltd (16%)</li>
<li>Yara Pilbara Fertilisers Pty Ltd (16%)</li>
<li>Rea Group Limited (15%)</li>
<li>Caterpillar Financial Australia Limited (15%)</li>
<li>Flinders Finance Services Pty Limited (15%)</li>
<li>Baosteel Australia Mining Company Pty Ltd (15%)</li>
<li>Wotif.Com Holdings Ltd (14%)</li>
<li>Mitsui-Itochu Iron Pty Ltd (14%)</li><p></p>
<p></p></ol><p></p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://data.gov.au/dataset/c2524c87-cea4-4636-acac-599a82048a26/resource/237d7ede-3a63-4b9b-9434-2f79b9d70ce8/download/2013-14Corporate-Report-of-Entity-Tax-Information.xlsx">ATO Data, 2013-14 Report of Entity Tax Information for 1,800 large Australian public, private and foreign private companies</a>.</p>
<p>Ensuring large global companies that operate in Australia publish the total revenue they receive from Australian customers, along with tax paid here, may have a similar effect and lead the way for other jurisdictions to follow. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121013/original/image-20160503-19828-kikzpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Justin Grimes</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Open data as a catalyst for growth</h2>
<p>Economist Nicholas Gruen has calculated that open government and public data could contribute up to A$16 billion per annum to the Australian economy. His <a href="https://www.omidyar.com/sites/default/files/file_archive/insights/ON%20Report_061114_FNL.pdf">Open for Business</a> report was funded by the <a href="https://www.omidyar.com/">Omidyar Network</a> and launched at the G20 summit in 2014. </p>
<p>The government has committed to collaborating with the private and research sectors to share valuable public data for the benefit of the Australian public. Adding sunlight to the way Australian companies operate could help tackle the vexing issue of tax avoidance and improve economic productivity at the same time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58851/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul X. McCarthy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Open government and public data could contribute up to A$16 billion per annum to the Australian economy.Paul X. McCarthy, Adjunct Professor, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/555252016-03-09T04:40:39Z2016-03-09T04:40:39ZA vibrant civil society is central to democratic consolidation in Tunisia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113952/original/image-20160306-17740-808na8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Unemployed graduates in Tunisia demonstrate to demand that the government provides job opportunities.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Zoubeir Souissi</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In late 2010 demonstrations in Tunisia sparked a popular push for democratisation through the Arab world in what became known as the <a href="http://global.britannica.com/event/Jasmine-Revolution">Arab Spring</a>. The uprisings saw Tunisia emerge from 23 years of despotic rule under President <a href="http://global.britannica.com/biography/Zine-al-Abidine-Ben-Ali">Zine El Abidine Ben Ali</a>. Though the country has made substantial gains since its transition, it still needs to safeguard its fledgling democracy.</p>
<p>Political reform and democratic transition in Tunisia – including the adoption of a <a href="http://democracy-reporting.org/news/latest-news/tunisia-and-its-new-constitution-model-for-north-africa.html">landmark constitution</a> – was lauded by the international community. Where democratic reversals occurred in other <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-12482291">Arab Spring countries</a>, the country was considered a lone success story. </p>
<p>But it is now facing a plethora of <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21678787-rift-ruling-party-may-be-least-tunisias-problems-great-arab?zid=304&ah=e5690753dc78ce91909083042ad12e30">challenges</a> to its democratic gains. These include corruption, terrorism, youth unemployment of about <a href="http://www.tunisia-live.net/2015/03/12/oecd-report-youth-unemployment-in-tunisia-a-true-social-tragedy/">40%</a> and weak <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr1647.pdf">economic growth</a> prospects. </p>
<p>The failure to meet rising expectations and address growing discontent, particularly among <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/13/tunisia-youth-revolution">the youth</a>, were key causes of the Ben Ali regime’s downfall. More specifically, the corrosive <a href="http://ppc.unl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Tay-Herian-Diener-2014-Detrimental-effects-of-corruption-and-societal-well-being-Whether-how-and-when.pdf">effect of corruption</a>, including its deleterious effect on trust for political authority, catalysed change. </p>
<p>In this context, reform remains a tenuous and fragile process. </p>
<h2>Explaining Tunisia’s success</h2>
<p>Several factors explain Tunisia’s successful transition. The military <a href="http://journal.dresmara.ro/issues/volume6_issue2/01_townsend.pdf">showed restraint</a> during the transition process, and there was a general willingness to reach a <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/19-historic-compromise-tunisia-laurence">political compromise</a>. Most important was the proactive approach taken by Tunisian civil society. </p>
<p>Four civil society groups, known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-tunisian-national-dialogue-saved-a-country-from-collapse-48921">Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet</a>, were instrumental in pulling the country back from the brink of civil war. </p>
<p>By building consensus across political groups, the quartet paved the way for a peaceful transition. This included drafting a new constitution and setting out a programme for bureaucratic reform. The group received the <a href="https://theconversation.com/quiet-quartet-wins-nobel-peace-prize-for-laying-a-democratic-path-despite-troubles-in-tunisia-48764">2015 Nobel Peace Prize</a> in recognition of its efforts.</p>
<h2>A show of political will</h2>
<p>In 2013 Tunisia affirmed its commitment to open and transparent government when it joined the <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about">Open Government Partnership</a> (OGP). The global, citizen-centred initiative aims to enhance transparency and public accountability in government. Access to information, citizen participation and accountability are the central tenets of open government. </p>
<p>Most of the 69 participating countries are in South, Central and North America, Europe, Asia, Australasia and Africa. They include Brazil, Canada, Turkey, Ukraine and South Africa. </p>
<p>Tunisia’s commitment to political reform is recognised as being in line with the OGP mandate to “<a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/blog-editor/2014/01/14/tunisia-joins-ogp#sthash.X7Ze2ZpC.dpuf">improve the quality of governance and public services</a>”.</p>
<p>The country has adopted a pragmatic approach to its <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/country/tunisia">participation</a> in the initiative. It has made a range of commitments to enhance access to information and improve public accountability. These include publishing audit report findings and training civil servants in ethics.</p>
<p>But challenges remain.</p>
<h2>Ongoing challenges</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/06/economic-arab-egypt-region">Government corruption</a>, one of the main drivers of the Arab Spring, remains an issue. Civil society organisations say rent-seeking is <a href="http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/Politics/2015/10/4/Petty-corruption-plagues-Tunisian-economy">pervasive</a>, particularly at local government level.</p>
<p>Jazem Halioui, a researcher for the <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/irm/about-irm">Independent Reporting Mechanism</a> of the OGP, notes <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Tunisia2014-15_IRM%20Progress%20Report_Eng_0.pdf">in a progress report</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… under [the] Ben Ali dictatorship, the regime used state corruption as a means for illicit enrichment and silencing dissent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report has highlighted concerns around the country’s handling of the issue and calls for implementation of anti-corruption legislation. </p>
<p>The state faces further threats to democratic consolidation. </p>
<p>The tabling of the draft <a href="http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/will-tunisia-s-economic-reconciliation-law-turn-the-page">Economic Reconciliation Law</a> in July 2015 was <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/15/in-tunisia-a-new-reconciliation-law-stokes-protest-and-conflict-instead/">widely condemned</a>. The law, which would indemnify corrupt Ben Ali-era public officials from prosecution, marked a <a href="http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/16695/tunisia-s-economic-reconciliation-law-could-derail-transitional-justice">low point</a> of the transition. </p>
<p>Recent <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/tunisia-tourism-struggles-to-survive-after-terror-attack-a-1056400.html">terror attacks</a> have added to the woes, further revealing the fragility of the gains the state has made.</p>
<p>The OGP <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/country/tunisia/irm">report</a> notes that an ongoing state of emergency, which was declared after the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33287978">Sousse beach attack</a> last June, has made the climate difficult for civil protests. And human rights organisations have <a href="https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/tunisia">reported</a> torture of detainees, a hallmark of the Ben Ali era.</p>
<h2>Optimism about the future</h2>
<p>Civil society organisations are optimistic about the role the OGP can play in deepening democratic reform in Tunisia. </p>
<p>The country has <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Tunisia%20OGP%20NAP_0.pdf">committed to</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>improving transparency in its administrative system;</p></li>
<li><p>developing an open budget system;</p></li>
<li><p>improving transparency in public infrastructure projects; and</p></li>
<li><p>regulating natural resources in a transparent manner.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Halioui’s <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Tunisia2014-15_IRM%20Progress%20Report_Eng_0.pdf">report</a> further calls for the government to improve transparency in areas such as the judicial system and the security forces.</p>
<p>In July 2014 the <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/07/24/world-bank-300-million-program-strengthen-local-governments-tunisia">World Bank</a> approved a US$300 million program to improve local governance. The program aims to strengthen service delivery and public accountability. But continued public-sector reform, especially at the sub-national level, is vital to ensure stability in the country.</p>
<p>Tunisia’s path towards democratic consolidation is important, both domestically and for the region. A key litmus test for the fledgling democracy will be whether the formal political process, set against a turbulent regional political economy, can sustain reform efforts. </p>
<p>This will require safeguarding the space for a robust and vibrant civil society to participate meaningfully, and to push through the reforms that are so badly needed.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The author, an independent governance consultant, reviewed the Tunisian OGP Progress Report.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Filitz is an independent governance researcher and is a consultant to the Independent Reporting Mechanism of the Open Governance Partnership.</span></em></p>In the wake of the Arab Spring the international community lauded Tunisia’s political transition to democracy. But a plethora of challenges may threaten democratic consolidation in the country.John Filitz, Wits City Institute Research Fellow, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/499012015-12-09T19:15:46Z2015-12-09T19:15:46ZMutated conventions: how secrecy in the name of security harms democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103140/original/image-20151125-23825-133wwcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fear dominates political conversations and slowly strengthens the acceptability of secrecy in 21st-century governments</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/devar/64841388/in/photolist-6Jk5Y-8zsHnW-cHZ7hu-4ycrh5-9f6DqL-jU5ffp-jU67Y6-8Mb678-tEsAP-9A6BrZ-9A6B5T-eiRUg7-8zpCSr-8Tme8k-8NPnG9-7ZMeth-664mQt-7BtXTi-8NURda-jU7BXs-9nQhQr-8Meivj-rtUbUA-jU7vmb-8Uaeqb-8Me5gw-8Xwsdf-9CYJP2-cQJfZJ-7Jh2TK-bqa84v-8Xtqfv-9jdptk-e6WnWh-9nTrVo-7Jc8DD-ejYVsu-uC4XET-k5JYX-8TREAC-9iRJSJ-bSch4Z-jU5Yux-bXUQww-buHxf4-b42teB-db6qEK-9oR84B-9oQg7N-jU7zJ9">Ben Eenhoorn</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Secrecy is anathema to democracy. Without transparency, government may contravene its peoples’ values and violate human rights with impunity.</p>
<p>Governments rarely declare themselves corrupt, confess to lies, or admit to participating or being complicit in crimes. They have many resources and connections at their disposal, including media, police, military and security agencies. This mean critics are easily discredited or vilified. </p>
<p>An open criminal justice system, free media, active civil society, whistleblower protection and the ability of victims to be heard are essential checks for preventing, exposing and redressing state abuse of power. However, Australian governments – and particularly the incumbent Coalition – are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4265831.htm">systematically shutting down</a> these avenues of scrutiny.</p>
<h2>Secrecy and the border</h2>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-01/border-force-commissioner-operational-matters-roman-quaedvlieg/6586274">deepening pall of secrecy</a> is rationalised as essential to protect operational matters and intelligence that, if revealed, would jeopardise national security. </p>
<p>Traditionally, operational matters and intelligence have, in limited circumstances, been exempt from the open government principles that mandate freedom of information. But these exemptions have been relatively narrow, open to challenge and frequently subject to <a href="http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/fact-sheet-what-public-interest-test">public interest tests</a>.</p>
<p>Exemptions to openness for operational matters and intelligence weren’t designed to prevent contentious government policy being scrutinised. But the government’s resort to claims of secrecy for intelligence or operational matters – or “on-water matters”, in the context of Operation Sovereign Borders – is now <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4347488.htm">used as a tactic</a> to deflect awkward political questions and avoid scrutiny and accountability.</p>
<p>The 2001 Tampa election was a <a href="http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/how_tampa_became_a_turning_point/">watershed moment</a> in Australian politics. It marked a new phase in the overlapping of politics, national security and the control and management of information.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to that election, then-prime minister John Howard and his ministers managed to parlay the plight of several hundred desperate asylum seekers to electoral victory. They did so by manipulating fears about “boat people”, “illegals” and – in the wake of the September 11 attacks – terrorists. </p>
<p>Managing the story was essential to ensuring that the wages of fear became the currency of electoral success. The government’s strategy included ensuring no “<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/17/1019020661365.html">humanising images</a>” of the asylum seekers became public. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/scrafton/report/c02">False accusations</a> that the asylum seekers threw their children overboard assisted the strategy by amplifying the fears of sections of the electorate that were racially ambivalent or prejudiced. Though the government managed the information well enough to get re-elected, it was later revealed that the asylum seekers never threw their children overboard. </p>
<p>Since 2001, Australia has had a number of elections where national security – particularly counter-terrorism and border protection – were critical elements. Today, security stories beat a constant tattoo at the heart of politics. </p>
<h2>Alternative stories</h2>
<p>Unofficial security stories can be damaging to governments. In 2007, it was revealed the government and the Australian Federal Police had unfairly treated and unjustly vilified an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef">Indian national working as a doctor</a> in Brisbane, Muhamed Haneef. </p>
<p>What started as a story about a terrorist in our midst quickly morphed into one of abuse of power when Haneef’s lawyer released information contradicting the official narrative. </p>
<p>Legislation <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-new-security-laws-explained-20140926-10mh6d.html">passed in 2014</a>, which criminalises reporting of “special intelligence operations”, makes it far less likely that official stories, such as the one that presented Haneef as a major threat to the Australian community, can now be publicly contested. </p>
<p>In the 14 years since Tampa, there has been a shift from attempting to manage national security stories to controlling them. Strategies of information control include: refusing to release information; refusing to answer questions; criminalising the release of information by unofficial sources; and creating a category of acquiescent “embedded” journalists and lawyers through covert and overt security vetting processes. </p>
<p>Another strategy is providing <a href="https://theconversation.com/national-security-bills-compound-existing-threats-to-media-freedom-29946">immunity from prosecution</a> to security agencies. The result is that contentious or illegal activities committed by these agencies are never revealed, contested or adjudicated through processes of open justice. </p>
<p>Secrecy facilitates an uncontested space for officially sanctioned stories about security. The “national security” stories that support governments, police and security agencies set up clear binaries between the vulnerable public and threatening enemies. These provide a stage for political leaders to act and speak resolutely about threat and protection, champion laws that are tough but fair, and represent the police and security agencies as empowered, capable and operating solely in the national interest.</p>
<p>Under the guise of national security, governments, police and security agencies frequently engage in breaches of human rights, are influenced by partisan politics, exaggerate threats, generate fear for party political reasons or, in the case of police and intelligence agencies, organisational gain. </p>
<p>Also, many measures that are championed in the name of security are poorly targeted, ineffective or counter-productive. </p>
<p>The spread of secrecy under the banner of operational matters and intelligence excises uncomfortable facts that complicate or contradict sanitised stories about politics and security. Secrecy is a weapon of information control that valorises official stories and outlaws those who expose governments and police and security agencies to scrutiny.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is part of a series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/breaking-political-conventions">breaking political conventions</a>. Look out for more articles exploring various political conventions in the coming days.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jude McCulloch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australian society has become dangerously accustomed to our politicians using “national security” as an excuse for the obfuscation of sticky truths.Jude McCulloch, Professor of Criminology, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/355312015-01-26T11:24:27Z2015-01-26T11:24:27ZOpen data rankings may put UK on top, but more work is needed to realise the benefits<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69549/original/image-20150120-24465-1t5mz94.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More data - that's the ticket.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jwyg/4528443760/">Jonathan Gray</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government has been ranked first in the world for its transparency and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30883472">ease of accessing government information</a> by the World Wide Web Foundation’s <a href="http://webfoundation.org/2015/01/open-data-barometer-second-edition/">OpenData barometer</a>. The report echoes the Open Knowledge Foundation’s findings published in its <a href="http://index.okfn.org/press/release/english/">Open Data Index</a> last month, which awarded the UK the same top slot. </p>
<p>But both reports criticise governments, including Britain’s, for the slow progress made in unravelling government data. In fact, it’s clear that real progress is not nearly rapid enough – the percentage of datasets released as “open data” that truly comply with the definition <a href="http://index.okfn.org/press/release/english/">reaches only a modest 11%</a>. </p>
<p>This is a missed opportunity, because the evidence suggests that opening up the vast reams of data collected by public bodies brings economic benefits for society. By publishing data in a freely accessible and useful form it can be harnessed by organisations to offer fresh insights, undiscovered efficiencies and new ways of doing things. </p>
<h2>Economic boost</h2>
<p>Consultants McKinsey estimate the potential value of open data to business and public administration as high as <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/open_data_unlocking_innovation_and_performance_with_liquid_information">US$3 trillion per annum</a>. The Omidyar Network paints a similar picture: its 2014 <a href="http://www.omidyar.com/blog/business-case-open-data">report</a> predicts that the implementation of the Open Data Charter could drive more than half of the G20 nations’ 2% growth targets for the next five years. A global supply-and-value chain is emerging, generating new products and services driven by data.</p>
<p>More than five years after the launch of the first national open data portals in the <a href="http://www.data.gov/">US</a> and <a href="http://data.gov.uk/">UK</a>, they are becoming common at all administrative levels. </p>
<p>The Open Government Partnership (<a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/">OGP</a>) has grown from eight countries in September 2011 to 65. Initiatives such as the Open Data Index, the Open Data Barometer and the <a href="http://project.opendatamonitor.eu/project/">Open Data Monitor</a> explore the topologies of this vast, constantly changing landscape spanning thousands of repositories worldwide with hundreds of thousands of datasets. </p>
<p>While the majority of data providers come from the public sector, there is rising interest from industry too. The Cabinet Office in the UK established the world’s first Open Data Institute (<a href="http://theodi.org/">ODI</a>) in November 2012, with the aim of supporting those working in the open data supply chain. Ten start-up firms are currently in their <a href="http://theodi.org/start-ups">business incubation program</a>, from which six have already graduated, securing more than £2m in contracts and investments. The idea has won support in Europe as well, giving rise to the <a href="European%20Open%20Data%20Incubator">European Open Data Incubator</a>, due to launch this year.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69547/original/image-20150120-24454-2bgwfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The a-b-c of open data.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/notbrucelee/5726111081/">notbrucelee</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Doing things better</h2>
<p>With all this open data at their fingertips it hasn’t taken long for entrepreneurs to develop web and mobile apps taking advantage of it. For example, <a href="http://www.zoopla.co.uk/">Zoopla</a> uses UK Land Registry data already in the public domain to find out about potential property buyers and their preferred locations. Transport data from <a href="https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/open-data-users/">TfL</a> is at the core of an interactive, detailed London transport map built by <a href="http://mxapps.co.uk/product.aspx?appId=tube_map">TubeMap</a>. And company registration details are used by <a href="https://opencorporates.com/">OpenCorporates</a> to provide insight into directors’ interests worldwide.</p>
<p>More analytical uses include <a href="https://spendnetwork.com/">SpendNetwork</a> which, examining the UK’s tendering process, found it 45% slower than the European average resulting in small and medium businesses losing out by £734m. The <a href="https://openspending.org/">OpenSpending</a> project, funded by Open Knowledge Foundation, analysed spending data to show how a citizen’s taxes are spent in different government departments. Findings such as these feed back and alter – and improve – policy.</p>
<h2>Format matters</h2>
<p>Perhaps for understandable reasons, many publishers have focused more on making data available, and less on ensuring it is made available in useful formats. Many of the uses to which data has been put – such as the websites and apps mentioned above – would not have been possible without significant investment in curating and analysing the data into meaningful digital forms. </p>
<p>Simply sticking a spreadsheet on the website – still most governments’ idea of implementing open data – is not enough to realise its true potential benefit. Many key data assets have yet to be released into the public domain, or are locked behind corporate walls. Even addresses and postcodes are have yet to be fully opened up. A project to do so as launched recently, <a href="https://alpha.openaddressesuk.org/">OpenAddresses</a>, but is in very early development. No matter how flattering recent rankings might be for the UK government, when something as basic as postcodes is still locked away there is still a lot of work to be done.</p>
<h2>The way ahead</h2>
<p>With ownership of the data that is key to a nation’s information infrastructure comes great responsibility: investing in technology and skills, but also devising strategies for maintaining, curating and releasing data. This also means a more careful consideration of the different ways in which data could be used, encouraging not just publication but also responsible handling. This way the excellent ratings the UK achieves can be translated into real benefits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elena Simperl receives funding from the EU FP7 ICT Open Data Monitor project (Reference: 611988).</span></em></p>The UK government has been ranked first in the world for its transparency and the ease of accessing government information by the World Wide Web Foundation’s OpenData barometer. The report echoes the Open…Elena Simperl, Associate Professor of Internet Science, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/344942014-11-21T01:49:43Z2014-11-21T01:49:43ZAnti-corruption bar set higher, but Australia still has more to do<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65144/original/image-20141120-4481-owdvzb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many countries still need to clean up their act on anti-corruption and whistleblowing protections.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite the adoption of a third two-year G20 <a href="https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/2015-16%20_g20_anti-corruption_action_plan_0.pdf">Anti-Corruption Action Plan</a>, corruption received only a few lines in the latest G20 leaders’ communique.</p>
<p>The credibility of the G20 as a whole now rests on doing better on the detail. After all, the driving reason why leaders have consolidated anti-corruption measures as part of the core G20 agenda is to promote honesty and integrity in the world’s governmental and financial affairs.</p>
<p>The high point from the summit was G20 leaders’ decision to follow the G8 with <a href="https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/g20_high-level_principles_beneficial_ownership_transparency.pdf">High Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency</a>. This aims to ensure the real owners of corporations, trusts and other legal entities can be identified, in order to clamp down on the use of anonymous shell companies as vehicles for engaging in corruption and tax evasion.</p>
<p>Griffith University’s Professor <a href="http://star.worldbank.org/star/publication/puppet-masters">Jason Sharman</a> describes the text of the principles as – for the most part – a “sensible and realistic list of improvements, without over-promising”.</p>
<p>However, according to Sharman, they also face the inevitable problem that “talk is cheap”, with two big problems going to the credibility of G20 leaders and the G20 process.</p>
<p>The first trouble lies in the fact that the “new” G20 commitments essentially repeat promises made by most countries since 2003, through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), to require beneficial ownership information to be kept and made available. Despite these existing commitments, most of the countries involved have “spectacularly failed to do so, in law and practice” – as revealed by the subsequent research.</p>
<p>Contrary to some stereotypes, the worst offenders are not isolated tax havens, which have been responding to the moral and legal pressures to keep better records for years. It is the United States itself, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada and many others.</p>
<p>As Transparency International says, this is not reason to give up. Rather, the new G20 principles mean “the moral and political mandate for action has now been lifted to a new level” and, in some ways, brought home to roost. But it prompts the question: why should anyone believe these new commitments, when they just repeat old unfulfilled promises?</p>
<p>The second problem lies in the story that G20 countries are telling each other, and the world, about the extent to which they are making progress towards their anti-corruption goals.</p>
<p>Also released on the second day of the Brisbane summit were the “<a href="https://www.g20.org/g20_priorities/g20_2014_agenda/fighting_corruption">accountability reports</a>” of each G20 country, in which they self-assess whether they have achieved commitments in the previous action plan. There is some confusion, mixed with gilding of the lily.</p>
<p>Eleven of the 19 countries report that their country already requires “the beneficial ownership and company formation of all legal persons organised for profit [to] be reported”, but in how many countries are these requirements real?</p>
<p>The UK’s claim is based on proposed reforms; its fine print confirms these have not yet been implemented. Turkey – next year’s G20 president – claims to have the requirements in place when actually it does not, including still being a country that allows bearer shares, which is one of the worst, most untraceable ways of transferring company ownership.</p>
<p>This year’s president, Australia, does not seem to be sure. Its <a href="https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/accountability_report_questionnaire_2014_australia.DOCX">individual</a> accountability report claims that, “yes” it has the necessary requirements in place under basic company registration rules. The <a href="https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/acwg_accountability_report_annex_1.pdf">all-country summary</a> contradicts this, by appearing to confess the true answer, which is “no”.</p>
<h2>Whistleblower protection: getting there … or not?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there are other issues on which countries are reporting progress that they are not actually making – potentially on a more serious scale.</p>
<p>In their accountability reports, every country claims to have whistleblower protection legislation in place for the public sector, and all but four for the private sector. One might presume, or hope, this means laws that at least meet the <a href="https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/G20_Whistleblower_Protection.pdf">principles</a> agreed by the G20 itself in 2011, on advice from the OECD. Yet we actually know that it doesn’t.</p>
<p>In fact, 12 of the 19 countries are claiming they have this legislation in place when a comprehensive assessment this year by Blueprint for Free Speech, Griffith and Melbourne Universities and Transparency International Australia showed their laws – if they exist at all – are missing six or more of the 14 basic elements that define reasonable best practice.</p>
<p>Australia is again no saint. There is no mention of major gaps in its new federal public sector law, like the fact that claims of corruption against any government minister, politician, elected official or member of their staff will attract no protection at all.</p>
<p>And despite claiming to have protection laws in place for private sector whistleblowers, Australia’s limited Corporations Act provisions are missing or defective on nine of the 14 criteria.</p>
<p>Australia’s self-assessment simply identifies that, as a new move, ASIC proposes to establish an “Office of the Whistleblower”. What it fails to disclose is that this is in response to much more far-reaching recommendations of the June 2014 <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/economics/asic/final_report/index">Senate Economics Committee inquiry</a>, which identified the need for more serious overhaul of Australia’s inadequate private sector whistleblowing laws.</p>
<h2>Can we do better?</h2>
<p>Can Australia, or the G20 as a whole, do better than this? The answer is we must.</p>
<p>Why would Australia not also show its leadership by completing the decision to join the <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/">Open Government Partnership</a>?</p>
<p>Or announce that it intends to become a full member of the <a href="https://eiti.org/eiti">Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative</a>, another international mechanism endorsed and encouraged by the G20?</p>
<p>Or back its commitments to transparency with a positive blueprint for open data and citizen rights to information, rather than abolishing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner as is currently underway?</p>
<p>Or say how it intends to clean up its own “know your customer” requirements and enforcement, under the new beneficial ownership principles?</p>
<p>All these issues signal what many average citizens fear – there’s a huge gap between the rhetoric of leaders and the reality of their governments’ actions.</p>
<p><em>A longer version of this article can be read <a href="http://www.griffith.edu.au/business-government/centre-governance-public-policy/research-programs/public-integrity-and-anti-corruption">here.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>AJ Brown has received funding from the Australian Research Council and other research funders including national, state and international government agencies. He is also a non-executive director of Transparency International Australia.</span></em></p>Despite the adoption of a third two-year G20 Anti-Corruption Action Plan, corruption received only a few lines in the latest G20 leaders’ communique. The credibility of the G20 as a whole now rests on…A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/269002014-05-25T20:10:16Z2014-05-25T20:10:16ZBudget papers are free to share, thanks to Creative Commons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49342/original/5fn8dg8j-1400817750.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sharing is caring – especially with government documents.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonstaten/3037250330">Jason Staten/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid the intense discussion surrounding the release of the Australian government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/federal-budget-2014">budget 2014-2015</a> one notable feature of the budget documents has seemingly gone unremarked by most commentators.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/index.htm">budget papers</a> (1-4), <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/overview/html/index.htm">budget overview</a>, <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/pbs/html/index.htm">portfolio budget statements</a> and <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/speech/html/speech.htm">Treasurer’s budget speech</a> have all been published under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/">CC BY</a>) licence, as indeed has the entire <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/copyright.htm">budget 2014-2015 website</a>.</p>
<p>While the budget documents have been published under a CC BY licence each year since the <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp1/download/bp1.pdf">2010-2011 budget</a>, this year for the <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/blog/2014/04/24/budget-2014-in-data-form/">first time</a> tables and data from the budget papers and portfolio budget statements were also <a href="http://data.gov.au/dataset/budget-2014-15-tables-and-data">made available</a> in the form of Excel (xlsx) and machine readable CSV files on the Australian government’s <a href="http://data.gov.au/">data.gov.au</a> portal (and again, these <a href="http://data.gov.au/dataset/budget-2014-15-tables-and-data">tables and data</a> have been provided under a CC BY licence).</p>
<p>So what does the CC BY licence mean – and why has the Australian government adopted it so widely in recent years?</p>
<h2>What’s meant by CC BY?</h2>
<p>Creative Commons licences are a standardised suite of <a href="http://creativecommons.org.au/learn/licences/">six licences</a> that may be applied to any work protected by copyright and associated rights (such as database rights), as we explained in our earlier <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-creative-commons-21341">article</a> on The Conversation (which operates under a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/republishing_guidelines">CC BY-ND licence</a>). </p>
<p>They are free, easy-to-use legal tools designed to facilitate making copyright materials available to the public so they can be legally shared, remixed and reused.</p>
<p>The CC BY licence is the least restrictive (or most permissive) of the six CC licences as it permits restriction-free use of the material to which it is applied, requiring only that the original work be appropriately attributed.</p>
<p>The CC BY and CC BY-SA (attribution-share alike) licences are regarded as <a href="http://opendefinition.org/licenses">open licences</a> under the <a href="http://opendefinition.org/od/">Open Definition</a> developed by the Open Knowledge Foundation, and are the only CC licences used on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright">Wikipedia</a>.</p>
<h2>A core component of open government</h2>
<p>The release of the budget documents in both text and data form under the CC BY licence enhances access to budget information by the public and the media, and makes it much easier for it to be shared, analysed and represented <a href="http://theopenbudget.org/">visually</a>. </p>
<p>Significantly, it indicates the Australian government’s continuing commitment to providing open access to government information that can be legally provided to the public, with <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Coalition%27s%20Policy%20for%20E-Government%20and%20the%20Digital%20Economy.pdf">value-adding public data sets</a> being published on the <a href="http://data.gov.au/">data.gov.au</a> portal. </p>
<p>Distributing these materials under a Creative Commons licence – CC BY being the <a href="http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/information-policy-agency-resources/principles-on-open-public-sector-information">default licensing position</a> – ensures that they are not only accessible but can be used, shared and reused.</p>
<p>Since 2008, Government departments and agencies Australia-wide have <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/66336/">progressively applied CC licences</a> when distributing their information and data. </p>
<p>Departments responsible for creating and publishing important data collections - <a href="http://www.ga.gov.au/copyright.html">Geoscience Australia</a>, the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/%A9+Copyright?opendocument#from-banner=GB">Australian Bureau of Statistics</a> and the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/other/copyright.shtml?ref=ftr">Bureau of Meteorology</a> - were early adopters of CC licensing. They were followed by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c">Australian Parliament</a> and the <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Content/Copyright">ComLaw</a> legislative website. </p>
<p>Like the Australian Government’s <a href="http://data.gov.au/">data.gov.au</a> portal, the data portals developed by the <a href="https://data.qld.gov.au">Queensland</a>, <a href="http://data.sa.gov.au">South Australian</a>, <a href="http://www.data.vic.gov.au">Victorian</a> and <a href="http://www.data.nsw.gov.au/copyright">New South Wales </a> governments provide their datasets under CC licences.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49335/original/hcy9t55y-1400811302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceway/4459199503">opensource.com/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How are CC licences relevant to government?</h2>
<p>In carrying out their functions, governments create and deal with a vast and diverse array of copyright materials. These range from legislation and parliamentary documents to cultural and historical artefacts, databases of statistical, mapping, meteorological and scientific data, official reports and publications, and archived public records.</p>
<p>Copyright protects much of the creative, cultural, educational, scientific and informational material generated by federal and state/territory governments and their various departments and agencies. Government-owned copyright is often termed “Crown copyright”.</p>
<p>The introduction of digital technologies saw government materials increasingly being created and distributed in digital form, along with the digitisation of public records and archival holdings. </p>
<p>It also saw an increasing demand from citizens, business and the public sector itself to be able to access, use and reuse government information and materials.</p>
<p>Web 2.0 technologies spurred Gov 2.0 initiatives as governments responded to calls for greater openness, transparency and accountability. </p>
<p>Accompanying these developments was a growing awareness of the centrality of government information for innovation and public policy. There was also the need to address the challenges presented to government as owner, user and custodian of copyright materials in the digital era.</p>
<p>But the existing models of information management and copyright licensing were not realising the potential offered by the networked environment. </p>
<p>Pricing practices and a multitude of different – often incompatible – licences created gridlock and blocked the flow of government information. Copyright was being relied upon to restrict access to information, acting as a barrier to innovation and new opportunities for reuse.</p>
<p>The CC licences were not developed with the intention or any expectation that they would be used on copyright materials created by government or with government funding. Yet their potential in this context quickly became apparent to those who had been grappling with how to overcome the obstacles presented by cumbersome licensing practices and rent-seeking behaviour. </p>
<p>When the CC licences were launched in Australia in 2004, frustration with existing licensing arrangements for government copyright materials led almost immediately to attention being focused on their suitability for application to government materials as a way of overcoming the recognised impediments to access, use and reuse.</p>
<p><a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/32117/">Preliminary investigations</a> by a Queensland government team, working closely with <a href="http://creativecommons.org.au/">CC Australia</a> on the Government Information Licensing Framework (<a href="https://datasmart.qgso.qld.gov.au/Events/datasmart.nsf/c4f1f8716f75329f4a256e6900253f8b/6f424ff2e6bddedc4a2578da000391d4?OpenDocument">GILF</a>) project confirmed the relevance of CC licences in relation to government copyright. </p>
<p><a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29773/">Further research</a> and consultations established that open content licensing offers a simple, cheap and uniform method of releasing government copyright material, which can be <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38364/">easily implemented</a> without legal complexities and transactional cost. </p>
<p>It aligns strongly with fundamental democratic ideals in that it is a non-discriminatory and transparent mechanism for distributing government information and data.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49319/original/g7rmtfz8-1400809014.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/21572939@N03/2090542246">A.Diez Herrero/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Acceptance of CC licence as default</h2>
<p>The adoption of CC licensing on material released for public information by Australian governments was first formally recommended by the National Innovation System review committee in <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/policy/Pages/ReviewoftheNationalInnovationSystem.aspx">Venturous Australia – Building Strength in Innovation</a> in 2008. </p>
<p>It was also recommended by the Victorian Parliament’s Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee in the <a href="http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/edic/inquiries/article/1019">report</a> on its Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data in 2009.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://gov2.net.au/">Government 2.0 Taskforce</a> took the next important step, recommending in its report <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/gov20taskforcereport/">Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0</a> in December 2009 that the Australian government should distribute its copyright material under CC BY as the default licensing position. </p>
<p>This recommendation was <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/govresponse20report/">accepted</a> by the Australian government in 2010 and has been implemented in the <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/IntellectualProperty/Pages/AustralianGovernmentIPrules.aspx">Statement of IP Principles for Australian Government Agencies</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/IntellectualProperty/Pages/AustralianGovernmentIPrules.aspx">IP Principles for Australian Government Agencies</a> go on to explain that when considering which licence to use, <a href="http://creativecommons.org.au/">Creative Commons</a> or other open content licences should be the starting point.</p>
<p>The principle that CC BY should be the default licence for government materials is also stated in the <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/IntellectualProperty/Pages/AustralianGovernmentIPrules.aspx">IP Manual</a>, the <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/IntellectualProperty/Pages/AustralianGovernmentIPrules.aspx">Guidelines for Licensing Public Sector Information for Australian Government Agencies</a> and the <a href="http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/information-policy-agency-resources/principles-on-open-public-sector-information">Principles on Open Public Sector Information</a> issued by the <a href="http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy">Office of the Australian Information Commissioner</a> in 2011.</p>
<p>The adoption and establishing of CC throughout the Australian government in only a few years bodes well for those ahead as more government documents become available. Budget papers are just the beginning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26900/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neale Hooper was the principal lawyer for the Queensland Government’s Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF) Project, leading the legal work on the project from its inception in 2005. He is a legal consultant and affiliated with Creative Commons Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Fitzgerald received support from the CRC for Spatial Information, from 2007 to 2010, to research policy and legal aspects of open access and licensing for public sector and publicly funded materials. She is a volunteer member of the Creative Commons Australia team. </span></em></p>Amid the intense discussion surrounding the release of the Australian government’s budget 2014-2015 one notable feature of the budget documents has seemingly gone unremarked by most commentators. The budget…Neale Hooper, Adjunct Legal Researcher, Queensland University of TechnologyAnne Fitzgerald, Barrister at Queensland Bar and member, Creative Commons AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/267422014-05-16T04:38:17Z2014-05-16T04:38:17ZTransparency trade-off means FOI will get more expensive<p>Tony Abbott’s 2013 election <a href="http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/realsolutions/LPA%20Policy%20Booklet%20210x210_pages.pdf">platform</a> promised to “restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you”. </p>
<p>In spite of this promise the first Abbott government budget will see the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) closed, and its functions assigned to other government agencies. This back-to-the-future move is likely to make it harder and probably more expensive for long suffering FOI users.</p>
<p>The OAIC was formed in 2010 as part of the reforms of the federal FOI law, which sought to address long turn-around times and an expensive appeal system for rejected FOI requests that had rendered the first 1982 law close to useless. </p>
<p>The OIAC brought together the privacy and Freedom of Information (FOI) commissioners, allowing appeals on rejected requests to be made directly to the FOI commissioner. This proved a much cheaper process than the old system of having the appeals dealt with by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Had the OAIC been properly staffed and funded it would most likely also helped improve turnaround times compared to the AAT.</p>
<p>From the budget <a href="http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Budgets/Budget2014-15/Documents/27%20PBS%202014-15%20OAIC.PDF">statement</a>, it’s clear the FOI review function will be transferred back to the AAT from 2015. Funding for the AAT will be beefed up with some of the $35 million in savings (over five years) delivered as a result of the restructure. The Abbott government claims this will make the FOI appeals process more effective.</p>
<h2>A step backwards</h2>
<p>In reality the budget has returned much of the federal access to information system to its dysfunctional pre-2010 state. The cost to appeal a FOI decision could increase significantly. The <a href="http://www.aat.gov.au/FormsAndFees/Fees.htm">fee</a> to lodge an appeal with the AAT is currently A$816. Some of the FOI reviews could be exempt from the fee and part of the cost will be refundable if you win the appeal, but in most cases the fee will increase. Add to this the cost of legal representation needed before the AAT and most FOI applicants will probably think twice before they appeal.</p>
<p>The Attorney-General’s department will from 2015 be responsible for overseeing the Freedom of Information Act and issuing FOI guidelines. In essence Attorney General George Brandis will be expected to drive the decades-long effort to change the culture of secrecy to one of openness and facilitation of access to information. Based on Brandis’ <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-rethinking-pledge-to-sign-up-for-transparency-initiative/story-fn59niix-1226894738059">weak interest</a> in the <a href="http://www.opengovpartnership.org/">Open Government Partnership</a> there are reasons for concern regarding this culture change aim.</p>
<h2>What the research tells us</h2>
<p>Preliminary findings in <a href="http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/johan-lidberg/research-2014/">my research project</a> comparing the first generation Victorian FOI law with the reformed Commonwealth law shows the federal law provides quicker and easier access to information. </p>
<p>In the project six members of the public were asked to seek the expense accounts (including details of travel and work dinners) of six Victorian state ministers and their federal counterparts. For all the federal ministers the information was found and downloaded within hours without submitting formal FOI requests. In Victoria FOI process, while the requests were submitted in most cases, the information was not obtained. </p>
<p>The federal reforms were overseen and to a large extent driven by the OAIC. The question is, will Attorney General George Brandis carry on the work of the OAIC? Openness, transparency and accountability is easy to promise when in opposition, but hard to deliver in government. This is why the Open Government Partnership is so important.</p>
<p>The starving of the Commonwealth FOI system in this federal budget will most likely make it harder for long suffering FOI users. This is a great pity. A well functioning FOI system creates a win-win situation. It encourages public participation in the political process and it builds trust between governments and citizens via true openness and transparency.</p>
<p>It is hard to see how the slashing of the OAIC will deliver on the Abbott election promise of increased government accountability. Perhaps this should be added to the growing list of “please explains” that the first Abbott/Hockey budget has created.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26742/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johan Lidberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tony Abbott’s 2013 election platform promised to “restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you”. In spite of this promise the first Abbott government budget will…Johan Lidberg, Senior Lecturer, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/256872014-05-15T05:13:24Z2014-05-15T05:13:24ZThe IAEA demands nations open up to its inspectors, yet is itself a tightly shut box of secrets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48526/original/dvmp9nzg-1400097280.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Getting information out of the IAEA: hard.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SixPartWoodKnot.jpg">Andreas.Roever</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When we agree to send our young men and women to war, we expect the reasons why to be made clear. At least some of us will want to subject that explanation to scrutiny at the time, and often even more so with hindsight. That’s why having access to historical documents is an important democratic right.</p>
<p>The US sent hundreds of thousands of troops into the disastrous eight-year war in Iraq, propelled by Iraq’s supposed breaches of agreements under the <a href="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/npt/index.shtml">Non-Proliferation Treaty</a> (NPT) and guided by rules negotiated at the International Atomic Energy Agency (<a href="http://www.iaea.org">IAEA</a>). </p>
<p>The IAEA, founded in 1957, was set up to champion the peaceful use of nuclear science (“atoms for peace”). The NPT, established in 1968, was intended to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the nuclear states of the US, USSR, UK, France and China by regulating the movement of uranium and other nuclear material and equipment across national borders. Not only has it failed to do so – Israel, India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons since – but in Iraq we had an example of IAEA rules, and the inspectors that ensure they are followed, being used to justify conventional wars.</p>
<p>While this was evident in Iraq, the same game of nuclear brinkmanship is being played out now <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/uk-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUKKBN0DS11Y20140513">through negotiations</a> dragged out over several decades between the political leadership of Iran and the IAEA’s various member nations.</p>
<p>Yet, for all the IAEA’s demands of openness, peering into the organisation’s workings and history is like trying to prise open an impossibly stubborn black box.</p>
<h2>Do as I say, not as I do</h2>
<p>Why is it so difficult for researchers to obtain useful documentation from the IAEA archives? Perhaps there are reasons to remain opaque <a href="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2014/prn201410.html">about ongoing discussions</a>. However, if our elected officials are pushing Iran (or any country) on their nuclear programs, it is our responsibility to take a hard look at the history of the negotiations. That means reading through the detailed discussions at the IAEA, not just about Iran or Iraq, but about the whole nuclear industry.</p>
<p>What technologies were originally considered dangerous, when the first nations signed on to the NPT? What attitudes about national sovereignty and commercial development prevailed then? What concerns about an imperial, European- and US-dominated nuclear world were vented in these early discussions? This history is key to making informed contemporary decisions about fairness, good faith, promises made, and promises kept.</p>
<p>Fortunately some of this documentation is available, scattered in national archives and private collections throughout the world. But you won’t find it at the IAEA in Vienna.</p>
<h2>Conducting a paper chase</h2>
<p>At a recent <a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-making-of-the-nuclear-order">academic conference</a> on the origins of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a fellow panelist surprised me by noting how frustrated she’d felt in reading my pre-circulated paper. I braced for a withering critique but instead was complimented on how, while she’d searched in vain at the IAEA archives for even basic negotiating documents on nuclear safeguards, my paper cited meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors. I had found them in the <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/">UK National Archives</a>, as at IAEA they are still under wraps.</p>
<p>I have spent many years triangulating Cold War stories between the archives of governments, international agencies, personal papers, and independent bodies. Sometimes what is considered sensitive in one country can be found in perfectly open, long-declassified documents in another. Why does the IAEA continue to guard secrets from decades past?</p>
<p>The IAEA claims it is obliged to withhold documents until all of the countries mentioned in them agree to declassification. In practice, this guarantees permanent secrecy.</p>
<p>I understood my colleague’s frustration, as I have also met a blank wall working in the IAEA archives. Years ago I discovered a trove of documents about <a href="https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/onlinelists/GB%200440%20Silow.pdf">Ronald Silow</a>, a scientist who had, after working at a joint <a href="http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/">FAO-IAEA</a> unit on agricultural applications of atomic energy, penned memos denouncing what he saw as the agency’s unethical behaviour. </p>
<p>I found the documents in Rome, at the archives of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. But when I looked into Silow’s story in the official history of the IAEA, I found only obscure references to him, his name unmentioned. When I searched the IAEA archives, the trail led nowhere: no documents related to his case were available. One document listing employees simply showed his name, crossed out.</p>
<h2>Chequered history</h2>
<p>The IAEA is different from other agencies in the United Nations system. Unlike the agencies devoted to food and agriculture, global health, or to science, education, and culture, the IAEA’s remit is to promote a single set of technologies – but its remit also hands it the position of both chief salesman and chief arbiter of controversies about peaceful and military uses. It is a hammer in search of nails, but is uncomfortable with historical facts about the quality of its workmanship.</p>
<p>The agency has a long way to go to demonstrate it understands the need for transparency. The standards it has set since the 1960s are at the cornerstone of today’s major controversies, leading to years of deadly war and leaving countries riven by internal strife. Differences of interpretation of them make the positions of the US and Iran appear irreconcilable. We are in the ridiculous position of asking experts at the IAEA for guidance that may or may not lead to more young men and women being placed in harm’s way, simply to prevent dangerous material from falling in the wrong hands. The IAEA owes us access to its history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25687/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Hamblin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When we agree to send our young men and women to war, we expect the reasons why to be made clear. At least some of us will want to subject that explanation to scrutiny at the time, and often even more…Jacob Hamblin, Associate Professor of History, Oregon State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/226542014-02-03T00:17:22Z2014-02-03T00:17:22ZThere’s no better time for governments to go open source<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40317/original/y3cctzkq-1391187448.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Civil servants everywhere heave a sigh of relief.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">psd</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government has revealed that it is considering ditching Microsoft software for open source alternatives. Cabinet minister Frances Maude has said he wants to see a range of software being adopted by the thousands of civil servants that work across departments and believes that this could save millions. Indeed, since Maude spoke out on the matter, it has been suggested that the government has spent more than <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/29/uk-government-plans-switch-to-open-source-from-microsoft-office-suite">£200 million</a> on Microsoft products since 2010 alone.</p>
<p>Maude isn’t the first to realise that vast amounts of public money is spent on computer programmes that could be found for free. Even with bulk discounts, setting up thousands upon thousands of civil service computers with Microsoft software is a real drain on finances.</p>
<p>The adoption of open source software has been going on in the European public sector since the early 2000s. In a first phase, OpenOffice was trialled in public administrations in Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Hungary, but just at the local level, with little co-ordination.</p>
<p>In a second phase, several <a href="http://cordis.europa.eu/publication/rcn/9341_en.html">European projects</a> tested out the wider use of open source projects, including OpenOffice. This included replication studies, evaluation of costs of ownership and sharing of best practices.</p>
<p>Advocates and users of open source software have identified several
advantages to using it instead of Microsoft suites. It costs nothing to licence (whereas Microsoft software comes with a hefty price tag) and it is easy to install and use. The very nature of open source software means that its <a href="http://opensource.org/osr">standards</a> – the way it is implemented – must be open and reproducible. And, crucially, it is easy to convert between formats, so you can still retrieve and use old Microsoft documents after making the transition.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the main argument against using OpenOffice is its
total cost of ownership. Although you don’t have to pay Microsoft for the product and associated support, you still need consultants to do that support. It also costs money to train your staff in the new software, even if it is easy to use, and converting between formats is not flawless – largely because the Microsoft format is not based on open standards.</p>
<p>There is also an ongoing debate over the security and trustworthiness of open source software. Advocates believe that security flaws and errors are fixed more easily in open source. All the software is visible to everyone, so experts around the globe will fix any incumbent flaws as they come up.</p>
<p>Opponents, meanwhile, argue that the open standards are the very reason open source software should not be used. Malicious users will exploit flaws since they too have complete access to the code. However, the alternative, “security via obscurity”, has been criticised for being ineffective. It’s not as though Microsoft is immune to viruses and malware.</p>
<h2>The spread</h2>
<p>Open source software has traditionally been linked to experts and
technologists. They enjoy its functionality and can cope with the fact that it is less easy to use than commercial products. This is generally what holds non-experts back from taking the plunge.</p>
<p>But like OpenOffice, a number of open source projects have become much more usable over the past decade. They are also much more stable than they used to be, meaning that they work properly, for longer, without crashing. Larger organisations can feel more comfortable adopting them for all staff without worrying that an unexpected bug will prevent an entire department from working for a whole afternoon.</p>
<p>There is also more support available than ever before. Online forums offer solutions to problems and the more well known open source providers host <a href="http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/home">sites</a> themselves.</p>
<p>This started with open source browsers such as Netscape, which later became Mozilla and then Firefox. Then office suites like OpenOffice and LibreOffice and emailing systems like Sea Monkey, Opera and Thunderbird followed suit until, finally, complete operating systems such as Ubuntu and Fedora became infinitely more accessible to the masses.</p>
<p>Now virtually any proprietary software that you might use at home or work has an open source counterpart. In design, AutoCAD can be replaced with FreeCAD, to play media content, VLC is free and easy and when you want to automate tasks like accounting, inventory and orders, paid-for <a href="http://www.sap.com/pc/bp/erp.html">SAP</a> software can be replaced by Compiere. Even antivirus software can be found in open source <a href="http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/">form</a>.</p>
<h2>Ready to switch?</h2>
<p>There are two basic criteria that the UK government should consider before switching to open source. And the same applies to anyone else thinking of making the change. First, and most obviously, it needs to decide if the software offers the functionality it needs. This is quite likely the case in this day and age. </p>
<p>The second, though, is the “sustainability” of the open source project being considered for use. Open source projects are ultimately developed by online communities, so it’s important to assess that community. Is it active in developing new features for the software? Is support provided to users in a reliable way? Is there a commercial organisation among the developers of the software, which might imply that they think it worth spending time and money on?</p>
<p>All these factors are important if the software is to be usable over the long term and can make the whole process more cost effective. And that’s just as important as functionality.</p>
<p>Maude has made the right choice in looking into alternatives to expensive proprietary software, all it will take is a little homework in advance to get it right. It’s a symbolic step that could really benefit the movement and would vastly increase the visibility and awareness of free alternatives to the wider public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Capiluppi receives funding from European Union FP7 framework programme.</span></em></p>The UK government has revealed that it is considering ditching Microsoft software for open source alternatives. Cabinet minister Frances Maude has said he wants to see a range of software being adopted…Andrea Capiluppi, Lecturer, Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216342014-01-07T14:30:29Z2014-01-07T14:30:29ZMake surveillance work for the people: let them spy back<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38312/original/f95mxdq2-1387481235.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Make the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns known and we'll all be better off.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Shankbone</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Privacy – in our bedrooms, at work, on the street and on the internet – is important to everyone. But every week brings another story demonstrating the ongoing shredding of privacy that undermines those chances. Maybe it’s time we gave up trying to avoid surveillance and started thinking about how to make it work for us.</p>
<p>It’s not just the corporate and governmental surveillance machines that suck up our data. It’s not just that we continually, voluntarily, trade our privacy away for convenience on Facebook, on Google, in our browsers, in our phones. It’s that the continual drip of new ideas makes destroying privacy ever easier and preserving it ever harder.</p>
<p>Recently we’ve found out that websites can track our identities by minute flaws in our <a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-10-accelerometer-tracking-potential.html">phones’ accelerometers</a>. Before that, we learned data from Netflix could be <a href="http://arxivblog.com/?p=142">easily de-anonymised</a> and that your identity could be revealed just by looking at a small selection of your movie choices. The trend is unrelenting: the tiniest speck of information is enough for powerful organisations to blow your privacy wide open. Even cyber-criminals are finding it impossible to maintain their privacy online, so what hope is there for the rest of us?</p>
<h2>The one-way mirror</h2>
<p>Want to know exactly what Facebook is doing with your data, how potential employers track your life or how the NSA is using the information in your emails? Well, sorry, you can’t. It’s proprietary, private information that is legally protected. Privacy laws have never protected us from being spied upon – but they’ve been pretty effective at preventing us from finding out who’s doing the spying.</p>
<p>There is a more important challenge on offer though. If we can’t stop governments from spying, as they’ve always done, we should focus on the important task of preventing them from abusing the information they’ll inevitably gather. If the ultimate goal of maintaining our privacy is off the table, we should pursue other options.</p>
<p>It might be that the second-best solution is to embrace the change and demand the best out of it that we possibly can. For a start, we can demand the democratisation of mass surveillance. We could have a universal culture of transparency in which the powerful submit to “sousveillance” by everyone else from below. The lives of politicians, business leaders and civil servants should be as open to us as our lives currently are to them.</p>
<h2>Making surveillance work for us</h2>
<p>Immediate total transparency seems utopian. Aren’t there secrets that genuinely need to remain hidden? Of course there are, but not nearly as many as large organisations claim.</p>
<p>Increased surveillance allows for increased transparency. It would be unconscionable, right now, to publish detailed plans for building hydrogen bombs. But if instead every gram of nuclear material were tracked and controlled, we wouldn’t need to rely on secrecy for security. Apart from a few genuine information hazards – the precise DNA sequences of certain pathogens, for instance – we could cope with a lot more transparency than we’ve been led to believe. And the more intrusive, invasive and all-seeing the security state becomes, the less the need for any secrecy at any level.</p>
<p>There are other ways that mass surveillance would transform our society, some good, some bad, some inevitable. Governments will certainly use mass surveillance to combat crime, with increasing effectiveness as cameras get ubiquitous and artificial intelligence takes over in analysing the data.</p>
<p>But we will have to make a concerted effort to win other changes. We should insist on a radical cut in police numbers and powers, for example. The police currently have immense power, which allows them to harass, arrest, or act against citizens in ways that would be huge violations of rights if anyone else did it.</p>
<p>These powers are needed today, since the police have to investigate crimes, interrogate suspects and don’t know who in any given crowd is carrying a weapon. But with surveillance taking over the bulk of the police work, there would be no need for these powers to remain. The police could be reduced to a small rump, tasked mainly with analysing the data flagged by artificial intelligence, and then arresting the specific person who has committed a crime.</p>
<p>It’s a general pattern: in many areas, surveillance can substitute for other, more egregious uses of state power.</p>
<h2>Living in a transparent world</h2>
<p>The system would also work across borders. Nations that hate each other would at least be able to trust each other. They could agree to fully verified treaties and safely reduce their armies. This would allow them to avoid any Cold-War-style near misses, which are, after all, often caused by uncertainty as to what the other side is up to.</p>
<p>On a smaller scale, businesses would be more comfortable doing deals with each other and individuals would be able to trust complete strangers in times of need: someone will be watching them, logging their reputation, keeping them to their word. Freely available long-term surveillance recordings will help those abused at work or in the home, unable to currently complain. The recordings will be waiting, ready to be used against the abusers at any later date.</p>
<p>This just scratches the surface of all the good we can demand from mass surveillance; additional ideas abound. Pandemics could be prevented or at least preempted by carefully tracking the progress of a disease, informing those that get infected, and implementing local and targeted measures.</p>
<p>Other risks, large and small, could all be reduced: how much good would the emergency services be able to do if they had access to the precise locations and identities of everyone in a city at the moment an earthquake struck? We could empty security queues at airports and even obviate the need for passwords. We could open new avenues for medical and social research with the vast amount of information that could be put at our disposal. The potential positive applications of mass surveillance are innumerable.</p>
<p>The fight for good mass surveillance is a fight worth having, instead of a doomed rear-guard action on the lost battlefield of privacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Privacy – in our bedrooms, at work, on the street and on the internet – is important to everyone. But every week brings another story demonstrating the ongoing shredding of privacy that undermines those…Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.