[okfn-br] when open data isn't enough

Segunda Julho 21 19:20:29 UTC 2014

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/07/01/when-open-data-isnt-enough/

When open data isn't enough
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/07/01/when-open-data-isnt-enough/>
by Júlia Keserű <http://sunlightfoundation.com/team/jkeseru/>

   - policy <http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/policy/>

JULY 1, 2014, 11:31 A.M.

As part of our thinking about how open data relates to government
transparency, we at Sunlight have been writing and speaking a lot about why
we think open data by itself does not *automatically*produce the
transparency that allows us to achieve accountability. In her recent post
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/06/04/why-open-data-and-accountability-are-not-the-same-thing/>,
Sunlight's National Policy Manager Emily Shaw explained why open data is a
tool, not an end in itself — much like a hammer is not an end in itself.
[image: A redacted FOIA request.]A heavily redacted FOIA request. Photo
credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Taking her analogy forward, I’m arguing that much as a nail does not
*choose* to get hammered, governments do not tend to disclose all
politically relevant, sensitive and controversial information of their own
free will. Which is why reactive and proactive data disclosure *both* play
a key role in citizen oversight.

I’ve recently come across this piece
<http://www.foreffectivegov.org/transparency-is-key-to-sustainable-growth-global-panel-says>about
the future of the Millennium Development Goals saying, "People the world
over expect their governments to be honest, accountable, and responsive to
their needs."

Well, the truth is: I don't. And I never will. Coming from Hungary — a
country where NGOs critical of the government are raided and editors of
independent media outlets get fired
<http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21604214-freedom-expression-under-threat-lazar-affair>
if
they publish investigative stories about tax-funded trips of politicians —
I have personally never expected any government to be completely
trustworthy. And that is only partly due to my Eastern European skepticism.
Another, probably more important, reason is that I believe the dynamics of
power and the motives of those in power are inherently opposed to complete
transparency. In other words: Even if politicians are, on the individual
level, honest and responsive people, this does not change the fact that
political elites will always want to control the hierarchy of the flow of
information.

Ever since Foucault made his observations on the Panopticon, we know that "In
knowing we control and in controlling we know
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/>." Political power will always
rely on knowing more about your citizens than they know about you, and, for
the same reason, governments who are incredibly tech-savvy when it comes to
surveilling their people, will, without any difficulties, blame it on poor
infrastructure when asked why they withhold sensitive (or even less
sensitive) information about their work.

This is why I argue that achieving accountability in any country, under any
circumstances, will always require a full arsenal of both freedom of
information laws and open data policies, each playing a key role in
oversight.
[image: Black and white graphic of two hands reaching for a document with
an arrow on it.]Graphic credit: Open Knowledge Foundation

Sunlight has already written
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/09/why-and-how-does-technology-matter/>
a
great deal about how real change requires a healthy transparency ecosystem
in which a number of different contributing parts play an important role.
The same is true for the necessary coexistence of *reactive information
disclosure*, as exemplified by traditional freedom of information (FOI)
laws, and *proactive access to information*, which is increasingly the
product of open data laws. While one guarantees citizens the right to ask
public officials for information about what they are doing and for any
documents they hold, the other describes the positive obligation of public
bodies to provide information about their main activities, budgets and
policies.

In other words, by granting people the rights both to target specific
closely-held information and to gain regular and broad access to
less-controversial information, these two legal routes to access play
complementary roles.

Open government activists from a variety of different backgrounds, however,
still tend to think it's either/or.

FOI advocates argue that open data will never provide us with the full
picture about how our government works and spends our money, because
political power is inherently secretive. They observe that if we lose our
right to request information in a reactive manner, we lose our ability to
control what they disclose and what they withhold.

Open data activists, at the same time, argue that reactive disclosure
cannot keep up with the pace of the 21st century, where information is in
datasets, rather than individual documents. The process of requesting
information reactively is also very costly and time-consuming, whereas open
data disclosure can change the rules of accountability by placing the
control over information flow in the hands of citizens.

I tend to think both arguments are true, but that neither of these
approaches bring about meaningful change alone. Traditional FOI laws
indeed come
from an era
<http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2012/02/07/berkman-from-freedom-of-information-to-open-data-for-open-accountability/>
where
access to information meant individual documents, not data. And even though
our ability to use FOI for liberating complete datasets has increased
tremendously (see Sunlight's victorious FOI lawsuit
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/11/21/a-foia-victory-for-sunlight-and-spending-transparency/>
to
receive a decade of contract notices that had been posted on
FedBizOpps.gov), reactive information disclosure alone does not have the
power to create the kind of civic participation and control over public
authorities that could be a game-changer to our democracies.

On the other hand, while the potential of technology is still enormous, the
Internet will never make reactive information requests obsolete or
redundant. Even with data inventories gaining momentum
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/13/how-unique-is-the-new-u-s-open-data-policy/>and
demonstrating a new path forward for governments committing to
transparency, we will always need the institution of reactive information
requests as a strong investigative tool to protect us from the loopholes
created by our ever-secretive governments. This is especially important in
countries where high-level commitments around open data still fail to deal
with information about who’s lobbying the government, who donates to future
politicians or who gets the bulk of taxpayers’ money through contracts and
funds.

>From a policy perspective, a robust disclosure regime might look very
different for each jurisdiction. And since access to public information is
already recognized <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf> as
a fundamental human right, our job is to figure out how that translates to
our technology-enabled century, while also keeping in mind that power has
its own special dynamics and will always need confrontation, much as the
nail is not going to push itself through the piece of wood.

-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-br/attachments/20140721/d5724ec1/attachment-0004.html>