[okfn-discuss] what are the arguments against open data

[William Waites]

There was an argument made somewhere that was recounted to me by
Ewan. It had to do with the long view of privatising public sector
contracts.

In the first cycle, say the public sector makes a bunch of data
open. Then some contract for a service run by the public sector goes
out to tender, everyone is well informed because of all this open
data, and a private company wins.

After a time the contract comes up for renewal or goes out to tender
again. This private company might be competing with public sector
agencies, who are at a disadvantage because they have to show their
cards whereas the private company does not, and benefits as the
incumbent from a period of having more information and so is better
informed. Once we go down this path of privatisation, there is little
chance of going back and asymmetric obligations with open data just
entrench this. 

Again, this isn't an argument against open data as such. Firstly we
should not have pathological situations where the public and private
sectors are bidding against each other. Secondly it should be written
into these contracts that where some data produced would have had to
be open if the public sector were performing them, so should the lucky
winner notwithstanding that they are a private company (this is kind
of a weak copyleft enforced in contract instead of copyright).

But more broadly the problem here is information asymmetry. As Lee
Worden points out, benefit has something to do with power and access
to the detriment of the disenfranchised, but I think the usual
thinking along those lines addresses only a special case. Above, for
example, we have a case of those with power and access (of a kind,
clearly not political power) giving up their franchise and obligations
around open data being used to facilitate that.

Putting aside data that should obviously not be public, where some is
open and some is not the asymmetry can and will be exploited by those
in a position to do so.