[open-economics] question re your Open Economics Principles - and national security

[Velichka Dimitrova]

Dear Sandra,

Thank you very much for writing to us. I am cc-ing here our Economics
mailing list as I think it would be useful to have other people's input as
well. I would also share your thoughts with our Advisory
Panel<http://openeconomics.net/about/advisory-panel/>who have actively
participated in drafting the Open Economics Principles.


We were considering the “national security” as one of the reasons for which
economics researchers may not be able to make their data openly available
as many may work with data which is subject to non-disclosure agreements,
with firms, governments or other institutions. Basically, these
restrictions are not in the decision-making power of the researchers
themselves, as often economists use data published by others. These
Principles are addressed towards researchers, research institutions and
funders of researchers rather than towards the primary publishers of data
which economists use.

We did not take into account that national security may indeed include
protection of the country’s own economy and we were considering this more
in the context of military and intelligence. Do you think this should be
clarified explicitly or this is probably out of the scope as our statement
doesn't cover the reasons for governments to without information on
national security grounds?

Best wishes


*

Velichka Dimitrova

Open Economics Project Coordinator |
@vndimitrova<http://twitter.com/vndimitrova>

The Open Knowledge Foundation

Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |
Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>
*

Have you endorsed the Open Economics
Principles<http://openeconomics.net/principles/>yet?
*Open Economics | http://openeconomics.net/ |
@okfnecon<http://twitter.com/okfnecon>|best practice for open economic
data
*




On 16 August 2013 20:07, Sandra Coliver <
sandra.coliver at opensocietyfoundations.org> wrote:

>  Dear OKFN:****
>
> ** **
>
> I was very pleased to read about your Open Economics Principles.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I have facilitated development of a set of Principles on National Security
> and the Right to Information, called the Tshwane Principles after the
> province in South Africa where they were finalized, drafted by 22 CSOs and
> academic centres, and endorsed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
> of Europe (PACE) Legal Affairs Committee and others. See
> http://www.right2info.org/exceptions-to-access/national-security         *
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> One of the vexing issues that we side-stepped is whether governments may
> legitimately withhold information on national security grounds if its
> disclosure could negatively impact a state’s economic well-being.****
>
> ** **
>
> A note following Princ 3 states: “*The fact that disclosure could cause
> harm to a country’s economy would be relevant in*
>
> *determining whether information should be withheld on that ground, but
> not on national security grounds.”*
>
> ** **
>
> Some experts urged that in many European and other countries, economic
> well-being is considered a core element of national security and
> accordingly that some info re a nation’s economy could legitimately be
> classified on national security grounds.****
>
> ** **
>
> Our concern re that assertion is that classification on national security
> grounds results, in most countries, in increased secrecy and increased
> penalties for disclosure, even where the public interest in the information
> exceeds any harm from disclosure.****
>
> ** **
>
> I note that your Principles accept that economic info may be restricted on
> grounds of national security among others. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I wonder, have you given thought to identifying the categories of info
> that could legitimately be limited on national security grounds?****
>
> ** **
>
> And the info of especially high public importance that should be
> proactively published? ****
>
> ** **
>
> For instance, You will also see that Principle 10 lists categories of info
> of high public importance, including info about military contracts.****
>
> ** **
>
> Principle 9 lists categories of info that may legitimately be withheld on
> national security. We wanted to include a provision re economic info, but
> given failure of consensus, we added a catch-all paragraph at the end. That
> compromise didn’t make us happy but we agreed that some ambiguity was
> better than either a) making the list unrealistically narrow, or b)
> including a broad exemption of info whose disclosure could negatively
> impact the economic well-being of a state.****
>
> ** **
>
> Do you have any thoughts to contribute to this discussion?****
>
> ** **
>
> Do you have one or more papers to which we could link on our webpage?****
>
> ** **
>
> We will include a link to your Principles.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks much for your thoughts,****
>
> ** **
>
> Sandra****
>
> ** **
>
> Sandra Coliver****
>
> Senior Legal Officer, Freedom of Information & Expression****
>
> Open Society Justice Initiative****
>
> Open Society Foundations****
>
> 224 West 57th Street****
>
> New York, NY 10019 USA****
>
> +1 212 548 0384****
>
> Sandra.Coliver at OpenSocietyFoundations.org****
>
> www.justiceinitiative.org****
>
> www.right2info.org****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-economics/attachments/20130820/d34a7d26/attachment.html>