[open-government] Economic Benefits of Open-Data - Presentation Ideas for City of Montreal

Thu Oct 28 11:14:59 UTC 2010

Hi Tim,

Well, the grass is always greener ...  :)

Seriously, you ask a very good question. We in the RTI advocacy camp  
have often (usually) happily mixed up these two types of arguments  
without really thinking about the philosophical or even consequential  
implications (using whatever works best in the moment to advance our  
goals).

Let me say, first, that the fact that human rights may lead to  
practical benefits in no way undermines their human rights status (why  
should it?) So in a way your question partly derives from a doubt  
about the status of RTI as a human right. You would not ask it if I  
were interested in knowing whether refraining from torture also saved  
money (although of course we have seen arguments that allegedly  
important practical benefits may override rights, which I reject).

But the issue does run deeper than that. There is lack of clarity as  
to what really underpins the (now pretty well recognised  
internationally) status of RTI as a human right. Is it just that it  
delivers other benefits (including other rights such as democracy,  
freedom of expression, right to food, even right to life), or is there  
something more inherently linked to human dignity about it (as there  
clearly is with freedom from torture)? This question is much easier to  
answer for freedom of expression which, while it does deliver other  
benefits, is also a deep human value in itself, directly linked to our  
identity, etc.

And if it is only a right due to delivering other benefits, then  
surely it might be limited in scope to that functional role (ie it  
would not extend to access to information which had no such beneficial  
results; I am using the term limits here to refer to limits on scope,  
not limits in the sense of restrictions to protect overriding  
interests). For this reason, I do not like to base RTI on rights like  
food and life, but prefer freedom of expression and perhaps democracy,  
which I think do not lead to such limitations. However, in a recent  
decision recognising the right to information as a constitutionally  
protected right insofar as it was needed to sustain freedom of  
expression, the Canadian Supreme Court did envisage limits on it (I  
was critical of the decision, but I agree the point is arguable).  
Others (eg Robert Post, Dean of Yale Law School) have argued that  
rights like freedom of expression flow from democracy, and are limited  
on this basis (ie to what democracy demands).

Furthermore, at some point we have to recognise that RTI, at least in  
its proactive disclosure aspect, which I suppose is of primary  
importance to the OG movement, is constrained by practical and  
financial considerations. This also creates tension with the idea of  
it as a human right, or at least moves it to the camp of economic,  
social and cultural rights, which may be realised progressively, as  
opposed to being required immediately (as is the case with civil and  
political rights). And here, of course, having good practical, and  
especially economic, arguments in favour of openness will help us win  
battles.

Toby

On 28 Oct 2010, at 07:06, Tim McNamara wrote:

> 2010/10/28 Toby Mendel <toby at law-democracy.org>
> I run the Centre for Law and Democracy (www.law-democracy.org), an  
> international human rights organisation [...]
>
> The issue of economic benefits from OG is an important one, but also  
> one which needs to be approached responsibly if claims are to be  
> credible and believed. I have seen some very impressive claims in  
> this regard (reaching into the billions), but I confess I am  
> sceptical about them. [...]
>
> Thanks for your contribution Toby.
>
> I'm interested that you've picked this thread to add to the  
> discussion. From a more philosophical level, economic benefit tends  
> to be an argument from utility maximisation whereas you are coming  
> from a rights-based based. Do you think that the teleological and  
> deontological approaches can happily sit together?
>
>
> Tim McNamara
> @timClicks
>
> Masters Candidate in Public Policy,
> Victoria University of Wellington

___________________________________
Toby Mendel
Executive Director

Centre for Law and Democracy
toby at law-democracy.org
Tel:  +1 902 431-3688
Fax: +1 902 431-3689
www.law-democracy.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101028/aa9c158d/attachment-0001.html>