Fighting Lack of Transparency And Engagement With Parliamentary Openness

from the not-much,-but-all-we've-got dept

A recurrent theme here on Techdirt is the persistent lack of transparency during the drafting of new laws or the negotiation of new treaties. Most governments, it seems, retain the view that they know best, that the electorate shouldn't worry about all those tiresome details being discussed in secret backroom negotiations, and that since the public will be able to see the result once it's all finished, what's the problem?

However, the world of government is beginning to change, largely under the impact of movements promoting openness of various kinds. In particular, efforts to promote open data and open government have major implications for transparency. The latest manifestation of that push for openness is OpeningParliament.org, "a forum intended to help connect the world's civic organizations engaged in monitoring, supporting and opening up their countries' parliaments and legislative institutions."

Here's more about its aims:

Parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) are working to create strong, open and accountable parliaments, through enhancing citizen participation in the legislative process and bringing parliaments closer to the people they represent. OpeningParliament.org provides a forum for international collaboration on efforts to improve access to parliamentary information and share experiences and good practices among PMOs. It also serves as the home of the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness, a set of shared principles on the openness, transparency and accessibility of parliaments being developed by the international PMO community.

The Declaration is quite long and wide ranging. Here's its stated purpose:

The Declaration on Parliamentary Openness is a call to national parliaments, and sub-national and transnational legislative bodies, by civil society parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) for an increased commitment to openness and to citizen engagement in parliamentary work.

The Declaration includes a number of sections dealing explicitly with transparency and engagement:

2. Advancing a Culture of Openness through Legislation

Parliament has a duty to enact legislation, as well as internal rules of procedure and codes of conduct, that foster an enabling environment guaranteeing the public's right to government and parliamentary information, promoting a culture of open government, providing for transparency of political finance, safeguards freedoms of expression and assembly, and ensuring engagement by civil society and citizens in the legislative process.

5. Engaging Citizens and Civil Society

Parliament has a duty to actively engage citizens and civil society, without discrimination, in parliamentary processes and decision-making in order to effectively represent citizen interests and to give effect to the right of citizens to petition their government.

18. Engaging Citizens on Draft Legislation

Draft legislation shall be made public and published upon its introduction. Recognizing the need for citizens to be fully informed about and provide input into items under consideration, parliament shall seek to provide public access to preparatory analysis and background information to encourage broad understanding of policy discussions about the proposed legislation.

44. Facilitating Two-Way Communication

Parliament shall endeavor to use interactive technology tools to foster the ability of citizens to provide meaningful input on legislation and parliamentary activity and to facilitate communication with members or parliamentary staff.

These are obviously great aspirations that would go some way to addressing the problems around transparency and engagement that are only too common today, but a legitimate question must be: so what? It's not as if governments are lining up to endorse these principles of parliamentary openness.

That may be true, but openness in the form of open source, open data, open standards and open government are certainly making themselves felt to varying degrees in countries around the world. What the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness makes explicit is how these are part of a larger move towards transparency and citizen engagement. At the very least, it's yet another set of voices calling for much more of both. One day, governments might even listen.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: openness, parliament

Julian Assange's Ultimate Publicity Stunt: Running For Australian Senate?

from the really,-now? dept

Even for supporters of Wikileaks and what it tried to achieve, Julian Assange is a polarizing figure -- often accused of letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. So, to be honest, it comes as little surprise that he's announced plans to run for the Australian Senate, even while he's still stuck in the UK, awaiting a ruling on being extradited to Sweden (with some concerns about eventually being extradited to the US as well). Wikileaks also announced plans to have someone else run against current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who Assange feels has not done enough to support him. While there have been some questions about the legality of such a run, enough Australian legal experts seem to agree that he can probably do it. Whether or not he can actually get very much support is another question altogether. However, from an outside observer's standpoint, it's going to make the next Australian elections a lot more interesting.

Oh, and just for amusement's sake, one Australian publication mocked Wikileaks for misspelling Gilard's electorate, given its namesake's similarities to Assange himself:

Assange had an electoral learning process of his own which played out live on Twitter yesterday morning, with a first message from the Wikileaks feed announcing only that the organisation would be “fielding a candidate to run against Julia Gillard in her home seat of Laylor (sic)”. Very shortly afterwards, a second tweet declared: “We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run.” The spelling error in the initial tweet betrayed a curious ignorance of Australian history, given that the electorate in question is named after Peter Lalor, who led the famous Eureka Rebellion at the Ballarat goldfields in 1854. One would have thought that Lalor, a radical activist who saw his efforts crudely suppressed by the authorities before going on to a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, might have been better known to Assange – if not to the extent that he would have spelt his name correctly, then at least so far that he might have misspelled it in a phonetically correct manner (“Lawlor”). But I digress.

I would be pretty surprised if this candidacy (or either candidacy if they really do raise two candidates) actually goes anywhere, but that won't make it any less entertaining to follow.

Filed Under: australia, julia gillard, julian assange, parliament, politics, senate
Companies: wikileaks

European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake Explains How Europeans Can Stop ACTA

from the don't-miss-it dept

As we've been discussing, there's been a lot of misinformation flying around concerning ACTA -- especially in the EU, where it has not yet been officially voted on. While we've tried to explain some of the problems with the agreement, there is still plenty of confusion over what to do about it. Thankfully, Marietje Schaake, a Member of the European Parliament (whose excellent work we've discussed before) has taken to Reddit to provide a lot more detail about the process itself, and what people can do to speak up. It's very useful info, especially for those in Europe (while also being a nice display of how politicians can use Reddit for good purposes). Basically, while ACTA has been signed by many members of the EU, it still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. That's why there's still some time and why you should pay attention to what Schaake has to say. Here's a snippet:

So what can we do to stop ACTA?

If you are concerned about ACTA, you can convince the EP to vote against ACTA. In November 2010 we proposed an alternative resolution on ACTA, which intended to take away the main concerns. It was voted down by a very slight majority, please see here (the red section represents MEPs voting against our resolution). As you can see, the difference is only 16 votes, out of 736 (or 754 as it stands now). Another text was then voted in favour, which said the Commission should carry on its negotiations.

If you are concerned about ACTA, contact MEPs (from your country of political party), especially targeting the ones who are in the committees who will vote on ACTA in the coming months. You can find their email addresses on the EP website. Perhaps it won't have to come to a blackout!

She even includes a TL;DR version (it's so nice when politicians actually understand how the internet works). And, because that's all people want anyway, here's that one, too:

TL;DR: Important dates for ACTA in the European Parliament:
- 29 February/1 March: Discussion in international trade committee,
- April or May: Vote in international trade committee,
- 12, 13 or 14 June: Final vote in plenary (most important vote).
(Please note, all dates may be changed)

Filed Under: acta, copyright, eu, eu parliament, marietje schaake, parliament, politics

Pirate Party Takes 9% Of The Vote In Berlin Elections, Wins A Bunch Of Seats In Parliament

from the that-makes-things-interesting dept

The Pirate Party scored a nice victory a few years ago, having two of its members elected to the European Parliament, but despite a few tries, it had not been able to elect anyone to various state or federal legislatures... until now. TorrentFreak has all the details, but the German Pirate Party was apparently able to secure nearly 9% of the vote in the latest Berlin state parliamentary elections, which should translate into 15 seats in the Berlin Parliament. While many who don't understand the Pirate Party platform think it's just about file sharing, the fact is that more and more young people are recognizing that digital freedom is an important issue. I've long been on the record that I think the name of the party greatly distracts from its overall goals, but I do recognize the reason the party decided to go that way. Getting nearly 9% of the vote in any election for a relatively unknown party is quite impressive. Given that it's Germany, I have to imagine that the ridiculous state of German copyright law played a large role in leading to this election result. If anything it supports the viewpoint that the more draconian copyright law becomes, the less people are going to respect it. The question now is whether or not those elected will actually be able to have any impact, and if the party itself can leverage this into something more.

Filed Under: berlin, germany, parliament, pirate party

Could New Zealand's Parliament Lose Its Internet Connection Under Its Own Three Strikes Law?

from the looks-that-way dept

Ah, those wacky politicians down in New Zealand. Remember the MP who voted for the "three strikes and we kick you off the internet" copyright law just hours after tweeting that she was listening to a compilation made by a friend? After the law passed, various libraries realized they might suddenly become liable, and many are considering shutting off their WiFi.

But you know who else might be liable? The New Zealand Parliament itself! Boing Boing points us to the news that the Green Party has put out a press release pointing out that even the Parliament might run afoul of the new law, and could risk fines or losing its internet connection.

"This law could bring the gears of government to a grinding halt because the holder of the account — Parliamentary Services — provides internet access to hundreds of users any one of whom could cause infringement notices to be sent."

Not only that, but they note that no one in Parliament has set up a plan to deal with any potential infringement notices, which could put them into even greater trouble. Of course, other MPs will likely claim that this clearly doesn't apply to Parliament, which just shows the ridiculous double standard of such laws.

Filed Under: copyright, new zealand, parliament, three strikes

Does It Make Sense For Governments To Make Their Content Creative Commons... Or Fully Public Domain?

from the they're-not-the-same dept

One of the few good things that the US government has done on the copyright front was the decision decades back that nearly all works produced by the federal government automatically go into the public domain, and don't receive any form of copyright protection. This makes perfect sense, considering the whole point of copyright law is supposed to be to encourage learning and progress, and to create incentives for that to occur. When it comes to government information, there is no such incentive necessary. I still find it odd that other countries haven't followed suit. Many countries -- especially British Commonwealth countries -- have a special form of copyright for government documents, called Crown Copyright. At times, such Crown Copyright rules have been used to censor dissent.

So, it's certainly nice to hear, via James Firth, that the UK Parliament may consider moving away from relying on Crown Copyright on the works it produces. Apparently, at a discussion concerning the "digital agenda" and making information more open, the Director of Programmes and Development at Parliamentary ICT, Richard Ware, suggested that copyright didn't make sense for Parliamentary content:

"We're not looking to make any kind of return from this content. For us it's more important to open up the information and see what people can do with it."

Now, that's sort of a vague statement, but it at least indicates the direction that they're looking in. What struck me as interesting is that Firth took this statement to mean that Parliament is looking at using Creative Commons for its content. To be honest, it's not clear to me from the coverage of what Ware said that he was, in fact, discussing Creative Commons or some alternative solution. Firth has a nice discussion about the different CC licenses and which might make most sense for Parliament, but I wonder why it doesn't just make sense to go fully public domain on such material.

As much as I like and respect Creative Commons, it does seem that, all too often, people think either that Creative Commons is the public domain or that it's a replacement for the public domain. While CC has introduced a public domain license, I think it's important not to confuse the two. And, while CC licenses certainly make sense for different creators in different arenas, I would worry that for government-produced works, it would just create confusion, as many people seem to assume all CC licenses say things that many do not.

So I'm curious: is there any reason for a government to make its works covered by Creative Commons? Or should they just go public domain? Or, since we want all bases covered, can someone explain why governments should retain some form of copyright on their works?

Filed Under: creative commons, parliament, public domain, uk

EU Parliament Members Not At All Happy About ACTA

from the now-can-they-do-anything? dept

We already noted that it's expected that the latest ACTA draft text will finally be released this week (the first time since April that negotiators have decided it's worth letting us officially see the document), which they continue to insist they've been "transparent" about. We've already noted that the EU Parliament has rejected the secrecy around ACTA, but the EU Commission (which is negotiating the agreement) has more or less ignored them. Now, with reports coming out saying the agreement being close to done, EU Parliament members are speaking out against ACTA. They're demanding a copy of the document, and warning that they need to approve it before the agreement is official. And, they're specifically complaining about the impression negotiators are giving that this agreement does not need European Parliament approval. In the end, I still don't think this will derail the agreement, but it's really quite amazing the entitlement attitude of negotiators on this agreement, where they've clearly decided that they're only going to pay attention to people who already agree with them.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, eu, eu parliament, parliament

European Parliament Approves Gallo Report: Opens The Door To More Bad IP Laws & Enforcement

from the it-never-ever-stops dept

One of the issues that's been clear in covering the politics associated with intellectual property laws is that those in favor of ever more draconian laws have a lot more efforts going underway than it's possible to follow. Every single time people get focused on one aspect that's getting attention, something else is slipped through when no one is looking. We may have just seen that happen again. While people around the globe are now certainly concerned and worried about ACTA, not much attention was paid to the Gallo Report, a proposal for the European Parliament to support similarly draconian intellectual property enforcement, based on a series of highly questionable or debunked claims. You can read the report below, or see some of the concerns about it here. Unfortunately, since the calls for attention on this document really only came out with a day's warning on the vote, it should not be surprising to find out that the Gallo report was approved by a vote of 328 to 245. This is disappointing for a European Parliament that had already hit back strongly against ACTA, when this document effectively opens the door to very similar ACTA-style problems.

Filed Under: copyright, europe, gallo report, parliament

Freedom Of The Press? UK's The Guardian Barred From Reporting On Parliament

from the how-do-you-report-on-being-banned-from-reporting? dept

Over in the UK, the Guardian has apparently been barred from reporting on a certain action in Parliament (Update: read below). But how do you even report on being barred from reporting on a particular subject without reporting on it. Watch the linguistic gymnastics The Guardian goes through:

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented -- for the first time in memory -- from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Yet another case of chilling effects in the form of lawyers suing over coverage they don't like. Of course, we're not barred from reporting on anything, and checking through some Parliament webpages turns up the following list of questions, including the following:

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

This certainly implies that The Guardian has been barred due to this original story of how British oil trader Trafigura was offering to pay "historic damages" to 31,000 people injured in the dumping of toxic waste in Africa.

Of course, my guess is that Trafigura and Carter-Ruck are about to learn about The Streisand Effect, and UK politicians are about to get another lesson on why its libel laws need to be fixed. In the meantime, in the absence of all of this, how many people would have heard about this whole Trafigura affair? How many more people are about to become aware of it?

Update: After this story got spread all over the internet (especially on Twitter), it looks like Carter-Ruck backed down. Of course... the end result? Much worse than if they had never tried to gag the newspapers. A lot more people are aware of the story. Why do lawyers still think banning such things will work?

Filed Under: freedom of the press, gag order, parliament, streisand effect, uk
Companies: carter-ruck, trafigura

Canadian Parliament Threatens People For Posting Video Of Proceedings Online

from the how-dare-you-want-transparency dept

It would appear that the Canadian Parliament is no big fan of transparency. When some activists started posting video and audio of various Parliamentary committee proceedings online, in order to both increase transparency and to comment on those proceedings, lawyers apparently sent them a cease and desist, claiming it was "contempt of Parliament." They've also been sending takedowns to YouTube and other video hosting sites, claiming that this content is somehow proprietary, covered by "crown copyright" (something, thankfully, we don't have in the US) and subject to severe licensing restrictions. While it sounds like some Canadian politicians recognize the need to change, in the meantime, they're making a travesty of any sense of governmental openness.

Filed Under: canada, crown copyright, openness, parliament, transparency